

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Michael Briggs: (202) 228-6492
As the world enters the third year of the coronavirus pandemic, with Omicron surging and cases skyrocketing, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Wednesday, with more than 50 of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate and House, reintroduced lifesaving legislation to manufacture and distribute highly-protective N95 masks to every person in America.
Under Sanders' Masks for All Act - first introduced in 2020 and developed in consultation with health experts including Andy Slavitt, former COVID-19 advisor to President Biden and the former Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President Obama - every person in the U.S. would receive a free package of three N95 respirator masks. This includes individuals who are experiencing homelessness or living in group settings such as prisons, shelters, college dorms, and assisted living facilities, as well as all workers in health settings, from administrative and janitorial, to food service, doctors, and nurses.
Fifteen senators co-sponsored Sanders' Masks for All Act including, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Reps. Ro Khanna (CA-17), Lori Trahan (MA-03), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12) are co-leading the legislation in the House, with more than 30 additional cosponsors.
"As we face the rapidly spreading omicron variant, we should remember that not all face masks are created equal," said Sen. Sanders. "Congress must demand the mass production and distribution of N95 masks, one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of the Covid virus. It is an absolute scandal that in the richest country in the history of the world, high-quality masks are not more readily available to frontline workers, health care workers, and all Americans. We are proposing that we do what our public health experts and scientists say we must do: provide all of our people with high-quality, N95 masks without cost, which could prevent death and suffering and save huge amounts of health care dollars."
"This is a crisis and our response must meet the moment. If we can afford a $778 billion defense budget, we can afford to send N95 masks to every American to keep people safe as Omicron cases spike," said Rep. Khanna. "The science is clear: while surgical and high-quality reusable face masks have been effective for preventing the spread of past COVID-19 variants, N95 masks provide maximum protection against the Omicron variant and are necessary at this stage of the pandemic. We can save tens of thousands of lives by simply making the equipment people need free and easily accessible. If we're asking folks to wear a mask, it's on us to provide one."
"Masks save lives. As we face highly contagious coronavirus variants, it's absolutely critical that every American has access to high-quality, protective N95 and KN95 masks to keep themselves and their loved ones safe," said Congresswoman Trahan. "I'm proud to join my colleagues in pushing for this critical, commonsense legislation to ensure all Americans have the best opportunity possible to protect their health."
"We're facing the most contagious COVID variant yet and everyone needs access to the best protection available," said Rep. Watson Coleman. "Along with vaccines and testing, N95 masks are one of the best tools we have for curbing the spread of the virus. The Masks for All Act will ensure that all Americans, regardless of income level, have the resources to keep themselves, their families, and their neighbors safe."
This legislation would require the federal government to use all available authorities, including the Defense Production Act, to eliminate shortages of N95 respirator masks and distribute them to the public as soon as possible. The proposal would use the United States Postal Service for distribution and set up pick-up sites at convenient community locations that are already providing essential services, such as Post Offices, pharmacies, schools, public transportation stations, and COVID-19 testing sites. It would also end the U.S. reliance on China and other countries for this essential lifesaving equipment.
According to recent reports, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering updating its mask guidance to recommend N95 or KN95 masks. When the CDC initially issued mask guidance in 2020, N95 masks were reportedly not recommended for the general public out of concern for shortages for health care workers. Health officials now say there is not a N95 shortage. However, counterfeit masks and general access remain an issue, for the public and in hospitals and health care facilities around the country.
Studies have shown that the widespread use of face masks could prevent tens of thousands of COVID-19 deaths, while other studies indicate universal mask wearing could save the U.S. economy $1 trillion. Today, the benefits of widespread N95 use would be even greater. According to recent data, an N95 respirator mask provides the individual wearer with at least 2.5 hours of protection against an unmasked person infected with the Omicron variant, compared to just 20 minutes of protection if they are wearing a cloth mask or 30 minutes if they are wearing a surgical mask.
To date, the coronavirus pandemic has infected over 60 million Americans and killed more than 835,000, and just this week the U.S. reported a record-breaking 1.35 million new coronavirus infections in one day - the highest daily total in the world.
In addition to Reps. Watson Coleman, Khanna, and Trahan, more than 30 members of Congress sponsored the legislation in the House, including: Jamaal Bowman (NY-16), Cori Bush (MO-01), Andre Carson (IN-07), Troy A. Carter (LA-02), David Cicilline (RI-01), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-16), Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Debbie Dingell (MI-12), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Sylvia R. Garcia (TX-29), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-02), John Larson (CT-01), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Grace Meng (NY-06), Grace F. Napolitano (CA-32), Marie Newman (IL-03), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Donald M. Payne, Jr. (NJ-10), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-07), Peter Welch (VT-AL), and Nikema Williams (GA-05).
To read a summary of the bill, click here.
To read the text of the bill, click here.
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."