In the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush established the Department of Homeland Security, the largest federal law enforcement organization and the third-largest federal employer in the country.

The DHS boasts more than 200,000 employees—in addition to over 60,000 law enforcement officers—and encompasses agencies like the Secret Service and the Federal Protective Service. How did this sprawling national security apparatus fail to prevent a crisis that represents the closest we’ve come to a violent occupation of the Capitol since the War of 1812? Law enforcement documents obtained exclusively by The Nation through open-records requests provide some clues.

Last year, I undertook a tortuous back-and-forth with law enforcement agencies all over the country. (In one case, I even had to file suit against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in a Florida court.) In the end, I managed to amass the titles of hundreds of intelligence reports quietly being compiled by the little-known law enforcement facilities known as “fusion centers,” which proliferated in the wake of 9/11. The lists revealed what these secretive facilities in California, Florida, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Washington state, and Washington, D.C., were up to in 2019 and 2020, a period in which the country was rocked with social unrest unprecedented in recent history.

After the DHS became operational in 2003, fusion centers sprang up in virtually every state across the country. Though they’re technically governed by state rather than federal law, they were designed to facilitate the sharing of counterterrorism intelligence between local and federal law enforcement agencies, the DHS in particular. Though local law enforcement’s sudden access to sophisticated federal intelligence drew criticism from civil liberties groups like the ACLU, proponents argued that such intelligence sharing was necessary to prevent the next 9/11. But despite this sprawling network—by the DHS’s own count, there are currently 79 fusion centers in operation—D.C.’s Capitol Police claimed to have received no warnings about the Capitol riot.

Judging by the catalogs I obtained, the reason for the lapse is simple: These fusion centers aren’t focused on counterterrorism. Far from the lofty justifications given for their existence—securing the homeland and so on—the titles of the reports they’ve produced suggest a focus on criminal activity (supposed or otherwise) so mundane it’s at times comical.

The Central Florida Intelligence Exchange investigated the “Criminal and Violent Extremist Use of Emojis” and were tracking an ongoing situation it described as “Subscribers of Black Extremism Collaborate Musically.” It also opened files related to the release of the 2019 movie Joker and a Harry Potter game for mobile phones. The North Florida Fusion Exchange and the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange collaborated on a “Joint Intelligence Bulletin” looking into a “Cookie Thief.” The Fort Worth Intelligence Exchange investigated a plot to break Joe

Exotic, the subject of the Netflix documentary Tiger King, out of jail (“THEY CAN’T STOP US ALL” reads the transcript, presumably citing the plotters’ machinations). They were also on the case regarding matters designated as “BEast OMG” and “DAY OF THE GIRL.” The National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Consortium appears to be the savviest (or perhaps just the youngest) of these centers, turning its attention to viral challenges on TikTok and FaceApp. Meanwhile, the Washington State Fusion Center opened a report “concerning a homeowner working on cars in his driveway and letting oil run down the street into Mission Creek in Olympia.”

While I don’t have the complete reports, these titles seem to suggest that substantial resources have been dedicated to subjects unrelated to terrorism. That is not to say I didn’t request the complete reports; I did. But the fusion centers either refused to produce them, citing their sensitivity, or redacted them beyond all recognition. Consider the Minnesota Fusion Center, which declined to disclose the titles of any of its intelligence reports. It did, however, produce the underlying documents, the relevant contents of which were so thoroughly redacted that even the bullet points were blacked out.

In some cases, it’s not just the relevance of the reports that appears questionable. The National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Consortium of Washington, D.C., produced an intelligence report titled “Novel Coronavirus Unlikely to Impact the District at This Time.” (The ill-fated report is dated January 2020.) Even less amusing are the reports detailing protests that, far from being terror threats, would appear to be constitutionally protected First Amendment activity that is supposed to be exempt from law enforcement monitoring. The National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Consortium even lists a report explicitly titled “First Amendment-Protected Events,” claiming the activities under investigation have the “potential for low-level violence.”

Perhaps most surprising is the astonishing number of incidents labeled “suicide by cop”—cases in which a suicidal person attempts to provoke a deadly response from law enforcement. In the case of the Texas Fusion Center, one single page of report titles refers to “suicide by cop” three times, “suicidal subject” six times, and “possible suicidal LEO” (law enforcement officer) once—all between July and August 2019. One wonders how many lives might be saved in situations like this if the response was made by mental health professionals instead of law enforcement.

I came to see this as the most darkly symbolic example of the workings of our supercharged national security apparatus. Not only does it undertake the invasive surveillance of citizens, squander money and resources, and ultimately fail to prevent terrorism, it also creates its own potentially lethal dangers. There is a stark opportunity cost to investing in this system instead of robust social services. This year, even as Congress spent months vacillating on whether to provide Americans with meager stimulus checks during the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, it promptly passed—and by an overwhelming margin—a $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act.

Much is expected to change after the long-awaited transfer of power in the White House. But as the War on Terrorism approaches its 20th anniversary with no end in sight, it seems as though the Department of Homeland Security and the bloated intelligence apparatus it’s come to represent are here to stay.

Following the discovery of two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) amid the pro-Trump mob in Washington, D.C., yesterday, Virginia police instructed officers to be on the lookout for suspicious packages, according to an internal bulletin obtained by The Nation.

The information bulletin, dated January 6, was issued by the Arlington County Police Department’s Homeland Security Section. It states that “officers are advised to be aware of their surroundings at all times and to treat any suspicious device/package as legitimate,” though it stresses that there is no specific indication that any IEDs were deployed in Arlington County. The bulletin also describes the two IEDs found in D.C.

“On January 6th two devices were located near the 300 block of First St SE and the 400 block of Canal St., in Washington, DC. As of this writing MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] EOD [Explosive Ordnance Disposal] units are in the process of disrupting the devices which appear to be Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s)).”

The pro-Trump mob that descended on the Capitol yesterday was considered such a serious threat that both the FBI’s headquarters and its Washington Field Office sent many staff home, according to one current and one former FBI official familiar with the matter. (Personnel specializing in counterterrorism and criminal matters are said to have remained.)

It remains unclear how the crowd of Trump supporters managed to gain entry to the Capitol.

“The only reason you get to breach the Capitol is you let it happen,” an FBI official told The Nation. “Why did Capitol Police not have a plan?”

“There was no intelligence that suggested that there would be a breach of the U.S. Capitol,” D.C.’s Metropolitan Police chief reportedly said. But the event had been promoted on social media for at least days prior. Furthermore, unrest relating to the election had been anticipated by multiple federal agencies. In September, the FBI identified the period between the presidential election and Inauguration Day “as a potential flashpoint,” according to an FBI intelligence assessment previously obtained by The Nation.

Another intelligence assessment, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and obtained by The Nation identified “white supremacist extremists” as the foremost threat to the election. An army intelligence report leaked to me also made reference to DHS intelligence in relation to the election, stating, “DHS assessed white supremacist extremists to be the most persistent and lethal threat.”

Another reason for the security failure was the delayed deployment of the DC National Guard, which President Trump reportedly resisted. Another cause of the delay not previously reported is that the DC National Guard lacked riot gear, because much of it was in the possession of active-duty military personnel. It had been lent to them this summer as part of Trump’s controversial plans to deploy active-duty military to subdue protests, according to a current law enforcement official familiar with the matter.

This year, US troops taking holiday leave will be greeted upon their return with mandatory health testing—for illicit drugs. Covid-19 tests, on the other hand, must be paid for by service members out-of-pocket, despite thousands of military personnel having tested positive for the virus, according to Defense Department documents obtained by The Nation.

A memo from Army headquarters about holiday leave dated July 2020 reveals the stark difference between the military’s stringent drug testing policy and its pandemic guidelines. Although it does say service members will be briefed on coronavirus hot spots and instructed to use face masks and practice social distancing, it makes no reference to Covid-19 testing. Instead, the memo states:

Within 72 hours of return from HBL [holiday block leave], 100% of IET [Initial Early Training Units] Soldiers in training will be administered the urinalysis test. Results of urinalysis testing will be reported to USACIMT [US Army Center for Initial Military Training] POC [point of contact] as soon as results are received by the unit. The report will be broken out by component (Active Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserves). The report will also document what type substance [sic] the Soldier is tested positive for. Side template will be provided at the 24 Nov 20 VTC. Units are provided funds in ITRM for funding the 100 percent urinalysis.

Though the CDC has advised Americans to stay home for the holidays, the military is allowing holiday leave. And while the Army says it will have some “conditions based testing,” testing will not be universally mandatory, and there do not appear to be any plans to test soldiers departing for holiday leave.

The documents describe force protection plans and briefings about the pandemic so that service members “are armed with knowledge that will keep them safe,” but Covid tests aren’t cheap and the cost to service members could be onerous. This has led to personnel finding ways to circumvent their respective states’ pandemic testing requirements, sometimes even with the help of leadership, according to one Defense Department official. This poses a risk to the general public as well as to service members, 2,000 of whom have tested positive for Covid-19 at a single base since March.

“They [military leadership] are acutely aware of the facts of the matter and have grimly opted to accept the risk,” a military official told The Nation. “However, the risk they have accepted is not only to put their trainees and soldiers at risk, but to put people all across the country where these trainees and soldiers are traveling to at risk.”

The pandemic has hit the military as hard as anyone. An Army briefing marked “For Official Use Only” and obtained by The Nation states that since March 24 there have been 2,039 total cases of Covid-19 at a single base: Fort Sill in Oklahoma. A local outlet in Oklahoma reported that Fort Sill had already lost two people to the virus, though a base leader stressed that the number of active cases had decreased from several weeks ago.

While the military’s health care system says it covers Covid-19 “when medically necessary,” this does not include personal travel, which holiday leave is considered.

“This means that any COVID test required for HBL [holiday block leave] must be paid out-of-pocket, which has led to all manner of creative and deceptive attempts to work around the policy,” the military official said. “Leaders from my unit have openly advised soldiers who planned on traveling to states with travel restrictions to purchase flights to bordering states and to have family pick them up and bring them into the restricted state.”

Asked about the Army would require personnel to be tested for Covid-19 prior to traveling for holiday leave, an Army spokesperson replied via e-mail: “Screening procedures will be conducted prior to each individual leaving to ensure they are healthy. 100% screening and clinically indicated testing will be done at training centers when Soldiers and Cadre return from HBL.”

The spokesperson did not define what the “screening procedures” or “clinically indicated testing” meant, and said that “commanders will be implementing conditions-based testing policies.” When asked if the Army would pay for such tests, he referred me to the military’s TRICARE website, which says it isn’t covered “for personal travel to other states or countries.”

“You’re encouraged to purchase travel insurance that meets coverage requirements,” the website adds.

This list of intelligence reports was obtained through a request filed by The Nation under the Florida Sunshine Law, the state’s open records statute. It was produced by the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, one of 80 such entities—called fusion centers—all over the country. (We’re suing another Florida agency for similar records that were withheld.) Fusion centers were established after 9/11 to facilitate the sharing of counterterrorism intelligence among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and private sector partners. But the centers have been criticized for blurring the boundaries of the various jurisdictions. As the ACLU wrote, “The lack of proper legal limits on the new fusion centers not only threatens to undermine fundamental American values, but also threatens to turn them into wasteful and misdirected bureaucracies that, like our federal security agencies before 9/11, won’t succeed in their ultimate mission of stopping terrorism and other crime.”

❶ “Black Extremism” “Black identity extremists” is a controversial designation used by the FBI since 2017 to refer to African Americans deemed a terrorism threat, though the bureau officially discontinued its use in 2019 after public criticism.

❷ “WSEs” (white supremacist extremists) In congressional testimony in September, FBI Director Christopher Wray identified white supremacists as the leading domestic terrorism threat.

❸ “SAR” (suspicious activity report) This is a type of intelligence report used to flag potential criminal or terrorist activity.

❹ “Local Protests Inspired by Current Situation in Puerto Rico” Puerto Rico has been rocked by demonstrations opposing austerity measures imposed on the territory in the wake of Hurricane Maria.

❺ “Anarchist Extremist” Donald Trump vowed to formally designate antifa (short for “antifascist”) as a terrorist group, which would include associated anarchist groups. His FBI director challenged this, characterizing antifa as an ideology rather than an organization.

❻ “ICE Detention Facility Arson” As we reported in 2020, Immigration and Customs Enforcement was so concerned about protests and potential unrest at its facilities, it acquired a secrecy designation exempting it from disclosing employee information.

A concerned law enforcement source provided The Nation with this Department of Homeland Security intelligence report about alleged violent threats asso­ciated with this summer’s protests against police brutality and mass incarceration. Its use of counter­terrorism terminology shows the DHS’s tendency to see terrorism threats where they may not exist.

❶ “TTPs” (tactics, techniques, and procedures) This term is common in counter­terrorism and refers to patterns of behavior characteristic of certain terrorist groups. Use of a term associated with terrorism so prominently in this document is noteworthy, since many suspects, as it points out, may not even hold violent extremist beliefs.

❷ “VOs” (violent opportunists) This document later states that the DHS defines VOs as “illicit actors who may or may not hold violent extremist ideological beliefs, but seek to exploit opportunities in non-violent protests to engage in un­lawful violence.”

❸ “protestors in Hong Kong” Since 2019, Hong Kong residents have demonstrated against mainland China’s attempts to impose its extradition laws on them. US law enforcement often looks for foreign ties in domestic protest movements, which allows them to take greater liberties in surveillance.

❹ “JRIC” (Joint Regional Intelligence Center) One of the many fusion centers established by the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11 to respond to terrorism threats. Fusion centers are designed to facilitate intelligence sharing between federal agencies and local law enforcement.

❺ “LES” (law enforcement sensitive) A designation for internal law enforcement records not to be shared publicly.

❻ “anarchists” Term often used by law enforcement as synonymous with “antifa” (short for “anti-fascist”). President Trump vowed this summer to formally designate antifa a terrorist group, which would allow for far more intrusive forms of surveillance commonly employed against foreign terrorist groups like ISIS. His FBI director, however, has asserted that antifa is not a formal group but an ideology.

❼ “secure communication apps” Apps that use encryption to enhance the privacy of the user’s correspondence. Federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI have inveighed against the increasingly widespread use of such apps and their effect on thwarting surveillance—a phenomenon it calls “going dark.”

In October, The Nation reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accessed Portland protesters’ phones, spurring a response from the Senate Intelligence Committee. Since then, Congress’s investigation has sought the testimony of more high-ranking federal officials than previously known—including a former White House advisor.

At a closed hearing before the House Intelligence Committee this September, Bryan Pendleton, a high-ranking official in the DHS’s intelligence division, testified about the Portland operation, according to both current and former intelligence officials familiar with the matter. Pendleton serves as director of the DHS Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) division called Homeland Identities, Targeting, and Exploitation (HITEC), which focuses on acquiring information about threats by using sophisticated technical methods like digital forensics.

“Generally, Dr. Pendleton testified that I&A leadership asked HITEC to explore providing technical assistance to the Federal Protective Services in exploiting protesters’ phones, and further, that such leadership requested updates on multiple occasions,” said a committee official. This appears to confirm a key part of my September report about how the DHS sought to access protesters’ phones in Portland.

“We interviewed HITEC Director Dr. Bryan Pendleton on September 10, 2020,” the official said. “He testified that because FPS did not possess a search warrant for the phones in question, HITEC did not assist FPS with their exploitation.”

But Pendleton may not have been entirely forthcoming. “Pendleton tried to play both sides of the fence,” a former senior I&A intelligence officer told The Nation explaining that Pendleton came clean about only some aspects of the Portland operation.

In addition, the committee sought the testimony of Stephanie Dobitsch, who previously served as Vice President Mike Pence’s special adviser for the Middle East and North Africa and is described as a “Special Advisor to President Trump” in a 2019 foreign lobbying disclosure. (While the White House did not respond to a request for comment on her assignment, a representative for Dobitsch denies that she ever served as an advisor to the President.)  Dobitsch also served as an intelligence officer with the National Counterterrorism Center before joining I&A where a Committee official says she serves as Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence Enterprise Operations of DHS I&A, making her “essentially the third most senior I&A official who is often the senior reviewer of intelligence products.” (Following the initial publication of this article, Dobitsch’s representative said that she has never served as Under Secretary—acting or otherwise—but that she “currently is performing the duties of one of the deputy under secretaries in her part of DHS.”) There, she played a central role in the Portland operation, according to two former intelligence officers with knowledge of the matter. (Dobitsch’s representative disputes this.) However, the DHS was apparently reluctant to provide Congress with Dobitsch’s testimony. “DHS has been slow in making her available, despite the committee making it clear she is a priority witness,” a committee official said of Dobitsch. (Dobitsch’s representative said that she did testify shortly after this article’s initial publication in what he called “a long-planned, voluntary appearance”; when asked for comment, an Intelligence Committee member’s office appeared to confirm that the hearing took place but did not provide specifics, citing the classified nature of the testimony.)

Asked to describe the nature of Dobitsch’s work, the White House did not respond; a spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Counterterrorism Center’s parent agency, replied, “We don’t confirm employment details and don’t have anything for you.”

While little information is publicly available about Dobitsch, a Federal Register notice dated October 16, 2020 lists her as one of the high-ranking Senior Executive Service members eligible to serve on the DHS’s Performance Review Board. The University of Scranton, a private Jesuit university in Pennsylvania, includes her name in a 2007 newsletter. It describes Dobitsch’s “Intensive Arabic Studies” as preparing her for her work with an unnamed “US government agency.” Members of the secretive US intelligence community often decline to publicly acknowledge their agency affiliation, and Dobitsch worked for one such agency—the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency—prior to joining the National Counterterrorism Center.

Following the initial publication of this article, Chase Jennings, Press Secretary for DHS, said via email, “Ms. Dobitsch and Mr. PendIeton are honest and effective intelligence professionals that have served their country for many years. It is unfortunate that a reporter felt the need to resort to innuendo—lobbed by an unnamed person—when that reporter lacks actual facts showing any wrongdoing of exemplary, career intelligence professionals. Instead, he clutters his article with tidbits—unconnected to anything notable—such as the fact that an official was mentioned in a college newspaper article more than ten years ago.”

After joining the DHS, Dobitsch was “promoted like crazy,” scoring three promotions, the former senior I&A intelligence officer said. (A representative for Dobitsch disputes this, saying she has not been promoted at all unless you count her current role as one of the acting deputy under secretaries.) “It was her that started taking the open source intelligence reports and memos and directing them to be changed to suit Trump’s narrative,” he alleged, referring to I&A’s production of intelligence reports on journalists covering the Portland protests. A representative for Dobitsch vigorously denied this, alleging that “Ms. Dobitsch has never been involved in politicization of any intelligence” and has actively resisted such efforts. The representative also said that DHS has produced to the Intelligence Committee documents demonstrating that Ms. Dobitsch forcefully pushed back on another official’s apparent effort to attribute certain violence to individuals inspired by Antifa, whether or not the evidence supported such attribution. When asked for a copy of these documents to verify his claims, however Dobitsch’s representative declined to produce them. 

After news of these reports was broken by The Washington Post, a firestorm of controversy ensued and the DHS’s chief intelligence official, Bryan Murphy, was removed from his role and reassigned.

A former high-ranking DHS official said that Murphy’s background in counterterrorism did not gel with I&A. Like Dobitsch, Murphy spent years working on counterterrorism matters involving foreign groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, which he remained focused on while at I&A instead of domestic groups, the official said. Like Dobitsch, Murphy had been close to the White House, spending considerable time attending meetings at the National Security Council (NSC), an agency located in the Executive Office of the president. “He tried to set himself up as NSC’s liaison,” the former official said, noting how unusual the move was, given that NSC is focused on policy rather than intelligence assessment.

After the Portland controversy, some of I&A’s intelligence officers began taking copious notes on the orders they were being given, in anticipation of subpoenas from Congress or investigation by the inspector general. However, a former intelligence officer familiar with the matter alleged that Dobitsch generally avoided taking notes or otherwise memorializing activities. (A representative for Dobitsch also denied this.)

Every DHS source I spoke to seemed pessimistic about the likelihood that anyone would face consequences for their involvement in the Portland operation.

“He’s back at work, and they seem to be happy with his work,” the former senior I&A intelligence officer said of Pendleton, after his testimony to Congress in the closed hearing.

Update: this article has been updated to reflect comments from both DHS and a representative for Dobitsch, and to clarify the nature of her role in the Portland operation.

In June of 2018, Talia Lavin, then a fact-checker for The New Yorker, found herself in an unusual position for a journalist: She personally became the target of a government agency. She had come under the scrutiny of ICE’s Office of Public Affairs, the public face of the agency that played a central role in President Trump’s crackdown on undocumented migrants. That role was increasingly earning the agency the ire of a growing movement, encompassing a range of opposition from faith groups to members of Congress. A Jewish activist group, Never Again Action, had gone so far as to draw parallels between the disturbingly poor conditions in ICE detention facilities and the concentration camps of the Holocaust. When Lavin saw a tweet from ICE featuring one of its officials, Justin Gaertner, with a cross-shaped tattoo, she wondered if it was the Iron Cross familiar to Nazi iconography. She posted a tweet comparing them. When people began pointing out that it could be another symbol, like a Maltese cross, Lavin promptly removed the tweet. But it was already too late.

The next day, ICE shot back. It issued a press release, posted in a Twitter thread, mentioning Lavin by name. The statement accused Lavin of “baselessly slandering an American hero,” whom it described as a combat-wounded Marine Corps veteran who’d had both legs amputated, and demanded an apology and retraction from both her and her employer. Lavin recognizes she made a mistake, yet the question she raised was hardly outrageous; even the FBI has warned of the presence of white supremacists in the ranks of US law enforcement. But Gaertner quickly became a cause célèbre for many on the right.

Almost immediately, Lavin received a flood of abusive messages, including anti-Semitic and misogynistic slurs. The neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer published an article titled “Greasy Fat K—e ‘Fact Checker; Talia Lavin Confuses War Hero’s Military Tattoo for ‘Neo-Nazi Symbol.’” Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopolous used Paypal to send Lavin $14.88—alt-right shorthand combining a white supremacist slogan, the “14 words,” with code for “Heil Hitler”—a stunt for which Paypal suspended his account. The furious response would only grow after Fox News’s Laura Ingraham broadcast a segment referencing the ordeal, calling Lavin and another reporter, Lauren Duca, “little journo terrorists,” and demanding that Lavin be fired. Within days, Lavin not only apologized; she resigned from her position at The New Yorker, where she had worked for three years. Today, Lavin is a freelance journalist.

“That’s my Joker origin story of how I came to report on the far right,” Lavin told me. She has now written a book on the subject. Lavin takes issue with ICE’s claim that she had “perpetuated” any harmful allegations about Gaetner’s tattoo, pointing to the fact that she deleted her tweet so quickly that no copy publicly remains. “I was flung face-first into a vat of poison on the strength of a complete lie,” she says.

n August 2019, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out more about what had happened behind the scenes. Following a Kafkaesque process in which ICE referred my request to the wrong department and failed to respond within 30 days as required, I sued the agency in federal court. (Full disclosure: Lavin is a co-litigant in the case, having signed a privacy waiver in order to authorize documents pertaining to her to be disclosed to me.) In October, ICE finally produced documents responsive to my request. But my attorney, Beth Bourdon, was furious with the extent to which the agency had redacted or otherwise withheld records that were clearly subject to disclosure.

“I expect law enforcement to take a liberal view of what qualifies for redaction when preparing documents for release under a FOIA request,” said Bourdon, who filed the lawsuit on my behalf in the Middle District of Florida. “But the clear abuse of exemptions and the resulting absurdity of the redactions in the records ICE produced were stunning and enraging.”

After months of additional negotiations, we finally obtained less-redacted documents. They evoke a deeply politicized and at times paranoid atmosphere, redolent of President’s Trump’s recent rhetoric alleging a “war on cops.” In one instance, the documents reveal top ICE officials working together to dispatch federal agents to respond to what appears to be a single off-color tweet, about which they also released an intelligence report.

At first, ICE got to work trying to cast Gaertner in the best possible light. As one of the e-mails released to us under FOIA shows, ICE Press Secretary Jennifer Elzea wrote on June 18, “I’m waiting on the blurb from [name redacted] so we can work something up about his [Gaertner’s] honorable service.”

But ICE was up to more than just a press release. The documents obtained under FOIA reveal that ICE Public Affairs warned the leadership of one of ICE’s federal law enforcement divisions, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), about what it claimed was a credible threat to Gaertner’s life. An e-mail from a redacted source says, “As an FYI, Justin has let me know he and his family feel unsafe and threatened because of all the threats on social media. I have informed SAC and leadership.”

The only such tweet referenced in the correspondence was undoubtedly mean-spirited, reading, “If Justin works for ICE, I wish whoever wounded him in combat would’ve finished the job.” It does not, however, appear to be a threat. Regardless, ICE pressed ahead, its assistant director of public affairs, Liz Johnson, notifying Acting Director Thomas Homan, along with the head of HSI, “Unfortunately, this employee and his family were already dealing with some personal challenges, which are now being compounded by threatening messages they’re seeing posted online. OPR and HSI are coordinating to provide support to him…”

“HSI Tampa will be carefully assessing the twitter based threats and will take appropriate action,” an HSI official replied. “Looping in AD [Assistant Director] Ip for C3 [ICE Cyber Crimes Center] support. HSI Tampa will be submitting a SIR [Significant Incident Report] shortly.”

Incredibly, this chain of events was set in motion by a tweet that ICE may not have ever seen. When asked for Lavin’s original tweet, ICE Press Secretary Jennifer Elzea replied, “I don’t have it at hand, but I’ll see if we can locate it. I have the tweet where she mentions deleting it.”

hile it’s normal for government public affairs offices to promote the agency’s mission and policies, they rarely single out private individuals—especially journalists. Press releases typically adopt a formal tone, perhaps owing to the layers of legal oversight they are required to pass through, particularly in regard to subjects considered politically sensitive. This oversight would make it unlikely that ICE’s tweets about Lavin did not at least pass the desks of high-ranking officials.

“It’s certainly unusual and unprofessional.… The tweet is definitely not a typical public affairs office product,” said James Schwab, a former ICE Public Affairs officer, of ICE’s press release. Schwab had served as a public affairs official for ICE since the Obama administration, resigning in 2018 over what he considered an extremely political swing within the agency. “It was awful,” he told me. “It wasn’t public affairs anymore. It was turning into a propaganda machine.”

According to Schwab, the incident may implicate an unspoken political hierarchy within the federal government. “ICE is the agency most aligned with the president and his administration,” he said. “These types of ICE statements are often crafted or heavily influenced by presidential appointees at ICE headquarters.”

Schwab explained that during his time under the Trump administration, “statements that would garner a lot of attention were cleared by ICE HQ, then forwarded to a DHS spokesperson for approval. Many times that approval included input from the White House, specifically from Stephen Miller.”

Miller is a senior adviser to Trump who has emerged as a key advocate within the administration for hard-line immigration policies. Miller served as architect for the travel ban, the family separation policy (under which undocumented children are separated from their parents), and a crackdown on the number of refugees the United States would admit. While the documents obtained by The Nation do not mention Miller or any other White House official, Schwab stressed that ICE is careful not to put things in writing.

“ICE is notorious for keeping shit out of e-mails,” said Schwab. This practice may have permeated all of the DHS. In 2018, Buzzfeed News reported that then–DHS Secretary John Kelly instructed an official to avoid memorializing their work in the form of e-mails, saying, “FOIA is real and everyday here in the cesspool, and even federal court action on personal accounts is real.” (Ironically, BuzzFeed obtained the comment in response to a FOIA lawsuit.)

n spite of support from the top, paranoia has gripped ICE. As I reported last year, ICE has supplemented its ordinary activities with “Operation Frozen Shield,” a series of enhanced security measures to protect against threats like active shooters. The operation came in response to what then–Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan described in a memo as a “trend of violence against our ICE officers,” referencing two examples: an armed attack on an ICE facility in Tacoma, Wash., and one in San Antonio, Tex. (No ICE employees were harmed in either incident.)

In June of this year, I reported that the Trump administration had quietly granted ICE greater secrecy privileges under a special “Security Agency” designation. The designation, typically reserved for agencies engaged in highly sensitive work like the FBI and Secret Service, permits ICE to conceal identifying characteristics of personnel from public disclosure, including name, job, title, and salary information. This designation applies not just to agents in the field but all ICE personnel. ICE’s sister agency Customs and Border Protection (CBP) obtained the same designation and, as I reported in February, an agency memo cites as justification a single Twitter user who it says was posting publicly available information about ICE and CBP officials.

“This past summer, CBP and DHS became aware of a Twitter user posting employee information commonly found in the OPM [Office of Personnel Management] Open Government releases of salary information for Federal Employees,” the memo stated. “The information posted on Twitter was considered by OPM to be public information, and is available through several Federal employee salary database search websites. This is but one of the many examples of where the disclosure of CBP employees’ information was harmful.”

Over the course of my FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department has repeatedly pushed back on our attempts to obtain the names of involved personnel. At the time of this writing, we are still fighting in court to have ICE disclose more of the names involved in the correspondence.

Employee safety may not have been ICE’s only motive here. In an e-mail attachment titled “The power of social media,” ICE describes the viral success of its tweets about Lavin. “A fact checker with the New Yorker shared a photo of an ICE employee that she found on the ICE Twitter account and falsely accused him of having a Nazi tattoo,” it recounts. “This resulted in a false narrative being spread quickly throughout social media.” But the document takes pride in the visibility of ICE’s response, noting that “approx. 2.8 million users saw the tweet thread.” It goes on to mention several other high-traffic tweets from the ICE account. Those about Lavin were the highest performing.

N

Asked at yesterday’s presidential debate if he would condemn white supremacist violence by groups like the Proud Boys, President Trump was defiant, remarking: “Almost everything I see is from the left-wing, not the right-wing.” But that very same day, the FBI issued an intelligence report warning of an imminent “violent extremist threat” posed by a far-right militia that includes white supremacists—identifying the current election period up to the 2021 inauguration as a “potential flashpoint.”

The report, obtained exclusively by The Nation and titled “Boogaloo Adherents Likely Increasing Anti-Government Violent Rhetoric and Activities, Increasing Domestic Violent Extremist Threat in the FBI Dallas Area of Responsibility,” warns of the threat posed by the far-right militia group known as the “Boogaloos.” Marked for official use only and law enforcement sensitive, the document was prepared by the FBI’s Dallas Field Office and is dated September 29, 2020. It draws on a wide array of intelligence sources, making specific mention of human sources—suggesting that the Bureau may have confidential informants within the group. The document points to several catalysts for the rise in the group’s membership, including resentment over perceived government overreach embodied by the Covid-19 shutdown and the presidential election.

FBI Dallas Field Office judges in the next three months, continuing up to the January 2021 inauguration with the presidential elections acting as a potential flashpoint, boogaloo adherents likely will expand influence within the FBI Dallas AOR [Area of Responsibility] due to the presence of existing anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, the sentiment of perceived government overreach, heightened tensions due to COVID-19-related state and local restrictions, and violence or criminal activity at lawful protests as a result of the death of an African American USPER [US person] in Minneapolis, factors that led to violence at otherwise peaceful and lawful protests in the FBI Dallas AOR.

The word “Boogaloo” refers to a second American Civil War, which the loosely organized, fiercely anti-government group has declared its intention to bring about. Its members often wear an outfit of military fatigues and a Hawaiian shirt. While the Boogaloos clearly contain white supremacist elements—many members believe the coming civil war will be a race war—their main focus is strident opposition to government.

While skepticism of government is undoubtedly a common sentiment, the Boogaloos have distinguished themselves by carrying out significant acts of violence in furtherance of this belief. For example, this summer, one Boogaloo, Steven Carrillo, is alleged to have killed two law enforcement officers in Northern California. True to the group’s desire to hasten the next civil war, Carrilllo is alleged to have killed the law enforcement officers at an otherwise peaceful demonstration with a silenced machine gun, in hopes of provoking retaliation from the police against the demonstrators. Later in September, two other Boogaloo members were arrested and charged with providing material support to Hamas. The two men are alleged to have told an FBI informant posing as a Hamas member that they shared a common ideology in opposing the US government, and offered to act as mercenaries.

Two human sources are identified as being central to the judgments in the intelligence assessment. One of the sources has reported various threats since 2017, and some of the information reported has since been corroborated. The report mentions one source, claiming to have “direct access” to the Boogaloos, quoting a heavily armed member’s intentions to “hunt” anti-fascist anarchists and shoot any looters. The language echoes that of President Trump, who, following this summer’s civil unrest, tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” As The Nation reported in June, the same day that Trump announced his intention to designate “Antifa” a terrorist group, the FBI’s Washington Field Office was unable to find any evidence of antifa involvement in the violence. However, in July, The Nation reported that the US intelligence community was tracking a “potential threat to law enforcement” from the Boogaloos. While antifa groups have engaged in acts of property destruction and sometimes violence, a recent study published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that anti-fascist groups have not been involved in a single murder in the United States in the past 25 years.

The intelligence report concludes by citing concerns of the Boogaloos’ “increased ‘patrolling’ or attendance at events” amenable to their cause. You might say those orders are coming from the top—at the presidential debate last night, President Trump called for his supporters to patrol polling places. “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that’s what has to happen,” Trump said.

N

On Monday, The Nation reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intercepted protesters’ phone communications in Portland this summer. Today, Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to the DHS demanding answers. 

As Wyden explained to us in an e-mail, “There are still a lot of questions about what DHS has been doing in Portland, but I’m pushing hard for answers. The bottom line is, it would be totally unacceptable, illegal, and unconstitutional for the Trump administration to spy on people because of their political beliefs.”

Wyden, a US Senator representing Oregon, serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, responsible for conducting oversight of the intelligence community. The letter, addressed to DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and signed by both Wyden and Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, contains a list of detailed questions relating to the intelligence operations reported by The Nation earlier this week.

The first question concerns former DHS intelligence chief Brian Murphy, who it says declined to confirm to the committee that his agency “had neither collected nor exploited or analyzed information obtained from the devices or accounts of protesters or detainees,” as he had stated in a briefing in July. The letter goes on to ask whether the DHS extracted data from protesters’ phones, if it later analyzed this data, and whether it obtained authorization from a judge to do so. 

The letter begins by stating, “A recent article in The Nation alleges that an interagency task force involving DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted surveillance of protesters’ phones in Portland.” As we reported on Monday, the DHS conducted a cell phone cloning attack in order to intercept Portland protesters’ phone communications this summer. The letter notes that these activities would qualify as unconstitutional.

Congress has enacted strict legal protections that require government agencies to obtain the approval of an independent judge before searching Americans’ devices and surveilling their communications—absent an emergency. That is to prevent the government from suppressing legitimate free speech protected by the First Amendment and violating Americans’ right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

These recent reports, which allege that the DHS has deployed high-tech surveillance technologies against protesters in Portland, raise serious concerns, which Congress has a responsibility to investigate.

The DHS’s deployment to Portland was a controversial one, having taken place against the wishes of many local officials, including Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler. Forces mobilized included Border Patrol Tactical Units (Customs and Border Protection’s elite special forces equivalent) and Justice Department assets like the US Marshals. While the response was widely criticized as heavy-handed, the Trump administration justified it as necessary to respond to civil unrest and protect federal property.

“DHS is not going to back down from our responsibilities,” Acting Secretary Wolf said in response to criticism in July. “We are not escalating, we are protecting.”

N

As the presidential election draws near, so does the fear of political violence—and not just among progressives. A concerned law enforcement source provided The Nation with the following Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment, which deems white supremacists the principal threat to safe elections in 2020.

❶ “Office of Intelligence and Analysis” I&A is one of the array of government organizations that make up the intelligence community, a consortium of elite spy agencies including the CIA and National Security Agency. As a subagency in the DHS, I&A monitors domestic terrorism threats.

❷ “Threats to the 2020 Election Season” President Trump has repeatedly and falsely alleged massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, and he continues to do so ahead of the 2020 election. The Transition Integrity Project, a bipartisan election monitoring group, recently conducted a series of “war games” simulating the 2020 election. The exercises anticipated possible street violence, especially in the event of a contested outcome. “The potential for violent conflict is high,” the organization concluded.

❸ “FOUO” An abbreviation of “for official use only,” it is a security designation for sensitive but unclassified information. It is intended to keep documents from public disclosure.

❹ “violent actors have exploited” According to an FBI report obtained by The Nation in June, far-right extremists sought to provoke unrest at protests by violently targeting both civilians and law enforcement.

❺ “white supremacist extremists” In recent years, the majority of extremist-related murders in the United States have been carried out by white supremacists. While the FBI recently elevated “racially motivated violent extremists” to a national threat priority, the Trump administration has reportedly been reluctant to go after them.

❻ “pose the greatest threat of lethal violence” I&A identifies white supremacists as the leading threat to election security—above even foreign terrorist groups like ISIS.

This summer, Portland looked like a war zone. Phalanxes of shadowy law enforcement personnel fired crowd-control munitions, as plumes of teargas billowed into the sky. Federal agents without clearly visible identification rounded up protesters and loaded them into unmarked cars, on American streets. When videos began to spread online, it was hard to tell what was going on, or how widely.

The public backlash was ferocious, spurring Congress to demand that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disclose information about the operation. But the DHS never came clean to the public about the full extent of its intelligence operations in Portland, which consisted of clandestine activities including interceptions of protesters’ phone calls conducted by a task force that included federal agencies besides the DHS, according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the matter.

“Unidentified stormtroopers. Unmarked cars. Kidnapping protesters and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti. These are not the actions of a democratic republic. [Department of Homeland Security’s] actions in Portland undermine its mission,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted in mid-July. Later that month, The Washington Post reported that the DHS’s intelligence division, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) had generated intelligence reports on several prominent journalists covering the Portland protests. Members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees promptly demanded to know what kinds of intelligence they had collected on both journalists and protesters. A letter from the Senate contained the suggestive admonition that the division “is obligated by statute to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of its operations.”

Yet, at the time of this writing, DHS has failed to respond to Congress’s questions. “Notwithstanding the selective and incomplete document production thus far, the Committee has reason to believe that DHS and I&A are withholding responsive records related to I&A’s activities in Portland and in support of DHS’ response to nationwide protests,” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff wrote in a letter to the DHS’s intelligence branch.

This is not to say that the DHS did not respond to the public furor. Shortly after Congress’s initial requests, DHS shocked the national security world by removing its high-ranking undersecretary of intelligence, Brian Murphy. Murphy had served as chief of I&A, the wing of the DHS that is a member of the rarefied Intelligence Community and is authorized to handle highly classified information about security threats to the domestic United States. Though Murphy’s removal appeared to mollify Congress, the public narrative that he had been removed for the intelligence reports on journalists struck some intelligence officials as dubious.

“He did not get reassigned over some unclassified program,” a former senior DHS I&A intelligence officer who has served under Murphy told The Nation. “That is a convenient story, but that isn’t what’s going on.”

Unlike more sensitive, classified intelligence, the journalist reports were based entirely on publicly available information. And while privacy rules generally prevent “US persons” from being the subject of intelligence assessments, it is still not uncommon. “That kind of shit happens all the time,” the former intelligence officer explained.

The early narrative became all the more dubious when Murphy filed a whistleblower complaint with Congress alleging retaliation by the department. According to the complaint, the reason Murphy had been reassigned was not what happened in Portland but a series of earlier whistleblower complaints he had filed alleging that he had been pressured to manipulate intelligence. This is alleged to have included DHS leadership’s asking Murphy to manufacture intelligence about terrorists entering the United States through the southern border and to block intelligence assessments focusing on threats from white supremacists and from Russia. (The Nation has reported on the difficulties described by DHS officials in monitoring white supremacists.)

“A guy like Brian Murphy, you’re not going to ruin his career and drag him through the mud over some bullshit,” the former intelligence officer said. According to him, multiple federal agencies, from the DHS to the FBI, asked if any intelligence officials would volunteer to be deployed; but when DHS I&A sought volunteers to deploy to Portland during an all-hands call, it was not met with enthusiasm.

“They asked for volunteers and nobody wanted to go,” the former intelligence officer said. “The fact that they asked for volunteers shows that it was outside the scope of their duties…. you only do that if you don’t have the ability to order someone to go, probably because it’s illegal.”

A current FBI official described a similar call for volunteers to respond to civil unrest this summer, agreeing that it was extremely unusual. “This is the first time I’ve seen volunteer requests for…another field office,” the source said.

A current DHS official described a colleague with expertise in electronic surveillance who was being deployed to Portland. But for what purpose? “Extracting information from protester’s phones,” the DHS official said. While in Portland, an interagency task force involving DHS and the Justice Department used a sophisticated cell phone cloning attack—the details of which remain classified—to intercept protesters’ phone communications, according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the matter.

Cell phone cloning involves stealing a phone’s unique identifiers and copying them to another device in order to intercept the communications received by the original device. The former intelligence officials described it as part of a “Low Level Voice Intercept” operation, declining to go into further detail—one of them citing the sensitive nature of the surveillance tool and the other an ongoing leak investigation within I&A.

“You’re getting an inside view into your targets, who they are, who they’re talking to—the hierarchy,” the former intelligence officer said, explaining that many within the DHS believe that antifa is an organized group—as opposed to the largely spontaneous, decentralized ideological tendency that most experts, including Trump’s own FBI director, believe it is. DHS intelligence has even found some limited evidence, which he considered thin, of foreign sponsorship. Attorney General William Barr, however, recently claimed that antifa is receiving foreign sponsorship—a necessary criterion to formally designating it a terror organization, which President Trump vowed to do in July. (The Nation recently reported on DHS intelligence’s attempts to tie antifa to Kurdish militant groups in Syria.)

“Signals intelligence collection would not be useful for preventing opportunistic looting or violent confrontations. It presumes the existence of coordinated, purposeful, and unlawful activity that is conducted through electronic means,” said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “The general concern is that DHS treated mass public protests—not just violent individuals—as suspicious and targets of investigation, or worse.”

While it wasn’t clear which individuals had specifically been targeted in Portland, both former intelligence officers agreed that it had violated protocol. “They were abusing people’s rights,” one said.

In addition to signals intelligence collection, the Portland operation involved clandestine aspects, according to the former intelligence officer. This appears consistent with a tip received this summer. Several members of the US Marshals Service (USMS)—part of the Justice Department—sent to Portland claimed to be affiliated with a private firm called “Strategic Oil,” according to travel records obtained by The Nation. While they did not identify themselves as law enforcement, the travel records contain information indicating that they were marshals, including that they were given a special discount for federal government employees. Clandestine methods tend to be used only for the most sensitive operations, more commonly overseas than domestically. (The Justice Department did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

Travel records did not reflect that the DHS was using any sort of cover story in Portland. One of the biggest misconceptions about the Portland operation was that the DHS took the lead, the former intelligence officer said, explaining that the Justice Department played a major role. While he didn’t dispute that Murphy oversaw the DHS I&A’s segment of the task force, he said the Justice Department—especially the USMS but also the FBI—played a far more significant role. “It was clear that he [Murphy] was directed from higher up,” he said.

A current DHS official described how a colleague who was being deployed to Portland had alluded to using the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), part of the Justice Department, for the purposes of accessing protesters’ phones. “He said he needed some sort of ‘special key’ in order to …. He said that DEA has that capability and vaguely alluded to possibly borrowing or using one from another agency once he got to Portland.”

In June, Buzzfeed News reported that the DEA had been authorized to conduct covert surveillance of protesters involved in demonstrations against the police killing of George Floyd. Then in August, the USMS confirmed that it had conducted aerial surveillance over the Portland protests. The former intelligence officers agreed that the Low Level Voice Intercept operation had been conducted on the ground, was far more invasive than aerial surveillance, and involved equipment that I&A did not have access to.

“[There were] at least two federal agencies and there was some spooky shit going on,” one former intelligence officer said of the Portland operation.

Attorney General Barr has repeatedly echoed President Trump’s rhetoric on antifa. After President Trump alleged without evidence that a plane full of violent protesters had been traversing the country, Barr claimed that the Justice Department had received similar reports of violent protesters traveling from all over the country to sow mayhem. Last week, Barr urged federal prosecutors to consider charging violent protesters with sedition, a rarely used charge for people conspiring to overthrow the government. This week, Barr designated New York, Portland, and Seattle as “anarchist” jurisdictions—a term often used interchangeably with antifa.

“When the president makes the kind of statements he does on the news, you know that you have tacit approval,” the former intelligence officer said. “You just need a wink from your supervisor.”

Last week, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower told the press that agency officials had ordered him to downplay the threat of white supremacist terrorism. But a recent DHS intelligence assessment about physical threats to the 2020 election season identifies “white supremacist extremists” as the foremost threat to the democratic process this year.

The intelligence assessment, first referenced by Yahoo News and published in full by The Nation, was produced by the DHS’ Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) division. In an interview with The Nation, a former senior DHS I&A intelligence officer corroborated the whistleblower’s claims, describing the challenges he had faced to monitoring white supremacists under the Trump administration.

“As soon as Trump came in, counterterrorism ended,” the former intelligence officer said, pointing to the Trump administration’s decision to dissolve DHS’s domestic terrorism division. Since then, DHS I&A’s focus has turned to trivial immigration matters like individuals overstaying their travel visas, he explained.

“The only immigration we should be worried about is a nexus to terrorism, not student overstays and bullshit,” the former intelligence officer said.

The assessment, dated August 17 of this year and marked for official use only, provides an overview of different threats to the election. Threats are said to include not just white supremacists but also individuals wary of the government’s Covid-19 restrictions, Second Amendment extremists, and confrontations between protesters and counterprotesters.

The report reads: “We continue to assess lone offender white supremacist extremists and other lone offender domestic terrorist actors with personalized ideologies, including those based on grievances against a target’s perceived actual political affiliation, policies, or worldview, pose the greatest threat of lethal violence.”

The assessment links the white supremacist threat to anti-immigrant sentiments, stating, “Immigration-related grievances contributed to motivations of three separate white supremacist extremist shootings since 2018, resulting in 35 total fatalities.”

The intelligence assessment contrasts sharply with the Trump administration’s characterization of threats to public safety. Trump has repeatedly inveighed against violent protesters, especially “antifa,” which he has vowed to designate a terrorist group. While a formal terror designation requires evidence of foreign sponsorship, The Nation recently reported that DHS intelligence officials have quietly sought to tie antifa to foreign militant groups.

Trump’s Attorney General William Barr reportedly instructed prosecutors to consider charging violent protesters with sedition, a rarely invoked law that applies to individuals seeking to overthrow the government.

“The proposal to charge protesters with sedition seems like one more step in the unraveling of constitutional government,” Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, told The Nation. He added that “accusing them of sedition adds a preposterous political overlay that itself is a form of incitement by the attorney general.”

“Antifa,” short for “anti-fascist,” is a largely decentralized movement of far-left individuals motivated by opposition to perceived fascist groups. While antifa has engaged in illegal activities including property destruction and in some cases violence, no one affiliated with it has been linked to a single murder in the United States in the past 25 years, according to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. By contrast, the same study found that far-right extremists in the United States have killed 329 people in that time frame.

Despite the Trump administration’s rhetoric, the rise in far-right violence has not gone completely unnoticed. Last year, FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress that the majority of the bureau’s domestic terrorism arrests were of white supremacists.

“Historically, there’s a pattern of increasing political violence during elections,” said Michael German, a former FBI agent. German, who himself once worked undercover in white supremacist groups, said that one of the problems is the lack of federal data on far-right groups.

“Since the federal government doesn’t collect data on white supremacist violence, we don’t really know how much it’s increased.”

N

After the arrest of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon last week for allegedly defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors to a private organization with the stated purpose of building a wall along the southern border, We Build the Wall, administration officials have sought to distance themselves from the project. But Customs and Border Protection (CBP) leadership met with representatives of We Build the Wall to consider their offer of donating the privately constructed wall to the US government. CBP described it as “an overall positive meet and greet” and even provided the group with guidance on how to gift its wall to CBP, according to an internal CBP memo obtained exclusively by The Nation.

In a November 2019 meeting, CBP leadership—including Deputy Commissioner Robert Perez—privately advised representatives of the project on how to transfer the finished wall to CBP control using an obscure donation procedure, according to the memo. To assist the effort, CBP conducted an assessment of the group’s completed wall section section in Sunland Park, N.M., and provided it with the results of that assessment.

On November 26—five days after the date on the document—We Build the Wall issued a press release announcing that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief Chad Wolf had endorsed the project, purportedly calling it a “game-changer.” After the indictments, however, Wolf told CNN that he never endorsed the effort.

Marked for official use only, the memo is signed by DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism Ntina Cooper. It was provided to The Nation by a DHS source on condition of anonymity. The memo states:

In September 2019, CBP Leadership met with representatives of WBTW [We Build the Wall] in an overall positive meet and greet to discuss the completed wall section in Sunland Park, New Mexico. USBP [United States Border Patrol] representatives outlined the results of the operational assessment that was conducted on the project and identified some areas of concern and other approaches USBP takes when undertaking similar projects. WBTW representatives asked for clarification on what a donation offer would need to look like and whether CPB would be amenable to acceptance if an offer were made. Deputy Commissioner Perez expressed that CBP is interested in exploring all available options if an offer were made. WBTW was provided with CBP’s Barrier Donation Checklist.

The barrier donation checklist is not included in the memo but appears to be a list of criteria necessary for CBP to accept existing border wall segments as donations. According to the memo, the firm that We Build the Wall hired to construct the wall, Fisher Industries, inflated its capabilities. As an example, it contrasts Fisher Industry’s claim that it would need three to four working days to place 2,200 feet of wall panels with the fact that it took more than eight working days while working 24 hours per day.

“Performance during the execution period was not consistent with Fisher Industry claims,” the document states. “Their performance on this small project shows that some claims may have been inflated due to lack of experience with this type of work.”

Fisher Industries is a construction company headed by CEO Tommy Fisher, a frequent guest on Fox News and a Republican donor. Trump has reportedly lobbied in the past for major border wall contracts to go to Fisher Industries.

The memo goes on to describe a number of “challenges” to CBP’s accepting the border project’s construction, including a lack of environmental impact studies.

“If DHS/CBP were to engage in a NEPA analysis of the proposed construction, due to the cultural sensitivity of the Mount Cristo Rey site and likely controversy, the project would likely require a full Environmental Impact Statement, as opposed to an Environmental Assessment,” the document states. Mount Cristo Rey, in El Paso along the border with Juarez, Mexico, is considered a sacred site by many Catholics.

The memo also describes complications posed by the private border wall’s surveillance cameras, the details of which appear to be unknown to CBP:

The type of cameras installed is unknown. However, WBTW has indicated an intention to provide real-time access to four cameras to donors to their program. Security of cameras, data storage, data type, image format and transmission all remain unknown.

Last week, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment against members of We Build the Wall’s advisory board, including Steve Bannon, Brian Kolfage, and two others. Kolfage allegedly spent the skimmed money on a boat, cosmetic surgery, a golf cart, and jewelry; Bannon is accused of using what he took to pay down credit card debts. They face charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, felony offenses that each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

We Build the Wall, originally begun as a GoFundMe campaign in December of 2018, raised $25 million and boasts an advisory board studded with high-profile Trump administration associates like Blackwater founder Erik Prince and former Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke. In 2017, Clarke said he was offered an appointment to the DHS but was not hired after a CNN report that he had plagiarized his master’s thesis.

CBP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

N

Department of Homeland Security intelligence officials are targeting activists it considers antifa and attempting to tie them to a foreign power, according to a DHS intelligence report obtained exclusively by The Nation.

The intelligence report, titled “The Syrian Conflict and Its Nexus to the U.S.-based Antifascist Movement,” mentions several Americans, including a left-wing podcast host who traveled to Syria to fight ISIS. The report includes these individuals’ personal information, including their Social Security numbers, home addresses, and social media accounts, much of the data generated by the DHS’s Tactical Terrorism Response Teams. As the intelligence report states, “ANTIFA is being analyzed under the 2019 DHS Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism (CT) and Targeted Violence.”

Dated July 14, the document, marked for official use only and law enforcement sensitive, draws on a blend of publicly available information and state and federal law enforcement intelligence. It was provided to The Nation by a source who previously worked on DHS intelligence.

“They targeted Americans like they’re Al Qaeda,” a former senior DHS intelligence officer with knowledge of the operations told The Nation. The officer, who served for years in the DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), compared the operations to the illegal surveillance of activists during the civil rights era. “They essentially were violating people’s rights like this was the ’60s…the type of shit the Church and Pike committee[s] had to address.”

While the law generally prohibits intelligence agencies from spying on US residents, many of those protections do not apply if the individual is believed to be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

“Designating someone as foreign-sponsored can make a huge legal and practical difference in the government’s ability to pursue them,” explained Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “It’s a crucial distinction. Once someone (or some group) is identified as an agent of a foreign power, they are subject to warrantless search and surveillance in a way that would be illegal and unconstitutional for any other US person. The whole apparatus of US intelligence can be brought to bear on someone who is considered an agent of a foreign power.”

Last week the DHS reassigned its intelligence chief after The Washington Post revealed that the agency had been compiling intelligence reports on American journalists and activists in Portland, Ore. In response to President Trump’s executive order to protect monuments and other federal property, the DHS created the Protecting American Communities Task Force, which sent DHS assets to Portland and other cities. The agency has found itself in transition under the Trump administration.“They are always pressuring I&A for political reasons. It’s been like that since the election,” the former intelligence officer said.

This weekend, Politico reported that DHS Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli loosened oversight of I&A. Cuccinelli, at I&A’s request, curtailed the requirement that the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties approve I&A’s intelligence products before distribution to law enforcement partners.

The intelligence report’s executive summary states:

In June 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) National Targeting Center (NTC) Counter Network Division (CND) compiled CBP encounter data on individuals who returned from Syria and fought with the Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG, translation: PEOPLE’S PROTECTION UNITS), and had some with reported ties to a U.S.-based ANTIFA (Anti-fascist) movement. CBP concerns about and interest in these individuals stem from the types of skills and motivations that may have developed during their time overseas in foreign conflicts.

These skills were also appreciated by the US military, which cooperated with the YPG in fighting ISIS for years. Last year Trump enraged many in the US military when he green-lit a Turkish offensive against the Kurdish militia. Jim Mattis reportedly resigned as defense secretary in part because of what he considered a betrayal of our Kurdish allies.

The intelligence report describes over half a dozen people who traveled to Syria in order to fight alongside Kurdish factions—usually the YPG but also other Kurdish groups like the PKK and the Peshmerga. Some of the individuals described have denied membership in antifa but variously identified with far-left causes. The DHS appears to define antifa broadly to encompass various left-wing tendencies: “Antifa is driven by a mixed range of far-left political ideologies, including anti-capitalism, communism, socialism, and anarchism.” In two cases, evidence of antifa affiliation was limited to photos taken in front of an antifa flag. As the intelligence report notes, “ANTIFA claims no official leadership,” raising questions about whether antifa even exists in any sort of operational capacity.

The first individual mentioned in the intelligence report, Brace Belden, cohosts the popular left-wing podcast TrueAnon and fought with the YPG in 2016. The report appears to be partly drawn from a 2017 article on Belden in Rolling Stone, and describes him as “a minor criminal and drug addict who started reading Marx and Lenin in drug rehabilitation treatment and became involved in a number of political causes before deciding to fight alongside the YPG.”

The report says of an encounter between Belden and border authorities:

U.S. citizen (USC) Brace BELDEN was encountered on 08 April 2017, arriving in San Francisco, California from Frankfurt, Germany. BELDEN was returning from a six month tour of volunteering to fight with the YPG under the umbrella of the Syrian Democrat Forces (SDF) fighting ISIS in Syria as part of the ongoing Raqqa offensive starting in November 2016 to retake Raqqa from ISIS. BELDEN stated he recently learned that an open source article had been written about him and his “Anarchist” fighters.

Belden scoffed at the association. “I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of any antifa organization,” he told The Nation. “The US government has been spying on and smearing communists for 100 years, but they usually have the decency not to call a Red an anarchist.”

“There appears to be a clear connection…between ANTIFA ideology and Kurdish democratic federalism teachings and ideology,” the intelligence report states. At least one of the activists listed is described as ethnically Kurdish.

On May 31, Trump vowed to designate antifa a terrorist organization. While antifa groups have engaged in acts of property destruction, antifa has not been linked to a single killing in the United States, according to data compiled in the past 25 years by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. By contrast, the same data found that far-right extremist groups killed 329 people.

The intelligence report appears to conclude that the individuals described were not acting on behalf of a foreign group—save for one unnamed person.

“Aside from a single instance derived from open-source reporting, there does not appear to be evidence of a centralized effort to give marching orders to returning ANTIFA-affiliated USPER [US person] foreign fighters once they return to the United States.”

N

While issues of press freedom are widely debated in abstract terms, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently instructed employees on how to arrest journalists and expose them to crowd suppressants like tear gas without being legally liable, according to a copy of the instructions provided to The Nation by a DHS source. It also delineates which legal protections are not extended to “normal protestors.”

The document, marked attorney-client work product law enforcement sensitive, instructs DHS officials on how to interpret a temporary restraining order issued last week by US District Judge Michael Simon in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU alleging that DHS officers had been attacking journalists in Portland. The same district court denied a separate lawsuit from the Oregon attorney general for a broader restraining order, which would have blocked federal agents from detaining any individual without a warrant or probable cause.

While the existing restraining order does mandate several restrictions, there were qualifications—which the DHS’s legal guidance appears keen to stress. For example, while the court order forbids the DHS from using crowd control devices like tear gas against journalists and legal observers—like members of the National Lawyers Guild or ACLU present to act as independent monitors—it provides an exemption for “incidental exposure.”

“If a journalist or legal observer is incidentally exposed to crowd-control devices after remaining in the area, you will not [be] held liable,” the DHS document states [emphasis in original]. “Incidentally means that the journalists or legal observers, while not the target of the crowd-control devices, still end up being exposed to the crowd-control devices because of where they are located.”

Federal forces’ use of crowd control munitions in Portland has stirred controversy, particularly after police shot a 26-year-old protester in the head with a “less-lethal” munition, fracturing his skull and seriously injuring him. A Federal Aviation Administration official told The Nation use of tear gas was so pervasive that clouds of it were getting picked up on their radar. Even Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler was gassed after talking to protesters.

Videos surfaced on Twitter appearing to show federal law enforcement picking up and removing less-lethal shell casings. This may have been to conceal the originating agency, according to one former senior DHS intelligence official The Nation spoke to.

“I guess they don’t want any nosy folks trying to see the lot numbers and stuff of the ammo, because ammo buys are public info,” the former intelligence officer said. “Someone smart could look up what agency bought that ammo.”

Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced yesterday, following discussions with Vice President Pence, that Customs and Border Protection as well as ICE officers will leave downtown Portland, starting today. However, shortly after Brown’s statement, DHS Secretary Chad Wolf made clear that the withdrawal would be gradual and conditioned on the security of federal properties in the area.

“We will maintain our current, augmented federal law enforcement personnel in Portland until we are assured that the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and other federal properties will no longer be attacked and that the seat of justice in Portland will remain secure,” Wolf tweeted. “DHS will not back down from our legal duty to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal properties in the face of violent criminal behavior.”

A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) source told The Nation yesterday that additional CBP personnel, including BORTAC—elite tactical units that have played a significant role in the Portland deployment—were en route to Portland and had not been turned back.

The DHS document also distinguishes journalists and legal observers from “normal protestors.” While the former cannot be arrested for failure to disperse, they can still be arrested for probable cause in the case of other crimes. Their equipment can also be seized, so long as a list of items seized is provided to them. Journalists and legal observers are prohibited from access to federal properties like the Hatfield Courthouse. It also states that anyone can be treated as a “normal protestor” unless they are clearly marked as a journalist or legal observer. Ironically, the DHS came under heavy criticism for its use of unmarked cars and unclear uniform markings.

“Again, if the person does not have at least one indicator that they are a journalist or legal observer, then you may treat them as a normal protestor while dispersing the crowd,” the document states. The document leaves open the targeted use of tear gas and other crowd control devices, as well as arrest for failure to disperse, for anyone its agents have identified as a “normal protestor.”

N

In a conspicuous show of force, armed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers were recently seen in Portland carrying out surveillance and arrests. Agency director Mark Morgan has defended the deployment as measured and restrained. “I will not send any resource out anywhere to confront American citizens,” he told Time. But CBP’s support to local law enforcement has extended far beyond its controversial Portland deployment, and includes not just thousands of personnel but also drones and dozens of other aircraft, according to a CBP document obtained exclusively by The Nation.

The document, a draft of the agency’s answers to questions posed to them by Senator Kamala Harris on June 5, 2020, details the assets CBP deployed in response to requests for assistance from local law enforcement agencies across the country. So many local law enforcement agencies requested support that, according to the document, CBP was not aware of any state or local entities that explicitly declined assistance. The assistance includes a broad array of services like aerial surveillance, crowd control, unmarked vehicles, and plainclothes surveillance. Several requests involve specialized tactical units like CBP’s amphibious Riverine Force.

An index lists requests from various metropolitan police departments, including the NYPD, Chicago PD, Miami PD, Philadelphia PD, San Diego PD, and DC’s Metropolitan PD. Even federal agencies requested assistance, including several FBI field offices and the Drug Enforcement Agency. CBP aerial assets have been deployed to a variety of states including Illinois, New York, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, California, Florida, and Minnesota.

When Minneapolis erupted in protest in response to the police killing of George Floyd, CBP deployed a predator drone over the airspace. Several members of Congress sent CBP a letter demanding that the agency “cease any and all surveilling of Americans engaged in peaceful protests,” while CBP response to the protests also prompted Senator Harris to send the agency her list of questions. Director Morgan testified to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on June 25, on the subject of “CBP Oversight.”

The document was provided to The Nation by a CBP official on condition of anonymity to avoid professional reprisal. It is unclear when CBP intends to provide the information to Senator Harris.

According to the document, between May 20 and June 10, these requests resulted in 326.4 hours of aviation assets deployments as well as 2,174 personnel. Aviation support—CBP’s Air and Marine Operations possesses hundreds of aircraft—totaled 326.4 flight hours and included 38 rotor-wing, eight fixed -wing, and two unmanned aircraft systems. Included in the deployment was one Bearcat, two ATVs, three “vessels,” 50 marked vehicles, and 52 unmarked vehicles. Federal law enforcement’s reported use of unmarked vehicles in Portland led to uproar after video surfaced on social media showing what appeared to be a demonstrator arrested by an unidentified federal agent who ushered him into an unmarked vehicle. Among these federal agents were BORTAC agents—CBP’s elite tactical unit.

Although the document states, “The policies require the use of identifiable agency uniforms with badging and name tapes on the outermost garment (e.g. jacket, body armor),” CBP has offered no explanation about its use of agents who did not carry such identification.

The document is often vague about the deployments, especially those involving aircraft, saying only that “the nature of these deployments were based on the requests.” But answers to questions about surveillance capabilities provide some clues about the measures taken.

“CBP’s aircrafts can be equipped with cameras, radar and/or other technologies to support CBP components in patrolling the border, conducting surveillance as part of a law enforcement investigation or tactical operations, and respond to other significant incidents as directed,” the document states.

Footage from AMO [CBP Air and Marine Operations] aircraft systems is not shared with other law enforcement agencies, unless needed for an investigation or in connection with law enforcement activity. Requests for footage must be processed, reviewed and approved before dissemination by the CBP Office of Intelligence’s Production, Exploitation and Dissemination Cell.

The document also shows that CBP is conducting intelligence gathering operations in relation to the protests, though limited to “basic open source/social media research techniques.”

In several cases, CBP appears hesitant to answer Senator Harris’s questions. Responding to whether they discussed these deployments with anyone at the White House and, if so, with which individuals specifically, the document confirms the White House’s involvement but declines to specify: “CBP defers to DHS [CBP’s parent agency] to address this question as it coordinated component efforts with the White House.”

In another instance, when asked to confirm that CBP will not conduct immigration enforcement activities at protests and demonstrations, CBP refuses to do so, stating: “Our efforts are directed at the preservation of life and safety. Beyond that, CBP has not made any additional comments/statements to this effort. Thus, CBP has no additional information to provide with respect to this question and the sub-questions.”

“As the active commissioner I will authorize any assets that we have to carry out their mission to protect and safeguard the federal buildings, as well as protect and safeguard the law enforcement personnel that are there,” CBP director Morgan told Time. The document, however, counts “no CBP facilities disrupted or damaged at this time,” and lists only a single CBP employee as having been injured.

N

Following a storm of controversy over arrests by federal agents in Portland, Ore., New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Washington, D.C., Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton will be introducing legislation this week that would require federal law enforcement officials to clearly identify themselves, according to a draft bill provided exclusively to The Nation.

The bill would require on-duty federal agents to display not just the name of their agency but also the individual agent’s last name and identification number. It would also mandate a new form of oversight for the Justice Department, requiring its inspector general to conduct routine audits to ensure compliance with the legislation. The results of these audits would then be reported to Congress.

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) drew scrutiny after federal agents in military fatigues used unmarked vehicles to arrest protesters in Portland. Among these federal agents were members of elite Border Patrol Tactical Units (BORTAC), Custom and Border Protection’s SWAT team equivalent. Despite the mayor of Portland’s demand that federal agents leave the city, DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf refused.

“I offered DHS support to help them locally address the situation that’s going on in Portland, and their only response was: please pack up and go home,” he said to Fox News. “That’s just not going to happen on my watch.”

Internal CBP documents obtained by The Nation revealed that these federal agents would be operating indefinitely and in undisclosed locations, with drones “on standby to assist as needed.” The documents describe the DHS’s creation of the Protecting American Communities Task Force in response to President Trump’s executive order “Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Activity.”

While this incident was clearly a catalyst for public concern, a spokesperson for Representative Ocasio-Cortez said that her office had been working on this legislation for months.

Provided a copy of the draft legislation, Irvin McCullough, deputy director of legislation at the Government Accountability Project, said, “Lots of lawyers are asking the same thing: Where’s the transparency? Unidentified internal security forces are apprehending American citizens, and accounts allege these apprehension processes are more similar to overseas renditions than traditional arrests. Citizens deserve to know who’s arresting them—or at least what entity—to report any abuses they suffer or witness.”

Department of Homeland Security subdivisions have sought increasing secrecy in recent months. Earlier this year, The Nation reported that both Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) quietly acquired a special designation that would allow them to withhold employees’ names from public disclosure. This designation, which applies to all ICE and CBP employees and field agents, shields from disclosure not just their names but also job titles and salary information—typically publicly available for government employees.

While McCullough acknowledged some concerns about the need for certain narrow exceptions for necessary undercover operations, he praised the legislation as “a step forward to secure transparency and seek accountability.”

N

For days, federal agents in unmarked cars have reportedly been snatching Portland protesters off the streets. On Thursday, video emerged of federal agents clad in camouflage fatigues and unspecified “police” patches apprehending one such demonstrator and placing him in an unmarked vehicle. Social media lit up with speculation about the intentions—and the identity—of these agents. A memo consisting of internal talking points for the federal agency responsible for the arrest, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and obtained exclusively by The Nation provides some answers—and raises even more questions.

Dated July 1, the memo is titled “Public Affairs Guidance: CBP Support to Protect Federal Facilities and Property” and marked “For Official Use Only.” It describes a special task force created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to President Trump’s Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence. That task force, the Protecting American Communities Task Force (PACT), has been tasked not only to assess civil unrest but also to “surge” resources to protect against it.

The Portland arrest of Mark Pettibone, first reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting, followed several similar arrests involving officers from a Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC)—CBP’s equivalent of a SWAT team—as well as the US Marshals Special Operations Group. A CBP spokesman confirmed to The Nation that CBP agents were responsible for the arrest, pointing to authorities under the Protecting American Communities Task Force.

“Violent anarchists have organized events in Portland over the last several weeks with willful intent to damage and destroy federal property, as well as injure federal officers and agents,” said the CBP spokesman. “These criminal actions will not be tolerated.”

The talking points memo identifies a series of potential questions, including many of those being asked in response to the Portland arrests. In several cases, it instructs CBP officials not to answer them, citing “operational security.” For example, in response to questions about where CBP personnel are being deployed, the memo says “it would not be appropriate to disclose law enforcement operational specifics which could jeopardize operational security.” As for questions about when CBP personnel will be deployed and for how long, the memo states, “We do not give out operational specifics, however we hope this support will be short-term, just for the July 4th weekend.” The CBP spokesman, however, did not give any indication the operation would be coming to an end. “The Department of Homeland Security [DHS] and its components will continue to work tirelessly to reestablish law and order,” he said.

While many people have criticized the alleged lawlessness of the arrests, some even engaging in conspiracy theories about them, these arrests are likely legal, according to current and former federal law enforcement officials interviewed by The Nation. And that’s exactly what makes them so troubling, explains Jenn Budd, a former senior Border Patrol agent.

“During the DC protest, many federal agents removed their insignia,” Budd explained, referring to a June 1 protest in front of the White House where protesters were teargassed. “What the agencies discovered was that they could do this without much blowback from Congress,” Budd explained.

A former senior DHS intelligence officer explained that while other federal agencies are required to wear identifiers when conducting arrests—NCIS agents have to wear both marked jackets and hats during arrests, for example—that is not the case with the DHS. “The fact is, they don’t have to do anything in marked vehicles,” he said. “Such operations happen all the time and at the discretion of supervisors.”

“If it gives them a tactical advantage, they will find a way to justify it,” a current DHS official told The Nation.

But just because the practice is legal, that doesn’t mean it works in law enforcement’s favor. “It’s good for public image to have visible police presence as a deterrent,” the former intelligence officer said.

The memo also addresses the question of whether CBP will deploy drones again. CBP formerly deployed a predator drone over Minneapolis, to the consternation of many in Congress, who sent CBP a letter excoriating the agency. The memo instructs CBP representatives to respond: “At this time CBP Air and Marine Operations has assets on standby to assist as needed.”

Though CBP frequently uses drones to conduct border surveillance, the Minneapolis incident appeared to be one of the first times that they had done so in response to domestic protests. Budd believes the DHS has undergone a “mission creep” phenomenon, wherein its mission and authorities have gradually expanded over time—a process carried out cumulatively over the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

“‘Mission creep’ is what CBP, Border Patrol, and ICE have been engaged in since 9/11,” Budd said. “There are all sorts of interesting powers that CBP, ICE and Border Patrol have under Title 42 pandemic law, which has been triggered with Trump’s Covid-19 national emergency declaration. Even though he claims we should not be in pandemic lockdown, he refuses to lift the emergency declaration because this gives these agencies more authority. All of this is legal because of vague and broad authorities given to these agencies after 9/11.”

The US Intelligence Community, the consortium of spy agencies you most often hear about in the context of things like Russian espionage or Chinese cyberattacks, has a new target: the Boogaloo movement.

Widely known for their provocative memes and penchant for Hawaiian shirts paired with military fatigues, Boogaloos are a loosely affiliated coalition of far-right anti-government groups who aim to prepare for—or even instigate—a second American civil war. Their love of guns and zealous opposition to government allegedly resulted last month in the murder of two security guards and a police officer. This prompted Attorney General William Barr to announce the formation of a task force to investigate the group.

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a report obtained by The Nation, which begins by stating, “The Intelligence Community reports that Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) who support ‘Boogaloo’ could exploit the current political and social environments to conduct attacks in the United States, and pose a potential threat to law enforcement.”

The intelligence report, dated June 1, 2020, and marked “For Official Use Only,” was provided by a federal law enforcement official on condition of anonymity to avoid professional reprisal. The DHS did not respond to a request for comment.

The Boogaloo movement has been implicated in a string of horrific murders in the past several months, so it’s not surprising that federal agencies would be monitoring them. The report does not disclose which agencies produced the intelligence, but the Intelligence Community isn’t a typical organization—it includes within it top-tier intelligence bodies like the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI.

These agencies are often tasked with spying on nation-state adversaries as well as countering their respective intelligence services. Many employees possess top secret security clearances and access to such sensitive information that they are routinely given polygraph tests to ensure that they haven’t disclosed secrets without authorization. That the Intelligence Community is monitoring the Boogaloo movement speaks to the seriousness of the threat.

In June, Steven Carrillo, an active duty US Air Force sergeant who had served as a team leader in the Air Force’s elite Phoenix Raven security unit, allegedly used a silenced machine gun and pipe bombs to kill one police officer and two Federal Protective Service security guards. Several other police officers were also injured. Carrillo, who is alleged to have worked with another Boogaloo accomplice, reportedly scrawled in blood the word “boog” on his car along with a phrase popular among Boogaloo members: “I became unreasonable.”

As a consequence of the violence, the Defense Department has been quietly debating how to better monitor military personnel for signs of extremism, according to a senior department official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Many among the department’s leadership believe that simply monitoring personnel’s social media accounts would be effective, but privacy rules often prevent them from doing so, the official explained.

Asked if the Pentagon has updated its policies for detecting violent extremists in its ranks, a Defense Department spokesman cited its Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center, saying, “Individuals expressing affiliation, allegiance or ideological symmetry to an organization associated with extremism (including white supremacism, neo-Nazism, terrorism, or gang association) could qualify as demonstrating a concerning behavior(s) under the DoD’s insider threat program.” Forty other Pentagon subdivisions have their own additional insider threat programs, the spokesman added.

Despite this, as my senior Defense Department source explained, the Pentagon’s capabilities remain inadequate to the threat posed by domestic extremists, which he believes is rapidly evolving. In fact, none of the policies that the spokesman mentioned appeared to be new, though he didn’t mention the internal debate about updating the program.

Still, that the Pentagon is even debating a response to the wave of far-right violence may represent an inflection point for an administration that has often appeared reluctant to address the threat. While President Trump has repeatedly inveighed against “the radical left,” including antifa, which he vowed to label a terrorist organization, he has yet to address the Boogaloo attack, as well as others carried out by individuals motivated by far-right ideologies.

As one former senior counterterrorism official told me, “It’s pretty clear that as long as Trump’s in office, homegrown violent extremism isn’t going to be a priority. He’s more concerned about an immigrant who overstayed his visa.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can now operate in greater secrecy, thanks to a special security classification quietly granted to it by the Trump administration. While ICE chief Matthew Albence heralded it as “a tremendous achievement,” experts say the designation deals a blow to transparency.

On June 11, the administration classified ICE as a “Security Agency,” according to a memo signed by Albence and dated June 26. This new designation puts ICE employees in the same category as high-level intelligence officials, and blocks from disclosure information that is typically public, such as name, job title, and salary. The memo was provided to The Nation by an ICE official on condition of anonymity. The memo states:

I am pleased to announce that on June 11, 2020, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved ICE’s request to be identified as a “security/sensitive” agency for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) purposes. This designation will ensure that OPM withholds all relevant personally identifiable information (PII) of all ICE personnel where it processes FOIA requests moving forward, just as it does for other law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors.

While it’s true that some law enforcement agencies enjoy this classification, many do not; in the past it has been limited to top-tier agencies like the FBI and Secret Service. And as the memo goes on to note, the new designation doesn’t just apply to field agents, but rather to all ICE employees.

“For many years, ICE has worked to be designated, in its entirety, as a ‘security/sensitive’ agency, so that OPM would withhold all employee information under FOIA Exemption 6 (unwarranted invasion of personal privacy),” the memo states.

“Designating ICE as a security agency is a clear attempt to shield agents from accountability,” Emily Manna, policy director at Open the Government, told The Nation. “The Freedom of Information Act already contains a sufficient exemption to protect legitimate personal privacy interests. Preventing the public from obtaining any information about ICE agents—who are public officials—is a violation of the public’s right to know and should be reversed immediately.”

The memo claims the classification is necessary to protect its staff from increased threats in recent years, saying:

The increase in threats, intimidation, and doxing directed at ICE personnel in recent years underscored the need for this designation. Numerous examples of the harassment and threats you have had to endure were used to impress upon OPM that the ongoing disclosure of our employees’ identifying information under FOIA was simply unacceptable.

The memo provides no examples.

ICE has come under increasing criticism in recent years, due to the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration policies. This has culminated in major protests in front of different ICE field offices, which an ICE employee told The Nation contributed to a sense of paranoia within the agency. Last year, I reported on an internal ICE memo detailing a program called “Operation Frozen Shield,” which authorized enhanced security measures, including Federal Protective Services deployment to protect against threats like active shooters.

For years, low employee morale has plagued ICE, where morale is among the lowest at any federal agency; in 2017, ICE ranked 288th out of 330. As I reported last year, Kevin McAleenan, chief of ICE’s parent agency, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sent out an internal e-mail celebrating a modest 2 percent increase in employee morale.

Last year, McAleenan also issued a public statement drawing attention to an incident in which a man firebombed an ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Wash. Though no ICE employees were injured, McAleenan decried the incident as “only the latest among other recent examples of violence and hostility directed toward our DHS.”

While ICE’s argument for the security agency classification is its need to protect staff, it could hurt ICE employees in some cases, according to Irvin McCullough, national security analyst at the Government Accountability Project.

“Sometimes whistle-blowers are forced to FOIA records to support their case,” McCullough explains. “When ICE is designated—in its entirety—as a security agency, whistle-blowers’ and the public’s right to information is weakened. Underpinning this move are concerns that this administration is abusing its redaction authorities. It’ll be important for freedom of information advocates and congressional overseers to ensure ICE isn’t abusing this overly broad status.”

ICE isn’t the first immigration-related agency to receive this designation. In February, The Nation reported that the Trump administration had reclassified Customs and Border Protection as a security agency. The designations appear to represent a gradual move away from traditional immigration mandates and toward those of an intelligence agency.

That status is one that ICE appears to have coveted for years. In 2018, The Daily Beast reported that dating back to the Obama administration, ICE leadership has sought to join the US Intelligence Community, the consortium of spy agencies which could have granted ICE extraordinary privileges. ICE was never granted admission.

The memo closes on a personal note, with Director Albence exhorting staffers to “remain strong, stand proud, and above all, be safe.”

Today’s primary election in New York’s 16th congressional district sees insurgent candidate Jamaal Bowman challenge 16-term incumbent Representative Eliot Engel. While they’re both Democrats, a review of Engel’s foreign policy record shows just how much he has in common with the Republican Party.

Last week, The Intercept reported that a Republican-aligned super PAC funneled $100,000 to another super PAC, Democratic Majority for Israel, which itself has spent more than $600,000 attacking Bowman and promoting Engel.

Engel and the GOP have repeatedly worked together to further an interventionist, pro-Israel foreign policy. In 2010, Engel held a press conference with now–Vice President Mike Pence, in which they opposed any UN investigation into the Israeli government’s raid on a flotilla operated by activists seeking to provide humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. Israeli commandos killed nine people, whom Engel dismissed as “violent protesters.” Republican Representatives Peter King, Eric Cantor, and Ted Poe joined the press conference to voice their support.

Engel’s enthusiasm for Israel is not something he hides. A review of Engel’s otherwise unremarkable financial disclosure in 2019 shows that he possesses as much as $15,000 in Israeli government bonds. When President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—a move that prominent Democrats like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin criticized as dangerous and likely to foment unrest—Engel voiced his support.

But it’s not just Israel policy on which Engel sides with Republicans. In 2019, Engel expressed “outrage” at the Venezuelan government for blocking humanitarian aid—the same thing he defended when the Israeli government did it.

“We are outraged that Nicolas Maduro continues to block the entry of food and medical supplies into Venezuela,” Engel said in testimony before the foreign affairs committee. “We urge Maduro to immediately allow humanitarian aid to reach the Venezuelan people.”

Engel also supported the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela, even though Guaidó was never elected. (The UN has declined to recognize Guaidó.)

Engel was also a proponent of the Iraq War, saying on the House floor in October 2002, “It would be a monumental mistake not to support” it. When the US military found no chemical or biological weapons, Engel echoed a Bush administration talking point, arguing that it “wouldn’t surprise me if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria.”

Senator Chuck Schumer and former senator Hillary Clinton have both endorsed Engel, a sign of Democratic leadership’s concern over the election. As chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Engel receives classified briefings regarding foreign policy, which represents one of the few ways Congress can oversee the intelligence community.

The Foreign Affairs Committee is also able to question foreign policy officials, vividly embodied by Representative Ilhan Omar’s 2019 grilling of Trump’s special representative for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, over his support for authoritarian regimes in Central America and his involvement in the Iran/Contra scandal. At the time, a congressional staffer told me that Engel tried to strip Omar of her committee assignment, though he was ultimately unsuccessful.

When the Bolivian military ousted President Evo Morales last year, Engel joined the Trump administration in welcoming his resignation, even as it was condemned by progressive leaders like Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez as a coup. Engel justified the transition as necessary, citing Bolivia’s “flawed presidential election”—an allusion to allegations of vote rigging. But a New York Times report earlier this month found no evidence of fraud. (Engel has not publicly addressed the report.)

Bolivia’s military coup was not the only one Engel soft pedaled. In 2013, he issued a joint statement with Republican Representative Ed Royce backing the Egyptian military coup that overthrew President Mohamed Morsi, the country’s first elected leader.

Engel clashed with the Obama administration on a variety foreign policy issues. When Obama sought to hold the Egyptian military accountable by suspending military aid, Engel, bristled. “I am disappointed that the Administration is planning to partially suspend military aid to Egypt,” Engel said.

The statement was significant: US law mandates a suspension of military aid to coup regimes, but the law can be circumvented if Congress recognizes the government. As the Democrats’ then-ranking Foreign Affairs Committee member, Engel’s statement held sway, and Congress would later certify the legitimacy of the new government.

Engel also joined Republicans in opposing the Iran deal. When, in late 2016, the Obama administration simply abstained from a largely symbolic UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Engel excoriated Obama. “It’s a parting shot out the door,” Engel said of the abstention.

In 2016, Engel was one of just 16 Democrats to join with 200 Republicans to defeat legislation that would have outlawed the export of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. Cluster bombs are banned by over 100 countries because of their indiscriminate nature. Many also do not detonate and can pose a threat to civilians decades later.

After Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly ordered the grisly murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, many high-profile Democrats called for the Saudi leader to be held accountable. But again, Engel sided with the Trump administration, saying that he did not want to see the leader punished.

Several prominent Obama administration officials have voiced support for Engel’s challenger. A recent report by The Daily Beast quotes Tommy Vietor, a former Obama administration spokesperson, as saying, “We need fresh thinking on that [Engel’s] committee.”

Vietor added: “I also think that [the Foreign Affairs Committee] should be more progressive when it comes to oversight, fighting annexation [of the West Bank], supporting diplomacy like the [Iran deal], and unwinding parts of the U.S.-Saudi relationship that allow for the continued humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.”

The report also quotes Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser under Obama, criticizing Engel for his opposition to the Iran deal.

While it would be unfair to call Engel a Republican—he recently came out in support of Medicare for All—his positions on foreign affairs stand out for their alignment with the Republican Party.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office “has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence” in the violence that occurred on May 31 during the D.C.-area protests over the murder of George Floyd, according to an internal FBI situation report obtained exclusively by The Nation. That same day, President Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he would designate “Antifa” a terrorist organization, even though the government has no existing authority to declare a domestic group a terrorist organization, and antifa is not an organized group. Following the president’s tweet, Attorney General William Barr said in a statement, “The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”

The FBI report, however, states that “based on CHS [Confidential Human Source] canvassing, open source/social media partner engagement, and liaison, FBI WFO has no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence.” The statement followed a list of violent acts like throwing bricks at police and the discovery of a backpack containing explosive materials, which were flagged by the FBI under a “Key Updates” section of the report. The FBI has been issuing such reports daily since the weekend, according to a Bureau source, who added that none of these documents contained any evidence of antifa violence.

Antifa, short for “anti-fascist,” is a type of militant anti-racist, anti-nationalist organizing that does not rely on the justice system to confront the far right. Groups associated with antifa have destroyed property and committed violence in the past, but the fact that the FBI’s situation reports cannot find any evidence of such involvement now suggests that fears about such groups may be exaggerated.

The report did warn that individuals from a far-right social media group had “called for far-right provocateurs to attack federal agents, use automatic weapons against protesters.” (The Nation is withholding the name of the group in order to not disrupt any potential law enforcement investigations.)

Last year, FBI documents obtained by this reporter showed that the Bureau has listed “Racially Motivated Violent Extremists” among its top counterterrorism priorities. While those priorities did include white supremacist groups, they also included what the FBI called “Black Identity Extremists.” The documents reveal that the Bureau linked “retaliatory lethal violence against law enforcement” to the “shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,” from which the Black Lives Matter movement originated.

The report, marked “For official use only” (FOUO), was provided to The Nation by an FBI official on condition of anonymity. The report is titled, “Civil Unrest in Washington AOR [Area of Responsibility] Following Death of George Floyd.” The report’s reference to “CHS” suggests that the Bureau possesses secret informants participating in the protests.

Asked about the report and why they’ve been unable to substantiate antifa involvement in the violence, the FBI’s Washington Field Office declined to comment.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) acting chief Mark Morgan today commemorated the 1969 Stonewall Riots in an agencywide e-mail honoring LGBT Pride Month. The e-mail comes one day after he tweeted that the current “‘protests’”—which he put in scare quotes—“are anything but peaceful.”

“To the violent rioters, you are not representing justice—you are committing crimes like arson, assault, looting & destruction of property,” Morgan wrote later.

He sent out the e-mail commemorating the Stonewall riots just before noon. It states, “The designation of LGBT Pride month commemorates the 1969 Stonewall Riots in Manhattan protesting persecution of the LGBT community. The Stonewall Riots served as a catalyst, propelling the LGBT rights movement in the United States.” The e-mail was provided to The Nation by a Department of Homeland Security contractor on condition of anonymity to avoid professional reprisal.

The e-mail appears to be part of CBP’s effort to commemorate Pride Month, led by the agency’s various Diversity and Inclusion Program Committees under the Privacy and Diversity Office.

“CBP takes immense pride in embracing an inclusive workforce…. During the month of June, we celebrate Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride month with the theme, ‘#StillWe,’” the e-mail begins.

“Considering how Acting Commissioner Morgan was deploying officers and agency resources for the riots over the weekend, to turn around and send this e-mail is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy,” the DHS employee told The Nation. “Stonewall was a fight for justice, and so are the protests in the name of George Floyd.”

Last week, Morgan said that CBP was deploying officers, agents, and “aviation assets”—its Air and Marine Operations has about 240 aircraft, including helicopters and military drones—to confront what he described as “the lawless actions of rioters,” noting that CBP legally operates nationwide and not just at the borders.

He is correct that CBP operates not just close to the border; it is legally authorized to operate within 100 miles of any external boundary of the United States. This covers an area where about 200 million Americans—around two-thirds of the US population—live. It encompasses nine of the 10 largest US metropolitan areas and almost the entire territories of 11 states, including New York and Florida.

On May 29, CBP touched off controversy after reports that it was operating a predator drone over Minneapolis. Notably, Minneapolis is not within 100 miles of any US border. The drone was first spotted by Jason Paladino using an open-source flight tracker. Paladino, who works for the Project on Government Oversight, posted data on Twitter that showed the drone flying around Minneapolis in a hexagonal pattern before heading directly over the city and leaving.

CBP reportedly said that it had deployed the drone at the request of federal law enforcement to provide video for “situational awareness,” but beyond that, it is unclear exactly what role it played. According to CBP, it routinely provides support to local law enforcement when requested, but it did not disclose which agency had asked for the drone assistance. CBP said it had notified Congress of the drone’s deployment,

Shortly thereafter, CBP recalled the drone to its home base in North Dakota.

The US military is monitoring protests in at least seven states, according to Defense Department documents obtained exclusively by The Nation.

In addition to Minnesota, where a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd, the military is tracking uprisings in New York, Ohio, Colorado, Arizona, Tennessee, and Kentucky, according to a Defense Department situation report. Notably, only Minnesota has requested National Guard support. The documents were originally stored on an unclassified server but were subsequently elevated to a classified system. While the documents reveal significant National Guard force capabilities in each of those states, one Minnesota Guard member expressed concerns about the troops’ lack of training to respond to civil unrest.

A document pertaining to the Minnesota National Guard, marked “For official use only” (FOUO), describes one operation’s purpose: “Augment MN State Patrol Civil Disturbance Operations with a show of force.” Other operations are variously described as providing security for law enforcement agencies, defending the state Capitol, and “maintaining governance.”

Another document about the protests in Minnesota, titled “MNNG Civil Disturbance Response Storybook,” is also marked FOUO and is dated May 29. It states that National Guard members have been authorized for “weapon status red,” meaning magazines loaded but safety on. The document seems particularly concerned with not just harm to civilians but also potential damage to property, to which it refers several times. For example, the assessment line says the Guard will “ensure the safety of citizens and property.”

A situation report details “Protester Actions” and “National Guard Reaction Force Capabilities” in six cities: Denver, Memphis, Phoenix, Louisville, New York, and Columbus. Troop capacities (labeled “PAX” in the document) range from 100 to 500 Guard members in each state, but the document reveals that there’s enough riot gear (RG) for only a fraction of them.

Asked why they were generating intelligence reports for six states besides Minnesota, Lt. Col. Chris Mitchell, a spokesperson for the Defense Department, told The Nation that producing this information amounts to sensible preparation in the event these states require assistance. “Without such situational awareness, it would be more difficult for DOD to respond if it becomes necessary (if requested by the governors of those states),” Mitchell said.

The system that some documents were moved to, the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), is a more tightly secured program than the unclassified one in which these documents were previously stored. The enhanced security makes it less likely that the documents would leak.

The Associated Press’s James LaPorta reported last night that military police deployed to Minneapolis had their orders placed in SIPRNet. Last year, LaPorta wrote that Defense Department documents regarding the Trump administration’s military deployment to the US-Mexico border were also on SIPRNet in order to prevent leaks to the press and limit media coverage.

Mitchell told The Nation, “The Department of Defense takes appropriate measures to ensure our information—electronic or otherwise—is safeguarded and handled appropriately. As such, we take necessary and prudent steps to minimize the unauthorized release of unclassified, but sensitive information.”

On Saturday, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz announced that he is fully mobilizing the Minnesota National Guard—the first time it has been called out since World War II.

In addition to the National Guard, Donald Trump has reportedly considered deploying active-duty military. Benjamin Haas, a D.C.-based attorney with expertise in national security law who is a former Army intelligence officer, stressed the dangers of this course of action. “Even if involving the active-duty military is legal and the circumstances on the ground demand further resources, it may not be wise as a matter of policy and optics. Putting soldiers into a politically charged law enforcement context is a sensitive matter, and Trump’s incendiary rhetoric has made an already tense moment even worse,” Haas said.

Walz also reportedly said during a press conference that the National Security Agency was providing “intelligence support” and intercepted communications regarding riots.

When Zack Whittaker, a reporter for TechCrunch, asked about the governor’s statement, the NSA declined to comment. A spokesperson for the Minnesota governor’s office declined to comment on the record for The Nation.

Asked about the Guard’s suitability for responding to civil unrest, Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, told The Nation via e-mail, “Although the National Guard is a component of the US Armed Forces, their crowd control mission in Minnesota is not a military mission. They are not trying to defeat an adversary, but to support their fellow citizens, to preserve order and to protect the defenseless. And unlike a response to natural disaster, they have to act in an environment of intense anger and provocation without losing their own bearings. It’s a near-impossible task even with the best training and equipment.”

One Minnesota Guard member, who spoke to The Nation on the condition of anonymity, said that many in the Guard were dreading being called up: “We’re a combat unit not trained for riot control or safely handling civilians in this context. Soldiers up and down the ranks are scared about hurting someone, and leaders are worried about soldiers’ suffering liability.”

The Guard member added, “My [colleagues] are people of common sense and common decency. They may not want to step over any lines when doing their jobs, but wanting only goes so far when you’re undertrained and underequipped.”

he US military’s Africa Command, known as Africom, raised concerns during a recent meeting about President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend payments to the World Health Organization (WHO), according to documents obtained exclusively by The Nation. On April 23, the officials “highlighted some of the negative impacts related to the POTUS halt on WHO funding,” according to minutes marked “for official use only.”

Some two dozen individuals attended the meeting via Skype, according to the readout, which reveals that Africom appears to fear that if the United States stops contributing to the WHO during the Covid-19 pandemic, China will use that as an opportunity to expand its influence in Africa.

On May 19, Trump threatened to make permanent the suspension of payments to the WHO and said he would “reconsider” the country’s membership in the UN agency. In the 2018–19 budget, US funding accounted for 15 percent of the WHO’s budget—more than any other country’s contribution.

The following day, Chinese President Xi Jinping made diplomatic relations with Africa the focus of his opening address at the World Health Assembly. His speech emphasized Beijing’s longstanding relations with Africa, saying that China provided health aid to 200 million Africans over the past 70 years. And while Trump threatens to exit the WHO, Xi pledged to give the agency $2 billion to over the next 20 years. For comparison, the United States gave $107 million to $119 million in assessed contributions annually—as well as voluntary contributions ranging from $102 million to $401 million per year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Under a section titled “COVID-19 Update,” the report says that officials “briefed the GPC [great power competition] impacts of China’s ‘mask diplomacy’ efforts and some signs of pushback from African countries, providing an opportunity for greater U.S. influence. But, highlighted some of the negative impacts related to the POTUS halt on WHO funding.”

The document also highlights “concern” about the fact that the only major US military base in the region, Camp Lemonnier, is in Djibouti, which it notes “has by far the highest incidence rate per population on the continent.”

In April, The Nation reported on a leaked Defense Department intelligence brief detailing fears about the dangers Covid-19 outbreaks in foreign countries could pose to US military personnel.

Asked about the nature of the meeting, a Defense Department spokesperson declined to comment.

The report refers to China’s “mask diplomacy efforts,” which include donating more than 1 million test kits and 600,000 facial masks to various African countries. Despite these contributions, the response within Africa is not one of unmitigated approval. This month, Human Rights Watch called on the Chinese government to “end the discriminatory treatment of Africans related to the Covid-19 pandemic.” The rights group criticized Chinese authorities in Guangzhou, a city in southern China, for targeting African residents with forced testing and quarantine. Landlords also evicted Africans, forcing many to sleep on the streets. Authorities did not generally treat other foreigners in this manner, according to HRW.

The Pentagon is acutely aware of China’s diplomatic overtures. The document cites a briefing on “GPC impacts.” Great power competition is conflict among superpowers for geopolitical dominance. As The Atlantic reported last year, GPC has become a popular way for the DC foreign policy establishment to frame almost any international issue—so much so that it is “approaching a cliché.”

In 2019, Gen. Kenneth McKensie, the commander of US Central Command, identified GPC as the main focus of the National Defense Strategy, a planning document produced once every four years by the secretary of defense and signed by the president.

The fourth reason is the reemergence of the great power competition, the main challenge highlighted in the NDS [National Defense Strategy]. China and Russia seek to dominate and influence not just their own geographic regions, but the Central Region as well. Just as great power competitors looked to influence energy and trade in the Middle East following the first World War, China and Russia are working very hard today to reshuffle the balance of power in the CENTCOM area of responsibility, trying to displace the U.S. from our current position of influence in the region.

In March of this year, McKensie gave a posture statement before the House Armed Services Committee, saying that “the nation’s top defense priority must relentlessly focus on adversarial great powers that possess the power and means to destroy our country.”

McKensie’s bellicose tone reflects the goal implicit in great power competition: to confront military superpowers like China and Russia. One consequence of this is diverting resources from countering nonstate actors like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Stephen Townsend, a four-star general who is now the commander of Africom, said that attention had turned from extremist groups to superpowers. “As a result of the National Defense Strategy’s shift in focus to great power competition, the priority for resourcing USAfricom’s Counter Violent Extremists Organizations efforts has decreased.”

Phillip Lohaus, a former Defense Department analyst who now works as a research fellow with the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, echoed similar concerns, writing in USA Today, “In framing the way forward as a competition between ‘great powers,’ the United States risks overlooking where the front lines of international competition with these actors now lay. It risks doubling down on old notions of direct military confrontation rather than mitigating the weaknesses that its adversaries have long exploited.”

As ominous as the notion of a renewed Cold War between nuclear superpowers is, Trump’s decision to cut funding to the WHO will have serious humanitarian consequences as well, particularly in Africa. Since January, the WHO has helped the African Union establish coronavirus testing labs and provided countries most affected by Covid-19 with additional medical supplies. The WHO works closely with the African Union and the US Centers for Disease Control to respond to health crises.

Despite these dangers, the Pentagon’s central concern appears to be over GPC. “There is also an effort at continuing to develop the GPC capabilities being worked at a higher classification level,” the readout states. Another section titled “[Future Operations] Update” reads, “Expect to get some [request for service] from AFRICOM for some Special Activities capabilities.”

While Trump may not be aware of his cuts’ effect on the United States’ global influence, the military certainly is.

You can read the Africom meeting readout below.

US sanctions on Iran have “badly crippled” its economy as well as its ability to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, which endangers nearby US troops, according to a military intelligence brief obtained by The Nation.

The document, dated April 3, says that Qatar—host to the largest US military base in the region—”has the highest number of COVID-19 cases, with over 800 confirmed.” While the briefing does not make clear whether that figure includes US military personnel, the number is doubtless far higher today. The Pentagon did not respond to a query by The Nation asking how many US military personnel in Qatar have tested positive for the virus.

The majority of these cases, the brief says, derive from Iran, which is located across the Persian Gulf from Qatar. The document warns that US sanctions have “left Iran bereft of financial resources to mount an effective public health response” to the pandemic and “unable to order ventilators from abroad, which are crucial for treatment.”

Despite this, sanctions remain in effect. To quote one segment of the briefing: “president trump refuses to let up on choke hold.”

The military is not alone in seeing the dangers. Norman Roule, a retired CIA official who served as national intelligence manager for Iran until 2017, told The Nation, “The international community should do everything it can to enable the Iranian people to obtain access to medical supplies and equipment, not just because it’s the right thing to do, the human thing to do, but also because as Iranians travel throughout the region, they will continue to disperse the virus.”

Roule, a 34-year veteran of the CIA, is no sympathizer of the Iranian regime. He stressed that “Iran has an obligation to be open as to the nature of the virus’s impact within its borders,” but he said that if the coronavirus spreads unchecked throughout the country, it threatens everyone. “Iranian military personnel are in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and parts of Afghanistan, and Iran also has a history of training foreign militants,” Roule said. These populations “could spread viruses throughout the region and from there, the international community.”

The intelligence brief appears to echo Roule’s concern about the threat of the virus spreading outside Iran’s borders, warning, “It creates potential negative effects to U.S. forward operating locations due to civilian personnel who are staffed throughout CENTCOM. This ultimately affects military personnel due to the inevitable social interaction in maintaining operations.”

The intelligence brief, produced by the Air Force’s 461st Operations Support Squadron and marked For Official Use Only, was provided to The Nation by a Pentagon official on the condition of anonymity to avoid professional reprisal. It notes that “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that [the] U.S. offered to help and Iran refused.”

While Pompeo has rhetorically expressed openness to easing sanctions, no concrete offer has been made, and he has not given any indication that he has dropped his 12 preconditions for sanctions relief. Jake Sullivan, who negotiated with Iran while serving as the State Department’s director of policy planning under the Obama administration, reportedly said of Pompeo’s preconditions, “The 12 requirements the secretary set seem intended to ensure that no deal ever happens.”

Earlier this month, two dozen former US and European officials, including former secretary of state Madeline Albright, called on the Trump administration to lift sanctions in order to help Iran better respond to the pandemic, saying in a statement that “an outbreak anywhere impacts people everywhere.”

Iran suffers from the highest number of coronavirus cases of any country in the Middle East. It reportedly has 75,000 cases, with some 1,400 new ones being reported each day. Officially, 5,200 Iranians have died.

The Trump administration maintains what it calls a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. Not only has the administration barred US firms from doing business with Iran but in May 2019, the administration ended sanctions exemptions for foreign countries buying Iranian oil. The move wrecked Iran’s economy, leading the IMF to forecast zero growth for the country in 2020.

The coronavirus will likewise severely damage the economy. Daniel Russel, a former US diplomat who served as the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs until 2017, told The Nation that while pandemics have a devastating initial effect on public health, a brutal second wave can come in the form of an economic downturn—particularly in developing countries like Iran.

“I ran the Asia Bureau in the State Department, and I was constantly reminding people that no matter how bad things seem, they can always be made worse,” Russel said.

If relations with Iran improve, financial institutions are still unlikely to want to work with Iran. Roule explained that banks will probably see too much risk and exposure in working with the country. Even during the Obama administration, which lifted sanctions, European banks were reluctant to conduct business with Iran.

Iran has unsuccessfully requested $5 billion in loans from the IMF in order to combat Covid-19, in addition to a $50 million loan from the World Bank. This marks the first time that Iran has asked the World Bank for a loan since 2005.

Secretary of State Pompeo has vociferously opposed Iran’s request for a loan, saying that the country would use the money for “corrupt purposes.”

“The Trump administration should start taking concrete steps to give banks and suppliers the clarity they need to help Iranians access vital humanitarian and medical assistance,” Senator Ed Markey told The Nation. “The Iranian regime has long demonstrated its disregard for the well-being of its own people, but the United States should do more within our power to help coronavirus assistance reach those who need it inside Iran. That’s what makes us different from Iranian leaders.”

Markey is far from the only prominent member of Congress to call for sanctions relief amid the pandemic. Senators Chris Murphy, Tim Kaine, and Patrick Leahy have sent multiple letters to the administration urging it to ease sanctions.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who serves on the Foreign Affairs committee, told The Nation, “Keeping sanctions in place on Iran during a global pandemic is unconscionable. These sanctions are only harming innocent civilians who bear the brunt of this crisis while having zero effect on the behavior of the Iranian government. Civilians are unable to receive lifesaving medicine and humanitarian supplies due to the US-placed sanctions.”

Correction: This article was updated to convey that the briefing does not make clear if the number of cases in Qatar includes US military personnel.

In late March, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requested military support to surveil the US-Canada border with mobile cameras and underground sensors. The request was rebuffed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who feared opposition from the Canadians, according to an internal Pentagon memo obtained exclusively by The Nation.

The memo reveals that CBP sought 916 military personnel to undertake duties at the Canadian border, including operating mobile surveillance cameras, unmanned ground sensors, and motor transportation. Overall, CBP’s request was estimated to cost $145.3 million.

In addition, it would provide 540 military personnel on the southern border—adding to the 5,000 military personnel including military police, marines, planners, and engineers.

The memo, marked for official use only, was sent from Kenneth P. Rapuano, assistant secretary for homeland defense and global security, to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. It was provided to The Nation by a Pentagon official on the condition of anonymity to avoid professional reprisal.

Stephanie Carvin, a professor of International Relations at Carleton University in Ottawa, expressed outrage at the proposal, telling The Nation, “Americans remember 9/11, but Canadians remember 9/12 because that was the day our border shut down…. The United States is 80 percent of our trade—it’s our oxygen. If it’s cut off, we can’t breathe.…

“Militarization runs against almost everything institutional in Canadian foreign and domestic policy going back the last 20 years, and I don’t say that lightly.”

The memo ties Covid-19 to border enforcement, describing the request’s purpose as being to help CBP “as part of the Federal response to the Covid-19 pandemic.” But it later cites immigration enforcement as one of its goals. “CBP does not have the resources required to maintain public health standards and national security requirements to enforce immigration laws without additional DoD support,” it notes.

Despite CBP’s concerns, undocumented immigration to the United States remains relatively low, with the vast majority of it coming across the southern border. Furthermore, the incidence of Covid-19 is far higher in the United States than Canada or Mexico.

Political scientist Stephen Saideman, who serves as director of the Canadian Defence and Security Network as well as Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, called the plan a “harebrained idea.”

“It seems like a strange use of resources at this moment in time,” Saideman said. “There is no threat of Canadians fleeing to the US given that national health care in Canada becomes a far greater magnet during a pandemic; Canada is not only a week or two behind the US in terms of the progress of the pandemic, but is also flattening the curve better; [and] there has not been much threat of illegal migration in this direction historically.”

The Nation previously reported on a memo from March in which the Department of Homeland Security requested military support up north, stating that “any unknown or unresolved illegal entries into the United States in between Ports of Entry (POE), have the potential to spread infectious disease.”

Carvin described the mood in Canada when the plan was first reported as “first shock and then laughter.”

President Trump has repeatedly accused foreigners of spreading diseases, accusing Mexican migrants of bringing “tremendous infectious disease…pouring across the border.” He has also demanded that Covid-19 be called a “Chinese” virus. But he has not publicly targeted Canadians—yet.

The US-Canadian border, often described as the oldest demilitarized border in world history, has historically been free of a military presence from either nation; but that could change under the Trump administration, which has already moved to restrict travel between the United States and Canada.

The plan does not appear to have been low-level speculation, judging from the seniority of staff involved. The memo notes that the commander of US Northern Command spoke about it with the commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command.

While the chairman of the Joint Chiefs rejected the plan, he also appears to leave open the possibility, provided the Canadians approved.

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has reviewed this request for assistance and non-concurs on the use of military personnel to staff MSC [Mobile Surveillance Camera] vehicles along the northern border because he does not see the link between MSC support, sensors, and the COVID-19 outbreak,” the memo states. “The Chairman caveats his non-concurrence, by noting ‘if supported, I recommend we work with our Canadian counterparts to address their concerns about the “militarization” of the northern border prior to committing any forces.’”

Maj. Mark Lazane, a spokesperson for the Pentagon’s US Northern Command, told The Nation, “DoD [Department of Defense] has a long history of supporting Customs and Border Protection in securing the U.S. borders; however, we do not have an approved mission assignment to support CBP along the northern border. For information regarding potential future support, please contact CBP or the Department of Homeland Security.”

Neither Customs and Border Protection nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to a request for comment.

Correction: A previous version of this article misattributed two quotations from Stephanie Carvin to Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister, who declined to comment. The story has been corrected. 

Despite President Trump’s repeated assertions that the Covid-19 epidemic was “unforeseen” and “came out of nowhere,” the Pentagon was not just well aware of the threat of a novel influenza but even anticipated the consequent scarcity of ventilators, face masks, and hospital beds, according to a 2017 Pentagon plan obtained by The Nation.

“The most likely and significant threat is a novel respiratory disease, particularly a novel influenza disease,” the military plan states. Covid-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the novel (meaning new to humans) coronavirus. The document specifically refers to coronaviruses on several occasions, in one instance saying, “Coronavirus infections [are] common around the world.”

The plan updates an earlier Department of Defense pandemic influenza response plan, noting that it “incorporates insights from several recent outbreaks including…2012 Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.”

Titled “USNORTHCOM Branch Plan 3560: Pandemic Influenza and Infectious Disease Response,” the draft plan is marked for official use only and dated January 6, 2017. The plan was provided to The Nation by a Pentagon official who requested anonymity to avoid professional reprisal.

Denis Kaufman, who served as head of the Infectious Diseases and Countermeasures Division at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2014 to 2017, stressed that US intelligence had been well aware of the dangers of coronaviruses for years. (He retired from his decades-long career in the military in December 2017.)

“The intelligence community has warned about the threat from highly pathogenic influenza viruses for two decades, at least. They have warned about coronaviruses for at least five years,” Kaufman said in an interview.

“There have been recent pronouncements that the coronavirus pandemic represents an intelligence failure…. It’s letting people who ignored intelligence warnings off the hook.”

In addition to anticipating the coronavirus pandemic, the military plan predicted with uncanny accuracy many of the medical supply shortages that will now apparently soon cause untold deaths.

The plan states, “Competition for, and scarcity of resources will include…non-pharmaceutical MCM [medical countermeasures] (e.g., ventilators, devices, personal protective equipment such as face masks and gloves), medical equipment, and logistical support. This will have a significant impact on the availability of the global workforce.”

The 103-page response plan provides an overview of what might cause a pandemic, likely complications, and how the military might respond. The plan outlines conditions under which an infectious disease can become a pandemic, several of which were at play with Covid-19: crowded workplaces, proximity to international airports, unsanitary living conditions. It also contains references to classified annexes that go into further detail. (The Nation is not in possession of these annexes.)

Last week, Trump lashed out at General Motors and Ford on Twitter, demanding that they manufacture ventilators, a life-or-death appliance for many people with acute Covid-19 symptoms.

General Motors MUST immediately open their stupidly abandoned Lordstown plant in Ohio, or some other plant, and START MAKING VENTILATORS, NOW!!!!!! FORD, GET GOING ON VENTILATORS, FAST!!!!!! @GeneralMotors @Ford

—Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2020

The plan’s warning about face masks and ventilators was prescient: The US Strategic National Stockpile of medical equipment—including respirators, gloves, face masks, and gowns—is reportedly nearly depleted.

The military plan also correctly anticipates “insufficient hospital beds.” Indeed, hospitals are in critically short supply in Italy and are rapidly filling up across New York.

“Even the most industrialized countries will have insufficient hospital beds, specialized equipment such as mechanical ventilators, and pharmaceuticals readily available to adequately treat their populations during clinically severe pandemic,” the report goes on.

Another prediction in the report anticipates worldwide competition for and scarcity of Covid-19 vaccines. Trump has already reportedly offered German scientists large sums of money for exclusive rights to a vaccine, and efforts to develop drugs are underway in several countries.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

You can read the Pentagon’s full draft pandemic plan below.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has requested the assistance of over 1,500 US military personnel for border enforcement, citing immigrants’ “potential to spread infectious disease,” according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo obtained exclusively by The Nation.

The memo requests 1,000 military personnel to support CBP operations at the northern border and an additional 540 for the southwest border, an operation it anticipates will last through September 30. The troops stationed there would “increase CBP’s capacity to protect public health and prevent the spread of COVID-19,” granting Border Patrol the ability to coordinate operational use of military assets and resources.

This would represent an increase to the 5,200 troops already at the border because of President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over undocumented immigration in February, 2019.

“Any unknown or unresolved illegal entries into the United States in between Ports of Entry (POE), have the potential to spread infectious disease,” the memo states, echoing Trump’s past rhetoric equating migrants with disease.

Trump has accused Mexican migrants of bringing “tremendous infectious disease…pouring across the border.” He has also said that “open borders…brings large scale crime and disease” and insists on calling COVID-19 a “Chinese” virus.

Last week, the Trump administration said it would block almost all border traffic from entering the United States—including asylum seekers attempting to enter lawfully through ports of entry. Earlier this week, The Nation published a leaked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document about COVID-19 showing that ICE detainees were being monitored and quarantined across 10 different facilities, as well as that 1,444 DHS employees were in precautionary self-quarantine—with its ICE and CBP employees among the most affected. (The DHS is ICE and CBP’s parent agency.)

In July, the DHS Inspector General issued a report that found “dangerous overcrowding” and squalid conditions in its migrant detention facilities—conditions that could propagate illnesses like the coronavirus. And earlier this week, ICE detainees reportedly went on a hunger strike for soap.

James Hodge, director at the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University, told The Nation that travel restrictions can have unintended consequences.

“[It] is not something that CDC favors…it can be problematic” Hodge said, explaining that it can lead to other countries retaliating with their own travel restrictions. This could leave many potentially healthy individuals trapped overseas.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has also opposed travel restrictions specifically in relation to coronavirus on grounds that it can harm economies and encourage travelers to lie about their symptoms. In February, its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said, “The WHO doesn’t recommend and actually opposes any restrictions for travel and trade or other measures against China.”

The memo is titled, “Request for Department of Defense (DoD) Assistance in Support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on the Northern and Southwest Borders to Prevent the Spread of the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and Maintain Public Health.” Marked “For Official Use Only // Law Enforcement Sensitive,” the memo was provided by a Pentagon official who requested anonymity to avoid professional reprisal. The memo was sent from DHS’ Acting Executive Secretary, Julianna Blackwell, to the Defense Department’s Executive Secretary, Capt. Oliver Lewis, and is dated March 19.

While the memo notes that CBP already enjoys enhanced enforcement measures, it says they are still not adequate to maintain public health in the face of coronavirus. “CBP is undertaking enhanced enforcement and is collaborating with external partners to address cross border safety and security challenges. CBP cannot, however, effectively maintain public health measures and national security requirements without additional support.”

The memo cites business performance and public confidence in the government as reasons for the deployment.

“DHS’ overarching goal is to secure and manage the Nation’s borders while minimizing threats to public health, thereby ensuring the safety of the DHS workforce and the environment where communities and businesses can thrive and people feel confident that the U.S. Government will respond to emergent public health threats in a reliable and sustainable manner to maintain national security.”

As with previous border deployments, the memo stresses that the military will be operating in a support capacity, and will not conduct civilian law enforcement activities—for example, arresting undocumented migrants—while remaining under the military chain of command.

The memo appears vague on use of force guidelines, stating that “use of force will be informed by the circumstances of their missions and made by DoD as appropriate, in consultation with CBP.”

Multiple Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees have been put in isolation for medical reasons, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) coronavirus report obtained exclusively by The Nation.

The report, marked “For Official Use Only” and dated March 19, states that ICE’s Health Services Corps had isolated nine detainees and that it was monitoring 24 more in 10 different ICE facilities.

The document does not specify what illness these individuals are being monitored for, and an ICE spokesperson said that “detainees can be quarantined as a result of any variety of communicable diseases.”

However, the document is titled “DHS National Operations Center COVID-19 Placemat,” which suggests that the agency’s actions are in direct response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

In addition, the document says Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is working to convert several of its major border facilities into quarantine facilities. One thousand, four hundred and forty-four officials with ICE and CBP’s parent agency, the DHS, were in “precautionary self-quarantine” at the time of the document’s writing, including 153 CBP officials, the report says.

The document was provided by a federal intelligence official on condition of anonymity to avoid professional reprisal.

The report goes on to state that the current number of detainees in ICE custody is 37,843. Among each of the DHS’s sub-agencies, the one with the most employees in self-quarantine is the Transportation Security Administration, at 670. The US Coast Guard ranks second, with 345 employees in self-quarantine, followed by CBP and then ICE.

Unsanitary conditions in both ICE and CBP detention facilities are well-documented, and have led to concerns about facilitating the spread of coronavirus. In July, a DHS Inspector General report found “dangerous overcrowding” and squalid conditions among its southern border facilities. Last week, two doctors who work for the DHS wrote a letter to Congress warning of an “imminent risk to the health and safety of immigrant detainees” as well as the general public in the event that the coronavirus spreads among ICE detention facilities.

The letter went on to warn of a “tinderbox scenario of a large cohort of people getting sick all at once.” One day before the letter was sent, ICE informed Congress that at least one of its employees had tested positive for the coronavirus.

In June, I obtained an internal ICE memo describing multiple deaths in ICE custody as having been preventable. The memo, sent from an ICE Health Services Corps (IHSC) official to ICE’s then-director, Matthew Albence, in December 2018, stated: “IHSC [ICE’s Health Services Corps] is severely dysfunctional and unfortunately preventable harm and death to detainees has occurred.”

Despite these conditions, ICE insists no detainees have been found to have the coronavirus.

“At this time, no detainees have tested positive for the virus,” Danielle Bennett, a spokeswoman for ICE, told The Nation on March 23. “Detainees can be quarantined as a result of any variety of communicable diseases, not just Covid-19.”

Asked to clarify if each of the ICE detainees presently in isolation have been tested for Covid-19, Bennet replied: “Yes, testing is being done in accordance with CDC guidelines.”

However, the report obtained by The Nation is titled “DHS National Operations Center COVID-19 Placemat,” and the rest of the document appears to pertain entirely and explicitly to the coronavirus. It is unclear why it would include detainee isolation data pertaining to another illness. (Aside from ICE, the report does not mention detainee isolation numbers in any other DHS agency.)

Under pressure to respond to the epidemic, ICE says it has dramatically scaled back its enforcement activities. But many say that’s not enough.

In addition to the two DHS doctors who warned Congress about the dangers posed by the detention facilities, 3,000 medical professionals signed an open letter urging ICE to release its detainees in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. 51 ICE detainees sent a letter to rights groups warning that they were being exposed to flu-like symptoms. And it’s not just advocates—ICE itself appears concerned, having requested 45,000 respirators last week.

The document provides further insights into DHS’s pandemic response. One segment of the report says that DHS’s Intelligence & Analysis is “monitoring for indications of virus-induced migrant flows or sick migrants intending to migrate to U.S. for treatment.”

Intelligence & Analysis is unique among DHS agencies for being the only one that is part of the US Intelligence Community. As the only spy agency within DHS, Intelligence & Analysis enjoys access to classified information as well as sophisticated intelligence capabilities.

The report also notes that CBP has activated its continuity plan. The Nation recently published CBP’s pandemic response plan, which contains a continuity plan in anticipation of a substantial loss of personnel capacity as well as morale due to illness.

One passage in the pandemic response plan states: “Many Americans will die from the virus, spreading fear and panic among the population, including CBP employees…. Pandemic influenza is expected to cause massive disruptions in travel and commerce, and may challenge the essential stability of governments and society. In spite of this, CBP must continue to carry out its priority mission to prevent the entry of terrorists and their weapons, regardless of the circumstances.”

Joe Biden’s victory in the Florida primary was staggering, with Biden winning nearly 61 percent of the vote to Bernie Sanders’s 22 percent.

But Sanders volunteers contend that one factor isn’t getting enough attention: the Covid-19 pandemic.

While conceding that there were many moving parts, the volunteers argue that the pandemic uniquely hobbled Sanders’s grassroots approach to campaigning, citing the campaign’s heavy reliance on door-to-door canvassing, rallies, and other in-person events.

The past year of polling shows Biden hovering consistently between 30 and 40 percent, and actually dipping to within striking distance of Sanders before skyrocketing to 65 percent in the days before the election. (Sanders, on the other hand, remained stuck around 15 percent before a modest rise to the mid-20s.)

While a major part of this is likely attributable to Biden’s blowout victories in South Carolina and then on Super Tuesday—Biden’s spike in the polls registered days after his South Carolina win—the Sanders volunteers provided some compelling examples of why the coronavirus may have helped to boost Biden as well.

To get a sense of the election on the ground and how the coronavirus may have helped swing it, I visited one the cities perhaps most affected by it: Orlando, home to Disney World and Universal Studios.

What’s unusual about the Central Florida for Bernie Grassroots Office is that despite its resemblance to a formal campaign headquarters—the tiny office is crammed with printers, campaign literature, phones, yard signs—it’s entirely volunteer-run and not formally affiliated with the campaign.

“It just kind of organically grew into a space where we could work…and took on a mind of its own,” said Jim Langford, a middle-aged volunteer who works in the health care sector. The office had been his for years before he rented another and turned this one into a workspace for Sanders volunteers.

As volunteers, the staff is able to speak freely about real problems on the campaign trail—a privilege campaign staff don’t typically enjoy. And, while energetic and clearly enthusiastic about Sanders, the volunteers I spoke with appeared distressed by the impact that the epidemic would have on the primary that night. After the Sanders campaign announced that it was suspending all operations, the grassroots office followed suit.

“We hit 10,000 doors and planned to reach 20,000 but couldn’t after coronavirus,” Langford said. Behind him on a whiteboard was a drawing of a thermometer, registering 10,000 doors knocked.

“Not being able to go door-to-door has very much hindered things. I used to go canvassing every day,” said Terri Falbo, a substitute teacher.

Door-to-door canvassing was a mainstay of the campaign, which has frequently reported staggering numbers of doors knocked in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Many Sanders supporters on Twitter have a squid emoji next to their usernames, to signify going “squid mode”: knocking on so many doors, it feels like you have more than two arms.

Despite the opportunity to phone bank and text supporters using the Bern app, the volunteers said that face-to-face interactions are still a far more effective method of voter outreach.

As Paul Truman, a middle school math teacher, explained, “Canvassing is the most effective way to convert voters. Many voters don’t know that the election is happening; and then there’s the persuasion part. A lot of people say, ‘I don’t want to talk about politics over the phone’—this is the problem with phone banking that you don’t have with canvassing.

“When you go door-to-door, you’re pretty sure someone lives there. But a lot of times the phone numbers aren’t accurate.”

The volunteers also pointed to Sanders’s inability to do his signature rallies. Volunteers agreed that the cancellation of one hotly anticipated event in particular, an AFL-CIO presidential forum at the Disney Contemporary Resort hotel, dampened enthusiasm among supporters.

“Once everybody realized Bernie wasn’t coming, it took the wind out of our sails,” Langford said. “Turnout’s going to be suppressed.”

Truman added that the barriers to polling access will only get higher.

“Long lines, closed polling stations,” he said. “Nobody cares about it until the general when suddenly they’ll all have discovered it.”

Imagine you’re headed back home to the United States after spending spring break in Mexico. You’re in line at customs at the airport; you feel queasy, but you can’t tell if it’s a hangover or the chorizo you bought from a street vendor. You sweat and groan as you clutch your stomach in pain and, to your surprise, a customs agent who was apparently watching you approaches and asks if you’ve had any flu-like symptoms.

You confirm that you’ve had some, but before you can explain that it could just be from the bad food, he tells you that you’re going to need to be screened for the coronavirus. Fair enough. When you ask what that entails, he responds that you may have to spend some time in quarantine. For how long?

He says he doesn’t know, and he really doesn’t—because this is what Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is authorized to do during a pandemic.

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization designated the coronavirus a pandemic, meaning that the disease is now considered to have spread worldwide. But pandemics also confer extraordinary privileges on US authorities. Last night, Trump announced a ban the next 30 days on travelers flying from Europe to the United States. And an internal CBP pandemic response plan obtained by The Nation outlines the immigration and border agency’s ability to actively surveil and detain individuals suspected of carrying the illness.

Titled “Operations Plan for Pandemic Response” and marked for official use only, the document was drafted during the avian flu pandemic of 2007. It’s a blunt statement of authority, describing Customs and Border Patrol overseeing potential tent cities of quarantined detainees at the border and coordinating with unspecified intelligence agencies—both foreign and domestic—as well as the Pentagon.

Though the plan was drafted during the Bush administration, it remains CBP’s most recent pandemic response plan and is still in effect, according to a Department of Homeland Security source who provided The Nation with the document. A memo dated February 28 of this year, signed by CBP’s Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan and reviewed by The Nation, made reference to the pandemic response plan.

“Be assured, CBP is ready,” Morgan wrote. “We have a CBP national pandemic plan as well as continuity of operations plans.”

CBP did not respond to a request for comment.

The document contains a number of startling assumptions, like the following: “Pandemic influenza…may challenge the essential stability of governments and society.”

Provided a copy of the document, Katherine Hawkins, senior legal analyst with the Project on Government Oversight, expressed concerns about how the administration might use these powers on immigrants.

“Given the [Trump] administration’s animus for noncitizens, I worry a lot about what they would do with these authorities even when those authorities make sense for a government to have in a public health crisis,” Hawkins said.

Her concerns appear well founded, as the document makes repeated reference to CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) role in transferring and detaining infected travelers—at one point alluding to “tent cities” erected for such a purpose.

The document states: “Due to the distance from CDC Quarantine Stations, some [CBP] locations will require areas designated for medical segregation to safely detain travelers potentially infected with the pandemic flu virus, thereby, helping prevent the spread of the virus to other detainees, travelers, and CBP employees.”

And: “CBP Directors of Field Operations and Chief Patrol Agents will jointly inventory their detention and isolation facilities, and identify other areas that may be utilized for these purposes, e.g., ‘tent cities’ with portable latrines.”

Asked what justification might exist for such sweeping authorities in responding to a pandemic, James Hodge, director at the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University, appeared to think that there were arguments for and against.

“While travel restrictions is not something that CDC favors, it can be useful. There’s a couple reasons you’d shy away from it: It can be discriminatory and it can be problematic,” Hodge said.

Hawkins also expressed concerns about the potential for immigration facilities to spread illness.

“I’m worried about…the role that CBP or ICE facilities can play in spreading diseases. The conditions that were described by the Inspector General’s report—cramming people into cells, telling people they don’t need soap,” Hawkins said. “You could end up with people detained in the border patrol holding cells in horrible conditions for much longer than those cells were ever meant to hold anyone.”

Indeed, the document’s legal annex notes that it’s not even clear how long CBP could detain individuals who are ill.

The annex states: “The details regarding a typical detention period initiated under Title 42 authorities is still unclear. HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not provided enough information, as of yet, to permit a legal determination as to the permissible scope and maximum length of a period of detention that has been effectuated by CBP personnel.”

Aside from detention, the document also describes the forms of surveillance and intelligence gathering CBP is authorized to conduct during a pandemic. In many cases, these CBP personnel have not even been given medical training.

“CBP will monitor domestic and international intelligence information to provide continuous situational awareness of national threats.”

The document goes on to describe how any intelligence that CBP collects is to be disseminated at the highest levels of the agency in a “bi-weekly pandemic influenza briefing to the Commissioner and senior CBP personnel and as needed or required in light of new intelligence developments.”

Repeated reference is also made to the fear of terrorists weaponizing the 2007 pandemic. One passage describes how CBP intelligence operations will “monitor terrorist groups for possible attempts to cause an intentional pandemic.”

“Smugglers and terrorists will seize this opportunity to further their own interests. This includes the potential for bio-terrorist use,” the document notes, in a list of “assumptions.”

A number of other startling assumptions are contained within the document.

One passage states:

Many Americans will die from the virus, spreading fear and panic among the population, including CBP employees…. Pandemic influenza is expected to cause massive disruptions in travel and commerce, and may challenge the essential stability of governments and society. In spite of this, CBP must continue to carry out its priority mission to prevent the entry of terrorists and their weapons, regardless of the circumstances.

CBP Pandemic Response

Michael Bloomberg ended his presidential campaign on Wednesday after being walloped on Super Tuesday. But, according to more than a dozen members of his campaign staff, the former New York City mayor’s presidential dreams really died when Elizabeth Warren eviscerated his record on live television during the February 19 debate in Las Vegas.

Not a single Bloomberg staffer that I spoke to was surprised by the campaign’s implosion. Speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional reprisal and because of the campaign’s nondisclosure agreements—which The Nation obtained a leaked copy of in February—campaign employees cited that bruising debate as well as a general lack of enthusiasm for Bloomberg among the staff as main factors ending his presidential run.

“We could hardly get any volunteers…Ever since the first debate all of us faced a ton of hostility [when knocking on] doors,” one field organizer told me. “I once had a woman chase me back to my car demanding that I say you can’t buy the presidency.”

Several members of the campaign described Bloomberg’s debate as the beginning of the end. As another field organizer put it, “The people who liked Mike initially didn’t care about sexual [harassment] allegations or stop and frisk, but they got turned off because they thought he made himself look weak and that he had let Warren walk all over him.”

The person added, “I had to staff [a] debate watch party.… The whole bar was full of Bloombros. You could just feel everyone getting silent and awkward whenever Warren tore into Bloomberg.”

At the debate, Warren pressed Bloomberg with a pointed line of questioning about the NDAs that women who had accused him of sexual harassment had entered into and why he wouldn’t release them.

A third staffer also said that the debate marked a turning point, after which phone calls with voters became more difficult. “The day after [the debate] when we made calls people were like, ‘Oh yeah, I was thinking about him [Bloomberg], but I’m not really sure anymore.’”

Bloomberg’s performance, specifically his handling of Warren’s questions, even alienated the campaign’s volunteers. Of the volunteers that quit, one campaign employee told me, “Just about every one of them said it was because of the debate performance or the NDA scandals.”

Despite the debate, Bloomberg’s campaign seemed formidable, owing largely to its unprecedented ad spending. Bloomberg outspent all other campaigns combined on Google ads by a margin of more than $10 million, according to an analysis conducted by The Washington Post. By February, Bloomberg had aired seven times as many TV commercials as the previous top ad buyer, Mitt Romney in 2008, according to another Post analysis.

But despite an almost limitless budget, the Bloomberg campaign would learn that money can’t buy loyalty. Staffers described an almost total lack of belief in Bloomberg himself. “Most people knew this was a grift,” one campaign official explained, describing even leadership as being unwilling to fulfill basic campaign responsibilities. “At our first office meeting, [my director] said, ‘We don’t need to canvass. We can just make calls, right guys?’ And everyone was like, ‘Yeah, that’s sensible.’”

Another employee who specialized in social media explained how their coworkers’ lack of enthusiasm resulted in lackluster engagement with social media audiences, which often led to tweets so perfunctory—many would just copy and paste campaign talking points—that their Twitter accounts would get mistakenly flagged as spam and suspended.

Multiple people described elaborate schemes to undermine the campaign and help their favored candidates. As one staffer explained, “I would actively canvass for Bernie when I was supposed to be canvassing for Mike. I know of at least one team of ‘volunteers’ that was entirely fabricated by the organizers who had to hit their goals. It was easy enough to fudge the data to make it look like real people put in real volunteer work, when in reality Mike was getting nothing out of it.”

Another staffer told me, “In San Diego, the regional organizers also exploited the campaign’s resources, staff, and infrastructure for local races they either were running in or consulting on.” 

While the campaign had ambitious quotas for things like phone calls or doors, some staffers simply faked their numbers. “Many campaign staffers—including myself—had to juke the stats in order to keep up with these impossible goals,” one explained.

However, MaryAnne Pintar, the campaign’s San Diego regional political director, said she never saw anything of the sort. “The person quoted can only speak to their own work if they falsified reports,” she said. “I never witnessed that, nor did I see resources used inappropriately. This campaign started late; some consultants were already working on other campaigns and were made offers commensurate with capacity, with the understanding they’d be working with other clients, too. The person quoted anonymously may not know this.”

While most Bloomberg campaign employees who spoke to The Nation recalled being critical of Bloomberg from the very beginning, one was more sympathetic, citing Bloomberg’s climate change policies and desire to shrink the Pentagon budget. But he remarked, “The campaign truly made me jaded…. I’m never going to sell my soul again.”

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include a quote from the Bloomberg campaign’s San Diego regional director.

A nondisclosure agreement utilized by the campaign of Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire CEO of Bloomberg LP and former New York mayor now running for president, contains language that could prevent staffers from reporting workplace abuse.

The NDA totals nine pages and forbids employees from discussing “any and all non-public information” and “activities” by the campaign.

And while it’s understandable that a campaign would want to keep things like internal polling under wraps, transparency advocates say that the NDA is overly broad to the point of preventing sexual harassment, as well as other forms of workplace abuse like racial discrimination, from being reported.

Even when the campaign ends, it may be difficult for the public to learn what happened since, unlike many NDAs, this one does not expire.

Jordan Libowitz, spokesperson for the nonpartisan government ethics and accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, found the NDA troubling. “The thing that jumped out at me was the non-disparagement clause, which the Trump campaign used in 2016,” Libowitz said. “That can have a chilling effect on people reporting abuses and speaking publicly about things like sexual harassment.”

“This is much longer and deeper than anything I’ve seen before and it raises some issues, not just this specifically but some of these more in-depth NDAs campaigns are using,” Libowitz added. “This seems like it’s written for some major corporation like Google trying to prevent people from going to Amazon. This seems pretty far outside the lines of how campaigns tend to act.”

The NDA was provided to The Nation by a Bloomberg campaign employee who requested anonymity to avoid professional reprisal. A Bloomberg campaign spokesperson said in an e-mailed comment that “this document only covers the campaign’s strategies and plans; it doesn’t prevent anyone from speaking out about harassment. We can’t speak for other campaigns or workplaces, but legal agreements that protect proprietary information are incredibly common and sensible.”

Bloomberg has some familiarity with allegations of sexual harassment. Nearly 40 harassment and discrimination lawsuits from 64 different employees have been filed against him and Bloomberg LP, which Bloomberg founded and owns a majority stake in, according to a report by Business Insider. Three lawsuits are ongoing. (Bloomberg has denied allegations that he oversaw a toxic workplace culture.)

Although the NDA does make an exception for information legally required by a court or governmental authority, Libowitz cautioned that this still wouldn’t cover many cases of workplace abuse, which often do not make it to a court.

“While the clause doesn’t cover disclosures required under law, it does work to keep people from talking about what are frankly often abuses, workplace behaviors that happen on campaigns,” Libowitz said.

The Bloomberg campaign’s NDA is infamous among staffers, several of whom commented on how long and detailed it is. “The NDA section was absolutely bonkers,” one Bloomberg staffer told The Nation.

“It [the NDA] does make people paranoid,” another staffer said. “I mean I’ve had coworkers joke about having no rights.”

While the Bloomberg campaign’s NDA may be more exhaustive than those used by the campaign’s rivals, the use of such agreements has increased in recent years across the board, along with public awareness—and criticism—of the practice. In December, an advocacy group founded by three prominent former Fox News employees, all of whom were women, released an open letter calling for an end to NDAs.

“These NDAs are a driving force in silencing workers and promulgating a culture where employers are able to cover up toxicity, including issues of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, rather than address it and end it,” their letter stated.

Bloomberg has been using confidentiality agreements since long before the campaign. In January, he personally refused to release several women who had sued him from these agreements.

“They’re legal agreements, and for all I know the other side wouldn’t want to get out of it,” Bloomberg reportedly said. (ABC News subsequently reported that several of the women involved expressed interest in telling their stories.)

Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized Bloomberg’s decision at the time, saying that NDAs are “a way for people to hide bad things they’ve done.” “Women should be able to speak…. if Michael Bloomberg made comments like this, then he has to answer for them,” Warren said.

Pete Buttigieg, on his part, cited an NDA as his initial reason for refusing to disclose the nature of his work with McKinsey & Company. Following the criticism, McKinsey released Buttigieg from the NDA and he disclosed what he said was a summary of his work.

What did the two-and-a-half years of work he was so hesitant to disclose include? Energy efficiency research, grocery pricing for an unidentified client in Canada, and, to quote the campaign, working with a “health insurance provider…identifying savings in administration and overhead costs.”

A copy of the Bloomberg campaign NDA may be found here.

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated with a comment from the Bloomberg campaign.

Watching the State of the Union address from Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, felt more like infiltrating an Ivy League alumni mixer than the blood-and-soil rally I had anticipated.

At about 9 pm, I was greeted at the doors by a pair of well-groomed men wearing Mickey Mouse gloves, and they welcomed me into the sprawling atrium of the Trump Hotel. There were between 100 and 200 people in attendance, most smartly dressed in expensive suits or collared sweaters, and only a smattering of red MAGA hats in sight; the gaudy outfits that usually color magazine features about Trumpworld events were the exception rather than the rule (though I did see a black-and-white print blazer featuring silhouettes of Trump’s face).

“I met him at CPAC,” said one preppy young man to his compatriot, apparently discussing his experiences networking. (CPAC, or the Conservative Political Action Conference, is an annual conference that hosts a series of panels comprising a who’s who of conservative political operatives.) His interlocutor firmly responded that they should talk about it later, because someone here might know him and overhear. The first guy agreed. Swamp or no swamp, DC is still DC.

The hotel, though decorated rather conventionally, did have a few Trumpy touches: Several ornate chandeliers, grafted onto huge rivet-studded metal support beams, arched over the crowd. The pungent smell of seafood lingered over the tables, several of which held platters of steaming red lobsters. People mostly drank wine and liquor; I opted for an imported Belgian pilsner.

The only people who resembled the working class for whom Trump fashions himself a spokesperson—“I am your voice”—were a few restless looking cops posted near the entrance and the waiters. While the crowd was mostly white; the ratio of men to women actually seemed more or less even.

Although they were all clearly there because of the State of the Union, most of the crowd did not seem particularly interested in the event, save for a handful of fans pressed up against the bar where four surprisingly small TVs were showing it. That’s not to say that people weren’t paying any attention; just that the speech did not command the same attention as what appeared to be the true purpose of the event: schmoozing.

The audio quality of the broadcast did not rise very far above a murmur, but Trump’s actual words didn’t much matter. You could tell from his cadence when he hit an applause line, and the audience would dutifully clap. Even that applause felt perfunctory, and Trump’s mention of high-speed Internet access in rural communities registered near-silence. One big exception was when he spoke about Rush Limbaugh, the conservative shock jock. At that point, virtually everyone rose to their feet in a standing ovation.

“Holy cow! They’re doing it right now! Oh God!” a gentleman at one of the lobster tables, clearly emotional, exclaimed as Limbaugh appeared on screen.

Death and destruction are frequent motifs in Trump’s speeches, and this one was no different. Extolling the valor of Army Ssg. Christopher Hake, killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2008, Trump said, “That night, he made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Sergeant Hake now rests in eternal glory.” The phrase reminded me of the drill sergeant’s speech in Full Metal Jacket: “Marines die, that’s what we’re here for! But the Marine Corps lives forever. And that means you live forever!”

The camera then panned in on the face of the sobbing widow, Kelli Hake, and on her son, Gage, who was just 1 year old when his father was killed. Despite the obvious political spectacle—Hake was killed by a roadside bomb allegedly supplied by Qassim Suleimani, whom Trump killed in a controversial drone strike last month—it was an emotional scene.

The crowd responded fervently, although they seemed to process the tableau with a peculiar mix of rage and pride that reminded me of the mood after 9/11. It was chilling.

As Trump’s speech wound down, people began to file out, and in the cacophony of their exit, most people, including me, did not seem to notice Pelosi’s widely publicized ripping up of a copy of Trump’s speech. People turned instead to what appeared to be the real focus of the event—the other attendees—and said their goodbyes.

When the address ended, the loudspeakers abruptly shifted to throbbing electronic dance music without words. Thinking the older folks might find the music a strange choice, I glanced around to gauge their expressions. Nobody seemed to care.

Under President Trump, US immigration authorities have pushed for extraordinary privileges and increased secrecy from the public.

On Friday, the Trump administration quietly designated the entire Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, which polices US borders, as a “Security Agency,” according to an internal memo obtained by The Nation. This follows repeated attempts by federal immigration authorities to dramatically expand their reach in recent years.

The memo, which was signed by CBP’s Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan and dated January 31, places CBP under the same designation as highly secretive intelligence and law enforcement agencies like the FBI and Secret Service. This grants CBP greater secrecy by exempting certain records from disclosure to the public.

The memo states: “I am pleased to announce CBP has been designated as a Security Agency under Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) official Data Release Policy, effective immediately. Previously, only frontline law enforcement, investigative, or intelligence positions held this designation. This policy change now protects all CBP employee names from subsequent responses to Freedom of Information Act requests or other public disclosures for CGP employee data.”

CBP did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Irvin McCullough, national security analyst with the Government Accountability Project, warned that the designation would result in less transparency for CBP.

McCullough noted that “CBP is the second DHS [Department of Homeland Security] component that the Trump administration has added to the more restrictive list”—after the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

“It puts their employees in the same category as FBI agents,” he continued. “The problems we’ve seen out of our immigration agencies over the past few years show that we need more transparency, not less. Why is there such a rush to restrict this information from the public? Given their track record, the burden is on them to explain exactly why they need these restrictions.”

The memo was provided to The Nation by a CBP contractor who requested anonymity to avoid professional reprisal. The contractor was critical of CBP’s new classification, saying, “Designating all of CBP a Security Agency exempt from OPM’s disclosure policy is simply absurd. There’s no need for the average CBP employee to have their name and position redacted from FOIA requests. This is another example of the current administration making it even more difficult to obtain pertinent information via official channels and claiming it’s related to security in some way.”

Under President Trump, immigration agencies have pushed for expanded powers and secrecy. For example, in February, The Daily Beast’s Betsy Swan reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to join the US Intelligence Community, which would grant them extraordinary new privileges like spying powers and secrecy measures. While the effort was ultimately rebuffed, as Swan reported in a subsequent article, ICE was granted enhanced intelligence capabilities.

An intelligence community official told The Nation that ICE was recently assigned at least one National Security Agency (NSA) detailee. The official described it as odd that a law enforcement agency like ICE, which is not an intelligence community member, would need help from a sophisticated intelligence agency like the NSA.

The CBP memo attributes its new Security Agency designation to a Twitter account that was posting employee information this past summer, which it concedes was already available via open records.

The memo states: “This past summer, CBP and DHS became aware of a Twitter user posting employee information commonly found in the OPM Open Government releases of salary information for Federal Employees. The information posted on Twitter was considered by OPM to be public information, and is available through several Federal employee salary database search websites. This is but one of the many examples of where the disclosure of CBP employees’ information was harmful.”

While not immediately clear which incident the memo is referring to—CBP did not respond to requests for comment—an alleged CBP e-mail was posted to a message board in July referencing a Twitter user “doxxing” CBP and ICE employees. (CBP did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the e-mail on the message board.)

The e-mail read:

CBP has become aware of a Twitter account called @BanalGovJobsBot that has been posting employee name, salary, occupation, and work location information for CBP and ICE employees, followed by a statement that those employees are “part of the bureaucracy that is locking children and families in concentration camps at the border.”

The source of this information appears to be from Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Open Government releases of salary information for Federal Employees who are not exempt due to specific Law Enforcement or National Security concerns. At this time, this salary data is considered by OPM to be public information, and is available through several Federal employee salary database search sites on the public Internet. Although this information is currently considered public, given the current political climate the specific targeting and naming of any CBP employee could lead to cyber-attacks, harassment, discrimination, or even physical threats to safety.

The Twitter account referenced, @BanalGovJobsBot, is currently suspended.

hy should the devil have all the best tunes?” the apocryphal Martin Luther quote goes.

To that end: Why should big corporations have all the best advertisements? Comedy director Amber Schaefer doesn’t think they should.

Along with a diverse group of volunteers, Schaefer, whose previous work includes directing TV series, shorts, and actual commercials for firms like Geico, created a glossy, hilarious spoof of a perfume commercial for a fragrance that’s all the rage this campaign season: Bérnié.

Schaefer, who is not formally affiliated with Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign, produced the ad as a labor of love for a candidate she believes in.

The ad begins with the text, “Bérnié—the people’s perfume,” and features a diverse, mostly female cast on a sun-kissed beach and several allusions to the Sanders campaign. Sanders’s gruff voice echoes in the background, barking out his signature policy: “Medicare for All!”

In another reference to Medicare for All, an actor tears up a health insurance invoice for some $4,000. Another actor flips open a Zippo lighter and sets fire to a $67,000 student loan bill, an allusion to Sanders’s student debt forgiveness plan.

“The idea behind the ‘campaign’ is to complicate the white male Bernie Bro (false!) narrative and show women and people of color feeling the Bern,” Schaefer explained in an e-mail.

“Despite what Twitter or the media would lead you to believe, Bernie is leading among people of color and women have consistently made up more of Bernie’s base than men. Which makes sense, because if you look at Bernie’s policies and track record, it’s clear that he is the best candidate for racial justice, women’s equality, and LGBTQ+ rights.”

There’s plenty of evidence to support Schaefer’s contention that the “Bernie Bro” epithet does not accurately reflect the demographic characteristics of his supporters. To cite a recent example, a WBUR poll last week found that Sanders has a 77 percent favorable rating among women in New Hampshire, versus 69 percent among men. Women have also contributed significant sums to the Sanders campaign—more than to any other campaign, according to an analysis of FEC data conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics in November.

Centering the video around a perfume was Schaefer’s wry way of imbuing the discourse about Sanders with a feminine aesthetic.

And while no candidate yet has an overwhelming majority of support from the female electorate, it’s clear that Sanders enjoys considerable support among women.

“I wanted to complicate the ‘white male Bernie Bro’ narrative,” Schaefer explained in a phone interview. “We can see statistics, but visually seeing it, I think, is really powerful. I wanted to create something that felt like the opposite of maybe what people think of as a Bernie Bro—grimy incels in the basement.”

The Bernie Bro epithet is also unfair to ethnic minorities. Polls have repeatedly shown Sanders in the lead among Latino voters, including recent polls conducted by the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. And while polling does show Joe Biden with a strong lead among black voters, Sanders comes in second and actually leads when it comes to black voters under the age of 35.

But Schaefer says that in making the video, she also just wanted to have some fun. “I think Bernie’s campaign has this jubilance, this joy, this optimism to it; I wanted to create something that felt kind of lighthearted and fun,” Schaefer said.

Frequently derided as humorless or overly “woke” by pundits to their right, the rising generation of leftists in the United States and abroad are embracing this sense of fun to draw in new supporters and engage the ones they already have. For instance, during the 2016 primary, the hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite began trending as a sardonic way for Sanders’s minority supporters to push back against the stereotype that Sanders supporters are overwhelmingly white. As one black supporter named Leslie Lee tweeted at the time, “Ever since I voted for Bernie, I’ve been bingewatching Friends. #BernieMadeMeWhite.”

In addition to steering the existing social media platforms to the left, activists are also creating entirely novel platforms. For example, there’s Means TV, which its founders have called “Netflix for the Left.” At just $10 per month, the platform aims to provide streaming services for content that traditional monoliths like Netflix might balk at for political reasons.

In the UK, the left-wing political group Momentum’s irreverent style of social media engagement helped propel Jeremy Corbyn to the helm of the Labour Party.

Schaefer characterizes her efforts as both a coping mechanism and an act of political activism.

“Shit is really bad and it’s harrowing.… There’s things to be angry about because the system is rigged,” Schaefer said. “The corporations are running politics in a way that can feel really futile. But feeling the energy of people coming together for Bernie has given me a hope that I haven’t felt in a long time.”

With the pivotal Iowa caucuses coming up on February 3, Biden campaign staffers have had at least one concern besides the election: their own safety.

On December 30, with Iowa sheathed in snow, the campaign’s regional organizing director for Iowa, Kay Glad, instructed staffers that its inclement weather policy was being suspended, according to staff text messages reviewed by The Nation.

The policy had allowed them to avoid driving during potentially hazardous weather conditions, but, at that busy time, it was being called off.

“Hey guys, all weather policy is dissolved throughout the entire state because we have five weeks left until the election,” Kay Glad, Biden’s regional organizing director for Iowa, informed staffers. “If it feels like unsafe driving conditions, then talk to me separately but quite frankly I don’t want to hear any complaints because you know how important this is and how much time we have left.”

Glad added: “By showing an ability to be adaptable, flexible, and willing to what [sic] you’ve been hired to do, then that is the most basic threshold of demonstrating your ability of leading others. Every single day is an audition for post-Iowa.”

Glad’s admonition carries with it a sad irony. In 1972, both Biden’s then-wife and daughter died in a fatal car accident when a truck broadsided them while they were shopping for a Christmas tree. He has frequently referenced the tragedy in public as well as during this campaign.

The text messages were provided to The Nation by a Biden staffer on the condition of anonymity since they were not authorized to speak. The staffer also said that there had been at least five different car accidents among the campaign’s Iowa staffers between Christmas and New Years Day alone. Citing a recent car accident that resulted in the death of a Warren campaign volunteer, the staffer described other campaign workers as fearful of another potential accident.

In September, Zachary Presberg, a former field organizing fellow and volunteer for the Warren campaign in Iowa, died when his car was struck by a semitruck while he tried to pass another vehicle. Presberg was 22.

In 2016, Braden Joplin, an Iowa staffer for Ben Carson’s presidential campaign, died in a car accident while trying to navigate slick roads, which left three other campaign staff injured. Joplin was 25.

Responding to a request for comment, a Biden campaign official confirmed that Glad had suspended the weather policy, but said she had acted unilaterally and was subsequently reprimanded and her team was given proper guidance.

“Our campaign’s most important asset is the staff working tirelessly around the country to help Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump and restore the soul of our nation,” Julie Kriger, Biden’s Iowa communications director, said in a comment. “That’s why we always prioritize their safety and well-being and have put in place policies both in Iowa and nationally to ensure that they remain safe in hazardous weather conditions.”

Another Biden campaign representative added: “Kay is one of eight regional organizing directors in the state [and] supervises about a dozen organizers.”

The Nation also contacted the Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar campaigns to ask if they have inclement weather policies to protect staffers.

A Klobuchar campaign spokesperson responded: “Extreme weather conditions have previously resulted in the campaign having staffers work from home. When inclement weather causes hazardous conditions, we make it a point for members of the campaign to consider personal safety first when evaluating their ability to report to work.”

At the time of this writing, none of the other campaigns have replied.

Poor working conditions are all too familiar to campaign staffers, who often work long hours for low pay.

“The labor conditions were abysmal,” Matt Cain said about his time as an Iowa field organizer for Obama’s first presidential campaign, citing long hours and low pay. “The expectation was 14-to-16-hour workdays. Four hours of sleep was pretty common.”

Despite these conditions, presidential campaigns have only just begun to unionize. In May of 2019, Bernie Sanders’s campaign became the first presidential campaign staff in US history to unionize and is now represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400. In a similarly unprecedented turn, several campaigns followed, including that of Warren and Buttigieg, both represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 2320, and Booker and Klobuchar, represented by the Teamsters Local 238.

Jesse Case, a labor representative for the Iowa campaign workers, did not respond to a request for comment. Shortly after The Nation contacted Case, the Biden campaign issued an e-mail to staff reiterating the original inclement weather policy, which is now again in effect.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with additional comments from the Biden campaign. 

Yesterday, Brazilian prosecutors announced charges against Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist most famous for publishing documents leaked by Edward Snowden that exposed the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance program in 2013.

Greenwald has recently been reporting on prosecutorial misconduct in Brazil, exposing the political motives at the heart of the prosecution of Brazil’s popular former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. His stories ultimately led to the ex-politician’s release from prison.

The current Brazilian government is accusing Greenwald of “helping guiding and encouraging” hackers who obtained the Brazilian officials’ text messages that informed his reporting. But the charges are suspect—for starters, because Greenwald’s stories embarrassed the very same prosecutors who came after him by revealing the political motives for Lula’s prosecution.

The leader of Brazil’s governing party, Jair Bolsonaro, is also widely regarded as an authoritarian figure who has in the past been criticized by rights groups for his attacks on the press. For example, in October, Reporters Without Borders said it was “appalled” by threats Bolsonaro had made against a national news outlet that he accused of “betraying Brazil.”

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that the charges against Greenwald pose a threat not just to journalists in Brazil but to journalists everywhere.

“For Brazil to invoke anti-hacking laws in an attempt to criminalize reporter-source communications, as well as the receipt and publication of newsworthy information, is a clear threat to press freedom,” said Bruce Brown, executive director of RCFP. “It carries dangers not only for American journalists reporting in the region but for journalists everywhere because these types of general laws are pervasive worldwide and governments around the globe are looking for new ways to squeeze reporters and cut off coverage they perceive as unfavorable.”

Gabe Rottman, director of RCFP’s Technology and Press Freedom Project, tied the case to the leak prosecutions happening in the United States.

“Journalism is not a crime, and yet aggressive moves against the press using spying laws, computer crime statutes, or other criminal sanctions—including, for instance, this case in Brazil and the proliferation of ‘leak’ prosecutions in the United States—are increasingly forcing journalists to find criminal defense expertise,” Rottman said in an e-mail. “Computer crime laws are particularly worrisome when applied to newsgathering because they are often vague and can be misused to cover innocuous activity—activity which in the U.S. also has constitutional protections.”

Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) described the prosecution as part of a series of attacks by the Bolsonaro administration on the media. “President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration has consistently undermined and attacked the free press who have sought to hold him and his Cabinet accountable for troubling actions taken since the 2018 election,” Pocan said in an e-mail. “This is just the most recent attack on voices seeking to expose corruption and it is unacceptable. Be it in our nation or anywhere else, we cannot allow the press to be silenced—ever.”

The Nation contacted over a dozen presidential candidates and congresspeople for comment. At the time of this writing, the only presidential campaign to reply was that of Bernie Sanders, which referred us to the following statement:

The free press is never more important than when it exposes wrongdoing by the powerful.
That is why President Bolsonaro is threatening Glenn Greenwald for the “crime” of doing journalism.

I call on Brazil to end its authoritarian attack on press freedom and the rule of law. https://t.co/NfcVnxT50F

—Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 22, 2020

The Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Yang, and Steyer campaigns did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Asked about the case, Representative Ted Lieu said, “Any and all attacks on journalists, either here or abroad, should be condemned. Safeguarding freedom of the press is essential for healthy democracies because it ensures transparency and accountability.”

The US State Department declined to criticize the case, noting instead that “we generally do not share information with the media about private U.S. citizens absent their written consent. Due to privacy considerations, we cannot comment further.”

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, replied via e-mail, “This is horrific—and part of the rise in crackdowns on dissent by the authoritarian Bolsonaro regime. Freedom of press is a pillar of democracies worldwide and one of the key markers of a free society. As an ally of Brazil’s, we must speak with one voice in condemning this crackdown—and use the diplomatic tools at our disposal to fight it.”

While the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engels (D-NY), did not respond to requests for comment, former NSA director Michael Hayden did. Hayden oversaw the mass surveillance program that Greenwald detailed using Snowden’s leaks while serving as NSA director from 1995 to 2005, before becoming CIA director in 2006. Hayden publicly joked about putting Snowden on a kill list.

“This is fascinating information,” he said in an e-mail.

Hayden declined to comment further.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify Michael Hayden’s position before and during the publication of Snowden’s papers.