Quantcast
Channel: ProPublica
Viewing all 8198 articles
Browse latest View live

Despite Disavowals, Leading Tech Companies Help Extremist Sites Monetize Hate

$
0
0

Because of its “extreme hostility toward Muslims,” the website Jihadwatch.org is considered an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The views of the site’s director, Robert Spencer, on Islam led the British Home Office to ban him from entering the country in 2013.

But its designation as a hate site hasn’t stopped tech companies — including PayPal, Amazon and Newsmax — from maintaining partnerships with Jihad Watch that help to sustain it financially. PayPal facilitates donations to the site. Newsmax — the online news network run by President Donald Trump’s close friend Chris Ruddy — pays Jihad Watch in return for users clicking on its headlines. Until recently, Amazon allowed Jihad Watch to participate in a program that promised a cut of any book sales that the site generated. All three companies have policies that say they don’t do business with hate groups.

Jihad Watch is one of many sites that monetize their extremist views through relationships with technology companies. ProPublica surveyed the most visited websites of groups designated as extremist by either the SPLC or the Anti-Defamation League. We found that more than half of them — 39 out of 69 — made money from ads, donations or other revenue streams facilitated by technology companies. At least 10 tech companies played a role directly or indirectly in supporting these sites.

Traditionally, tech companies have justified such relationships by contending that it’s not their role to censor the Internet or to discourage legitimate political expression. Also, their management wasn’t necessarily aware that they were doing business with hate sites because tech services tend to be automated and based on algorithms tied to demographics.

In the wake of last week’s violent protest by alt-right groups in Charlottesville, more tech companies have disavowed relationships with extremist groups. During just the last week, six of the sites on our list were shut down. Even the web services company Cloudflare, which had long defended its laissez-faire approach to political expression, finally ended its relationship with the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer last week.

“I can’t recall a time where the tech industry was so in step in their response to hate on their platforms,” said Oren Segal, director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism. “Stopping financial support to hate sites seems like a win-win for everyone.”

But ProPublica’s findings indicate that some tech companies with anti-hate policies may have failed to establish the monitoring processes needed to weed out hate sites. PayPal, the payment processor, has a policy against working with sites that use its service for “the promotion of hate, violence, [or] racial intolerance.” Yet it was by far the top tech provider to the hate sites with donation links on 23 sites, or about one-third of those surveyed by ProPublica. PayPal did not respond to an inquiry from ProPublica.

After Charlottesville, PayPal stopped accepting payments or donations for several high-profile white nationalist groups that participated in the march. It posted a statement that it would remain “vigilant on hate, violence & intolerance.” It addresses each case individually, and “strives to navigate the balance between freedom of expression” and the “limiting and closing” of hate sites, it said.

After being contacted by ProPublica, Newsmax said it was unaware that the three sites that it had relationships with were considered hateful. “We will review the content of these sites and make any necessary changes after that review,” said Andy Brown, chief operating officer of Newsmax.

Amazon spokeswoman Angie Newman said the company had previously removed Jihad Watch and three other sites identified by ProPublica from its program sharing revenue for book sales, which is called Amazon Associates. When ProPublica pointed out that the sites still carried working links to the program, she said that it was their responsibility to remove the code. “They are no longer paid as an Associate regardless of what links are on their site once we remove them from the Associates Program,” she said.

Where to set the boundaries between hate speech and legitimate advocacy for perspectives on the edge of the political spectrum, and who should set them, are complex and difficult questions. Like other media outlets, we relied in part on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s public list of “Active Hate Groups 2016.” This list is controversial in some circles, with critics questioning whether the SPLC is too quick to brand organizations on the right as hate groups.

Still, the center does provide detailed explanations for many of its designations. For instance, the SPLC documents its decision to include the Family Research Council by citing the evangelical lobbying group’s promotion of discredited science and unsubstantiated attacks on gay and lesbian people. We also consulted a list from ADL, which is not public and that was provided to us for research purposes. See our methodology here.

How We Investigated Technology Companies Supporting Hate Sites

We wrote software to find the external domains contacted by popular websites that have been identified as extremist by either the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League. Read the methodology.

The sites that we identified from the ADL and SPLC lists vehemently denied that they are hate sites.

“It is not hateful, racist or extremist to oppose jihad terror,” said Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch. He added that the true extremism was displayed by groups that seek to censor the Internet and that by asking questions about the tech platforms on his site, we were “aiding and abetting a quintessentially fascist enterprise.”

Spencer made these comments in response to questions emailed by ProPublica reporter Lauren Kirchner. Afterwards, Spencer posted an item on Jihad Watch alleging that “leftist ‘journalist’” Kirchner had threatened the site. He also posted Kirchner’s photo and email address, as well as his correspondence with her. After being contacted by ProPublica, another anti-Islam activist, Pamela Geller, also posted an attack on Kirchner, calling her a “senior reporting troll.” Like Spencer, Geller was banned by the British Home Office; her eponymous site is on the SPLC and ADL lists.

Donations — and the ability to accept them online through PayPal and similar companies — are a lifeline for sites like Jihad Watch. In 2015, the nonprofit website disclosed that three quarters of its roughly $100,000 in revenues came from donations, according to publicly available tax records.

In recent weeks, PayPal has been working to shut down donations to extremist sites. This week, it pulled the plug on VDARE.com, an anti-immigration website designated as “white nationalist” by the SPLC and as a hate site by the ADL. VDARE, which denies being white nationalist, immediately switched to its backup system, Stripe.

Stripe, a private company recently described by Bloomberg Businessweek as a $9 billion startup, is unusual in not having a policy against working with hate sites. It does, however, prohibit financial transactions that support drugs, pornography and “psychic services.” Stripe provided donation links for 10 sites, second only to PayPal on our list. Stripe did not respond to a request for comment.

VDARE editor Peter Brimelow declared on his site that the PayPal shutdown was likely part of a purge by the “authoritarian Communist Left to punish anyone who disagrees with their anti-American violence against patriotic people.” He urged his readers to donate through other channels such as Bitcoins. “We need your help desperately,” he wrote. “We must have the resources to defend ourselves and our people.”

A message from VDARE editor Peter Brimelow announcing PayPal shut down donations to the site

In 2015, VDARE received nearly all of its revenue — $267,038 out of total $293,663 — from donations, according to publicly available tax return forms that the Internal Revenue Service requires nonprofits to disclose.

Brimelow did not respond to our questions, instead characterizing ProPublica as the “Totalitarian Left.”

Some sites also supplement their donations with revenue from online advertising. For instance, SonsofLibertyMedia.com, which is on the SPLC list, generated about 10 percent of its revenue — $37,828 — from advertising in 2015, according to its tax documents.

The site, which describes itself as promoting a “Judeo-Christian ethic,” and recently posted an article declaring that a black activist protesting Confederate statues needed “a serious beat down,” does not appear to attract advertisers directly.

Instead, Sons of Liberty benefits from a type of ad-piggybacking arrangement that is becoming more common in the tech industry. The website runs sponsored news articles from a company called Taboola, which shares ad revenues with it. Known for being at the forefront of “click-bait,” Taboola places links on websites to articles about celebrities and popular culture.

Taboola’s policy prohibits working with sites that have “politically religious agendas” or use hate speech. “We strive to ensure the safety of our network but from time to time, unfortunately, mistakes can happen,” said Taboola spokeswoman Dana Miller. “We will ask our Content Policy group to review this site again and take action if needed.” 

Sons of Liberty founder Bradlee Dean said that he forwarded our questions to his attorney. The lawyer did not respond.

Hate sites can initiate relationships with tech companies with little scrutiny.

Any website can fill out an online form asking to join, for instance, Amazon’s network, and often can get approved instantly. Once a website has joined a tech network, it can quickly start earning money through advertising, donations, or content farms such as Taboola that share ad revenues with websites that distribute their articles.

Some companies, such as Newsmax, say that joining their ad network requires explicit prior approval.

But, according to a former Newsmax employee, the only criterion for this approval was whether traffic to the site reached a minimum threshold. There was no content review. Salespeople were told to be aggressive in signing up publishing partners.

“We’d put our news feed on anybody’s page, anyone who was willing to listen,” he said, “it’s about email addresses, it's about marketing, they don’t care about ultra conservative or left wing.”

Dylan Roof frequented a website described by the SPLC as “white nationalist.” He said in a manifesto posted online that finding the website was a turning point in his life. He went on to murder nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. That year, USA Today found Newsmax ads on the site.

They no longer appear there.


When Hate Meets Hoax

$
0
0

For several months this spring, St. Olaf College, a private school of some 3,000 students in Northfield, Minnesota, was convulsed by a series of hate incidents. More than half a dozen racist notes were found across campus, including one slipped into a student’s book bag that said, “Go back to Africa.” Then, in late April, an African-American senior reported finding a typed threat on her car’s windshield only weeks before she was due to graduate.

“I am so glad that you are leaving soon,” the message read. “One less nigger that this school has to deal with. You have spoken up too much. You will change nothing. Shut up or I will shut you up.”

Hundreds of students protested. Classes were canceled for a day in an effort to organize discussions around race and diversity at the school. And the young woman who had found the latest note spoke out, telling students: “I think the big message is we shouldn’t let this happen again. The administration needs to do something that stops it indefinitely.”

Within 48 hours, the note left on the windshield was determined by school officials to have been fabricated, and St. Olaf was wracked once more, portrayed by some as the source of a hoax meant to advance a liberal agenda. “Another Day, Another Fake Hate Crime,” read a post on the conservative news outlet The Daily Caller. Other right-leaning outlets voiced similar views.

Today the nation’s attention is justly focused on the fatal violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the disturbing ripples that continue to emanate from the chaos there last weekend. In that context, the events at St. Olaf would be easy to ignore. But they provide a subtle yet telling prism through which to view the nation’s continuing struggles with race and hate.

The consequences from the events at St. Olaf are hard to quantify. But what’s clear is that the phony claim has overshadowed the other incidents — eight in all — all of which appear to have been bona fide hate messages. They remain the subject of an investigation, according to Northfield Police Chief Monte Nelson, with no hint that his officers are close to finding a culprit. The police do not regard the senior behind the ninth note as a suspect in the other cases.

Meanwhile, the fear spawned by the racist notes has combined with anger and disquiet over the hoax to leave a toxic cloud of uncertainty and distrust. “A few” prospective students withdrew their decisions to attend this fall, with parents saying they were too afraid or confused to come, according to Bruce King, assistant to the president for institutional diversity at St. Olaf. (During the fact-checking for this article, the school back-pedaled, asserting it has not seen “any indicators in our enrollment, advancement or retention data to indicate that the events in the spring negatively impacted our progress.”)

Many students remain aggrieved — despite winning a promise by the administration to increase minority admissions and to focus more on race in its education. That lingering anger, fueled by a sense that their grievances are viewed as dubious, suggests it will be difficult to restore a sense of tranquility.

Expressions of hate have been a topic of acute concern over the past year, stoked first by the often poisonous presidential campaign and most recently by the events in Charlottesville. Like many issues today, it is polarized, with opponents disagreeing on basic facts — and some even questioning the existence of such crimes.

An adviser to President Donald Trump recently launched a broad assault on the credibility of many hate crimes. When asked why Trump has not condemned the bombing of a mosque in Bloomington, Minnesota — about 30 miles from St. Olaf — the adviser, Sebastian Gorka, told MSNBC it was possible the bombing was a “fake hate crime.”

“We’ve had a series of crimes committed, alleged hate crimes, by right-wing individuals in the last six months that turned out to actually have been propagated by the left,” Gorka said. “When people fake hate crimes in the last six months with some regularity, it’s wise to find out what exactly is going on before you make statements, when they could turn out to be not who you are expecting.”

Documenting Hate News Index

This page lists media reports, collected by Google News, about hate crimes and bias incidents. View the index.

One such hoax occurred in December when an 18-year-old Muslim woman reported being attacked by a group of men on a New York subway who called her a terrorist and tried to yank off her hijab. She later recanted and told police she had invented the story because she was having trouble with her family. In another episode around that time, swastikas and the words “HEIL TRUMP” written on a church in Bean Blossom, Indiana, were discovered to have been spray-painted by the organist of the church.

Fake hate crimes have a huge impact despite their rarity, said Ryan Lenz, senior investigative writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Project. “There aren’t many people claiming fake hate crimes, but when they do, they make massive headlines,” he said. It takes just one fake report, Lenz said, “to undermine the legitimacy of other hate crimes.” An examination of what occurred at St. Olaf shows how that can happen.


Founded in 1874, St. Olaf is a liberal arts college located in Northfield, Minnesota, population 20,000. It’s a woodsy spot — between the campus and other college properties, St. Olaf has about 1,000 acres of forest and agricultural land — about 40 miles south of Minneapolis. Northfield is also home to Carleton College.

St. Olaf was established by Norwegian immigrants as a Lutheran institution and even today students are required to take a class on Christian theology. Alcohol is prohibited on campus. (Its best-known attendee was a fictional character who lasted a mere two weeks: Jay Gatsby.) The school boasts that students come from all 50 states and 80 foreign countries.

With 79.5 percent of its U.S. students identifying themselves as white, St. Olaf is actually more diverse than its home state, which is 85 percent white. Indeed, “multicultural” categories at St. Olaf have increased noticeably in recent years, growing from 14.8 percent in the fall of 2012, to 19.5 percent last fall. But even as Asian-American and Hispanic attendance has steadily risen, the percentage of African-American students has remained largely flat, around 2.2 percent. (African Americans make up 6 percent of Minnesota’s population.)

St. Olaf is the sort of place where people leave doors unlocked, which is part of its appeal, according to King, the school diversity administrator. A sense of safety and trust is palpable on campus, with students often leaving laptops, backpacks and other belongings unattended on tables in the cafeteria.

But the normally placid campus was torn during the presidential campaign. Students held anti-Trump rallies and vigils. Some Republican undergrads said they felt threatened by the atmosphere.

“Things were pretty tense because of the election,” said Emma Whitford, a St. Olaf student and executive editor of the school’s newspaper.

Against that charged backdrop, the first racist note was found in a custodial closet of a resident hall on Oct. 4. A slur was scribbled on the closet’s white board. Three days later, another slur was dropped into a comment box at an event called “Ask a Muslim Anything.”

More incidents followed in February, March and April. Each of the notes was handwritten, and expressed hatred but did not make threats.

St. Olaf did not report these occurrences to the police, and instead conducted its own investigation. The school hired a handwriting expert, reviewed security footage and interviewed students. (St. Olaf did not announce any findings and, after the alleged hoax, stepped aside in favor of the police.)

After each incident, small protests would pop up and people would rally. Some students said they felt suffocated and some began having anxiety attacks.

One group tried to channel the racist episodes into something positive. They formed the Collective for Change on The Hill (“the Hill” is the slang name for the college). Its goal was to create a long-term solution to the issue of race at St. Olaf and ease concerns for people of color.

Still, tensions would tend to subside as weeks passed after each episode.

Then came April 29. Samantha Wells, a student from Champaign, Illinois, posted on social media what she said she had found on her car windshield.

Two days later, hundreds flooded throughout the student commons and cafeteria to demonstrate against racism. All classes were canceled on May 1 as students and faculty alike joined in daylong sit-ins in support of Wells and the other victims. The Collective for Change on the Hill presented the administration with a list of demands. “I’m so thankful for everybody here who has supported me through these last few days,” Wells said at one rally.

But school officials had doubts almost immediately. For starters, the note that Wells made public didn’t resemble the others in that it was typewritten rather than handwritten. And suspicions mounted when Wells declined to file a police report.

At the time, she explained her choice this way, according to a police case file obtained by ProPublica: “I have decided that I am not going to be filing a report. I am graduating in 19 days and then leaving for Germany in June. I would rather not spend the end of my college career and my last month and a half in the U.S. worrying about an investigation.”

On May 10, the school announced that Wells had confessed that the note was a hoax. Reached via Facebook Messenger, Wells responded, “I am not allowed to speak on this story.” She declined to discuss specifics of the episode, but responded to a few questions about her experience as a St. Olaf student.

Wells described herself as currently in a state of academic limbo: She asserted that she graduated but didn’t attend the ceremony. Wells said St. Olaf will not issue her a diploma until next year. (St. Olaf’s administration would not comment about Wells’ case, beyond noting that she had been disciplined by the college in an unspecified manner.)

“Oh, and I got a few people telling me to kill myself, so that was fun, too,” Wells said in her exchange of messages with ProPublica.

Wells described a subtle but discernible experience of being an outsider as one of the few African Americans, which she said exacted an emotional toll. White students would seek her out, she said, as a kind of handy interpreter of racially sensitive material and interactions, a role she found “tiring.” As Wells puts it, “I felt safe but uncomfortable.”

It was that feeling, not unique to Wells, intensified by the anger of the presidential campaign, that exploded when the racist notes were discovered — only to be swept aside when the fake note seemingly undercut the legitimacy of the grievances.

Indeed, the atmosphere of distrust has extended in more than one direction: A handful of students deny that a hoax occurred. Said Alhouseini, a student activist, asserted that the school administration is using claims of a spurious note to hide, or raise doubts about, the other racist episodes. He accused some media organizations of being too eager to embrace the hoax angle without reporting thoroughly. “The question remains,” Alhouseini said, “if you’re focusing on that one incident or the three prominent ones that sparked a movement and making the claim of it being a hoax, where does that leave the rest of the attacks?”

Of course, time spent debating whether an event occurred will not be time spent addressing an underlying condition. “We did take a bit of a hit to the momentum of the movement when it comes to crowd/schoolwide support,” wrote Krysta Wetzel, a member of the Collective for Change on the Hill in an email to ProPublica. “[But] we still have another student whose car has been targeted. We still have a student who has received notes in her book bag. We still have alumni testimony that speak to the same issues we are experiencing now.”

Wetzel, a junior at St. Olaf, addresses President David R. Anderson, on May 1. (Elizabeth Flores/Star Tribune via AP)

Police chief Nelson said Wells’ note “distracted the college from some other things it was investigating that were legitimate concerns. What concerns me is that it pulled away from their investigation. It makes it harder to find the truth.”

King and other officials at St. Olaf aren’t waiting for the results of the police investigation. They say they remain committed to improving conditions. For her part, Wetzel, the student activist, vowed to continue her campaign when the school year begins, and the events of Charlottesville seem likely to keep race and hate in the forefront of students’ consciousness.

In May the school agreed to a list of demands it negotiated with the Collective to foster a more inclusive environment. The school has pledged to increase the “recruitment and retention of Indigenous, Black/African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American, Multiracial, and Non-American faculty and staff members,” according to the agreement. The school also agreed to adapt its general education requirements to include more study of class, gender, race and identity.

Creating a sense of inclusion won’t be easy, King acknowledged. “I think if you look past [the Collective’s] demands, if you look past the notes, if you look past the back and forth, how do you take a place like St. Olaf or the United States of America and create it so everyone feels like a part of it?” he said. “That’s our challenge.”

Free Food and Networking: Apply for Our Diversity Mentorship Program at ONA

$
0
0

In March, we published what we’re doing in 2017 to foster diversity, both at ProPublica and within investigative journalism.

In support of those goals, we’re pleased to announce that we’ll be continuing the popular Diversity Mentorship Program at the Online News Association conference in Washington, D.C., in October. We want to make it easier for journalists from underrepresented communities to connect with people at the top of the field. Part of how we do that is this event, now in its third year, which pairs people seeking mentors with senior journalists from around the world.

We’ll host a hot breakfast at ONA for 50 people on Oct. 6, from 8-9:30 a.m. We stick to a 2:1 ratio of mentors to mentees for this event, which means we’ll accept about 33 mentees.

Anyone from an underrepresented group — including people of color, women, LGBTQ people and people with disabilities — is welcome to apply. We’re only considering applicants who are attending ONA and who will be available the morning of Friday, Oct. 6. You can apply via this form.

Mentors for this event will be managing editors, executive editors and other leading professionals in the industry. We do our best to pair people with mentors based on the issues that interest them.

You’ll have time during the breakfast to talk with your mentor, as well as other mentors and mentees. The hope is that these relationships will endure well beyond this event.

The deadline to apply for the Diversity Mentorship Program is Friday, Sept. 1. We’ll let you know if you’ve been matched with a mentor by Wednesday, Sept. 20. We’ll do our best to match everyone with a mentor, but bear in mind that space is limited.

Special thanks to News Republic for sponsoring the Diversity Mentorship Program with us. Their financial support makes this event possible.

Questions? Address them to Hannah Birch at diversity@propublica.org. You can also read more about steps we’re taking to increase diversity at ProPublica and in journalism in general.

Apply!

Is Anybody Home at HUD?

$
0
0

This story was co-published with New York magazine.

In mid-May, Steve Preston, who served as the secretary of housing and urban development in the final two years of the George W. Bush administration, organized a dinner at the Metropolitan Club in Washington, D.C., for the new chief of that department, Ben Carson, and five other former secretaries whose joint tenure stretched all the way back to Gerald Ford. It was an event with no recent precedent within the department, and it had the distinct feel of an intervention.

HUD has long been something of an overlooked stepchild within the federal government. Founded in 1965 in a burst of Great Society resolve to confront the “urban crisis,” it has seen its manpower slide by more than half since the Reagan Revolution. (The HUD headquarters is now so eerily underpopulated that it can’t even support a cafeteria; it sits vacant on the first floor.) But HUD still serves a function that millions of low-income Americans depend on — it funds 3,300 public-housing authorities with 1.2 million units and also the Section 8 rental-voucher program, which serves more than 2 million families; it has subsidized tens of millions of mortgages via the Federal Housing Administration; and, through various block grants, it funds an array of community uplift initiatives. It is the Ur-government agency, quietly seeking to address social problems in struggling areas that the private sector can’t or won’t solve, a mission that has become especially pressing amid a growing housing affordability crisis in many major cities.

Despite its Democratic roots, Republican administrations have historically assumed stewardship over HUD with varying degrees of enthusiasm — among the department’s more notable secretaries were Republicans George Romney and Jack Kemp, the idiosyncratic champion of supply-side economics and inner-city renewal.

Now, however, HUD faced an existential crisis. The new president’s then-chief strategist, Steve Bannon, had called in February for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” It was not hard to guess that, for a White House that swept to power on a wave of racially tinged rural resentment and anti-welfare sentiment, high on the demolition list might be a department with “urban” in its name. The administration’s preliminary budget outline had already signaled deep cuts for HUD. And Donald Trump had chosen to lead the department someone with zero experience in government or social policy — the nominee whose unsuitability most mirrored Trump’s lack of preparation to run the country.

This prospect was causing alarm even among HUD’s former Republican leaders. At the Metropolitan Club, George W. Bush’s second secretary, Alphonso Jackson, warned Carson against cutting further into HUD’s manpower. (Many regional offices have shuttered in recent years.) Carla Hills, who ran the department under President Ford, put in a plug for the Community Development Block Grant program, noting that Ford had created it in 1974 precisely in order to give local governments more leeway over how to spend federal assistance.

The tone was collegial, built on the hopeful assumption that Carson wanted to do right by the department. “We were trying to be supportive,” Henry Cisneros, from the Clinton administration, told me. But it was hard for the ex-secretaries to get a read on Carson’s plans, not least because the whisper-voiced retired pediatric neurosurgeon was being overshadowed by an eighth person at the table: his wife, Candy. An energetic former real-estate agent who is an accomplished violinist and has co-authored four books with her husband, she had been spending far more time inside the department’s headquarters at L’Enfant Plaza than anyone could recall a secretary’s spouse doing in the past, only one of many oddities that HUD employees were encountering in the Trump era. She’d even taken the mic before Carson made his introductory speech to the department. “We’re really excited about working with — ” She broke off, as if detecting the puzzlement of the audience. “Well, he’s really.”

The story of the Trump administration has been dominated by the Russia investigations, the Obamacare repeal morass, and cataclysmic internecine warfare. But there is a whole other side to Trump’s takeover of Washington: What happens to the government itself, and all it is tasked with doing, when it is placed under the command of the Chaos President? HUD has emerged as the perfect distillation of the right’s antipathy to governing. If the great radical conservative dream was, in Grover Norquist’s famous words, to “drown government in a bathtub,” then this was what the final gasps of one department might look like.


The Department of Housing and Urban Development building in Washington, D.C. (Astrid Riecken for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Nov. 9 brought open weeping in the halls of HUD headquarters, a Brutalist arc at L’Enfant Plaza that resembles a giant concrete honeycomb. Washington was Hillary country, but HUD employees had particular cause for agita. For years, the department had suffered low morale, and there was the perception, not entirely unjustified, that it was prone to episodes of self-dealing and corruption — most recently under Jackson, who was scrutinized for awarding HUD projects to companies run by his friends. But the department had experienced a rejuvenation in the Obama era, with morale rebounding under the leadership of his first secretary, Shaun Donovan, an ambitious, politically savvy housing administrator from New York. While it faced postrecession budget austerity — with its ranks dropping well below 8,000, from more than 16,000 decades earlier — the department made homelessness reduction a priority. Under Donovan’s successor, Julián Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio, HUD embarked on a major initiative to address residential segregation by requiring cities and suburbs to do more to live up to the edicts of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Before the election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sent over a large team of policy experts to study up on HUD and prepare to take the baton on these efforts. The Trump campaign sent one person. “And everyone was joking, ‘Well, he’ll be gone on November 9,’” one staffer told me.

So the stricken employees were slightly relieved when Trump’s operation announced a five-person “landing team” for HUD that included Jimmy Kemp, son of Jack. “There may be hope for us after all,” a veteran staffer in one local HUD office told his colleagues. The semblance of normalcy was short-lived. In late November, word got out that Trump’s choice to run HUD was Carson. To Twitter wags, the selection was comical in its stereotyping: Of course Trump would assign the only African American in his Cabinet to the “urban” department. But to many HUD employees, the selection of so ill-qualified a leader felt like an insult. “People feel disrespected. They see Carson and think, I’ve been in housing policy for 20 or 30 years, and if I walked away, I would never expect to get hired as a nurse,” said one staffer at a branch office, who, like most employees I spoke with, requested anonymity to guard against retribution.

Carson himself had some qualms about running HUD. His close friend Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator who was exposed for receiving payments from George W. Bush’s administration to tout Bush’s education policies on air, told The Hill in November that Carson had reservations about such a job. “Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience; he’s never run a federal agency,” Williams said. “The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.” Williams later said his remark had been misconstrued, but Shermichael Singleton, a young political operative who worked for Williams and became a top aide on Carson’s campaign, told me that Carson’s ambivalence was real. Trump’s offer, Singleton said, had provoked deep questions for Carson about his life’s purpose. “It was, ‘Should I do this? What does it all mean?’”

In the end, Singleton said, Carson accepted out of a sense of duty that came from having risen to success from humble origins: raised by a single mother, a housekeeper, in Detroit. “He’s someone born in an environment where the odds were clearly stacked against him, and he believes by personal experience that he could do a lot of good for others.” Kemp agreed. Carson accepted, he said, “because he wanted to do something about poverty.” If anything, Kemp said, Carson felt more suited to the HUD job than he would to a health policy one. “Being surgeon general or secretary of [health and human services], I don’t think he was fully equipped to do that, having been a neurosurgeon,” Kemp said. In other words, Carson knew how little he knew about health policy, an awareness he lacked when it came to social policy. “He thought with HUD, ‘It’s so clear that our approach to poverty has not been completely successful and we can do better, and I think I have some ideas that can be applied,’” Kemp said.

Underlying this rationale were two related convictions. One was the standard conservative bias against expertise and bureaucracy, according to which experts lacked the “common sense” that an outsider from the private sector could provide — a conviction shared, of course, by the man who nominated Carson for the job. The other was a more particular conviction that he, Carson, possessed extra doses of such common sense by virtue of his biography.

First, though, Carson had to survive his confirmation hearing. The prepping was intense. His top handler was Scott Keller, a longtime lobbyist who had served as chief of staff under Jackson and, in that role, become embroiled in the contracting scandals. Keller’s pupil was attentive, and his performance at the January hearing before the Senate Banking Committee was judged a relative success by the press, punctuated by Carson’s disarming remark that the panel’s top Democrat, Sherrod Brown, reminded him of Columbo. Carson’s family and closest aides took him to the Monocle, the lobbyist hangout on the Hill, to celebrate.

As Carson awaited confirmation, though, a leadership cadre was already entrenching itself in the administrative offices on the 10th floor of HUD. The five-person landing team had given way in January to a larger “beachhead” team. This was a more eyebrow-raising group. Its few alums from past GOP administrations were outnumbered by Trump loyalists such as Barbara Gruson, a Manhattan real-estate broker who’d worked for the campaign; Victoria Barton, the campaign’s “student and millennial outreach coordinator”; and Lynne Patton, who had worked for the Trumps as an event planner.

The most influential of the new bunch, it would quickly emerge, was Maren Kasper. Little-known in housing policy circles, and in her mid-30s, Kasper arrived from the Bay Area startup Roofstock, which linked investors with rental properties available for purchase. It partnered with lenders including Colony American Finance, a company founded by Tom Barrack, the close Trump associate. This link to Trump, combined with Kasper’s background in one sliver of the housing realm, was enough to win her a place as one of the minders appointed by the White House to keep an eye on each government department, a powerful role without precedent in prior administrations.

Kasper, the holder of an MBA from NYU’s Stern School of Business, took her new management role seriously, asserting herself as the final arbiter in the absence of a confirmed secretary. This led to friction both with career housing policy experts and with Carson loyalists, notably Singleton, who had also been hired on. At meetings, Singleton said, Kasper was often “misrepresenting” herself as standing in for Carson. “I made it clear, ‘You don’t speak for Dr. Carson.’ She said, ‘Well, the White House …’” To which Singleton said he responded, “I get what the White House has selected, and I respect that, but he’s the secretary and you need to make sure you understand that.”

That friction lasted only so long. In mid-February, an administration “background check” on beachhead team hires turned up an op-ed critical of Trump that Singleton had written for The Hill before the election. Security personnel came to notify him that it was time to go.


Ben Carson outside a home on the west side of Baltimore he visited in June to tout HUD-funded lead abatement. “What does that have to do with lead?” he asked when workers said that their first step was to make sure that door jambs didn’t stick. (Mark Peterson/Redux for New York magazine)

On March 6, Carson arrived for his first day of work at headquarters. In introductory remarks to assembled employees, after he’d gotten the mic back from his wife, he surprised many by asking them to raise their hands and “take the niceness pledge.”

He also went on a riff about immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, capped by this: “That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder, for less. But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”

The assembled employees stifled their reaction to this jarringly upbeat characterization of chattel slavery. But in HUD’s Baltimore satellite, where many in the heavily African-American office were watching the speech on an online feed at their desks, the gasps were audible.

Carson’s arrival brought with it a reckoning for career employees: Yes, this person was really in charge. They responded in strikingly different ways. The most progressive-minded were thrown into a sense of crisis: whether to hightail it to avoid whatever radical shifts or indignities were in the offing, or to stay put for the sake of the department’s programs and the millions of people they served.

Then there were the opportunists, those who saw in the vacuum in the upper ranks, where it was taking unusually long to appoint political deputies, the chance to claim higher stations than career employees would typically be able to attain. “There were a couple people in some meetings who were bending over to ingratiate themselves” with the transition team, said Harriet Tregoning, a top Obama appointee in HUD’s Community Planning and Development division, who left in January. “For some, it might be their political leaning. For some, it might be an attempt to gain influence. I saw it happening even while the Obama people were still in the building.”

Finally, there were the clock-punching lifers, the “Weebies” (“We be here before you got here, and we be here after you’re gone”), who recognized a chance to start mailing it in. “It’s ‘I can now meet people for a drink at five,’” said Tregoning. Or, as a supervisor in one branch office put it: “As a bureaucrat, HUD’s an easier place to work if Republicans are in charge. They don’t think it’s an important department, they don’t have ideas, they don’t put in changes.” Left unsaid: that such complacency was an unwitting affirmation of the conservative critique of time-serving bureaucrats.

To the extent that the new leadership was providing any guidance at all, it was often actively discouraging initiative on the part of employees. Shortly after the inauguration, a directive came down requiring employees to get 10th-floor approval for any contacts outside the building — professional conferences, or even just meetings with other departments. Ann Marie Oliva, a highly regarded HUD veteran who’d been hired during the George W. Bush administration and was in charge of homeless and HIV programs, was barred from attending a big annual conference on housing and homelessness in Ohio because, she inferred, some of the other speakers there leaned left.

Cameron Cottrill, special to ProPublica

The department leadership was also actively slowing down new initiatives simply by taking a very long time to give the necessary supervisory approvals for the development of surveys or program guidance. In some cases, this appeared to be the result of mere negligence and delay. In other cases, it appeared more willful. For one thing, there was the leadership’s strong hang-up about all matters transgender-related. The 10th floor ordered the removal of online training materials meant, in part, to help homeless shelters make sure they were providing equal access to transgender people. It also pulled back a survey regarding projects in Cincinnati and Houston to reduce LGBT homelessness. And it forced its Policy Development and Research division to dissociate itself from a major study it had funded on housing discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people — the study ended up being released in late June under the aegis of the Urban Institute instead.

More upsetting for many ambitious civil servants than the scattered nays coming from the 10th floor, though, was the lack of direction, period. Virtually all the top political jobs below Carson remained vacant. Carson himself was barely to be seen — he never made the walk-through of the building customary of past new secretaries. “It was just nothing,” said one career employee. “I’ve never been so bored in my life. No agenda, nothing to move forward or push back against. Just nothing.”


On May 2, I went to the Watergate to see Carson address an assemblage of the American Land Title Association, title attorneys in town for a regular lobbying visit to buttress the crucial support that HUD and others in Washington provide to the American home-buying machine. I was hoping the speech would give me a better sense of what Carson had in mind for the department, which had been hard to elucidate in his few public appearances. Up to that point, he’d made only a few headlines — for getting caught in a broken elevator at a housing project in Miami; for declaring, on a later visit to Ohio, that public housing should not be too luxurious, a concern that the elevator snafu had apparently not allayed. This comment had drawn mockery but genuinely reflected his long-standing outlook on the safety net: grudging acceptance of its necessity only for those at their most desperate moments, a phase of dependency that must be as brief as absolutely possible. This philosophy was frequently intertwined with allusions to the Creator — so frequently that supervisors at one HUD division sent down word to employees that, yes, their new boss was going to talk a lot about God and they’d probably better just get used to it.

But Carson’s address to the lawyers offered little further clarity on his agenda. He opened with a neurosurgery joke. He touched on his vague proposal for “vision centers” where inner-city kids could come to learn about careers. He repeated one of his favorite mantras, that the government needs to make sure people don’t get unduly reliant on federal assistance, because “everybody is either going to be part of the engine or part of the load.” And then, in the heart of the speech, where a Cabinet secretary would normally get down to programmatic brass tacks, came this meandering riff:

“You know, governments that look out for property rights also tend to look out for other rights. You know, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of all the things that make America America. So it is absolutely foundational to our success … On Sunday, I was talking to a large group of children about what’s happening with rights in our country. These are kids who had all won a Carson Scholar [an award of $1,000 that Carson has sponsored since 1994], which you have to have at least a 3.75 grade-point average on a 4.0 scale and show that you care about other people, and I said you’re going to be the leaders of our nation and will help to determine which pathway we go down, a pathway where we actually care about those around us and we use our intellect to improve the quality of life for everyone, or the pathway where we say, “I don’t want to hear you if you don’t believe what I believe, I want to shut you down, you don’t have any rights.” This is a serious business right now where we are, that juncture in our country that will determine what happens to all of us as time goes on. But the whole housing concern is something that concerns us all.”

A few weeks later, it became clear that the “housing concern” perhaps did not concern everyone when the White House released its budget proposal for HUD. After word emerged in early March that the White House was considering cutting as much as $6 billion from the department, Carson had sent a rare email to HUD employees assuring them that this was just a preliminary figure. But as it turned out, Carson, as a relative political outsider lacking strong connections to the administration, was out of the loop: The final proposal crafted by Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney called for cutting closer to $7 billion, 15 percent of its total budget. Participants in the Section 8 voucher program would need to pay at least 17 percent more of their income toward rent, and there’d likely be a couple hundred thousand fewer vouchers nationwide (and 13,000 fewer in New York City). Capital funding for public housing would be slashed by a whopping 68 percent — this, after years of cuts that, in New York alone, had left public-housing projects with rampant mold, broken elevators and faulty boilers.

“By the time I left, almost 90 percent of our budget was to help people stay in their homes,” Shaun Donovan told me. “So when you have a 15 percent cut to that budget, by definition you’re going to be throwing people out of their homes. You’re literally taking vouchers away from families, you’re literally shutting down public housing, because it can’t be maintained anymore.”


The Trump cuts would mean that several programs would be eliminated entirely, including the home program, which offers seed money for affordable housing initiatives, and the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program that Carla Hills, Ford’s HUD secretary, had praised to Carson at the dinner. In New York, CDBG helped pay for, among many things, housing-code enforcement, the 311 system and homeless shelters for veterans. But the grants were also relied on in struggling small towns, where they paid for sidewalks, sewer upgrades and community centers. In Glouster, Ohio, a tiny coal town that went for Trump by a single vote after going for Obama two to one in 2012, officials were counting on the grants to replace a bridge so weak that the school bus couldn’t cross it, forcing kids from one part of town to cluster along a busy road for pickup.

“Without those funds, it would just cripple this area,” said Nathan Simons, who administers the grants for the surrounding region. HUD, for all its shrinking stature and insecurity complex, has over time worked its way into the fabric of ailing communities throughout the country, a role that has grown only larger as so much of Middle America has suffered decline, and as the capacity of so many state and local governments has withered amid dwindling tax bases and civic disengagement. On my travels through the Midwest I’ve seen how many federally subsidized housing complexes there are on the edges of small towns and cities, places very far from the Bronx or the South Side of Chicago. People living in these places rely on a functioning, minimally competent HUD no less than do the Section 8 voucher recipients in Jared Kushner’s low-income complexes in Baltimore. In an age of ever-widening income inequality, the Great Society department actually plays an even more vital role than when it was conceived.

Carson outside a second home in West Baltimore that received lead abatement. In a slightly awkward moment, the homeowner exclaimed that the assistance she received had been so welcome that it made her “pro-government.” (Mark Peterson/Redux for New York magazine)

But if Carson was troubled by the disembowelment of his department, he showed no sign of it. Even before the final numbers were out, he had assured housing advocates that cuts would be made up for by money dedicated to housing in the big infrastructure bill Trump was promising — a notion that his fellow Republican Kemp, among others, found far-fetched. “I’m not sure he understood how that would work,” Kemp told me. “He was probably repeating what had been told to him.” Then, a day after the budget was released, Carson downplayed the importance of programs for the poor in a radio interview with Armstrong Williams, saying that poverty was largely a “state of mind.” This, more than anything, seemed to be a crystallization of the Carson philosophy of HUD: that privation would be solved by the power of positive thinking, that his own extraordinary rise was scalable and could be replicated millions of times over.

Two weeks later, Carson went to Capitol Hill to testify on the budget proposal before congressional panels that would have the final say on the numbers. With Kasper perched over his shoulder, he told both the Senate and House committees that they shouldn’t get overly hung up on the cuts. “We must look for human solutions, not just policies and programs,” he said. “Our programs must reach out and so must our hearts.” The budget, he added, would “help more eligible Americans achieve freedom from regulations and bureaucracy and the ability to govern themselves.”

Members of both parties on the panels seemed dubious. Even conservative Republicans challenged the elimination of CDBG and dismissed Carson’s repeated claim that those and other cuts would be made up for with “public-private partnerships,” noting that such partnerships depended on exactly the public seed money that the budget was jettisoning.

Carson remained unruffled. The cuts were made necessary by the “atmosphere of constraint” created by a “new paradigm that’s been forced on us,” he said, presumably referring to the desire for tax cuts for the wealthy and an even larger military. “The problem that faces us now as a nation will only be exacerbated if we don’t deal with them in what appears to be a harsh manner,” he told the Senate panel. “We have to stop the bleeding to get the healing.”

As I watched the hearings, it occurred to me that Carson was the perfect HUD secretary for Donald Trump, the real-estate-developer president who appears to care little for public housing. He offered a gently smiling refutation to accusations from any corner that the department’s evisceration would have grave consequences. After all, Ben Carson had made it from Detroit to Johns Hopkins without housing assistance, a point of pride in his family. Not to mention that Carson’s very identity — theoretically — helped inoculate the administration against charges of prejudice. (Just last week, Carson said, in the wake of racially tinged violence in Charlottesville, that the controversy over Trump’s support of white supremacists there was “blown out of proportion” and echoed the president’s “both sides” language when referring to “hatred and bigotry.”)

Even better, Carson could be trusted not to resist Mick Mulvaney’s budget designs. At one moment in the Senate hearing, Carson noted that Congress’s recent spending package for the current year had given the department more than it had been expecting. “I’m always happy to take money,” he said, smiling. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee’s top Democrat, was unamused. “You have to ask for it first,” he said.


Over at headquarters, the department remained rudderless. By June, there was still no one nominated to run the major parts of HUD, including the Federal Housing Administration and core divisions such as Housing, Policy Development and Research, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and Public and Indian Housing, not to mention a swath of jobs just below that level. (Across the administration, Trump had by the end of June sent barely more than 100 names to the Senate for confirmation, fewer than half as many as Obama had by that point in 2009.) Even the stern hand of Kasper was gone — she had been moved to a perch at Ginnie Mae, the arm of HUD that provides liquidity to federal home ownership programs.

The rank and file (whose department book club reading for the summer was “The Employee’s Survival Guide to Change”) took comfort that the two senior nominations that had been announced, for deputy secretary and the head of the Community Planning and Development division, were conventionally qualified. But appointments further down the ranks were alarming.

There was the administrator for the Southwest region: the mayor of Irving, Texas, Beth Van Duyne, who had gained notoriety by warning against the gathering threat of Sharia. She had asked the Texas Homeland Security Forum to help investigate the legality of an Islamic tribunal in North Texas and had taken to Glenn Beck’s talk show to defend the arrest of the Muslim boy who’d brought a homemade clock to school. There was the conservative commentator John Gibbs, who was hired as a “special assistant” in Community Planning and Development. Sample headlines from his columns in The Federalist: “Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s the Proof”; “If He Really Wants to Help Blacks, Colin Kaepernick Needs to Put Up or Shut Up.”

Then there was Christopher Bourne, the retired Marine Corps colonel who’d served as the policy director of Carson’s presidential campaign. He suddenly showed up as a “senior policy adviser” in Policy Development and Research. “We don’t know what his job is, and as far as I know, he doesn’t know what his job is,” said one of his new colleagues.

In the context of such hires, it did not stun many HUD employees as much as it did the broader public when news broke of the selection of Lynne Patton, the Trumps’ event planner (whom tabloids gleefully referred to as a wedding planner, for her unofficial advisory role on Eric Trump’s nuptials), as regional administrator for New York and New Jersey. It had been plain to see that Patton had been striving to prove that she was no mere hanger-on. She had been visiting senior career staff for a crash course on housing policy. She had helped organize Carson’s listening tour trips, for which her event planning background had prepared her well. And she eagerly tweeted out defenses of him — “Let’s be clear: You can make life too comfortable for anyone — rich or poor — when you do, it’s a disservice,” she declared after his comments on cushy public housing.

Yes, she would now be the chief liaison from HUD headquarters to a region with the largest concentration of subsidized housing in the country — including the huge Starrett City complex in Brooklyn co-owned by Trump — a job once held by Bill de Blasio. (“Normally, these positions go to people who know what they’re doing,” said one longtime staffer at headquarters.) And yes, she would, just a few weeks later, respond to liberal criticism of the department’s decision to approve Westchester County’s long-litigated desegregation plan with a tweet that ended with the words “P.S. I’m black.”

But there were many other things for career employees to worry about that weren’t getting as much attention. Such as what Carson had in mind with the vague “incentivized family formation” push (which falls under the community building part of HUD’s antipoverty mission) that his team had included in a briefing for Hill staffers.

Also worrisome was what the new leadership might do with major Obama-era initiatives, like its desegregation initiative, which, in a 2015 rule called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, required local jurisdictions to come up with ways to reduce segregation or risk losing HUD funding. Carson had written an op-ed against this during the campaign, calling it a “mandated social engineering scheme” and comparing it to a “failed socialist experiment,” and Republicans in Congress were dying to kill it, but so far, the department was still going through the motions with it.

Then there was the mystery of why Carson’s family was taking such a visible role in the department. There was the omnipresent Mrs. Carson. Even more striking, however, had been the active role of the secretary’s second-oldest son. Ben Carson Jr., who goes by B.J. and co-founded an investment firm in Columbia, Maryland, that specializes in infrastructure, health care and workforce development, was showing up on email chains within the department and appearing often at headquarters. One day, he was seen leaving the 10th-floor office of David Eagles, the new COO, who was crafting a HUD reorganization to accompany the cuts.

And finally, there was the beginning of what appeared likely to be a stream of committed career employees quitting. Ann Marie Oliva, the anti-homelessness director, had met with mistrust from the 10th floor, and she was startled when she wasn’t asked to offer input for a speech Carson was giving on homeless veterans. She gave notice in late May, prompting calls from both parties on the Hill saying how sorry they were to see her go. “It is sad,” she told me, “because it’s not partisan and it could’ve been different from the beginning.”


Ben Carson Jr. in East Baltimore greeting an entrepreneur who wanted to pitch HUD on a business venture of his. “Have you talked to Dad?” Carson Jr. said, before walking the man and his partner over to Carson’s top aides. (Mark Peterson/Redux for New York magazine)

In early July, Ben Carson went on the next leg of his listening tour: Baltimore. I was expecting the department to make a big deal of his return to his longtime home city. But instead, after the poor press coverage from the previous rounds of community outreach, the itinerary for the first day was kept private.

I managed to get my hands on the schedule and tagged along with a photographer. This did not please Carson’s entourage, which included, among others, a high-strung advance man in a bow tie, several security officers, Candy Carson, Ben Jr. and even his wife. When we arrived at the café where Carson and his family were having lunch with the mayor of Baltimore, Bow Tie arranged to have the Carsons rush out through the kitchen area to a back alley to avoid us. When, at the next stop, I was accidentally allowed into a meeting that Carson was holding at the city’s housing authority, Bow Tie leaped across the room to eject me. By the next stop, at a tour of the redevelopment near Johns Hopkins Hospital, one of the federal agents guarding Carson took my picture as I stood on the sidewalk chatting with a neighbor. By the last stop, dinner with Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan at a deluxe waterfront restaurant opened by Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank, I was unsurprised when a Carson aide went to the maître d’ to report my presence at the bar. This was Trumpian anti-press spirit taken to a new level: protectiveness of a government executive to the point of seeking invisibility.

The day had had its awkward moments. In his visit to the Baltimore HUD office, Carson caused friction with his suggestion that staff needed to work harder, comparing the federal work ethic unfavorably with the long hours he put in as a surgeon. Employees were also struck by how he kept seeming to look to his wife for cues as he spoke. At a later meeting with public health officials and researchers, which his wife, son and daughter-in-law also attended, he kicked things off 15 minutes early and referred to those who arrived on time as being late. He demurred when asked by the city’s former Health Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein if he’d commit the department to an ambitious reduction in child lead poisoning, saying something to the effect that he needed to be careful about setting big goals because he “worked for a guy who, if you don’t meet your goals, he’ll so skewer you.”

The next morning, Carson held photo ops at two homes that had undergone HUD-funded lead abatement. At the first home, he looked confused when workers explained that one of their first steps had been to make sure the home’s doors closed properly in the door jambs. “What does that have to do with lead?” asked the nation’s secretary of housing. The workers explained that a key to reducing lead paint flaking was to reduce the friction involved in opening and closing windows and doors. A moment later, a deputy housing commissioner noted that the work had been made possible in part by Community Development Block Grants, which Trump’s HUD budget eliminated.

Ben Carson Jr. resurfaced at the second day’s other open event, a visit to a health fair in East Baltimore. I watched with some amazement as the younger Carson, clad in tinted aviator shades, circulated among those seeking his father’s attention. At one point, Carson Jr. was approached by two entrepreneurs he knew who were hoping to pitch HUD on a proposal to use public housing as the site to pilot their for-profit venture replacing cash bail with the relinquishing of guns. Carson Jr. heard them out and then said, “Have you talked to Dad?” He then led them over to a clutch of Carson’s HUD aides to make introductions.

A moment later, I asked Carson Jr. why he was taking such an active role on the Baltimore trip. “With anything where we can be helpful, if Dad asks us to come along and help out, we’ll always do that. We’re here to offer support, whatever we can do,” he said. I asked about all the time he was spending at HUD headquarters. “If you’re a concerned citizen and you’re not spending time in D.C. trying to actually make sure the right things are happening, then you probably could do more,” he said. “You should have access to your public officials, and if that’s not allowed, then there’s a big problem with how the representatives are handling their relationship with citizens.” (Never mind that in this case, the “public official” was his own father.)

Later, I asked Ben Carson for a comment on his son’s role. “Ben Carson Jr. has visited me, but he has no role at the department,” he said through a spokesman. It was hard to know what to make of it all. On the one hand, it bore obvious similarities to the proliferation of Trumps and Kushners inside the White House, with all their attendant business conflicts.

But it was also possible that Ben Jr., and his mom, were so often at his father’s side for just the reason Ben Jr. claimed, to provide support. Because it was not hard to see why Carson would feel insecurity. He had been chosen for a job he had few qualifications for by a man who had few obvious qualifications for his own job, and he was now being left to his own devices to defend the dismantling of the department he was supposed to run, with an underpopulated corps of deputies at his side. (Even by mid-August, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, which spends tens of billions per year, did not have any senior political leadership whatsoever.) It was as if the White House were ensuring that whatever mere starvation failed to accomplish at HUD, indifference and mismanagement would finish.

The day before, as I waited outside the school building where Carson was meeting with the public health experts, a young mother, Danielle Jackson, had come along with her three young daughters. She asked me what was going on inside, and I told her. She said she herself had been on the waiting list for a Section 8 voucher for three years, and she seemed to take the fact that the famous Baltimore doctor was now running HUD as an omen. “I hope something good happens,” she said brightly.

Her optimism was shared by Carson himself. When I asked him at a brief press conference behind one of the lead-abated homes the next morning how things were going so far for him at HUD, running a big federal department with no prior experience in government, he shrugged. “It’s actually a challenge to inject common sense and logic into bureaucracy, there’s no question about that,” he said. “But it’s coming along quite nicely.”

Do you have access to information about the federal government that should be public? Email alec.macgillis@propublica.org, or here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.

For more coverage, read ProPublica’s previous reporting on the Trump administration.

Pro-Russian Bots Take Up the Right-Wing Cause After Charlottesville

$
0
0

This article has been updated to include a comment provided by Sputnik after this story was published. Sputnik’s full comment can be found here.

Angee Dixson joined Twitter on Aug. 8 and immediately began posting furiously — about 90 times a day. A self-described American Christian conservative, Dixson defended President Donald Trump’s response to the unrest in Charlottesville, criticized the removal of Confederate monuments and posted pictures purporting to show violence by left-wing counterprotesters.

“Dems and Media Continue to IGNORE BLM and Antifa Violence in Charlottesville,” she wrote above a picture of masked demonstrators labeled “DEMOCRAT TERROR.”

But Dixson appears to have been a fake, according to an analysis by Ben Nimmo, a fellow with the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think tank. The account has been shut down. Dixson’s profile picture was stolen from a young Instagram celebrity (a German model rumored to have dated Leonardo DiCaprio). Dixson used a URL shortener that is a tell for the sort of computer program that automatically churns out high volumes of social media posts whose authorship is frequently disguised. And one of her tweets attacked Sen. John McCain for his alleged support of Ukrainian neo-Nazis, echoing language in tweets from Russian outlets RT and Sputnik.

A screenshot of one of Angee Dixson's tweets, before the account was suspended (Twitter)

The same social media networks that spread Russian propaganda during the 2016 election have been busily amplifying right-wing extremism surrounding the recent violence in Charlottesville, according to researchers who monitor the activity. It’s impossible to tell how much of the traffic originates from Russia or from mercenary sources. But there were hordes of automated bots generating Twitter posts and much more last week to help make right-wing conspiracy theories and rallying cries about Charlottesville go viral.

A sample of 600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations have been promoting hashtags for Charlottesville such as “antifa,” a term for activists on the far left; and “alt-left,” a term Trump used, which was interpreted by many as suggesting an equivalence between liberal demonstrators and white nationalists in the so-called alt-right.

The sample includes accounts that are openly pro-Russian like state-controlled outlets RT and Sputnik, which a joint U.S. intelligence assessment concluded are “part of Russia’s state-run propaganda machine.” The sample also includes those, like “Angee Dixson’s,” that seem to be written by typical Americans. And it follows automated bots that help make messages go viral and even users around the world who spread the Kremlin’s messages whether or not they mean to support Russia. The network is tracked by four researchers working with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a project of the German Marshall Fund that seeks to expose efforts to undermine Western democracy.

(A spokesperson for Sputnik took issue with the assertions about it in this article, providing 22 links to the news service’s articles that she called “highly critical of the president’s response to Charlottesville.” She argued that to “ignore that reality … would only mean that you are fixing the facts to push a false narrative.” The spokesperson also disputed that Sputnik is a vehicle for any purported Russian disinformation campaign.)

“The Russian influence networks we track are definitely amplifying the broader alt-right chatter about Charlottesville,” one of the researchers, J.M. Berger, said. “The major themes they have been pushing are the ‘both sides are violent’ argument and conspiracy theories that George Soros was behind the counter-protests, although the latter has been trending more sporadically.”

The latest Soros accusation, which PolitiFact found to be baseless, shows another aspect of how messages snowball as they pass between the American right-wing and Russian propagandists, according to Nimmo. A U.S. right-winger asserts a “fact,” a Russian news agency fuses it with a Kremlin narrative, and then American right-wing websites parrot the Russian news agency’s assertion.

Soros, a Hungarian-American investor and major Democratic donor, long ago became a frequent bugaboo for the Kremlin and for Republicans. He funds the Open Society Foundations, which support democracy and development around the world — and they have given money to ProPublica, including its Documenting Hate project, while accounting for less than 3 percent of ProPublica’s revenue so far this year. Many recipients of Soros’ contributions are viewed as politically liberal, but some right-wingers and the Kremlin tend to see his hand (or more precisely, his wallet) in any action they perceive as left-wing.

The accusation that Soros was behind the Charlottesville counter-protesters appeared to have been first uttered by Alex Jones, the conservative conspiracy theorist and provocateur, on Aug. 14. The next day, Lee Stranahan, a host for Sputnik, repeated the claim in several YouTube videos, according to Nimmo. Stranahan was previously a prominent advocate for the #FireMcMaster campaign against national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

The pro-Russian networks are also injecting Russian propaganda about other countries into U.S. far-right circles. After Jones’ InfoWars interviewed Stranahan on Aug. 15, Stranahan’s charge that the U.S. is hypocritical for supporting Nazis in Ukraine (a years-old Kremlin line) while condemning them at home appeared on fringe websites such as Mint Press News, TheLastAmericanVagabond.com, BBSNews and JewWorldOrder, Nimmo found.

“Given the number of channels that propagated the narrative at the same time, it is not possible to say whether a single channel or many different channels inspired the American actors’ linkage of Charlottesville and Ukraine,” Nimmo wrote in a blog post. “What does appear probable is that the U.S. activists derived their narrative directly from the Kremlin and its supporters  —  and thus amplified Russian disinformation in America.”

Some in the self-described alt-right have embraced Russian support. At an earlier protest of the removal of a Confederate monument in Charlottesville in May, people chanted “Russia is our friend!”

Tracking disinformation online is challenging because it can be hard to discern users’ motivations and affiliations. But congressional investigators probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 election are interested in how social networks spread fake news and propaganda, such as documents stolen by Russian hackers from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“The Internet and social media provide Russia cheap, efficient and highly effective access to foreign audiences with plausible deniability of their influence,” another of the researchers working with the Alliance to Secure Democracy, Clint Watts, told the Senate Intelligence Committee in March. “This pattern of Russian falsehoods and social media manipulation of the American electorate continued through Election Day and persists today.”

Help Us Investigate: Do you have information about Russian influence efforts in the U.S.? Contact Isaac Arnsdorf at isaac@propublica.org or via Signal at 203-464-1409.

Florida Lawmakers to Review Law Targeting Injured Undocumented Workers

$
0
0

This story was co-published with NPR.

The second-highest ranking member of the Florida Senate pledged a legislative review of a state law that has allowed injured undocumented workers to be arrested and potentially deported rather than paid workers’ compensation benefits.

“Legitimate injuries shouldn’t be denied just because the person was an undocumented immigrant,” said Republican Sen. Anitere Flores, the president pro tempore of the state Senate and chair of the Banking and Insurance Committee.

“One needs to balance the going after fraudulent claims,” she said, “with not overcompensating and then denying claims to those individuals who have actually been injured.”

Flores spoke in response to a recent NPR and ProPublica investigation and a subsequent statement by the nation’s largest insurance fraud group, which called on Florida lawmakers to change the law. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud said employers and insurance companies are applying the law in ways that place “the credibility of combating real fraud at risk.”

“Legislators in the Sunshine State need to correct this loophole so workers hurt on the job get the care they need,” said Dennis Jay, executive director of the coalition, which is made up of insurance companies, government agencies, consumer organizations and insurance fraud investigators.

“I just see the credibility of the anti-fraud effort being hurt by such practices,” Jay said in an interview.

NPR and ProPublica found that nearly 800 undocumented workers in Florida have been charged with workers’ comp fraud for using illicit Social Security numbers to either get their jobs, file for workers’ compensation benefits or both. More than 560 didn’t actually file workers’ comp claims but still were charged with fraud. Another 130 suffered legitimate workplace injuries but were denied benefits and prosecuted. Some were detained by federal immigration authorities and deported.

Like most states, Florida provides workers’ comp benefits to undocumented workers despite their legal status. The state’s workers’ comp law was amended in 2003 to make the use of false identification in obtaining jobs and workers’ comp benefits a felony.

“I don’t see how they can legally justify that,” Jay said. “It also paints insurers as uncaring, greedy corporations that allow human suffering to make a buck.”

Some of the insurance companies who have used the Florida law to deny claims are members of Jay’s coalition, as is the state agency that administers the law.

Jon Moore, spokesman for the Florida Division of Investigative and Forensic Services, said his agency is “obligated to enforce the law as it relates to the workers’ compensation system in Florida.” But he said, “another look into the questions that are being posed may be warranted. What is the balance between the harm and the benefits that are being produced?”

They Got Hurt at Work. Then They Got Deported.

How insurance companies use a Florida law to get undocumented immigrants arrested and deported when they get injured on the job — and what it means in Trump’s America. Read the story.

Flores said she is especially concerned about companies who may hire undocumented workers knowing that the threat of prosecution and deportation may keep them from pursuing workers’ comp claims if they are injured at work.

‘That’s borderline unconscionable,” Flores said, adding that she’ll seek the legislature’s review of this use of Florida law as part of a planned broader look at the state’s workers’ compensation law.

John Porreca, the owner of SouthEast Personnel Leasing and subsidiaries Lion Insurance and Packard Claims, did not respond to a request for comment. Porreca’s companies were featured in NPR and ProPublica’s story and turned in far more injured workers than any others.

Steve Cassell, the president of Command Investigations, which investigates the backgrounds of undocumented workers for insurers and features a gallery of injured workers on its website, also did not respond.

Brian Carter, a Florida workers’ comp attorney, welcomed the call for changes to the Florida law. He says undocumented workers use illicit Social Security numbers because they can’t get jobs without them and employers in Florida need those workers.

“It is illogical to legislatively provide workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented workers,” Carter said, “and then legislatively make it criminal to use a false Social Security number for identification.” 

Jay added that his group is already engaging Florida lawmakers and will offer assistance in drafting alternative legislation.

Failure to Set Cost of Carbon Hampers Trump’s Effort to Expand Use of Fossil Fuels

$
0
0

President Donald Trump’s efforts to boost fossil fuel extraction face a courtroom hurdle of his own making.

His March 28 executive order “promoting energy independence and economic growth” rescinded the Obama administration’s calculation of the “social cost of carbon” — a metric that had been central to the process of crafting and justifying government rules addressing human-driven climate change.

All government regulations are subject to cost/benefit analysis. The “social cost of carbon” was developed in large part to compare long-term costs from coastal flooding and other impacts of emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide with upfront costs to the economy from curbing the burning of fossil fuels, the main source of such emissions.

The value at the end of the Obama presidency was set at roughly $40 for each ton of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, or equivalent amounts of other gases such as methane. At that price, the benefits of Obama’s proposals to reduce emissions outweighed the economic costs.

The Trump order required a new calculation and ordered agencies to use procedures issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 2003 to craft relevant regulations.

A protracted delay in the Trump administration coming up with its own carbon-cost estimate could empower environmentalists pursuing legal challenges to mining, drilling or pipeline projects, said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

In an email on Tuesday, he pointed to two recent court decisions. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, must consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from construction of three new interstate pipelines in the Southeast. The Sierra Club, other environmental groups and some affected landowners had challenged the commission’s environmental review of the project.  

“In the ruling, the judges held that FERC ‘must either quantify and consider the project’s downstream carbon emissions or explain in more detail why it cannot do so,’” Revesz said, adding: “The court further explained that FERC should either use the social cost of carbon to monetize the climate effects associated with those emissions or explain why it chooses not to do so.”

Just last week, another federal court decision blocked a proposed coal mine expansion in Montana in part over the government’s failure to assess the environmental impact of burning additional coal. (Nearly all of the coal from that mine has been exported to Asia or Europe of late, according to court documents).

In that ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy of Montana pointed to the government’s failure to use the existing calculations for the social costs of carbon, arguing that government officials “could, and should, have tied its greenhouse gas emissions calculation to the effects of those emissions.’’ The decision, Judge Molloy wrote, was arbitrary and capricious because officials quantified the benefits of expanded mining “while failing to account for the costs, even though a tool was available to do so.’’

The lawsuit about the Montana coal mine was filed in 2015, but expansion of western coal mining and exports has been a signature aspect of the Trump agenda. Similar mining plans have eventually gotten court approval, but only after officials submitted estimates of the environmental and climate impacts.

The expansion of Signal Peak Energy's Bull Mountain mine in Roundup, Montana, was blocked by a federal court over the government failing to assess the environmental impact of burning additional coal. (Janie Osborne/AP Photo)

“These rulings show how President Trump’s executive order withdrawing support for the social cost of carbon is misguided and shortsighted,” said Revesz. “As these recent rulings show, agencies will lose legal challenges when they don’t appropriately consider climate change impacts. Rather than speeding the process of infrastructure and energy development, the Trump administration has risked slowing it down.”

Given the pace of appointments at relevant agencies, the work of revising the cost of carbon calculation is likely to drag on. So far, the Trump administration has been slow to embrace science advice — with no presidential adviser yet named and many relevant positions at the Office of Science and Technology Policy cut or empty.

In June, Jim Laity, a career Office of Management and Budget employee who runs the environmental branch of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, signaled that work to revise the carbon calculation was under way. During an online presentation at a public workshop on the social cost of carbon at the National Academy of Sciences, he said relevant agencies were “actively working on thinking about the guidance, ” according to Greenwire. Asked what has changed since then, a spokesman for OMB, Jacob A. Wood, said in an email on Wednesday that the Trump administration “is still considering how to implement” the portion of the executive order on the social cost of carbon. “As of right now, there is no other update,” he wrote.

There’s plenty of advice the Trump administration can draw on to make a new estimate, ranging from a January report on ways to improve carbon-cost calculations from the independent National Academy of Sciences to a call to scrap the social cost of carbon altogether, made by the Institute for Energy Research, an industry-backed Washington policy group that strongly influenced the Trump campaign and presidential transition process.

Laity’s presentation in June did hint at a much lower cost of carbon to come, noting the significance of Trump’s reference to the 2003 Office of Management and Budget guidance for writing regulations. (Here’s the webinar recording.) “[I]t says pretty unequivocally that the main focus … should be costs and benefits that accrue to citizens and residents of the United States,” Laity said. “After that it says if a regulation does have significant impacts outside the United States that are important to consider in the regulation for some reason then they should be clearly segregated out and they should be reported separately.”

Under the previous administration’s process, he said, “That wasn’t what we were doing.”

The Obama-era cost of carbon included costs of impacts outside the U.S. — with more than $30 of that $40 a ton coming from projected climate change impacts abroad, according to several economists who have studied the process.

As OMB proceeds with its review, it will have plenty of input from groups affiliated with industry, including the Institute for Energy Research. In an email on Wednesday, Robert P. Murphy, a senior economist for the group, said: “We appreciate that agencies are in an awkward position right now, but our view is that the correct decision is to avoid using such a dubious concept as the ‘social cost of carbon’ in its present form.”

He said the calculations mask enormous value judgements, arguing that the resulting dollar value has little to do with science and much to do with an administration’s view of the world. “Even if we agreed on a particular computer simulation of the monetary damages accruing from climate change over the next few centuries, the calculation of the 'social cost of carbon' would vary widely, depending on our choice of parameters that have nothing to do with climate science,” he said.

In that, Murphy’s sentiments reflect those of some analysts whose views on climate are at odds with the Trump administration. David Roberts, now writing on climate and energy at Vox, wrote a much-cited column for Grist a few years ago dissecting economic calculations used to determine how much it is worth today to limit climate-related harms generations in the future. He warned, “They are social and ethical disputes being waged under cover of math, as though they are nothing but technical matters to be determined by ‘experts.’”

There’s really no legally defensible stance for having no social cost of carbon, said Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist who in 2009 co-led the Obama administration working group that updated federal carbon-cost calculations. That group was disbanded under Trump’s March order.

In a phone interview on Wednesday, Greenstone said, “There are several elements that go into the social cost of carbon about which we’re uncertain. But it’s specious to imply that the best response to that uncertainty is to do nothing.”

Interviews earlier this year with a range of economists and policy analysts suggested that the Trump administration would end up setting a very low cost of carbon, perhaps $5 a ton, but not reject the metric entirely. This would be consistent with an influential federal appeals court ruling late in 2007, which found that the administration of George W. Bush improperly ignored costs from global warming in setting gas-mileage standards for sport utility vehicles and small trucks.

“[W]hile the record shows that there is a range of values, the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero,” the ruling said.

For more details, read Will Trump’s Climate Team Accept Any ‘Social Cost of Carbon’?

The Breakthrough: Behind the Scenes of Hillary Clinton’s Failed Bid for President

$
0
0

We watched on election night as dejected Hillary Clinton supporters poured out of New York City’s Javits Center, but we didn’t see her campaign team wrestling with how and when to concede. And in the months leading up to that moment, we watched Clinton give long, disjointed speeches, but we didn’t see the internal campaign drama that went into writing them.

Then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in February 2016 (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

That’s all in “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” the groundbreaking book from Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes that creates an intimate portrait of a campaign positioned to lose, even though it was favored to win.

On The Breakthrough, Allen divulges his process for digging deep into what was, by all accounts, a secretive campaign. He shares his agreement with sources — all spoke on background, and none of their names were used. Hear how he and Parnes gained their trust, kept their confidences and reported out stories no one else was able to tell. He describes the moment they realized what their reporting all meant:

“Right before the election, our editor sent us a note and got us on the phone and he said, ‘You guys have a problem. Your book has all these warning signs, all this, sort of, foreboding … and she’s about to be elected president.’ He was like, ‘How do you reconcile that?’”

Allen and Parnes interviewed nearly 100 insiders. The authors returned to sources again and again, clarifying timelines and confirming facts without revealing who gave them the information. They turned up some scoops. The campaign was dysfunctional — tense from infighting over how resources were spent. The candidate herself couldn’t settle on a message for why she wanted to run, and argued with staff over whether she should apologize for her email server scandal. And even in the most pivotal days of her campaign, Clinton didn’t seem to understand the mood of the country.

“She’s partway through the primaries already and she’s saying, ‘I don’t understand what this populist uprising is,’” says Allen. He and Parnes were “dumbstruck” when sources first told them this, long before Election Day.

Hear about these surprises and more on The Breakthrough, the ProPublica podcast where investigative reporters reveal how they nailed their biggest stories.

Have an idea for an episode? Email us your suggestions at podcasts@propublica.org.

Listen to this podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud or Stitcher.

The music for this podcast is from Blue Dot Sessions and Lee Rosevere.


Legisladores de Florida revisarán la ley que persigue a trabajadores lesionados indocumentados

$
0
0

Read in English.

La senadora con el segundo rango más alto de Florida prometió una revisión legislativa de una ley estatal que ha permitido que los trabajadores indocumentados lesionados sean detenidos y potencialmente deportados en vez de recibir pagos de compensación laboral.

“No se deberían de negar las lesiones legítimas solo porque la persona sea un inmigrante indocumentado,” dijo la Senadora Anitere Flores, presidenta pro tempore del Senado estatal y jefa del Comité de Banca y Seguros.

“Se necesita hacer un equilibrio entre perseguir las demandas fraudulentas y no sobre-compensar y negar las demandas a individuos que se han lesionado de verdad,” dijo.

Flores habló en respuesta a una reciente investigación de NPR y ProPublica y a una subsecuente declaración por el grupo contra el fraude de seguros más grande de la nación, que pidió a los legisladores de Florida cambiar la ley. La Coalición Contra Fraude de Seguros dijo que empleadores y aseguradoras están implementando la ley con métodos que “ponen en riesgo la credibilidad de combatir el fraude real.”

“Los legisladores en el ‘Estado del Sol’ tienen que corregir este vacío legal para que los trabajadores que sufren lesiones en el trabajo reciban la atención que necesitan,” dijo Dennis Jay, director ejecutivo de la coalición, que está compuesta por aseguradoras, agencias de gobierno, organizaciones de consumidores e investigadores contra el fraude de seguros.

“Veo que la credibilidad de la lucha contra el fraude está siendo dañada por estas prácticas,” dijo Jay en una entrevista.

NPR y ProPublica determinaron que casi 800 trabajadores indocumentados en Florida han sido acusados de fraude en el reclamo de compensación laboral por utilizar números de seguridad social ilícitos o bien para conseguir sus empleos, para hacer solicitudes para beneficios de compensación laboral, o para las dos cosas. Más de 560 de hecho no presentaron demandas por compensación laboral, pero todavía fueron acusados de fraude. Otros 130 sufrieron lesiones legítimas en el lugar de trabajo pero se les negó la compensación y fueron perseguidos penalmente. Algunos fueron detenidos por autoridades federales de inmigración y deportados.

Como la mayoría de estados, Florida otorga beneficios de compensación laboral a trabajadores indocumentados a pesar de su estatus legal. La ley de compensación laboral estatal fue enmendada en 2003 para convertir en crimen el uso de identificación falsa para conseguir empleos y beneficios de compensación laboral.

“No veo cómo pueden justificar esto legalmente,” dijo Jay. “También retrata a las aseguradoras como corporaciones indiferentes y avariciosas que permiten el sufrimiento humano para ganar plata.”

Algunas de las compañías de seguros que han utilizado la ley de Florida para negar demandas son miembros de la coalición de Jay, como también lo es la agencia estatal que administra la ley.

Jon Moore, un portavoz para la División de Servicios Investigativos y Forenses de Florida, dijo que su agencia “tiene la obligación de hacer cumplir la ley acorde al sistema de compensación laboral en Florida.” Pero dijo que “puede ser que otra mirada a las cuestiones que se están planteando esté justificada. ¿Cuál es el balance entre el daño y los beneficios que se están produciendo?”

Flores dijo que está especialmente preocupada por empresas que puedan contratar a trabajadores indocumentados sabiendo que la amenaza de procedimientos penales y deportación puede inhibirles de llevar adelante reclamos por compensación laboral si sufren lesiones en el trabajo.

Se lesionaron en el trabajo. Y entonces fueron deportados.

Cómo las compañías de seguros usan las leyes de Florida para hacer que inmigrantes indocumentados sean arrestados y deportados cuando se lesionan en el trabajo — y lo que significa en la América de Trump. Leer en Español.

“Esto raya en lo inadmisible,” dijo Flores, añadiendo que va a solicitar la revisión por la legislatura de este uso de la ley de Florida como parte de una evaluación planificada más amplia de la ley estatal de compensación laboral.

John Porreca, el dueño de SouthEast Personnel Leasing y las filiales Lion Insurance y Packard Claims, no respondió a una petición de comentario. Las empresas de Porreca fueron examinadas en el reportaje de NPR y ProPublica y delataron a muchos más trabajadores que cualquier otra compañía.

Steve Cassell, presidente de Command Investigations, que investiga para las aseguradoras los historiales de trabajadores indocumentados y presenta una galería de trabajadores lesionados en su sitio de Internet, tampoco respondió.

Brian Carter, un abogado de compensación laboral en Florida, dijo que la iniciativa para cambiar la ley de Florida era bienvenida. Dice que los trabajadores indocumentados usan números de seguridad social ilícitos porque no consiguen trabajos sin ellos, y que los empleadores en Florida necesitan a esos trabajadores.

“Es ilógico que legislativamente se otorguen beneficios de compensación laboral a los trabajadores indocumentados y que después los legisladores conviertan en crimen el uso de un número de seguridad social falso como identificación,” dijo Carter.

Jay añadió que su grupo ya está contactando con los legisladores de Florida y ofrecerá ayuda en la redacción de una legislación alternativa.

Traducción al español por Carmen Méndez.

Why Houston Isn’t Ready for Harvey

$
0
0

Houston faces massive flooding from Harvey. Here’s where it’s flooded in the past.

White Supremacists Joked About Using Cars to Run Over Opponents Before Charlottesville

$
0
0

Nearly a month before a car driven by an alleged neo-Nazi plowed into counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12, white supremacists planning the “Unite the Right” rally joked about using vehicles to run over their opponents.

That message and thousands of other conversations among white supremacists were leaked from a chat app called Discord and posted on the website of a left-wing media collective called Unicorn Riot. Many users’ participation could not be verified, but ProPublica was able to confirm that two people whose statements were included in the leaked trove made the comments attributed to them.

The pre-Charlottesville chats include discussions of potential violence, the use of weapons, and excitement at the prospect of “fighting for the white race.”

The leaked discussions also reveal an intense level of planning and nationwide coordination. As ProPublica reported earlier this month, the “Unite the Right” demonstrations were dominated by a younger, more tech-savvy generation of white supremacists than in past protests. They coordinated logistics for disparate groups and came together a thousand strong to take over city streets in military-style formation. The two-plus months of leaked planning discussions, reviewed by ProPublica, support this assessment. Below are five key takeaways from the messages.

1. Some Activists Insisted on Peace — But Many Were Hungry for Violence

The discussion boards include repeated fantasies of violence against counter-protesters and black residents, only occasionally challenged by board moderators. (Wired.com reported on several examples over the weekend.) On July 18, for example, user AltCelt(IL) posted a photo of vehicles surrounded by crowds in response to fellow commentors’ discussion of car insurance and logistics. Another user replied, claiming that in North Carolina “driving over protesters blocking roadways isn’t an offense.” The user seemed to be referring to a controversial bill that was recently passed by the North Carolina Statehouse. The user then posted a meme showing a combine harvester that could be a “digestor” for multiple lanes of protesters, saying, “Sure would be nice.”

Less than a month later, at the actual “Unite the Right” rally, a car struck a group of counter-protestors, killing 32-year-old paralegal Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. The white supremacists made light of that after the fact, with one user posting a meme that inserted an image of the car from the movie “Back to the Future” into a photo of the crowd at Charlottesville, adding the phrase, “Back to the Fhurer (sic).”

Evan McLaren, executive director of Richard Spencer’s white supremacist National Policy Institute, argued in an interview that what he characterized as “irreverent banter” was “not relevant to what happened” and did not spur the violence in Charlottesville.

The chat group members often used Discord before the rally to discuss street-fighting with their enemies, especially antifa groups. And some conversations focused on terrorizing Charlottesville residents. On Aug. 3, a user copied a posting for a Facebook event for a black community back-to-school party near Emancipation Park, the site of the planned Robert E. Lee statue removal. Users joked about crashing the party and stabbing attendees, who would have presumably included schoolchildren. (“RAHOWA,” cited below, is an acronym for “racial holy war.”)

2. White Supremacist Groups Spent Months Tracking Potential Foes Online and in the Real World

A month before the rally, white supremacists used their chat site to collect information on counter-protesters they anticipated they might encounter. As one chat group leader put it, “knowing faces is always helpful.” For weeks in the lead-up to the rally, white nationalists shared photos of a wide variety of potential adversaries, from out-of-state leftists to local Charlottesville racial justice activists.

On July 17, a user with the handle Stanislav Dajic posted “>Nigger >shoot intended targets,” followed by a smiley-face emoji, under a photo of Joseph Offutt, a black Dallas-area activist who has taken part in several counter-protests against Black Lives Matter.

Chat group users also trawled through left-wing websites and social media, aiming to exploit what they viewed as their political advantage in the Trump era.

McLaren, for instance, posted information about a “DC Training to Resist the Alt-Right” car pool, which he took from the discussion section of a left-wing Facebook event. (McLaren said he did so to protect his fellow marchers.)

The white supremacists also gathered and shared information they had gleaned via in-person sleuthing efforts. One post from July 26, for example, showed a photo a white supremacist took of notes left on a whiteboard from a meeting of a group called Showing Up For Racial Justice in Charlottesville. The board included references to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Black Lives Matter and other entities.

On July 20, another user took pictures of three left-wing groups in Ann Arbor as they raised money and recruited volunteers to go to Charlottesville.

The user advised his compatriots, “If you guys live in leftie areas and have art or street fairs coming up, it’d be worth it to mosey through and see if your local leftists are out trying for the same thing.”

3. Users Collected “Evidence” of Left-Wing Social Media Threats to Give to Police and Courts

Weeks before the “Unite the Right” rally, chat-room participants were collecting alleged left-wing threats of violence, such as “Punch a Nazi” posts on social media, suggesting this content should be forwarded to police or compiled for court proceedings. In one post from Aug. 9, for example, a user advised members of the “Antifa Watch” discussion thread to share threats against the rally “to help with our court case.”

In another post, this one on July 30, a user noted that an anarchist blog post discussing the Charlottesville rally should be forwarded to the Virginia State Police. Eli Mosley, who played a lead role in organizing the “Unite the Right” rally, told ProPublica via Twitter that police had been informed about “potential threats” his group had received. (The Virginia State Police and the Charlottesville Police Department did not respond to ProPublica’s inquiries as to whether they received any such content.)

4. Some Members Displayed a Sophisticated Understanding of Digital Security Culture and Leftist Tactics

On an intelligence-gathering thread, a user identified as McCarthy recommended not bringing phones to the rally, since “any stolen phones will compromise your entire affinity group, any organizations you are a part of, and entire networks of communication.” McCarthy may have been referring to cellphone extraction devices and programs that can perform link analysis, which are increasingly used by law enforcement and can map phone users’ communication networks based on analysis of call and text logs. In addition, a stolen phone could be used to reveal the identities of white supremacists in a doxing campaign.

The user then shared a link to a page dedicated to operational security for right-wing protesters on the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer. In a message to ProPublica, Mosley attributed this security focus to members who he claimed are “high level tech workers and IT security consultants.”

Malcolm Harris, a left-wing writer whose work often focuses on far-right organizations, noted that this reference to “affinity” groups suggests that the right wing is borrowing from left-wing organizing tactics. The affinity model brings smaller operations to work together in a larger action, and the right seemed to use this approach to coordinate among numerous white supremacists groups, such as Identity Evropa, the Traditionalist Worker Party and Vanguard America.

“The base form of an affinity organization is a group of five to six people that know and trust each other, then knit themselves into a larger [collection],” Harris told ProPublica. “They love taking left-wing terminology, so I’m not surprised to see them talking about affinity groups. It’s a pretty decent model for when you don’t have a single organization running things.”

Right-wing activists also shared information about local and state police scanners to help gather intelligence.

“It’s not exactly surprising that they adopt these tactics,” said Harris. “But on the other hand, the police and the state have not made it a priority to break their networks.”

5. Organizers Worked Closely With Police and Assumed Law Enforcement Would Focus on Counter-Protesters

In planning documents and discussion threads, chat group leaders repeatedly referred before the march to close collaboration with police and voiced expectations that law enforcement would treat them respectfully. A secret planning document, entitled “Operation Unite The Right Charlottesville 2.0,” for example, prepped for various possible police responses to their demonstrations, but noted “in our communications with them [the police] they know that the left are the ones looking to do violence.”

In the message boards leading up to the rally, apparent chat group leaders also repeatedly referred to their close work with law enforcement. When asked about these communications, Mosley, who was quoted in one of the threads, explained, “when I said ‘they knew,’ I was referring to the police who, time and time again, admitted to us that they knew the left was (sic) going to be the violent ones.”

The perception of law enforcement was more mixed among commenters who appeared to be in the rank and file of the chat group. Some hoped to recruit white police officers to their cause and praised past law enforcement efforts against left-wing Antifa protesters.

Others felt cops could “betray” them and were fundamentally pawns of the establishment (and added what may have been caricatures of Jewish people).

After the rally, counter-protesters and progressives criticized law enforcement’s apparent unwillingness to shut down violent altercations. During the torchlit march on Aug. 11, for example, white supremacist forces led by figures like Richard Spencer were able to storm through the University of Virginia, with some participants beating up counter-protesters, some of whom fought back but were overwhelmed. Witnesses, such as the Harvard professor and activist Cornel West, noted how few police were in sight. The next day at the rally, according to the Daily Beast, police ignored pleas from wounded activists and did not intervene or make arrests after the beating of a black protester, Deandre Harris, in a parking garage next to the Charlottesville police station.

McLaren, the white supremacist, blames the local political establishment, claiming — without proof — that it engineered the violence. “I don’t blame police for this; it’s the people who were directing police,” said McLaren. “They obviously engineered an event where it had to be designed so that violence would occur.”

In the wake of the leaks (and efforts by Discord to ban them from the app), white supremacist leaders say they will simply move to other apps or abandon them. “I’ve never liked using Discord or things like that anyway,” Mosley wrote on Twitter. “We’ve done it without that before. We used it this time because it was a large and public event.”

McLaren echoed that view. “You know also there’s a robust nature to what we’ve accomplished so far,” said McLaren. “We’re pretty personally networked now so there’s an extent we can continue to coordinate things even if we’re completely shut out of social media.”

Have You Experienced Hate Speech on Facebook? We Want To Hear From You.

$
0
0

Earlier this month, in the wake of the Charlottesville attack on protesters, a post began circulating on Facebook titled: “Heather Heyer, Woman Killed in Road Rage Incident was a Fat, Childless 32-Year-Old Slut.”

You might have thought that the post violated Facebook’s rules against hate speech. But, in fact, it did not. Facebook’s arcane hate speech rules, revealed by ProPublica in June, only prohibit hate speech attacks against “protected categories” of people — based on gender, race or religious affiliation — but not against individuals.

We’re launching an effort to learn more about Facebook’s secret censorship rules. (Details of how you can help are below.) These rules, which it distributes to thousands of human censors it employs across the world — draw elaborate distinctions between hate speech and legitimate political expression. One Facebook training slide published by ProPublica was particularly surprising to many of our readers. It asked which group was protected against hate speech: female drivers, black children or white men. The correct answer was noted as being “white men.”

The reason: Facebook doesn’t protect what it calls “subsets” of its protected categories. Black children and female drivers were both considered subsets under Facebook’s rules, while white men were protected based on race and gender.

After ProPublica’s article was published, Facebook changed its rules to add age as a protected category, according to a person familiar with the decision. That adjustment means that Facebook will delete slurs against black children, because both race and age are now protected groups.

The “protected categories” rule doesn’t always prevail. Facebook eventually deleted the post about Heather Heyer for reasons unrelated to hate speech, according to a person familiar with the situation. It was expunged because it was published by The Daily Stormer — an organization that is on Facebook’s secret list of hate groups that are not allowed to publish on the platform, and because it violated Facebook’s anti-bullying rules.

As Facebook’s rules evolve and expand based on their own secret logic, Facebook users are understandably confused. Many have sent us examples of hate speech that they suspected had slipped through the censors’ filters, or speech that they felt was wrongly designated as hateful. Facebook’s decisions on these posts sometimes appeared to contradict its internal guidelines.

This raised a new set of questions for us: Are Facebook censors following the site’s rules consistently? And, even more importantly, despite all its efforts, is Facebook succeeding in ridding its site of hate speech?

Only Facebook users can help us answer these questions.

So we’re hoping you can join us in investigating Facebook’s handling of hate speech. To make it easy to participate, we built a Facebook bot — which is a tiny computer program that automatically converses with you over Facebook Messenger.

To use the bot, all you have to do is send a Facebook message to ProPublica’s page and click the “Get Started” button. Our bot will ask you questions about your experience with hate speech.

If you or someone you know reported a hateful post, or had one flagged as hateful, we’d like to hear about it, regardless of the outcome. Screenshots, links and exact wording are especially helpful, but please share whatever you have.

We know some people who violate Facebook’s community standards are blocked from the platform. If you’d rather not use Facebook for any reason, we’ve also put the questions into a survey.

We may publish the information that you share with us, but we will redact any individual identifying information unless we contact you and get your permission. The more people who contribute their experiences, the more accurate a picture we’ll be able to get.

Also, this is ProPublica’s first Facebook bot, and we know it can be a little bit finicky. If you have any problems or notice any glitches, please do let us know at social@propublica.org.

Thanks for your help!

Trump’s Pardon Aside, Reporters Have Built Long Rap Sheet Against Sheriff Joe

$
0
0

President Donald Trump issued his first pardon to Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff famous for using his local police force to aggressively pursue undocumented immigrants. In its official statement, the White House credited Arpaio with “more than fifty years of admirable service to our nation,” which made him “a worthy candidate” for a pardon.

Below is a list of essential reading on one of the most reviled and beloved lawmen in the U.S.

In November 2004, Arpaio won re-election to his fourth term as sheriff and quickly set about reorganizing the police force by transferring some 140 deputies to different positions. Mark Flatten, then a reporter at the East Valley Tribune, found evidence the moves were tied to the deputies’ political loyalty, or lack thereof, to Arpaio. “Those who worked to re-elect the sheriff moved into more prized positions,” Flatten wrote. “An analysis of the transfers of sworn officers by the Tribune shows deputies who backed Saban, Arpaio’s rival in the Republican primary last September, were moved to such jobs as transporting prisoners or standing watch in courtrooms.”

The sheriff’s office had long feuded with the Phoenix New Times, an alternative weekly newspaper that broke major stories about misconduct by Arpaio’s force. In August 2007, the agency’s top commanders teamed with local prosecutors to subpoena seemingly every document inside the newsroom, ostensibly as part of a criminal probe. The order warned the New Times that it was a crime to disclose anything about the subpoena. Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, then New Times’ publishers, did not remain silent.

That October, the newspaper plastered across its front page the headline: “Breathtaking Abuse of The Constitution,” and provided the public with every detail. The subpoena demanded “every note, tape, and record from every story written about Sheriff Arpaio by every reporter over a period of years,” the publishers wrote. Worse yet, the sheriff’s office wanted information on the newspaper’s readers, including “every individual who looked at any story, review, listing, classified, or retail ad over a period of years.” Sheriff’s deputies arrested Lacey and Larkin at their homes the evening they published, and held them for several hours.

Arpaio allowed William Finnegan, staff writer at The New Yorker, to attend his meetings, ride along in his car, and interview his top commanders at great length in early 2009. The result of that access is a revealing, unsparing profile of Arpaio and the police force he ran at the peak of its illegal immigration enforcement.

One of then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies works after an operational sweep in Phoenix in 2010. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images)

In July 2008, the East Valley Tribune published a multipart investigation of the sheriff’s office’s immigration enforcement and overall police work. The agency’s arrest rate had plummeted, emergency response times soared, deputies were shelving sex crime cases without investigation, and the immigration arrests often involved unconstitutional practices. Arpaio was also using the immigration operations as a form of patronage. The sheriff’s office argued it pursued undocumented immigrants because they were a public safety threat. But agency records showed Arpaio often directed deputies to target day laborers along specific locations at the request of his supporters in the state Legislature and local businesses in his hometown of Fountain Hills. “I have a strange old philosophy that if someone does something for you, gives you resources, gives you money, I think if they want something back, we ought to do it,” Arpaio said in an interview.

Jacques Billeaud, a reporter for The Associated Press, revisited the office’s uninvestigated sex crime cases in 2011, and detailed multiple cases in which children were reportedly assaulted. The story prompted Arpaio to apologize for these failures for the first time.

Maricopa County taxpayers spent roughly $92 million on court settlements, awards, and legal bills during Arpaio’s 24 years as sheriff, The Arizona Republic calculated. Of that, $28 million was paid for “legal matters listed as civil-rights violations, false arrest, conspiracy and malicious prosecution.” And $30 million was spent on lawsuits stemming from the county’s jails.

New Times has reported scores of stories about egregious abuse and misconduct by sheriff’s employees inside the jails. Among them is a 1997 story about Richard Post, a wheelchair-bound paraplegic, who suffered a broken neck when corrections officers strapped him in a restraint chair for six hours. A decade later, Ambrett Spencer was pregnant with a baby girl while an inmate in Maricopa County jail. Suffering severe pain, Spencer waited four hours for the jail to transfer her to a hospital. Her daughter, Ambria, died of internal bleeding before she was delivered. Pregnant women were in significant peril in Arpaio’s jails. From the New Times: “The water well in the facility where pregnant women are jailed has been infested with mice and mice feces since 2005, Maricopa County Environmental Health Services Records show.”

The Joe Arpaio I Knew

The former Maricopa County sheriff made his name in part by targeting immigrants — even after a judge ordered him to stop. As President Trump considers a pardon, it’s worth remembering precisely what Arpaio did in his decades in law enforcement. Read the story.

Joe Dana, a reporter at Phoenix’s NBC affiliate, revealed that the sheriff’s office spent nearly $300,000 in 2007 and 2008 to build a criminal intelligence data system and provide training for the Honduran national police. It remains unclear why this occurred.

The sheriff’s office effectively entrapped an inmate in a fake plot to assassinate Arpaio, for which the agency purchased bomb parts, as told in an exhaustive Phoenix Magazine narrative. The inmate was acquitted at trial and later won a million-dollar legal settlement.

The sheriff’s office also helped gain clearance for a Chinese software engineer to work inside an intelligence center in Phoenix that houses federal and local law enforcement, including FBI counter-intelligence agents, for several months in 2007, reporting by ProPublica and the Center for Investigative Reporting found. The engineer worked on a facial recognition system using Arizona’s driver’s license database. He abruptly returned to China, taking time to aggressively erase the computers he’d worked on, while packing other hardware, before boarding his flight home.

Houston’s Dams Won’t Fail. But Many Homes Will Have to Be Flooded to Save Them

$
0
0

The water that goes around the spillways is going to have to leave the reservoir somehow — and enter areas surrounding it.

Are You an Immigrant Protected by DACA? We Want to Hear From You.

$
0
0

Since he became president, Donald Trump has been pondering whether to continue one of President Obama’s signature immigration programs.

Known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program has granted almost 800,000 young immigrants since 2012 the possibility to live legally in the United States, obtain a work permit and travel abroad — all while receiving the government’s word that they will not be deported unless they commit certain crimes. To be eligible for the program, immigrants have to have been brought to the U.S. before age 16 and lived here continuously since 2007.

But a decision to end DACA may be imminent, according to numerous recent press accounts.

What Is DACA?

DACA emerged as the Obama administration’s response to the failed DREAM Act — a bill that, in various forms, moved unsuccessfully through Congress between 2001 and 2011. The DREAM bill would have permanently legalized young immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

When that legislation finally failed, Obama created similar programs through executive orders, starting with DACA in 2012. That means DACA can easily be undone by Trump or any other president, which would not be the case if legislation had been enacted.

Why Is DACA in Peril?

A number of Trump’s advisers oppose the DACA program; they consider it to be executive overreach. Among the administration officials espousing that view are Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House policy advisor Stephen Miller.

Trump, who campaigned on pledges to expel illegal immigrants, has expressed sympathy for those protected by DACA. At a February press conference, he said he was going “to deal with DACA with heart” and that the immigrants granted that status were mostly “some absolutely incredible kids.”

In July, however, Trump sounded more neutral when asked about the program: “It’s a decision that I make.”

Since then, a coalition of state attorneys general who previously won a court ruling striking down a similar Obama program — DAPA, which would have given similar protections to undocumented parents — said they would tack on DACA to their so-far successful DAPA lawsuit. They gave Trump an ultimatum: get rid of DACA by next Tuesday or be prepared to defend it in court.

On Friday, NBC News reported that Trump “appears likely” to end the program. But no official announcement has been made.

What Can Trump Do and What Would the Effects Be?

Trump has few options. He can keep the program as is, leaving its defense in the hands of AG Sessions. But it’s unclear if Sessions would defend DACA in court, given his often-stated contention that the program is illegal.

Trump could also let DACA die a slow death, by deciding to block the renewal of work permits. Without permits, those protected by DACA could lose their jobs.

“I think the most likely scenario is that the Department of Homeland Security will stop reviewing DACA applications and renewals,” said Julia Gelatt, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute. “Young people have a two-year work authorization that would expire over time.”

If that were the case, about 1,000 immigrants per day would lose their legal protections. That would expose them to deportation, like the rest of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the U.S. What worries some is that DACA recipients have identified themselves to the government — providing their home address, among other things — and as a result, could be more easily located and detained.

Who Are the DACA Immigrants?

Half of the people receiving DACA protections live in just two states: California and Texas. Almost four in five of them are Mexican citizens, and most are in their twenties. A study conducted by MPI’s Gelatt found that 76 percent of DACA recipients are active members of the labor force, many of them in office jobs.

“We saw in our data this move from outdoor jobs, which you associate with undocumented workers, toward white-collar jobs,” Gelatt said. “If DACA recipients lose their work authorization they may lose access to the white collar jobs.”

Help Us Shape Our DACA Reporting

Knowing what's at stake, we want to hear from DACA recipients about how they are living, preparing and coping with an uncertain future. A cancellation of DACA could affect you if you are currently abroad, if your DACA status is tied to your college financial aid or if you are currently employed. In all cases, it could affect whether you are able to remain in the country. DACA has affected the lives of 800,000 young immigrants and we want to tell those stories. So, how does DACA affect your life? Please tell us by sending an email to daca@propublica.org answering any of the three questions below:

  1. What, if anything, have you been able to achieve with DACA? 

  2. If Trump cancels DACA, how would that affect your future? 

  3. When does your work permit expire?


We’ve Updated Prescriber Checkup

$
0
0

Medicare’s popular prescription-drug program serves more than 42 million people and pays for more than one of every four prescriptions written nationwide. Use this tool to find and compare doctors and other providers in Part D in 2015.

Why Giving Birth is Safer in Britain Than in the U.S.

$
0
0

At 11:58 p.m. this past June 25, Helen Taylor gave birth to her first baby, a boy, at West Suffolk Hospital in the East of England. At 11:59 p.m., with 15 seconds to spare before midnight, his sister was born. The obstetrician and her team were pleased; the cesarean section was going smoothly, fulfilling Helen’s wish that her twins share a birthday.

But 40 minutes later, Helen had lost over a third of her blood.

Enraptured by new motherhood, she barely noticed when the obstetrician’s head appeared around the surgical drape. “We need to give you a drug to help stop the bleeding, is that OK?” Helen nodded. Ten minutes passed before the question came again. Then again. The fourth time, Helen realized something was seriously wrong.

During pregnancy, the uterine blood vessels that nourish the fetus are wide open. Once the baby is delivered and the placenta removed, these vessels should constrict and close. If they don’t, as with Helen, the mother can bleed profusely. She may reach a point where her body can no longer compensate for the blood loss. The extent of the flow can be unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic. The surgical team’s response must be meticulous. And fast.

Helen’s team — an experienced obstetrician with her resident in training, a pediatrician, an anesthesiologist with an assistant, two nurses (one scrubbed-in, one fetching equipment), and three midwives — responded to her developing hemorrhage with a routine ingrained from rehearsal and real life.

“We are like a Formula One race team at a pit-stop,” the anesthesiologist had reassured Helen by way of introduction.

The key to this well-oiled machine is standardization. It used to be that every obstetrician in the U.K. had his or her own signature strategy to manage an emergency. In the U.S., that still sometimes happens. But these days, every British doctor, whether newly qualified or approaching retirement, is required to follow the same guidelines for many aspects of maternity care, including treatment of bleeding. Postpartum hemorrhage guidelines are regularly updated by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and then written into local protocols for practice in every National Health Service (NHS) hospital. You don’t need to be a doctor to read the guidelines: they are freely available online. Women can find out exactly what standard of care to expect.

Helen’s was the kind of deceptively complex case that shows why a consistent approach is desirable. Her hemorrhage flared from minor (over 500 millimeters) to major (over 1 liter) to massive (over 2 liters) in less than an hour. First, the team gave her IV fluids to help replace the lost volume. After checking for bits of retained placenta, the obstetrician massaged Helen’s uterus to encourage its natural ability to contract, but her bleeding continued. The anesthesiologist lifted the surgical drapes to inject Helen’s thigh with a drug containing syntocinon, which stimulates the uterine muscle to tighten the blood vessels. The same medication was then given by a drip.

But there’s a catch: Drugs that narrow arteries can increase blood pressure. During her third trimester, Helen had developed preeclampsia, a type of hypertension induced by pregnancy that can lead to seizures and strokes. Not only does preeclampsia complicate treatment for bleeding, it makes hemorrhage more likely in the first place.

The immediate danger of more blood loss outweighed the risk of raising the blood pressure. The anesthesiologist followed protocol and administered two more drugs to intensify uterine contraction, with several minutes of watching and waiting in between. Still the blood flowed. The final step would be a transfusion.

Then, just as the team was about to dial up units of O negative from the blood bank, the obstetrician noticed that her absorbent surgical swabs were taking longer to soak through with red. The uterus felt firmer, more like a bicep than loose tissue. Helen’s bleeding was under control. Due to the guidelines, a more serious crisis was averted. A transfusion wouldn’t be needed after all.

As a medical student at the University of Cambridge in England, I got to know Helen on the ward. This account of her pregnancy, labor and medical emergency is based on my observations and interviews with Helen, her partner Marcus, and caregivers at West Suffolk Hospital. The hospital approved my access to interview patients, and Helen gave full consent to share her experience. It’s a tale that highlights the profoundly different approaches in the U.K. and the U.S. to maternal care — and to saving mothers’ lives.

“Ultimately, it’s a story I didn’t think I’d get to tell,” Helen said.


For a pregnant woman in the 1950s, the two childbirth complications most likely to prove fatal were hemorrhage and preeclampsia. Whether American or British, one in every 1,000 expectant and new mothers died.

British health authorities recognized this number was unacceptably high, given that nearly half of the deaths were considered preventable. Starting in the late 1940s, a national commitment was made to standardize maternity care across the NHS, assess each maternal fatality, and learn how it might have been avoided.

That campaign has succeeded. Today, the average mother in the U.K. receives more comprehensive and consistent care, ranging from earlier prenatal appointments to closer monitoring after she gives birth, than does her American counterpart. And if a mother dies, the U.K. investigates and tries to learn from it. Medical authorities in the U.K. view maternal deaths as public health failures that underscore deficiencies in healthcare systems. In the U.S., maternal deaths are too often treated as disconnected, private tragedies. If they are scrutinized by hospitals or regulators at all, the findings typically prompt institutional rather than national reforms. 

Underlying these contrasts is a different view of the medical responsibility to mother and child. In the U.S., laudable aspirations for infant safety have intensified focus on the fetus — more sonograms, continuous fetal heart monitoring and granting rights to the unborn. But these measures may at times distract attention from the mother’s health.

By contrast, British medical professionals are legally required to prioritize a mother’s well-being if both she and her baby are in danger. They’re trained to stabilize mom first, and then tend to baby. “That sense that the woman (while the fetus is in utero) is the agent in charge is in place. I think that’s the right way,” said Denis Walsh, a midwife and associate professor in midwifery at the University of Nottingham. “Otherwise you start undermining individual women’s autonomy and then you go down a slippery slope.”

The numbers reflect the difference in national priorities. Today in the U.K., 8.9 women for every 100,000 live births die from complications of pregnancy or childbirth, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. In the U.S., this figure declined in tandem with Britain’s until 1990. It then reversed course, rising to 25.1 women per 100,000 in 2015, almost three times higher than the U.K., and among the worst in the Western world.

These U.S. deaths are not spread equally. Women who are poor, African-American, or live in a rural area are more likely to die during and after pregnancy. In the U.K., while inequalities persist when it comes to serious complications, according to 2012-2014 data, there is no statistically significant difference in mortality rates between women in the highest and lowest socioeconomic groups. All British women have equal access to public medical services, including free care and prescriptions from pregnancy through the postpartum period.

There is a significant gap between the U.K. and U.S. in outcomes for pregnancy-related conditions that are highly treatable but can lead to death if they are not recognized and managed in time. One in 1 million women die of preeclampsia in the U.K.; that’s less than a single death per year. By contrast, preeclampsia killed an estimated 50 to 70 women in the U.S. in 2016, accounting for 8 percent of maternal deaths. According to the most recent data available, hemorrhage is responsible for 6.5 percent of maternal deaths in the U.K. versus 11.4 percent in the U.S.

The U.K. has achieved these results while spending less on delivering babies. On average, the total price charged for a vaginal birth in the U.S. is $30,000 (£24,000), which rises to $50,000 (£39,000) for a cesarean section, according to Truven Health Analytics, a New York firm that collects healthcare data. The BBC reported that in the U.K. the average cost for a normal delivery or planned cesarean section on a hospital labor ward in 2016 was $2,300 (£1,755), while a complicated case like Helen’s rose to $3,400 (£2,582).


Ironically, the centerpiece of the U.K.’s strategy to reduce maternal mortality is an American import. In 1949, the British Congress on Obstetrics and Gynecology suggested adopting a new method for reviewing maternal deaths that was already practiced in some parts of the U.S. Fatalities in those regions were assessed by local committees of experts, who published reports in medical journals to educate the profession. The British Minister of Health agreed to try it. The result was the Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in England and Wales, established in 1952.

The confidential enquiry has far outstripped its American forebears. Now run by MBRRACE-UK (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries in the United Kingdom), its report drives training, assessment and practice in British obstetrics — including the types of treatment protocols that saved Helen Taylor’s life. Crucially, hospitals can neither opt out of MBRRACE’s surveillance nor ignore its recommendations.

In many parts of the U.S., such enquiries do not have the same prominence and clout. There is no federal-level scrutiny of maternal deaths, and only 26 states have an established committee (of varying methodology and rigor) to review them. Nor do all U.S. hospitals routinely examine whether a death could have been avoided. Procedures for treating complications such as preeclampsia, and for responding to emergencies such as hemorrhage, vary from one doctor, hospital and state to the next.

The Richard Doll building at the University of Oxford, named after the epidemiologist who saved millions of lives by establishing the link between smoking and lung cancer, is the home of MBRRACE. That the enquiry can declare itself “the international gold standard for maternity audit and quality-improvement programs” is due to more than 100 doctors and midwives who read the cases in their spare time for free. MBRRACE continues the search for answers begun in 1952: What are the causes of maternal deaths, why are they occurring, and how can they be prevented?

MBRRACE’s full report covers a three-year period and includes data on every woman in the U.K. who has died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after childbirth. It also discusses later maternal deaths — those occurring up to a year after delivery — and makes recommendations for improvements to care. Direct deaths from obstetric causes, such as hemorrhage, sepsis or blood clots — are distinguished from indirect deaths from conditions worsened but not caused by pregnancy, such as epilepsy or certain types of heart disease.

When a woman dies, the delivery unit responsible for her care submits a local report, which includes perspectives of the health professionals who treated her, and a copy of her medical notes. First, a pathologist reviews the documents to pronounce the cause of death. Next, 10 to 15 practitioners from specialties including obstetrics, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, psychiatry and midwifery piece together what happened, and decide whether the death could have been prevented.

Data about maternal age, race and cause of death is extracted and analyzed. Also counted are the survivors who must grow up without a mother’s care. The 2012 – 2014 report states that “the women who died left behind a further 253 children, thus together a total of 358 motherless children remain.” The individual women are not named, but their stories are preserved in the report through short vignettes. Marian Knight, head of MBRRACE, who trained in obstetrics and is now professor of maternal and child population health at the University of Oxford, insists that statistics alone do not have the same impact.

“Stories are what make the difference,” Knight told me. “That’s what people remember. In the States, they are just collecting numbers. It’s all very well to know a woman died of sepsis, but to know that she died of sepsis because nobody measured her temperature, as they had no thermometers on the postnatal ward, that’s where the instruction Put a thermometer on your postnatal ward might make a difference. It’s not just the what, it’s the why.”

Andrew Testa for ProPublica

MBRRACE doesn’t seek to blame individual health professionals, but rather to learn from systemic mistakes. These lessons feed back into NICE’s and the Royal College’s guidelines, standardizing care from Inverness to Southampton. Committing to predetermined pathways of treatment, as in Helen’s delivery, requires humility from clinicians. The power of protocols — informed by the profession’s collective experience and research findings — is that, over time, they will result in better outcomes than one doctor’s instinct.

Catherine Aiken, fellow in maternal-fetal medicine at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, interned at Yale New Haven Hospital before returning to the U.K. “As a behemoth organization, [the NHS] is good at agreeing that there is a way of taking a woman’s observations [vital signs] in labor. If you don’t have a thermometer, the whole thing grinds to a halt until you find one, which can be frustrating at times,” she said. “You have to remind yourself in the moment this is good, and ultimately it will save lives because you have less of the stupid mistakes.”

There are, of course, moments when deviating from a protocol is defensible, but “you should have something that makes you think very hard before you override a safety mechanism in any situation,” Aiken added. “I’m glad that I work in an operation where I would be stopped if I were doing something off-piste,” or in other words, not recognized as best practice.

MBRRACE’s findings also influence how interns and residents are evaluated. Questions about the confidential enquiry appear on the Royal College’s examinations, which all aspiring obstetricians and gynecologists must pass.

The Care Quality Commission, which inspects medical services nationwide, takes MBRRACE’s report to birthing units and labor wards to ask doctors and midwives how they are integrating its findings. PROMPT (Practical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training), a nonprofit formed in response to evidence from the confidential enquiry, runs drills and refresher courses for obstetricians, anesthesiologists and midwives. Protocols are practiced in simulated emergencies to make the pit-stop in real crises as efficient as possible.

Despite these measures, the U.K. appears to be one of the poorer performing European Union countries. France and the Netherlands, the two other nations that conduct enquiries comparable to MBBRACE, have lower maternal mortality ratios (7.6 per 100,000 live births, and 6.3 per 100,000 respectively).

Does comparison with the U.S. mask the U.K.’s shortcomings? Defenders of the British system say the NHS is simply more vigilant in defining and identifying all pregnancy-related deaths. If you search hard enough for bad news, you are likely to find more of it. In the U.K., 85 percent of women who die of causes connected to pregnancy or childbirth have an autopsy, versus 49 percent in the Netherlands and 29 percent in France.

“I’m pretty sure we’re very close, if not perfect, at identifying all of our maternal cases. So obviously our rates look higher,” Knight said.

The U.S. lags behind the U.K. in this area too. In the U.S., for deaths listed as related to pregnancy on death certificates from 2011 to 2013, the autopsy rate is estimated at close to 60 percent, said Dr. William Callaghan, Chief of the Maternal and Infant Health Branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “There is little to no standardization regarding autopsy,” he said. “States and even localities have their own practices.”


Last year, at the age of 42, Helen Taylor had almost given up hope she would ever hold her own baby. After 12 years of trying, and three unsuccessful cycles of in vitro fertilization provided free by the NHS, the chances looked slim.

Balancing her job as a primary school teacher with IVF treatment was “incredibly hard,” she said. After one appointment, she had to lead a sex education class, “talking about eggs and sperm.”

“You had to leave it behind, leave it in the car, and then go into the classroom, put a smile on your face and try and forget about it.” She paused. “You start to bury it a bit.”

After the third failed IVF cycle, a private fertility doctor had bluntly told her the few eggs she had were “poor quality.”

“You’re really scraping the barrel,” he said.

Devastated but determined, Helen and her partner Marcus decided to pay for one final attempt. This time they opted for an egg donor. She was 34 years old, a Caucasian brunette with blue eyes. That’s all they knew.

After implanting a couple of embryos in Helen’s womb in November 2016, her doctor told her to wait two weeks before taking a pregnancy test. But after 10 days, Helen noticed some light spotting: the familiar sign of failure. The next morning, her birthday, she just wanted to get the bad news over with. Three minutes later she was staring at a pair of blue lines. After another four tests, she let herself believe it was true.

Maternal care in the U.K. and the U.S. begins to diverge early in the first trimester. When she was less than a month pregnant, Helen shared the news with her family doctor, following the NHS recommendation to do so as soon as possible. In the U.S., the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says care should be initiated by 10 to 12 weeks, and the first point of contact is likely to be an OB-GYN practice. In Britain, it’s usually a community midwife, and Helen was put in touch with the local branch in Sudbury.

A kindly 40-something woman led the first meeting, known as the “Booking Appointment,” and talked Helen through what to expect from the next months. As a first-time mom, she would be scheduled for 10 prenatal sessions (which would have been seven sessions if this were her second child), and was reassured there would be no limit if she had trouble.

They spent over an hour going through Helen’s past medical history, checking her weight and blood pressure, testing her urine, and discussing diet and self-care. The midwife encouraged Helen to consider the NHS “Bump, Birth and Beyond” prenatal classes, a breastfeeding workshop, screening tests for fetal abnormalities and immunizations. She asked whether Helen had concerns about her mental health or domestic violence. (She didn’t.) Screening for both is mandatory in the U.K., but not in the U.S.

To each midwife appointment Helen brought her NHS pregnancy booklet — “maternity notes” — given to every expectant mother. It is designed to ensure that all risk factors are considered, with checklists of questions and space for the midwife’s comments on mom and baby’s progress. At delivery, this booklet provides useful information to the medical team.

Perhaps the biggest difference compared with the U.S. is the way pregnancies are quickly triaged into two broad categories: low or high risk. Low-risk women — those deemed unlikely to have complications — account for 45 percent of pregnancies, and see a midwife every four weeks. A quarter of these women will end up being escalated to the care of an attending obstetrician during or just before labor. But if a pregnancy is uneventful it is possible, even probable, that the woman will not see a doctor over the entire nine months.

In the U.K., all planned births, from home deliveries to complex C-sections, are attended by midwives, whereas in the U.S., midwives are present at just 8 percent of births. Helen would have liked to deliver on a midwife-led birthing unit, but her pregnancy was high risk from the outset because she was over 40 and had conceived by donor IVF, both of which increased the likelihood of complications, including preeclampsia and hemorrhage.

Other factors that can elevate risk include pre-existing medical conditions, increased maternal age or substance abuse. Risk factors may also relate to the baby: If there is more than one in the womb, or if the fetus is small for its age, moves less than expected, or in the last days of pregnancy is positioned breech (with bottom or legs at the lowest point in the uterus).

High-risk women see an obstetrician and a midwife, as well as a specialist if the mother has a co-morbidity — a disease or disorder that could complicate pregnancy and childbirth. Their deliveries take place on hospital labor wards, overseen by an attending obstetrician. Helen’s midwife automatically checked the “location of birth” box that said “Labor ward.”

Risk can change as pregnancy progresses. With this in mind, many hospitals are designed with their maternity unit next to the labor ward. “We are very good at sliding people between the high- and low-risk models of care,” said Sally Collins, associate professor of obstetrics at the University of Oxford. Or, as Helen said to Marcus, “No one can know what’s going to happen. You better cover all your contingencies.”


Helen went back to the IVF clinic for an early ultrasound scan. The NHS routinely offers two ultrasounds for every low-risk pregnancy: at 12 weeks and 20 weeks. High-risk women may be scanned more regularly.

As the sonographer moved the probe over Helen’s jellied tummy, she paused.

“There isn’t just one heartbeat. There are two.”

“Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.”

“Does she say anything else?” the sonographer laughed, turning to Marcus.

Despite her excitement, Helen knew twins increased the likelihood of complications. She was booked for a scan every two weeks from 20 weeks, and then would see a doctor for 10 minutes to talk through the results. More business-like than meetings with the midwife, these appointments would give Helen a formal reassurance that the pregnancy was going according to plan.

The first trimester started with nausea, but by the second, Helen was in her element. “It was brilliant,” she said, beaming. “You’re in a position where you can tell everybody, everyone knows, you’ve got a bump but it’s not massive and weighing you down.”

An ongoing complication of pregnancy for Helen was over-Googling. “I would go to the midwife with a list of questions that I was worrying about,” she said, such as what might be causing a rhythmic beat, not as fast as a heart pumping, deep in her abdomen. “Oh, that’s probably baby hiccups,” the midwife said. “Totally normal.” Her WhatsApp group of six other moms and dads from prenatal classes added to this pool of practical wisdom.

As if on a timer, at 28 weeks — the beginning of her third trimester — Helen’s usually low blood pressure started to rise. Her feet swelled, then her ankles, then her calves: the telltale signs of preeclampsia. Although Helen’s blood pressure was at the upper end of normal, the midwife sent her to the hospital twice a week for closer monitoring. There, an obstetrician prescribed labetalol — a drug that widens the arteries to lower the pressure.

On the 34-week scan, the babies were fortunately in the correct position: head-down, four feet kicking above Helen’s navel. A vaginal delivery still looked likely.

Helen wanted her delivery to be as natural as possible, even though she was resigned to the necessity of being induced at 37 or 38 weeks if the babies hadn’t arrived by then, standard practice for the delivery of twins.

“Natural birth” — now called “physiological birth” within the midwifery profession — is a common request in the U.K., and not something women have to fight for. It tends to be defined by what it is not: no induction, minimal medical involvement and certainly no cesarean section. Every pregnant woman is encouraged to write a birth plan with her midwife, which includes the desired location of birth, medical interventions mom would agree to, the role a partner is to have (cutting the cord, for example), and forms of acceptable pain relief.

Making it more likely that U.K. women get the kind of delivery they want is due to the influence of midwives. The NHS employs over 21,000 midwives, compared with 4,710 OB-GYNs. Unlike obstetric nurses in the U.S., midwives in Britain do not work under the auspices of obstetricians. Midwives are independent practitioners in their own right, but trained to recognize when a woman or her baby is in trouble and needs an obstetrician’s eye.

“A midwife looks at a pregnant woman and sees a beautiful, normal, physiological, wonderful event about to happen,” Oxford’s Sally Collins told me. “An obstetrician looks at a pregnant woman and sees a disaster lying in wait for them. If you’ve got these two healthcare professionals working together as a team and meeting in the middle, what you end up with is really good healthcare. The normal women are normalized and the high-risk women are medicalized.”


Thirty-five weeks pregnant to the day, Helen was at home in the twins’ new jungle-themed nursery. Her induction date was over a fortnight away, but she was already hanging up the tiny clothes handed down from her nieces.

At 4:30 p.m., the phone rang. The line was crackly, as usual in her rural neighborhood, but she could just make out the voice of a midwife at the other end.

“Your urine reading is not good, the protein level is very high. You need to come in.”

Helen had a doctor’s appointment the following morning and suggested she could talk through the results then.

“No, you need to come now.”

Hearts racing, Helen and Marcus drove the 40 minutes to West Suffolk Hospital, forgetting their pregnancy notes in the rush. On arrival, the midwife repeated the urine test, which showed 370 mL/deciliter of protein, or more than 12 times the normal level. Helen’s blood pressure was up, too, exacerbated by anxiety. Another midwife strapped a fetal heart monitor around Helen’s large bump: 138 and 125 per minute, both babies beating perfectly normally, oblivious to what was about to happen.

Helen’s preeclampsia had worsened rapidly. In line with NICE protocol, the obstetrician-on-call decided that immediate induction and delivery was imperative.

Helen was given a steroid shot to accelerate the babies’ lung development over those final hours. Entering the world five weeks early, the twins might struggle to breathe unassisted.

It was the end of a weeklong heatwave in the U.K. with temperatures over 90 degrees, the hottest June days in 40 years. Helen settled into a six-bed bay on ward F11 for the night. The window safety catches opened less than a hand’s breadth and there was no air conditioning. Three other women were on the ward, too, separated by disposable fabric curtains.

“They’re going through their own experiences and you don’t really want to share that, but because they’re next to you, you do,” Helen told me later. Two were moved to the labor suite in the early hours as their deliveries progressed, while the remaining woman endured the first stages of labor that night, gasping with each contraction.

The next morning I met Helen for the first time. Wearing a loose jersey dress, she was propped up in bed to ease her back pain, with her legs stretched out, shiny and swollen as though a needle might pop them. She had made herself at home, unpacking her pregnancy kit: a half-liter bottle of Gaviscon antacid, a large tangerine-colored birthing ball, “To Kill a Mockingbird”, cereal bars, and “What to Expect When You’re Expecting,” the American pregnancy Bible. As 3 milliliters of prostaglandin hormone were infused through a pessary (a ring-shape device which sits in the vagina and delivers medication to start the contractions), Marcus fell asleep in the chair beside her.

After 24 hours in the hospital and three pessaries, not much was happening. Helen’s Bishop’s score was five, meaning that her cervix was still too narrow for delivery. “I had some period cramps and a little bit of back ache,” Helen said, “but I’m meant to be having full-on contractions, and there was just nothing, which I really wasn’t expecting.”

It was agreed that the next day an obstetrician would break Helen’s waters. “It sounds like a hook,” Helen recalled. “You have to have your legs up in stirrups and then they literally find where the cervix is and tear [the membranes], which was incredibly painful,” so bad that she had to be on a painkiller, nitrous oxide, known as “gas and air.” A syntocinon drip was started at 6 milliliters per hour to coax the uterus toward delivery. Helen was allocated her own midwife for the day, and was pleased that this woman “was totally focused on us.”

After examining Helen’s cervix, still far from the 10-centimeter dilation needed for active labor, the obstetrician increased the drip. This happened four times over the course of the day.

“I got more and more disheartened because I was really set on a vaginal birth and it all being as natural as possible,” said Helen. After eight hours, she had reached 60 milliliters per hour, the recommended maximum amount. The obstetrician agreed to go one dose higher. Without saying a word, she seemed to understand how much Helen wanted to avoid surgery.

During the last half hour on the drip, Helen anxiously searched the U.K. parenting website Mumsnet on her phone to see what other women had done in her situation. “I thought, could I just leave it and go another day and see what happens?” But with her waters already broken, the risk of infection was too high.

By 10 p.m., Helen was exhausted. Other than a hurried slice of toast and jam for breakfast, she hadn’t eaten all day. “It was definitely my decision to say I’ve had enough of being on the drip, it’s not working and I can feel it’s not working.”

The obstetrician nodded.

“We’re going to have to do a C-section.”

For Helen, this felt like a failure.


NHS doctors and midwives are working together to reduce the number of cesarean sections in the U.K. C-sections are one of the most common operations in the world (and the most common inpatient surgery in the U.S.), but far from all of them are necessary. Incidence of surgical births has been steadily rising – from one in 10 births 30 years ago, to almost one in four today. For the U.S., this number is even higher: one in three pregnancies end in a C-section.

Most are emergency procedures, but too many are elective. The World Health Organization suggests that an “ideal rate” of C-sections is 10 to 15 percent of total births, which would maximize survival of mothers and babies without causing needless complications.

In the U.K., many hospitals are seeking to reduce the number of C-sections that are requested by patients but are not medically indicated. The NHS supports vaginal delivery for even complicated presentations, sometimes when the baby is in the breech position (head uppermost), commonly for twin deliveries and often after a mother has had a prior C-section (known as vaginal births after cesarean, or VBACs). Counseling and individualized birth plans have enabled skeptical women to choose a vaginal delivery tailored to their needs rather than default to surgery.

Why Giving Birth is Safer in Britain Than in the U.S.

The U.S. and the U.K. used to have the same rate of women dying in pregnancy and childbirth. Now, Britain’s is almost three times lower. Here’s what they’re doing right.

Besides the immediate dangers, including postpartum hemorrhage and infection, C-sections increase the risk of problems in subsequent pregnancies. The placenta is more likely to embed on an old cesarean scar, where the uterus is thinner, and sometimes invades the uterine muscle, which can cause serious organ damage or even death.

NICE states that women should have the right to choose a C-section, but many hospitals in the U.K. are extremely reluctant to perform them unless strictly necessary or if the woman is diagnosed by a psychiatrist to have tokophobia, a fear of childbirth.

Jac Reeve, an attending obstetrician and gynecologist at West Suffolk Hospital, said she’s “very anti” performing C-sections simply because a patient wants one. “I take the ‘first do no harm’ principle as fundamental,” she said. “For me, cutting someone open when there is no need to is first doing harm.”

Nevertheless, when options for a vaginal birth have been exhausted or deemed unsafe, emergency cesareans can be the only choice for mom and baby. That was Helen’s situation.


On Sunday night at 10:30 p.m., Helen was prepped for surgery. The anesthesiologist, obstetrician and a midwife each carefully explained to Helen every stage of what was about to happen and she consented.

“I was petrified,” she recalled. “I probably looked very calm. I’m almost glad it happened that quickly, because if I’d have had time to sit and think about it, I’d have felt even more scared.”

She perched on the edge of the operating table in the blue backless gown she had worn all day, not resisting as an IV drip was placed in her arm. She leaned forward as the injected local anesthetic tingled her lower spine before the larger epidural needle went in. The anesthesiologist tapped her thighs to test the numbness as it spread. He touched an ice cube to Helen’s leg, then over her tummy, asking if she could feel its chill.

A surgical drape was hoisted, dividing the intimacy of expectant parenthood from the business of surgery. At Helen’s side sat Marcus, togged in navy scrubs, a yellow cap and disposable booties. “I look like a doctor now,” he said. Three senior midwives stood around the couple, soothing them with jokes and stories.

“This is going to feel like someone washing up in your stomach,” said the obstetrician. Scalpel to skin at 11:53 p.m. “I don’t know why, but I kept waiting for the knife to go in,” Helen remembered. “Obviously, I wouldn’t have been able to feel that. It was only then that I felt this rummaging sensation. They’re in!”

One of the midwives leaned firmly on Helen’s stomach to push the twins towards the incision. Even though she hadn’t been allowed to eat before surgery, Helen was sick four times, and felt relief only after a shot of anti-nausea medication.

Helen listened to her son and daughter before she saw them, relieved that their lungs were strong enough to cry. Those first screams in stereo were the happiest sounds of her life. It took 15 minutes until she finally held them, one in the nook of each arm, just 5 pounds, 1 ounce, and 5 pounds, 6 ounces, swaddled and topped in pink and cream knitted hats. Helen stroked a spot of milky vernix from her son’s cheek. Marcus took a picture on his iPad.

“It’s strange, because I look at the photos now,” Helen said, “I’m cuddling these two babies, and I think to myself, ‘I was bleeding out at that point.’”


It was an emergency landing, but everyone survived. Pilots learn early in their training that every descent is a calculated crash, nothing less. The same is true for obstetricians.

For Helen, the post-op hours passed in a haze. “I may have slept slightly. I remember being checked on a lot, and they’d ask me if I could feel my legs yet, and I couldn’t,” she recalled. “They were monitoring my blood pressure the whole time, and they’d come in and take readings every so often.”

The obstetrician who performed the C-section visited Helen the next morning on her rounds. “You had me really worried there,” she said, her poker face breaking into a smile.

A midwife arrived to ask Helen if she wanted to express colostrum, the first milk, for the twins in NICU. “It was just what I needed really because I felt slightly disconnected because they weren’t with me,” Helen said. “By doing that, I felt like I was helping.”

Another midwife came to check Helen’s pain level. Halfway out the door, she turned back, “You don’t look like someone who’s lost three liters of blood.”

An hour later, when I went to see Helen, she told me about the midwife’s comment. I had to agree. Helen struck me as animated, even vibrant, showing few signs of the physical and emotional strains of the past 24 hours. I thought to myself: “How should someone look who for 12 years has longed for a baby, and then gets two?”


Contrary to what some obstetricians still believe, delivery does not always cure preeclampsia. Its course is variable, with the potential for devastating outcomes post-partum. Helen was offered a transfusion two days later to recover some much-needed energy after the hemorrhage. “My first reaction was, ‘No, I don’t want any more medical intervention’,” she said, but after talking to her sister-in-law, who had also suffered a hemorrhage with her first baby, Helen changed her mind. Although she felt somewhat better after the transfusion, her blood pressure remained stubbornly high, peaking at 177/97 three days after the birth. She was prescribed a drug to help prevent these spikes, which she would continue to take for several weeks.

On July 4, after 11 days of recovery and care, mother and babies left the hospital, finally free.

In both the U.K. and the U.S., the demographics of maternity are changing. Women tend to delay motherhood to an older age, and obesity and pre-existing conditions like diabetes are more common. Despite the associated rise in high-risk pregnancies, the U.K. government set an ambitious goal in 2015: to reduce maternal mortality by a further 20 percent before 2020, and 50 percent by 2030. MBRRACE is expanding its mission, to learn from near-misses as well as fatalities, morbidity as well as mortality. The U.K. Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) is part of this effort, and sends out monthly forms to hospitals nationwide asking about recent cases of specific severe maternal morbidity. It is not mandatory for clinicians to reply; nevertheless, 93 percent of the cards are returned with information.

U.K. maternity services, though, face a looming crisis. One in three midwives in England is now in his or her fifties or sixties — a “retirement time-bomb,” according to an October 2015 report by the Royal College of Midwives. Funding for training has been cut, and pay has been frozen. Diminished numbers of practitioners are entering and staying in the profession, while total births rose by 10,000 last year. Currently there are 3,500 fewer full-time midwives in England than required for the volume of work. This, as well as a shortage of beds, forced 40 percent of maternity units to close temporarily at least once in 2016.

“The single biggest thing we can do in the U.K. to improve obstetric care is to value our midwives,” Collins said. “Not just train more but retain the quality we have got. We are losing them like a hemorrhage, and it’s desperately sad.”


The heaviest things Helen picks up these days are the babies. Resuming her old habit, she incessantly Googles the significance of each of their new sounds and gestures.

In the U.S., new mothers are usually sent home with only their family and friends for support. While the newborn is supposed to see the pediatrician early and often, the mom typically doesn’t see her doctor for a follow-up for four to six weeks, which can delay recognition of postpartum depression and other serious problems.

In Helen’s case, a community midwife and a “health visitor” (an NHS professional who takes over fully from the midwife two weeks postpartum if everything is going well) dropped in the day after she and the twins arrived home. In the first two weeks after discharge, every woman in the U.K. should receive four visits, or more if either mom or baby is having problems. There is also a 24-hour obstetric triage helpline that new mothers can call with any concerns.

When I visited Helen one recent sunny morning, she sat in her living room, the music from the mobile on the babies’ downstairs crib tinkling in the background. “It’s funny how naïve I was,” she told me, remembering her pre-birth expectations that feeding twins at the same time would be a breeze. “It’s really tricky!” Like an athlete, she’s tested different techniques with the help of her coaches, the neonatal nurse and lactation consultant, both NHS employees who help with premature babies and suckling difficulties. In bed, surrounded by a dam of pillows, two pairs of blue eyes staring up at her, Helen likes to tuck each baby under an arm and support their heads in her hands, known as the “rugby ball hold.” After feeding, brother and sister fall asleep in a star pose, arms stretched up and heads together. The health visitor told Helen it’s a sign of contentment.

There is barely a minute in the day for Helen to worry about her own recovery. If she does, the twins are on her mind: “I do need to be healthy, I do need to get a certain amount of sleep because otherwise I’m no good to these babies. It’s always in terms of, am I going to be strong enough to look after them?” Marcus spends time with his son and daughter after work in the evenings so Helen can get some rest, and the babies’ grandparents are regular visitors.

Luckily, the healthcare team is keeping an eye on mom. “I didn’t have to be too worried, because they were being overly cautious for me,” Helen said. The midwife suggested compression stockings to guard against clots. Helen’s scar will be troublesome for a while longer, but there has been no infection or bleeding, and driving is now possible. She can see her anklebones again. Her latest blood pressure is within the normal range, and she is due to come off the tablets in several days.

At the six-week appointment in the local clinic, the babies are on track with their weight — in fact they’re “thriving.” It's the word all mothers are relieved to hear. The health visitor laid the twins down, turning her full attention to the other person in the room. Any pain, exhaustion, sadness, bleeding, anxiety, headaches, dizziness?

She starts with a simple question:

“So, Helen, how are you?”

Kate Womersley is a graduate medical student in her final year at the University of Cambridge.

Nina Martin of ProPublica contributed to this article.

At Last, Air Monitor Set to Test for Lead Near Military Open Burn Site

$
0
0

Virginia environment officials say they will soon begin monitoring the air near a public elementary school outside the town of Radford amid concerns that pollution from an Army weapons plant there is endangering people’s health.

For the first time in the more than 65 years since the facility, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, began burning hazardous explosives and other waste without environmental controls, the monitoring will measure how much lead reaches the surrounding community. Officials may add the capability to measure arsenic, chromium and other pollutants as well.

In July, ProPublica reported that open burning of hazardous waste was standard practice at U.S. military facilities despite the fact it has been banned by law for years at almost every other type of industrial operation. The Radford plant is just one of at least 51 military sites across the country where dangerous materials are burned on a regular basis, according to documents obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and reported by ProPublica.

The Department of Defense and environmental regulators have insisted that the burns are safe, but those assurances have relied on computer models to estimate the pollution and officials had never measured the actual emissions — either at the burn sites within the boundaries of the military bases, or in the surrounding civilian residential areas.

According to the federal toxic release inventory, the Radford plant is the single largest polluter in Virginia, responsible for millions of pounds of toxic chemicals every year. Some who live near Radford fear that the pollution has contributed to poor health in the region, including unusually high rates of thyroid disease and elevated rates of cancer in the surrounding counties.

But the health links have never been studied and no measures have ever been taken of the reach of the actual pollution from the plant.

Earlier this month, a draft EPA report obtained by ProPublica showed that the first tests of the burn pollution taken by Army officials inside the plant detected higher levels of some pollutants than previous computer models had estimated. Arsenic was emitted at rates 37 times greater than what federal officials had previously estimated when determining the burns were safe for public health. Lead — dangerous to children’s cognitive development — was emitted at five times the level estimated to be safe. Cadmium, silver and methyl chloride also exceeded previous estimates.

The new air monitor will be purchased by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, with a grant from the EPA, and will cost $26,000. It will mainly detect lead levels, but a DEQ spokesman says arsenic and chromium may also be part of the monitoring.

According to the spokesman, the monitor’s installation has been planned since the spring, and is unrelated to ProPublica’s reporting about the open burn practices in Radford. The monitor is being installed to comply with new EPA guidelines requiring monitoring for facilities that are known to emit lead in excess of new federal ambient air quality standards proposed by the EPA in 2015. In numerous interviews with the agency’s staff over the past four months, plans to install the monitor were never mentioned.

Once in place, the monitor could provide the first concrete answers for a region that has been seeking them more than a half a century. DEQ officials could not say when the monitor would begin operating or how soon its findings would be available to the public.

Lifting the Veil on Another Batch of Shadowy Trump Appointees

$
0
0

President Donald Trump has left hundreds of government jobs unfilled that require a vote by the Senate. Yet his administration has installed more than 1,000 people through political appointments at every major federal agency, handing over control of the government’s day-to-day operations to industry insiders and loyalists to an unprecedented degree.

Among the latest Trump administration appointees is a lobbyist who until March worked for a leading hepatitis C drugmaker that priced its treatment at $1,000 a pill and is now leading a White House working group setting drug pricing policies. The list includes the new head of the government’s offshore oil drilling safety and enforcement agency, who previously sat on the board of Sunoco Logistics and who told an industry conference earlier this month that deepwater drilling should ramp up. Then there’s the Hollywood actor who has called global warming and climate change a “leftist political tool” and “not sound science” on Twitter and who is now the communications director at the Department of Health and Human Services. Finally, this group also includes the 80-year-old retired chief legal officer of Morgan Stanley, who once told government lawyers he was “going to kick your ass” and is now a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department’s antitrust division, overseeing litigation while his boss awaits Senate confirmation. (At the time, Kempf denied using the expletive in exactly those terms.)

These political appointees, some of them members of what have been dubbed “beachhead teams” during the presidential transition, and others who are now permanent employees, don’t need Senate confirmation. Many of them have operated in the shadows and the White House has declined to publicly reveal their identities. Some political appointees, such as Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s chief of staff, Wendy Teramoto, were initially hired as special government employees, or SGEs. They are brought on as temporary advisers and don’t face the same rules that other federal employees do. But Teramoto and others have stuck around, and been promoted to permanent jobs. The administration reveals virtually nothing about this category of staffers.

“As long as you know who to call, they are more than willing to work with ‘industry,’” said Scott Mason, a Trump campaign veteran who’s now a lobbyist with Holland & Knight. “The swamp continues as the ecosystem it has always been, advocating on behalf of Americans who are all represented in one way or another by an interest group.”

We now have a full list from the Office of Personnel Management, the federal government’s human resources department, and it counts more than 1,000 political appointments since Trump took office on Jan. 20. The 1,000 include some 400 that ProPublica first revealed in March, and another 140 that were added in subsequent updates. We found that of the roughly 500 new appointees on our list, at least 61 have been registered lobbyists at the federal level. (This is likely an undercount since it does not include those who have not registered or who worked solely on the state level.)

We found at least 44 people who have been rehired for second stints in the same government jobs after their initial terms expired. Another 194 people have been given new jobs after their initial beachhead terms.

“The pool of ‘Trump Republicans’ was small so that they had to go to regular Republicans, a lot of whom worked for the Bush administration,” said Ivan Adler, a lobbying headhunter with the McCormick Group. “And there happen to be a lot of lobbyists among that group.”

We’re still sorting through the new names and we want your help. If you have tips or want to flag someone for us, email beachhead@propublica.org.

“What’s unusual is the size and scope of these teams,” said Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, which advises both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations on transitions. “The normal process in filling your political team is going from the campaign to the transition team to a political appointment. The cabinet picks manage all of this. But without them, the beachhead teams have been in charge. It’s added a whole other level of confusion to an already difficult process.”

It has also added a layer of shadows, said Jeff Hauser, who runs the Revolving Door Project at the D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. “These are political appointees who are subjected to much less scrutiny than if they went through the Senate-confirmed process,” he said. “And these special employees, many of whom are on short stints and go back to regulated industries, are not answerable to anyone except the White House. It’s an outsourcing of government.”

Dozens of original beachhead team members have left government altogether, with several returning to lobbying or other industry-advocacy work. Donald Schnare, a lawyer and longtime critic of the EPA named to that agency’s beachhead team in December, resigned in March after infighting between political appointees and the hand-picked staff of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt boiled over. Schnare told ProPublica that nearly every member of the Trump administration beachhead team at the EPA were refused permanent jobs by Pruitt.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is lagging in nominating key leaders to government jobs that require a vote of the Senate. As of the August congressional recess, the Trump administration has nominated 277 people for Senate confirmation and just 44 percent have been confirmed, according to the Partnership for Public Service. By comparison, the previous four presidential administrations — those of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush — had nominated at least 315 people by the August recess and had their picks confirmed at rates above 60 percent at that point in the process.

To fill the gaps, the White House placed at least 18 “senior White House advisers” at federal agencies, to act as the administration’s eyes and ears. Many were Trump campaign staffers and loyalists with little to no government experience and they publicly clashed with several of Trump’s top Cabinet picks, including Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin and Transportation secretary Elaine Chao.

Staffing records show that at least 11 of these advisers have left their original jobs or departed the government. (Several advisers, such as Paula Stannard at Health and Human Services, Mary Anne Bradfield at the Small Business Administration and Maren Kasper at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, were promoted to permanent positions.)

But seven still remain, including Sam Clovis, a former radio host whose nomination as the Agriculture Department’s chief scientist is pending. (Clovis has attracted press scrutiny for, among other statements, his assertions that he is “extremely skeptical” about climate change.)

Here are a few Trump political appointees we’ve found:

  • Joe Grogan, an associate director for health programs at the Office of Management and Budget, most recently worked as a lobbyist for Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that has been accused of price-gouging in its sales of a novel hepatitis C treatment. Since his appointment, Grogan has taken a leading role in a White House working group on drug pricing policies. As reported by Kaiser Health News, internal documents from the working group show that, despite vows by President Trump to lower the price of medications, Grogan’s team is pushing pharma-friendly policies, such as extending a drug’s patent time in foreign markets. Grogan and the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for comment.
  • Donald G. Kempf Jr., a hard-nosed attorney and former Marine who spent 35 years at Kirkland & Ellis and another six years as chief counsel at Morgan Stanley. He was personally recruited by incoming Deputy Attorney General Makan Delrahim, whose nomination has languished without a vote since March. As to why he came out of a 12-year retirement, Kempf told ProPublica that “my country has been very good to me” and that he “welcomed the responsibility.” Kempf had a storied career, often representing corporations in antitrust and mergers and acquisitions litigation at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis. But during his tenure at Morgan Stanley, the bank suffered a series of legal defeats and regulatory fines before his retirement from the organization in 2005.
  • Brad Bailey is the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, focusing on tax and the budget, at the Department of the Treasury. Before his new role he was a registered lobbyist for O’Rourke and Nappi where one of his clients was H&R Block. As ProPublica has reported, H&R Block has been fighting to stop a free government tax filing system for years that would make the company obsolete. As recent as April, Bailey was one of the people lobbying on behalf of H&R Block. In response to questions, the Treasury Department said in a statement: “Treasury’s ethics officials work with agency personnel to address and mitigate potential conflicts if and when they arise.”
  • Scott Angelle is the director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the agency that oversees safety for offshore oil and gas drilling. He served as Louisiana’s secretary of natural resources from 2004 to 2012, and was appointed interim lieutenant governor from May to November 2010. During that time, Angelle helped lead a successful effort to bring an early end to the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling that was imposed after the April 2010 BP oil spill. Before joining the Trump administration, Angelle spent several years on Louisiana’s Public Service Commission, where his position on the board of Sunoco Logistics Partners, an oil pipeline company — for which he received $989,238 — raised conflict of interest concerns. (Angelle denied any conflicts at the time.) Sunoco Logistics merged with Energy Transfer Partners, the developer of the Dakota Access pipeline, in April. Angelle spoke at an industry conference this month where he encouraged oil and gas companies to drill deepwater wells. Angelle did not respond to requests for comment.
  • Charles Faulkner, who was appointed deputy assistant secretary of state on June 11, left BGR Government Affairs, a D.C. lobbyist firm, where he had been a lobbyist for several foreign governments. His client list included the Kazakh embassy, for which he provided political consulting and arranged meetings between U.S. and Kazakh government officials. He also advised the Kurdistan Regional Government, a semiautonomous part of Iraq that often has tense relations with Baghdad, as well as neighboring Syria, Turkey and Iran. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
  • Until March, Wendy Teramoto was a managing director at Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s former investment firm, WL Ross & Co., and held board positions on several Ross-connected corporations, including the Greenbrier Companies, an Oregon supplier of railroad equipment. Teramoto took a job as a part-time special government employee at the Commerce Department, as an adviser to Ross, in mid-March. Commerce Department officials said that between March and August, Teramoto “resigned from all outside non-federal positions” and signed an ethics pledge but she did not become a full-fledged government employee, subject to ethics requirements, until Aug. 1, when she was appointed Ross’s chief of staff. In a statement, the Commerce Department said Teramoto is “subject to the same disqualification requirements under conflict of interest statutes as the Secretary and other federal employees.”
  • As assistant secretary for border, immigration and trade policy at the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Dougherty could be in a position to benefit his former employer. Dougherty was previously CEO of the Identification Technology Association, a trade group for companies that sell biometric and cybersecurity technologies for borders, law enforcement and emergency management. Before that, he worked for the Raytheon unit that sells products and services to U.S. law enforcement agencies. Dougherty is careful to comply with ethics rules and keep his government work separate from his past employment, according to his successor at the trade group, Jason Conley. “Where members have tried to reach out, he’s been appropriately nonresponsive,” Conley said. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said it provides ethics training to all political appointees and reviews any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Mark Vafiades, a Hollywood actor (best known for roles in “An American Carol” and “Vengeance Trail,” according to his IMDB listing) is now communications director at Health and Human Services. Vafiades has been particularly vocal on social media, calling global warming and climate change a “leftist political tool” and “not sound science!” and advancing claims of voter fraud in his home state of California. The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment.
  • Emily McBride, a former aide to Jeff Sessions when he was a senator, and then an assistant in the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs, in June became a special assistant to the head of the General Services Administration. The GSA leases the building housing Trump’s Washington hotel, which ethics experts say is a conflict of interest because the president is effectively both tenant and landlord. The GSA has already concluded that Trump’s ascension to president didn’t violate his lease (despite the opinion of some legal experts), but the agency is still responsible for ongoing review of the hotel’s finances. A GSA spokesman said McBride won’t participate in the oversight of Trump’s hotel.
  • Adam Kissel, who joined the Department of Education as deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, has spent the past five years at the Charles Koch Foundation, working on higher education projects. The foundation has faced scrutiny for donating millions to colleges and universities around the country, including to academic institutes focused on “market-oriented ideas” and “the practice and potentials of freedom.” Before his role at the Charles Koch Foundation, Kissel worked at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where he was a prominent critic of the Obama Administration’s approach to investigating sexual violence on campus. Kissel and the Education Department did not respond to requests for comment.
  • Jonathan Galaviz was hired as an adviser at the State Department's Office of Security, Democracy and Human Rights, on June 11. He has consulted for foreign governments, including Russian state-run investment firms, helping with a host of gaming industry issues. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
  • Alexander Fitzsimmons was appointed chief of staff and senior adviser at the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. He came to government from the advocacy group American Energy Alliance and Fueling U.S. Forward, a public relations group supporting fossil fuels. Both organizations are backed by Koch Industries and they called for the elimination of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in 2015.

Al Shaw, Annie Waldman, Lisa Song and Lylla Younes contributed to this report.

Will Trump Kill the Dream for These Immigrants?

$
0
0

Marco Guajardo starts a new job today that, he said, will provide him with health insurance for the first time. Matias Zubko is set to close on a new house on Wednesday. Roberto Angulo is hoping for a promotion at the electrical company that employs him as he nears his first anniversary there.

All three of them, immigrants in their 20s, now fear those prospects could vaporize in a matter of days. Guajardo, Angulo and Zubko were all brought to the U.S. illegally as children, yet since 2012 they’ve been able to work legally, get access to credit, obtain drivers’ licenses, buy houses and travel around the country. In short, they could achieve a semblance of a normal life.

Now, they may lose their jobs and face deportation.

The Trump administration seems poised to eliminate the immigration program on which the three men have depended. Called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program has allowed almost 800,000 young immigrants to receive renewable work permits. But as an executive order from President Barack Obama — announced after his administration’s failure to pass the DREAM Act, which would’ve enshrined the protections in law — it can be reversed with the swipe of a presidential pen.

Trump has shown some hesitation to undo the order, expressing sympathy for those protected by it. But a group of state attorneys general, who view the program as an example of illegal executive overreach, have given him an ultimatum: End DACA by Tuesday or defend it before a judge who blocked a similar program in 2014 that would have protected undocumented parents.

An announcement could come as soon as today. Trump could cancel all of DACA’s provisions on the spot, though a February draft order that circulated in the administration suggests he may phase out the program in stages. Under that plan, 1,000 immigrants a day would lose their work authorizations and deportation protections until none are left.

ProPublica spoke on Thursday with more than a dozen people helped by DACA whose work permits expire as soon as a month from today and as far out as August 2019. They expressed a combination of dread and uncertainty, describing plans aborted, a terror of deportation they hadn’t felt in years, and anxiety that their lives are about to be upended.

The potential change is forcing them to make decisions they didn’t expect to have to make. “Should we buy this house?” asked Zubko, a 28-year-old Argentinian whose wife is also protected by DACA, of the purchase he was about to make. “We got a loan,” he said. “We both have good paying jobs. And last year we had a baby and she’s an American citizen. But if DACA gets taken away, we’re not sure we’d be able to close on the house and that’s scary.”

Such concerns are widespread. Two immigrants said they’re frightened that losing their jobs means their homes will be taken away in foreclosures. One said she didn’t know whether to renew her lease. Another said she would drop out of school: Why study to be a teacher if no one will be able to employ you?

“I don’t know what would happen to my 401(k) or my taxes or my lease,” said Nathali Bertran, an engineer in Honda’s research and development division. A native of Peru, Bertran helped create DACA Time, a website that allows immigrants to prepare their applications digitally.

As for Angulo, the man nearing his one-year anniversary at the electrical company, his work permit expires on October 6. Angulo renewed his Mexican passport last week — just in case. On Wednesday, he emailed his company’s human resources department wondering if they could sponsor him for an employment visa. He hasn’t heard back yet.

“It feels like I just went from being able to look at the stars and shoot for them to all of a sudden getting dragged down,” he said, “like if someone put cement blocks on your feet.”

For Guajardo’s part, his new job — and his health insurance — may turn out to be temporary. Before DACA was implemented, he lived near the Mexican border and had never left his town, scared of what would happen if he encountered one of the dozens of immigration checkpoints that the Border Patrol operates along the border.

“Now I’ve traveled all around the country,” he said. “DACA changed my life completely, from being stuck in a little town, to going to my favorite university, to getting a great job and exploring new places.”

When DACA was created in 2012, only four states allowed undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, and that list didn’t include Texas or California, where the majority of DACA recipients live.

“To have a driver’s license is a tremendous thing,” said Ken Schmitt, an immigration lawyer who has helped file hundreds of DACA applications. “In the past, one way ICE got people into removal proceedings was after they were pulled over by police,” he said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They would arrest them for driving without a license and then turn them over to ICE.”

Barclay’s livelihood depends on his commercial driver’s license. A 25-year-old immigrant from Guyana, he drives a truck in New York, where, should he lose his legal status, he would no longer be eligible for a license.

“The only thing that I can do now is honestly to work as much as I can, basically get no sleep until that day,” Barclay said. “Once my work permit expires, I still have to pay rent, eat and live and that money won’t be building anymore, just depleting every single day. I can’t even fathom this right now.”

Applying for DACA costs $485 every two years, excluding attorney fees. At any given moment, there are around 100,000 applications and renewals pending, according to statistics from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers the program. Steve Blando, a USCIS spokesman said on Thursday evening the agency was still accepting and processing DACA applications.

Carlos Garcia is worried not only about losing his job but also that the government will try to deport him and his wife, who is not shielded by DACA. His work permit expires on Dec. 3 and his renewal is pending. After obtaining DACA privileges, he had started a job as an IT help desk technician and moved up to become a server administrator.

“No matter what the administration says, it’s open season on immigrants now,” Garcia said. “It’s easy to find us.”

DACA applicants feel particularly nervous because applying for the program meant they voluntarily revealed information to the government, including where they live. They also submit new portrait photographs of themselves every two years and provide details such as their height, weight, and eye and hair colors. A large number have also provided copies of their birth certificates, which identify their parents by name.

Alan Torres, a 31-year-old Mexican immigrant, experienced firsthand what happens when DACA protections lapse. A few years ago, his new work permit did not arrive before his old one expired. His company told him he’d have to take a leave of absence.

Indeed, Torres’s career wouldn’t have been possible without the program. He has a degree in information systems but when he started college he thought he might never be able to work in his field. Said Torres: “If I had graduated without DACA I would still be working in the restaurant industry.”

Viewing all 8198 articles
Browse latest View live