But this Bastille Day reality bit hard. A precarious present overshadows past glory, from blazing wildfires in heat-parched provinces and lingering plague at home to a cruel war raging 2,000 miles to the east. The French, like the rest of us, have no more margin to get the future right.
The parade’s star was the Jaguar, a Star Wars 6-by-6, 26-ton battle wagon “jeep” with a 40mm cannon on a turret, missile launchers and high-tech gadgetry for combat and gathering on-the-spot intelligence for air strikes and advancing infantry.
This year, firefighters and rescue teams marched along with the military. Canadair tankers for dousing flames joined the flyover.
President Emmanuel Macron, looking back, told TV interviewers what had changed since his first Bastille Day in 2017. “We invested little on defense because the threat was minimal. Now we are catching up fast.” He wants to spend $26 billion in coming years to fortify France’s nuclear arsenal, submarine fleet and cyberwar capabilities.
He did not have to detail why the world has since gone so horribly wrong.
Donald Trump was at the parade in 2017 on his first presidential state visit. He watched with palpable envy at the display of national grandeur and what he called “military might.” The draft-dodger president wanted to do the same next July 4. The Pentagon dissuaded him.
By the time Macron returned the visit in April 2018, allies were alarmed. Trump’s “America First” campaign revealed itself as America only, a thuggish leader’s paean to himself. Macron tried a nice-guy approach. Then in a joint address to Congress, he deftly fileted Trump with rapier strokes.
Trump had torpedoed the 2015 Paris accords, prompting others to renege on urgent action against runaway global warming. He trashed the hard-won deal to stop Iran’s headlong rush toward nuclear weapons. His tariffs and deal-making had crippled multilateral trade.
“Isolationism, withdrawal and nationalism are a tempting remedy to our fears,” Macron said, “but closing the door to the world will not stop evolution…” He added: “If we don’t unite…other powers will not wait one second to advocate their own models to shape the 21st century.” The United States invented multilateralism, he said, and now must preserve it and reinvent it.
He condemned “fake news,” with a brief aside crediting Trump for coining the term, but his definition of it was aimed squarely at Republican truth twisters: “The corruption of information is an attempt to corrode the very spirit of democracy.”
He hit hard at climate collapse. “I’m sure that one day the United States will come back and join the Paris Agreement,” he said. “What is the meaning of our own life if we destroy the planet for our children?”
But Trump toadied to Vladmir Putin while calling European allies ungrateful deadbeats. In 2019, Macron pronounced NATO braindead. Trump had tried to extort Volodymyr Zelensky for dirt on Joe Biden. When he got away with it, Putin drew the clear conclusion and doubled down on Ukraine.
And then Covid struck just as Trump was sucking up to Xi Jinping for a trade deal. We all know the rest.
France, like much of the world, moved swiftly from amusement to disbelief and pity, then utter contempt. America’s closest allies hedged their bets with new trade patterns and international agreements that left out the United States.
Today, France is the strongest military force in Europe. Though weakened by National Assembly opposition from the left and the right, Macron is pushing hard to help wean Europe off Russian energy and counter authoritarian movements in the European Union.
But America is the big dog, like it or not. And many Americans these days, obsessed with their own narrow interests, seem to forget that the rest of the world is watching their follies in real time.
Looking back, the irony was bitter in Macron’s 2018 speech. He repeatedly noted the surroundings, a noble Capitol symbolizing values France and America have long shared. “What we cherish is at stake,” he said. “What we love is in danger. We have no choice but to prevail.”
It is easy to imagine his thoughts on Jan. 6 and during relentless, damning testimony to House investigators. If Trump or anyone else who remotely reflects his thinking seizes power, all that “military might” on the Champs-Elysées won’t be nearly enough to save democracy.
In this unprecedented moment in American history we, as progressives, are now engaged in many struggles.
We are trying to save the planet from the ravages of climate change; we’re trying to create an economy that works for all and not just billionaires; we’re trying to defend and improve American democracy against those who are moving us toward authoritarianism; we’re trying to create a public health care system which guarantees health care to all and protects us against future COVID variants; we’re trying to protect a woman’s right to control her own body against a reactionary Supreme Court; and we’re trying to address the horror of increased gun violence. Among many other things.
But, in the midst of all these struggles, we cannot simply remain on the defensive. At a time of obscene income and wealth inequality, outrageous corporate greed, and the growing concentration of oligarchic power, it’s important that we contrast our vision for the future of this country, our values, against those who wish to defend the status quo and our corrupt political and economic systems. In other words, this is not a time for tinkering around the edges. The American people are desperately hungry for a new direction — economically, politically, morally — and we must not be shy about demanding the bold and systemic changes this country needs. We must make it clear that:
Greed is not good. The growing gap between the billionaire class and everyone else is not good. Buying elections is not good. Producing carbon emissions and destroying the planet is not good. Starvation wages and the exploitation of workers are not good. War and excessive military budgets are not good. Making huge profits off of human illness is not good. Charging people the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs is not good. Having a corporate media which limits the scope of public discourse is not good. Monopolization of the economy is not good. Ignoring the needs of the most vulnerable – children, the elderly, and the disabled – is not good. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia are not good.
If we truly wish to make America great, we need to strive for an equitable distribution of both wealth and power. In the richest country in the history of the world we should end austerity economics and use the exploding technology to benefit all, not just the few. We should strive to be a nation that has eliminated poverty and homelessness, and where every worker has a livable income, the right to join a union, and increased influence on the job. We should have a political system which encourages grassroots participation, not one heavily influenced by super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.
We should have the best educational system in the world from childcare to graduate school – accessible to all regardless of income. We should have a high-quality health care system where all people can walk into a doctor’s office without worrying about the cost, because the system is publicly funded. Instead of spending more money on the military than the next ten nations combined, we should lead the world in efforts to eliminate war and climate change.
I do understand that these are difficult times in so many ways, and that many Americans are demoralized and discouraged. But, as I have said many times, despair is not an option. We are fighting not only for ourselves. We are fighting for our kids and future generations, and for the well-being of the planet.
During the next several months I will be traveling around the country doing my best to bring people together in the struggle for economic, racial, social and environmental justice. I hope you will join us at these events and help make them successful.
Biden and other top Democrats mingle among a largely unmasked crowd at the Congressional Picnic at the White House on Tuesday. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
BIPARTISAN DENIAL — We have entered the “See no virus, Hear no virus, Speak no virus” stage of the coronavirus pandemic.
Midway through year three, the denial is pervasive. And it’s no longer coming solely from science-denying, Anthony Fauci-detesting Trump voters. It’s all over the place, including college-educated blue-staters who are weary of the pandemic and have convinced themselves that just because they or their family or their brother-in-law’s colleague didn’t get really sick from Covid, no one will get really sick from Covid.
Yet the BA.5 variant, which looks to be the most adept yet at evading vaccine protection and antibodies from prior infections, is spreading voraciously. “The worst version of the virus” to date, is how Scripps Research virus expert Eric Topol summed it up.
Deaths are mercifully steady, usually running about 300-350 a day (though right now it’s passed 400), but that’s still well over the average U.S. daily death toll of breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. Hospitalizations are creeping up, according to the Johns Hopkins tracker. Positivity rates are climbing. The CDC says that most U.S. wastewater surveillance sites show moderate to high viral levels — with 40 percent hitting the highest level since Omicron snuck up on us last Thanksgiving.
Some medical experts think we may be hitting as many as a million cases a day, though it’s impossible to tell exactly since so many people now rely on at-home rapid tests, if they test at all.
Yet, in a New York Times poll last week of registered voters, less than 1 percent placed the pandemic as their top priority.
“People are tired of the pandemic,” University of Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm told Nightly. “So the way of dealing with it is: ‘We’re done.’”
That leaves us at Nightly feeling like skunks at the garden party — that is, if we had enough friends who didn’t have Covid right now to even have a garden party.
“I already had it,” people tell us. (“YOU CAN GET IT AGAIN — MAYBE IN A MONTH. AND IT MIGHT BE EVEN WORSE,” we want to scream.)
“I’m young and healthy,” they declare. (“BUT THE PERSON STANDING NEXT TO YOUR UNMASKED FACE AT THE GROCERY STORY OR ON THE BUS MAY NOT BE.”)
And when we’re being virus-splained by someone with that particular blend of arrogance and ignorance, we’ve been known to casually drop into conversation, “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT VETERANS’ HEALTH DATA SUGGESTING ELEVATED RISK OF HEART ATTACK AND STROKE AND DIABETES FOR A YEAR AFTER COVID?”
Don’t get us wrong. We’re tired of the pandemic too! And we aren’t saying that things aren’t better. Of course they are, in just about every way we can think of. We go more places and do more things than we did a year ago. We worry less about our older or sicker relatives. We are grateful for the drugs that work, for the shots keeping most of us alive — and the new vaccines in development that might reduce these staggering waves of breakthroughs.
But there’s still plenty of virus to see, hear and speak of. To preserve the progress we’ve made, to keep recovering, we need to dial up our vigilance at certain times. Now is one of those times.
Osterholm said BA.5 is causing a lot more “moderate” disease as opposed to sniffles, sore throats and minor illness. More people are sick — in bed, sick — for two to three weeks. “We don’t see that often with influenza,” he said. “Wherever BA.5 pops up, you can expect to see a major increase in moderately ill people who are going to be off of work, not dealing with life and such for days.”
West Virginia public health commissioner Ayne Amjad told Nightly that health professionals know a surge when they see one — and they are seeing one right now. But in her outreach to West Virginians, she chooses words with care.
“They are tired of hearing about ‘surges.’ It just makes them think about lockdowns and mask mandates,” she explained. She’s trying to help people understand that the virus is here to stay, that it will ebb and flow, and that people can learn to protect themselves when it’s on the rise. She’s still trying to increase her state’s low vaccination rate and raise awareness about paxlovid, a treatment not broadly utilized in her state. She’s keeping an eye on rising hospitalizations that could take the states’ health system to the breaking point all over again. It’s already too close for comfort.
The Biden administration, still juggling its messages of normalcy and vigilance, is watching the BA.5 numbers climb. Health officials are considering recommending a second booster for everyone — not just older people and the immune-compromised. That’s going to require some high-octane messaging to penetrate the virus malaise, given that only one-third of those eligible have gotten their first booster and a third haven’t even gotten the first series of shots. Boosters don’t require people to see or hear the virus — just to roll up their sleeves.
HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ROE BEING OVERTURNED? JOIN WOMEN RULE ON 7/21: Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade , abortion policy is in the hands of the states and, ultimately, voters. Join POLITICO national political correspondent Elena Schneider for a Women Rule “ask me anything” conversation featuring a panel of reporters from our politics and health care teams who will answer your questions about how the court’s decision could play out in different states, its impact on the midterms and what it means for reproductive rights in the U.S. going forward. SUBMIT YOUR QUESTIONS AND REGISTER HERE.
WHAT'D I MISS?
— Milwaukee set to host 2024 Republican National Convention, pending final approval: A GOP site selection panel recommended Milwaukee to host the 2024 RNC today, making the city — which also hosted the (mostly remote) 2020 DNC — a near lock to welcome the Republican presidential nominee, delegates and supporters in two summers. Milwaukee, which beat out Nashville, still has to go through a final approval process during an August meeting of the full Republican National Committee.
— Indiana doc who performed abortion for 10-year-old tells AG to cease and desist:The doctor sent a cease and desist letter to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita on Friday demanding that he stop “making false and misleading statements” about her to the press. An attorney for Caitlin Bernard — the OB-GYN who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape survivor from Ohio whose case grabbed national attention this week — told Rokita that his public threat to criminally prosecute her and his suggestion that she did not report the abortion to the proper state authorities “forms the basis of an actionable defamation claim.”
— Kamala Harris’ chief speechwriter is departing:The vice president’s director of speechwriting, Meghan Groob, is leaving the office less than four months into the job, two people familiar with the matter told POLITICO. Groob was hired in April after Harris’ first chief speechwriter, Kate Childs Graham, left at the end of February. And the Washington Post reported that Harris’ longest-serving aide, Rohini Kosoglu, is also leaving. Staff departures have seemed a persistent issue for the office.
NIGHTLY Q&A
Protesters march past Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home on June 8, 2022 in Chevy Chase, Maryland. | Nathan Howard/Getty Images
SAY WHAT? — After a Supreme Court term in which five conservative justices asserted themselves to remake laws surrounding abortion rights, gun control, government regulations and prayer in public spaces (all positions of longstanding emphasis in the conservative Federalist Society and matters of intense political pressure from the right) many of the justices were accused of having mislead senators by proclaiming their impartiality in their confirmation hearings.
To review, the justices who were most aggressive in remaking court precedents along very predictable conservative lines spent much of their hearings touting their open minds and lack of any agenda:
Clarence Thomas: “I think it is inappropriate for any judge who is worth his or her salt to prejudge any issue or to sit on a case in which he or she has such strong views that he or she cannot be impartial. … You have to sit. You have to listen. You have to hear the arguments. You have to allow the adversarial process to think. You have to be open.”
Sam Alito: “It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, ‘If you bring your case before my court, I’m not even going to listen to you. I’ve made up my mind on this issue. I’m not going to read your brief. I’m not going to listen to your argument. I’m not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I’ve made up my mind.’ That’s the antithesis of what the courts are supposed to do.”
Neil Gorsuch: “These days we sometimes hear judges cynically described as politicians in robes. Seeking to enforce their own politics rather than striving to apply the law impartially. If I thought that were true, I would hang up the robe. But, the truth is, I just don’t think that’s what a life in the law is about.”
Amy Coney Barrett: “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns, I hate guns. I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world.”
Senators including Maine Republican Susan Collins and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who claimed to have taken these assertions at face value, have been criticized and even ridiculed for their credulousness. After all, many people have come to regard Supreme Court confirmation hearings as a stage play in which nominees piously refuse to discuss issues upon which everyone knows they hold strong views.
Now that the band-aid has been ripped off of this process, is it likely to change? Will would-be justices come under fresh pressure to come clean about their agendas before they receive lifetime appointments to the bench?
Nightly spoke to Gabe Roth, executive director of the non-partisan judicial reform group Fix the Court about the future of the confirmation process.
Now that senators can see the danger of not getting clear answers about judicial candidates’ political positions at their confirmation hearings, do you think they will push harder to do so in the future?
How can [they]? What are [they] going to ask about, affirmative action? That is the case open before the court … I think that, if anything, this is just going to lead to more speeches by the senators who are either unhappy with the recent opinions or are very happy with the recent opinions and want to crow about it.
Everyone knows the political inclinations of judicial candidates. There’s no question at this point. There used to be this theory that you want someone who you don’t know what they think [as a nominee], but we’re no longer in that world. We’re getting party activists and partisans as our judiciary nominees. I don’t think there’s a way to fix it without a constitutional amendment because no one’s going to disarm. No one is going to voluntarily say, “When Ron DeSantis is president, we Republicans are going to go back to a 60-vote majority [for judicial confirmation].”
What else can be done, then, to fix the Senate confirmation process so that it would function less as a political theater?
Right now, what we have is a back and forth between the Senate and a nominee from which we learn almost nothing. And then after, we have something called “Questions for the Record,” where each senator can send the nominee as many questions as they want about any topic.
I like the idea of reversing the order, asking questions for the record ahead of time. Once senators have those answers, then they can hone in on some of the questions that they would want to learn more about from the nominee. If senators have 20 questions each, they can have a sense of how the nominee is … ahead of time.
What we now have is this like disorganized free-for-all, where all senators are trying to create a “gotcha moment” for television and to surprise the nominee.
What if judicial nominees, knowing that they would only face a limited number of questions from senators, would answer them in eloquent non-answers and dodge the most contentious issue at hand?
Maybe. I totally get that. Reversing the order is not like a brilliant thing. It’s just a cute idea to try to do something. The process is so broken that at this point I feel like there’s no bad idea.
Congressional Vision for Tech Across America – July 21 Event : How can innovation play a role in America’s global economic leadership? On July 21, Rep, Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) are sharing Congress’ vision for the future of policy and technology surrounding workforce and education at MeriTalk’s MerITocracy 2022: American Innovation Forum. The forum will feature Hill and White House leadership and industry visionaries as they dig into the need for tangible outcomes and practical operational plans. Save your seat here.
AROUND THE WORLD
TOUCHY SUBJECT— Biden came face-to-face with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Friday and exchanged a fist bump with the kingdom’s de facto ruler . That brief public interaction between the two leaders had been highly anticipated ahead of the Saudi leg of Biden’s Middle East trip.
Biden has weathered significant scrutiny for his decision to visit Saudi Arabia despite his past criticisms of the kingdom and the 2018 assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. During his 2020 campaign, Biden pledged to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah.”
Biden insists that he was not there for a one on one meeting, but rather to “meet with the GCC and nine nations, to deal with the security and the needs of the free world, and particularly the United States.”
NIGHTLY NUMBER
1,470
recorded monkeypox cases in the U.S., up from 45 cases on June 10. The CDC announced today that demand for the monkeypox vaccine is now greater than the national supply . The U.S. cases are part of a global outbreak that has been widening since May and now includes more than 11,000 confirmed cases in 55 countries.
PARTING WORDS
Sen. Joe Manchin talks to reporters after casting his last vote before the Memorial Day recess at the U.S. Capitol on May 26, 2022 in Washington, DC. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
MANCHIN MANEUVERS — Late yesterday, POLITICO reported that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) had rejected proposed energy and climate investments as part of any budget reconciliation package.
Today, speaking to West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kercheval, Manchin half-rejected that notion, saying that he’s not cutting off negotiations with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) but that he’d like to see another month of inflation numbers before he makes a decision on legislation that might increase any taxes on the highest-income Americans.
If the story of Manchin’s back-and-forth act sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Nightly took a dive into some of the West Virginia Senator’s changing positions on a reconciliation bill that make him look a lot like Lucy yanking Charlie Brown’s football.
In January of 2021, Manchin called for up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending. “Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure,” he told Inside West Virginia Politics.
A portion of that spending did come to fruition when Biden signed a $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill in November of 2021 . The law was championed by Manchin and other moderates in the Senate. Biden had struck a deal with House progressives, promising that if they voted for the bill, he could deliver Manchin and the rest of the Senate Democratic Caucus on a much larger social spending package, then-called Build Back Better. This never came to pass.
But by November, Manchin’s price-tag had already shrunk from its January high. Two months earlier, he proposed a deal in a signed letter that would direct $1.5 trillion into a sweeping climate, families and jobs plan. The plan included caveats, like means testing, spending caps, and “fuel neutrality,” that many Senate Democrats balked at. Soon after Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill into law,POLITICO reported that a personal appeal from the president had convinced Manchin to up his spending cap to $1.75 trillion. That didn’t last long. On December 19, 2021, Manchin appeared on Fox News Sundayand said that he would not vote for BBB. “I can’t get there,” he said, refusing a call from the White House. Finger-pointing ensued.
In January, Manchin said there was “ no negotiation going on” about a revived spending bill. In March, Biden used his State of the Union address to appeal to Manchin that a new-and-improved BBB would reduce the deficit and fight inflation. Reconciliation talks began again in earnest this summer, as Schumer and Manchin met multiple times to discuss a new, smaller bill that would focus on climate and lowering prescription drug prices, raising taxes on the rich to pay for new spending.
Just this Tuesday, Schumer told Democrats he was optimistic they’d find a deal with Manchin. And Manchin said about Schumer, “He knows exactly where I’m at. Now whether they can get there or whatever, we’ll see.”
It appears they did not get there or whatever. Manchin last night refused any new tax increases or spending on climate. And today, Biden told Senate leadership to accede to Manchin's demands and tackle prescription drug reform, saving any action on climate for later, if at all.
Clearly, Biden is done waiting for Manchin to come around — he wants to take what he can get now. But there’s building anger in the Democratic caucus. They don’t find the West Virginia senator’s waffles to be particularly appetizing.
Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Corporate Dem operative Paul Begala rose to prominence advising Bill Clinton while he was doing things like passing the racist crime bill, deregulating Wall Street, and throwing vulnerable families into poverty by ending welfare.
Now, in between advising corporations, he spends his time lecturing progressives about daring to criticize Joe Biden.
His latest CNN article is so bad that it doesn’t deserve a link, but it perfectly exemplifies the gaslighting that fake Democrats like Begala constantly subject us to for having the nerve to insist our leaders live up to their own stated values and campaign platform.
Our Revolution is a national grassroots network of local groups dedicated to organizing a political revolution powerful enough to challenge the structural forces that threaten our survival as a society. From city halls to the halls of Congress, our movement is fighting to win progressive issue fights, elect progressive champions, transform the Democratic party and get big money out of politics. Help us achieve these goals by donating today.
PAID FOR BY OUR REVOLUTION PO Box 66208 WASHINGTON, DC, 20035
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Our Revolution is a 501(c)(4) organization. Donations to Our Revolution are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes. All donations are made to support Our Revolution’s general mission and are not designated for any specific activity.
A letter given to the January 6 committee says the erasure took place shortly after oversight officials requested the agency’s electronic communications.
The Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and January 6, 2021, according to a letter given to the January 6 committee and reviewed by The Intercept. The letter was originally sent by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to the House and Senate homeland security committees. Though the Secret Service maintains that the text messages were lost as a result of a “device-replacement program,” the letter says the erasure took place shortly after oversight officials requested the agency’s electronic communications.
The Secret Service did not respond to a request for comment from The Intercept. In a statement to the Washington Post, Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi disputed the timeline, saying that some electronic communications had been deleted in January, while the Inspector General made its request in February.
The Secret Service has emerged as a key player in the explosive congressional hearings on former President Donald Trump’s role in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to prevent the 2020 election results from being certified. That day, then-Vice President Mike Pence was at the Capitol to certify the results. When rioters entered the building, the Secret Service tried to whisk Pence away from the scene.
“I’m not getting in the car,” Pence reportedly told the Secret Service detail on January 6. “If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off.” Had Pence entered the vice presidential limo, he would have been taken to a secure location where he would have been unable to certify the presidential election results, plunging the U.S. into uncharted waters.
“People need to understand that if Pence had listened to the Secret Service and fled the Capitol, this could have turned out a whole lot worse,” a congressional official not authorized to speak publicly told The Intercept. “It could’ve been a successful coup, not just an attempted one.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the January 6 committee, called Pence’s terse refusal — “I’m not getting in the car” — the “six most chilling words of this entire thing I’ve seen so far.”
But, the Office of Inspector General letter suggests, key evidence in the form of the Secret Service’s electronic communications may never see the light of day. The Department of Homeland Security — the Secret Service’s parent agency — is subject to oversight from the DHS Office of Inspector General, which had requested records of electronic communications from the Secret Service between January 5 and January 6, 2021, before being informed that they had been erased. It is unclear from the letter whether all of the messages were deleted or just some. Department officials have also pushed back on the oversight office’s records request by arguing that the records must first undergo review by DHS attorneys, which has delayed the process and left unclear if the Secret Service records would ever be produced, according to the letter.
Asked about the matter, a DHS Office of Inspector General spokesperson told The Intercept, “To preserve the integrity of our work and protect our independence, we do not discuss our ongoing reviews or our communications with Congress.”
On June 28, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the January 6 committee, disclosing that Trump had ordered Secret Service to take him to the Capitol so he could address his supporters. Later that day, Secret Service officials disputed aspects of her account, including her allegation that Trump had reached for the wheel of the presidential limousine and lunged at Secret Service.
A top Secret Service official allegedly involved in the attempt to spirit away Pence on January 6 remains in a leadership position at the agency. Tony Ornato, a Secret Service agent whom Trump made the unprecedented decision to appoint as his deputy White House chief of staff, reportedly informed Pence’s national security adviser, Keith Kellogg, on January 6 that agents would relocate the vice president to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. “You can’t do that, Tony,” Kellogg reportedly told Ornato. “Leave him where he’s at. He’s got a job to do. I know you guys too well. You’ll fly him to Alaska if you have a chance. Don’t do it.” (Ornato has denied the account.)
Today Ornato serves as the assistant director of the Secret Service’s Office of Training.
Agencies, especially those involved in national security, often use the sensitivity of their work to sidestep oversight, stymying the work of offices of inspectors general. It is not uncommon for inspectors general, particularly effective ones, to face institutional resistance during the course of investigations. Tasked with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, inspectors general are not always welcomed.
A Customs and Border Protection official provided The Intercept with a document illustrating the challenges. A briefing memo produced by the agency for a leadership meeting with the DHS Office of Inspector General on July 7 instructs participants on how to push back against what it calls the inspector general’s “persistent” request for “direct, unfettered access to CBP systems,” as part of its “high number of OIG audits covering a variety of CBP program areas.” In a section titled “Watch Out For/ If Asked,” the memo describes a number of exemptions Customs and Border Protection can rely on to evade records requests from the inspector general’s office — including national security exemptions.
A48-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of committing a hate crime last weekend after wielding a handgun and allegedly yelling racist threats outside the Seattle home of Representative Pramila Jayapal.
According to a probable-cause statement, police officers arrived and found the man, whose name was redacted, outside the prominent congresswoman’s house on Saturday, “standing in the middle of the street” with a Glock pistol in a holster on his waist. A neighbor told officers that he was yelling “I’m going to kill you” and “Go back to India” at the home of the first Indian American woman elected to the House. Jayapal had called 911 to report that someone was using obscene language outside her house and that they may have fired a pellet gun. When the man was arrested late on Saturday night, officers claim he told them he “knew who lived at the residence and wanted to pitch a tent on their property.”
In a statement, Jayapal’s office said the Congresswoman is “very grateful for the swift and professional response from the Seattle Police Department, the U.S. Capitol Police, and the FBI investigators who are working together diligently on the investigation and ensuring that she and her family stay safe.” She told a reporter that in the aftermath of the incident that she would like a security detail.
According to a spokesperson for the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office who spoke to the Associated Press, the suspect was released on Wednesday because prosecutors did not have evidence to prove he committed a hate crime. Upon his release, Seattle police obtained an extreme-risk protection order via the state’s red-flag law, which required him to temporarily hand over his firearms and concealed-pistol license. “In a time of increased political violence, security concerns against any elected official should be taken seriously, as we are doing here,” the spokesperson said.
The incident outside Jayapal’s house comes a little over a month after 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske was arrested with a Glock outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. According to a criminal complaint, U.S. Marshals saw Roske get out of a taxi early in the morning with a suitcase and backpack, at which point he called a local emergency line and threatened to “kill a specific United States Supreme Court justice.” Days later, he was charged with attempting to murder a justice of the United States.
TOO MANY GUNS!
TOO MANY EXTREMISTS THE REPUBLICANS HAVE ENCOURAGED TO SOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES WITH VIOLENCE & KILLINGS!
It's time to STOP REPUBLICAN HATE! It's time to STOP REPUBLICAN DIVISIVENESS!
REPUBLICANS are incapable of addressing issues, finding solutions, so just continue to provoke ANGER, HATE & FEAR!
Enough is Enough! It's time to stop supporting the WEALTHY MISFITS who continue to fund this with DARK MONEY like KOCH & MERCER & a host of others.
In 2019, John Bolton as national security adviser publicly supported Venezuelan opposition calls for the military to remove socialist President Nicolas Maduro. (photo: Jessica Hill/AP)
Observers criticise John Bolton for ‘casually boasting’ about how he helped plan coups in other countries.
John Bolton, a former United States ambassador to the United Nations and ex-White House national security adviser, has admitted in an interview he had helped plan coups in foreign countries.
Bolton made the remarks to CNN on Tuesday after the day’s congressional hearing into the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Former President Donald Trump has faced accusations of inciting the violence in a last-ditch bid to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.
Speaking to CNN anchor Jake Tapper, however, Bolton suggested Trump was not competent enough to pull off a “carefully planned coup d’etat”, later adding: “As somebody who has helped plan coups d’etat – not here but, you know, [in] other places – it takes a lot of work. And that’s not what he [Trump] did.”
Tapper asked Bolton which attempts he was referring to.
“I’m not going to get into the specifics,” Bolton said, before mentioning Venezuela. “It turned out not to be successful. Not that we had all that much to do with it but I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president and they failed,” he said.
In 2019, Bolton as NSA publicly supported Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido’s call for the military to back his effort to remove socialist President Nicolas Maduro, arguing that Maduro’s re-election was illegitimate. Ultimately Maduro remained in power.
“I feel like there’s other stuff you’re not telling me [beyond Venezuela],” the CNN anchor said, prompting a reply from Bolton: “I’m sure there is.”
Many foreign policy experts have over the years criticised Washington’s history of interventions in other countries, from its role in the 1953 overthrow of then-Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and the Vietnam war, to its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan this century.
But it is highly unusual for US officials to openly acknowledge their roles in stoking unrest in foreign countries.
Bolton’s comments prompted a lot of reactions online.
“John Bolton, who’s served in highest positions in the US government, including UN ambassador, casually boasting about he’s helped plan coups in other countries,” Dickens Olewe, a BBC journalist from Kenya, wrote on Twitter.
Marc Owen Jones, assistant professor of Middle East Studies and Digital Humanities at Hamad bin Khalifa University, said: “Every news outlet needs to cover this, not because it’s surprising in and of itself (although the candour is), but because it needs to be part of everyone’s political vocabulary in how the US (and other large powers) operate.”
JOHN BOLTON was a CHICKEN HAWK PNAC Co-Founder.
He could not be confirmed by a REPUBLICAN SENATE to be UN AMBASSADOR so was an INTERIM APPOINTMENT.
tRump appointed him to a position that didn't require SENATE APPROVAL. John Bolton has been generously supported by MERCERS - look up his history. MERCERS stash their $$ offshore to avoid supporting government on any level.
Amy Autry, an OB-GYN and professor at the University of California San Francisco, is spearheading a project that would provide abortion services on a boat in federal waters a few miles off the coastline. (photo: Slate/Getty)
A doctor explains her long-brewing plan to set up a floating clinic in the Gulf of Mexico.
In the weeks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, reproductive health clinics in states with abortion bans have been forced to curtail their services. This has been particularly acute in the South, where there will soon be no legal abortion services in a wide swath of the country. Some patients are now forced to travel hundreds of miles for care.
Someday soon, they may not have to. To serve patients on the Gulf Coast who may be closer to the water than an abortion clinic, Amy Autry, an OB-GYN and professor at the University of California San Francisco, is spearheading a project that would provide abortion services on a boat in federal waters a few miles off the coastline. The nonprofit is called PRROWESS, an acronym that stands for Protecting Reproductive Rights Of Women Endangered by State Statutes.
Federal laws don’t currently prohibit abortion, so a floating clinic could legally operate without running afoul of state laws. Autry, who previously worked as an abortion provider in Wisconsin, hopes the clinic will be open to patients about three weeks out of every month. I spoke to Autry about her plans, the demand for a floating clinic, and the challenges she expects to face. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Christina Cauterucci: How long have you been considering opening an abortion clinic on a boat?
Amy Autry: As reproductive rights were progressively assaulted, if you will, over the last several years—3 to 5 years probably—I had this idea of, hey, what about a boat on the Mississippi River? I knew that there were casino boats there, and there had to be something different about the water that was making that legal, because it wasn’t legal on land.
And then, although I wasn’t aware of Rebecca Gomperts when I thought of the idea, once I started telling people about my idea and was really ready to investigate it, I got connected with her. She’s the founder of Women on Waves.
They provided abortions on a boat, too, off the coast of other countries that banned abortion.
She’s a visionary and this is her life’s ambition, to protect abortion access. Her operation was a little bit different: She was in international waters, and she provided medication abortions. But she was incredibly helpful and gave me a lot of ideas.
And you’re not planning to offer medication abortions?
It’s a little bit of a different time now. It is—I don’t want to say easy, but you can get medication abortion through the mail now in the U.S. [Ed. Note: Some states have banned the provision of abortion medication by mail, but such laws can be difficult to enforce.]So we won’t be providing that on this floating reproductive health clinic. If you can get something through the mail, why would you get it on a boat?
What did Rebecca Gomperts tell you? Any dos or don’ts?
Yeah, it was amazing. So I mean, the water’s a little bit rougher where she was, like off the coast of Ireland, but she gave me some tips about the type of vessel they were on, like speed, and what she would’ve done differently.
What did she have to say about the speed of the boat?
She just recommended a faster boat.
So you had this idea. How did you get started?
We started investigating with maritime lawyers about 2 to 3 years ago, and ultimately decided that the Mississippi River was not the best option. And over the last year, as things started to accelerate with changes in American politics, we also started accelerating. We started looking at the Gulf, because essentially every state on the Gulf is restrictive on abortion. There is a swath of water in the Gulf Coast that’s federal, where our legal team believes we can provide reproductive health care.
How far are you in your planning right now?
We have done an immense amount of research, and we’ve been escalating over the last year. When the Dobbs decision got leaked, we accelerated more. And when the final decision came down, we were like, we have to go. So we put up our website, we opened our ActBlue account. And then I gave an initial radio interview—because we’ve had an overwhelming amount of support, both for finances and volunteers, which is really great, but we need big donors. If we get the money that we need or, for example, we can get a vessel donated, we’re ready to move.
When you say “we,” who are you talking about?
We have a team. I’m the public face. Our legal team is robust, and the reproductive health portion of our legal team is the Lawyering Project. They just won a big case in Minnesota this week. They’re a nonprofit reproductive health attorney group. We also have maritime lawyers. We have ship consultants, security consultants, and criminal defense.
How have you funded the work thus far?
Initially it didn’t really require funding, because we were doing a lot of research and all of the legal has been gratis. But once we started hiring consultants, we sought out seed money, which we were able to get from donors, particularly in California.
What about you? Is this your full-time job now?
No, no, it’s not. Right now, I’m able to do my full-time job and do this when I’m not doing my full-time job. I mean, this is a passion of mine and I will be involved in the consulting, but I’m not going to be retrofitting the vessel. But once we’re ready to go and be on the water, I want to be there, as one of the providers.
What will you have to do to turn a boat into a medical facility?
We know the rules of what the clinic has to look like. There are clinics on the water: There’s Mercy Ships, there’s military ships, there’s cruise ships. So there are specifications for a clinic that exists on the water. They’re not that much different than clinics that exist on the land.
Will you want it to be different than, let’s say, a cruise ship clinic?
We’ve had some incredible volunteers. People just say, “I want to volunteer. Here’s my skill, which is graphic design. Here’s my skill, which is decorating.” And my hope is to not only offer reproductive health services, but maybe we have some yoga, and it’s a nice place to be, and we have social services and legal services.
One of the biggest points of this whole thing is that this is not an adventure for rich people, right? Rich people can get wherever they want, whenever they want, for whatever they want. This is for the people in the southern parts of these states that, even with the innovative and creative people that are out there trying to maintain abortion access, they can’t get to a clinic within a reasonable timeframe for their lives. And so wouldn’t it be nice, if you were that person, to be on a warm boat, and you’re getting your services, but maybe you have some yoga, and you have a massage. I think that would be lovely if we could do that.
What kinds of medical services will you offer?
It’s a comprehensive reproductive health floating clinic. So it will have contraception, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, hopefully vaccination, and surgical terminations.
How far into pregnancy will you provide abortions?
We’re thinking 14 weeks at this time. I don’t know that that’s where we’ll always be, but you certainly don’t want to start something on the edge like this, and also doing more complicated procedures.
What about security? I imagine that’s a major concern.
Security and legal are probably the biggest challenges and worries. Along every part of this journey, if you will, we’re anticipating security issues and legal issues. Security is going to be a huge part of our price tag. I don’t think it’s a secret about the threat to providers and patients in our country today. Guns are everywhere. People have been killed. We are very serious about security.
Along those lines, I read somewhere that your vessel will be large enough that it would be equipped to have a helicopter land on it.
Yeah. We have vessel size specifications below which we won’t go, for reasons of stability in the water, and vessels above that size could accommodate a helicopter.
How will patients get to the clinic? Will it be by helicopter, by boat?
There’s some things that, because of security, we’re not going to be that transparent about. But they will have to get to the boat one way or another, right?
How close will you be able to get to shore?
It depends on the state. It’s a range of something like 3 to 9 miles. And we estimate in most cases, depending on what vessel you’re using, you could get out there in about 45 minutes.
What about staff members? Will they sleep on the boat, or will it come back to land every day?
A large vessel is going to constantly stay in federal water. There are rules in terms of crews, like that you have to have sleep quarters and rest times and stuff like that. The vessel will be large enough to accommodate that, and I would anticipate that providers would come out there not just for a day.
Do you know where the boat would be based out of, where it would come home to when it’s not in the water?
Its home water will be somewhere where access is legal.
Do you know about how many people live in places where a clinic in the Gulf would be closer and easier to get to than a clinic on land? The people you’re trying to serve?
If you look at, let’s just say Texas, for example, because that’s where I’ve done the most research, because of SB 8. So if you look at McAllen, Texas, or Galveston, it is difficult to get to an access state by driving. And you’d want to have an appointment, get services, and be back to your home within a day, right? So if you think of Galveston and the Houston area, that catchment area is 7 million people.
We estimate that, with the crew, and making sure that we consider the weather, and using a very conservative estimate on the size of the vessel, we could hopefully serve around 20 patients or clients a day. And so in a six month timeframe, that would be about 1,800 people. We have a lower limit in terms of the size, but we don’t really have an upper limit. So it would obviously cost more, but if we got funding for something bigger, then we could see more patients if there was a demand.
What do you know about existing demand? Are people willing to get care on a boat?
About a year ago, I had this thought like, “Oh my god, what if we come up with this great idea and people won’t do it, like they’re not interested?” So we have UCSF colleagues that do a ton of abortion research, and so we had them add onto some of their study work: “Would you pursue this option if it was available to you?” And people said they would. The majority of the people that said they would were from the South. It’s hard to know if they are more comfortable around water, or they just know that they’re in more restrictive states, it would be more challenging to get an abortion.
I know there actually are two little spots in the Gulf of Mexico that are international waters. So if there was a federal ban on abortion, it would still be possible to have a boat in the Gulf—it would just have to be much further off the coast. Is that something you’d consider if a federal ban gets passed?
We’ve definitely considered that. But the closer, the better, right?
How much funding do you need?
There are one-time costs, like acquiring the vessel and retrofitting it. And then there’s going to be ongoing costs. The patients’ services are going to be needs-based, so the patients will pay minimal to nothing. There’ll be crew costs, there’ll be medical equipment costs, there’ll be large ongoing security costs, liability. We’re estimating to get it up and going, it’ll be $20 million. And then we’ll need ongoing funding, probably around $2 million a year to keep it functional.
Do you know how that compares to a clinic on land?
Oh, I have no idea.
Well, that seems doable for a wealthy benefactor.
Yeah. Especially one that had a vessel that was kind of sitting somewhere that we could use.
Two out of three prisoners are forced to work, in what is often referred to as modern day slavery
Susan Dokken, who is in a halfway house re-entry program in California, worked throughout her sentence in prison, even after she suffered a stroke and required extra help – a request for which was ignored.
“I couldn’t work and wasn’t supposed to, and I couldn’t even talk for a year,” said Dokken, 60.
During the pandemic, she was sent to work at a nearby men’s prison to make lunches, despite not feeling safe doing so and having medical issues that weren’t treated, such as anemia and requiring dentures she never received.
“With my medical issues, I shouldn’t have been made to work at all,” said Dokken. “The pay is so low, and what they make you do, it’s just not right.”
Among the more than 1.2 million Americans imprisoned in federal and state prisons, two out of three are forced to work while imprisoned. The 13th amendment of the US constitution abolished slavery or involuntary servitude, but included an exception for prisoners; critics have called prison work modern-day slavery.
Dokken’s pay started at 12 cents an hour and prisoners have the ability after positive reviews to increase their pay to 24 cents an hour, while they’re charged full price when they buy basic necessities through the commissary.
Dokken explained that if prisoners refused to work, they would have privileges revoked and possibly get written up, which would follow them on their record to parole and probation.
Before she worked at the men’s prison, Dokken sewed clothing for the US military, and if she or other prisoners didn’t reach a productivity quota – 2,500 shorts a day – their pay of just a few cents an hour would be reduced.
According to a June 2022 report published by the American Civil Liberties Union, prison labor generates more than $11bn annually, with more than $2bn generated from the production of goods, and more than $9bn generated through prison maintenance services. Wages range on average from 13 cents to 52 cents per hour, but many prisoners are paid nothing at all, and their low wages are subject to various deductions.
Sarah Corley was incarcerated in Missouri and Georgia during periods over the past decade, and worked without pay while imprisoned in Georgia and with varying pay in Missouri from a few cents to a few dollars a day, depending on the work assignment.
An artist, Corley said she now sells paintings for a few hundred dollars a piece, but while incarcerated, the correctional staff consistently commissioned her to do art work for their personal use as one of her work assignments, without any compensation.
“I was painting very expensive paintings for the staff and they were getting it for free,” said Corley. “The compensation I got was pictures of work afterwards. Realizing how many pieces I just made for free, it was kind of mind blowing, because as most of them are a 16 by 20 foot canvas, around 25 pieces. Today I sell them for $400 to $600, and those officers just got them for free.”
Corley explained that it’s difficult working in prison while basic necessities sold through the prison commissary are so expensive and prisoners aren’t provided adequate food or basic products. She said it was hard to take care of yourself if you don’t have money already or someone outside who is putting money in your account. After work, Corley noted you have to fight for a shower or get in line, and don’t have any time to rest and recuperate from work in prison conditions.
She also worked for the Department of Transportation while imprisoned, performing lawn care, picking up trash and roadkill, and spraying pesticides, all without any on- the-job training or adequate safety protections.
“Those are hard labor jobs, especially for women, and not getting paid, they’re hard on your body. You’re carrying extremely heavy backpacks with chemicals in them, we were chopping down trees, stuff you wouldn’t voluntarily do. It’s a lot of work for no money,” she said.
The ACLU report said 76% of workers surveyed reported they were forced to work or faced additional punishment, 70% said they could not afford basic necessities on their prison labor wages, 70% reported receiving no formal job training and 64% reported concerns for their safety on the job.
Prison workers are also excluded from basic worker protections under federal and state laws, from workers’ rights in regards to safety protection, union rights, or basic wage laws.
The type of work varies, from prison maintenance duties such as janitorial, food preparation, maintenance and repair, or essential services, to public works assignment such as construction, prison industries that produce goods and services to other government agencies through a state-owned corporations, or producing goods and services for a private corporation.
James Finch first worked outside doing landscaping work while in prison in Florida about10 years ago and claimed he was sent back to work after going to the infirmary for heat stress.
He later worked at a recycling plant while in prison, without supervision or training, and while working there started experiencing Bell’s Palsy symptoms – partial paralysis of his face – and didn’t seek proper treatment because it required taking a prison van to the hospital several times a week while shackled.
“I never received a bit of pay for any of the work that I had done,” Finch said. “I thought my face would return to normal, in most cases it does, but mine didn’t.”
Aisha Northington, who was released in 2011 from prison in Georgia, worked throughout her sentence for no pay at all for whatever work was assigned.
“I’ve even seen some people that refused, and they were sent to solitary confinement,” said Northington. “It’s very disheartening. It needs to stop. It’s inhumane.”
President Biden says he always talks about human rights abroad. But he stopped short of saying he would raise the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi when he meets Saudi leaders on Friday. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
When President Biden lands in Saudi Arabia on Friday, it will be the first visit by a U.S. president since American intelligence agencies assessed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman approved the operation that resulted in the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
But a day ahead of his meeting with the crown prince, Biden stopped short of saying he would raise the issue directly, saying "my views on Khashoggi have been made absolutely, positively clear."
"I have never been quiet about talking about human rights," Biden said at a press conference. When pressed, he said that he always brings up human rights, but said that his "position on Khashoggi is so clear — if anyone doesn't understand it in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, then they haven't been around for a while."
Biden emphasized that his reasons for visiting the kingdom are "much broader" and noted he will have the opportunity to promote U.S. interests at a summit with nine heads of the state from the region.
"I think we have an opportunity to reassert what I think we made a mistake of walking away from: our influence in the Middle East," Biden said.
"We can continue to lead in the region and not create a vacuum — a vacuum that is filled by China and/or Russia against the interests of both Israel and the United States and many other countries," he said.
Biden and Lapid say they'll work together on Iran — but differ on the role of diplomacy
Biden spent much of Thursday in meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid in Jerusalem. The leaders signed a joint agreement in which they committed to never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. The agreement said that the U.S. is "prepared to use all elements of its national power to ensure that."
Biden said in an Israeli TV interview that the US would resort to military action against Iran as a last resort.
Lapid focused on the need for deterrence in his remarks. "Words will not stop them, Mr. President. Diplomacy will not stop them," Lapid said. "The only thing that will stop Iran is knowing that if they continue to develop their nuclear program, the free world will use force."
Biden said he has hopes for diplomacy and a return to the Iran nuclear deal, but noted he was waiting for a response from Iran. "We've laid out for the leadership of Iran what we're willing to accept," Biden said. "But we're not going to wait forever."
Biden expressed enthusiasm for deals negotiated by Trump White House
Biden is expected to meet with Palestinian Authoriy President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday. In his press conference with Lapid, Biden reiterated his longstanding support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But Biden spent more time talking about Israel's growing relationship with its Arab neighbors in the region. "Israel integration in the region, Israel's peace with its neighbors — these are essential goals," Biden said.
The regional integration efforts are the stated goal of the Abraham Accords, deals brokered by the Trump White House in 2020 to normalize relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Morocco.
It is one component of former president Trump's foreign policy that the Biden administration has fully embraced.
"We'll also continue building on the Abraham Accords, which I strongly support because they deepen Israel's integration into the broader region and establish lasting ties for business, cooperation and tourism," Biden said.
Biden noted that he will fly directly from Israel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia — a sign of a stronger relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Israeli Prime Minister Lapid indicated his country was also committed to the work of integrating itself into the region.
"Israel wants peace and believes in peace. We will never yield an inch of our security. We are obligated to be cautious at every step," Lapid said. "But to any country, any nation that wants peace and normalization with us, we say 'Ahalan wasahalan, shalom, welcome.'"
In September 2004, Hurricane Ivan triggered an underwater mudslide, which caused an oil production platform owned by Taylor Energy Co. LLC to collapse. The company capped nine oil wells, but the remaining 16 remained open, spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico. This spill, the country’s longest-lasting, is still ongoing, and in a new count, over 1 million gallons of oil have been collected from the area since 2019.
“As of July 12, 2022, 1,016,929 gallons of oil have been collected from the MC-20 site,” a Coast Guard news release stated. According to the Associated Press, the amount of oil collected just since 2019 could fill about 1.5 Olympic swimming pools.
The MC-20 site, or Mississippi Canyon Block 20, is located about 11 miles south of Louisiana’s coastline. The Coast Guard is overseeing a subsea containment system that collects about 900 gallons of oil a day, while the government continues to develop a more permanent solution to clean up the oil from the 18-year-old spill.
“Though the containment system is considered a great success, the federal government is exploring all available response options, including to properly decommission the impacted wells on site,” said Captain Kelly Denning, the Coast Guard’s Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the incident.
In December 2021, Taylor Energy settled with the U.S., agreeing to transfer the funds in its $432 million Taylor Energy Decommissioning Trust to the U.S. Department of the Interior to go toward decommissioning the wells and remediating the contaminated soil. The company is also required to pay an additional $43 million (all of its remaining assets) for civil penalties and natural resource damages.
While 1,016,929 gallons of oil has been collected over the past three years, neither the Coast Guard nor Taylor Energy has an estimate of how much oil in total has spilled since the disaster began in 2004.
Estimates from 2012 said it was around 7.5 gallons per day, and 2015 estimates put the amount around 12 gallons per day. Taylor Energy formerly had estimates of about 3 or 4 gallons of “‘remnant oil’ being ‘sparged from the sediments’” daily, according to a 2018 court filing. In the same court filing, the U.S. put estimates much higher.
“Instead, as the United States’ experts have determined, approximately 250 to 700 barrels of oil a day are leaking from MC20 (there are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel), and the oil’s chemical characteristics are consistent with ongoing releases of oil from multiple wells,” the filing read.
The company capped nine oil wells, but the remaining 16 remained open, spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
So TAYLOR ENERGY agreed to this monetary settlement because they were at fault: In December 2021, Taylor Energy settled with the U.S., agreeing to transfer the funds in its $432 million Taylor Energy Decommissioning Trust to the U.S. Department of the Interior to go toward decommissioning the wells and remediating the contaminated soil. The company is also required to pay an additional $43 million (all of its remaining assets) for civil penalties and natural resource damages.
