For the first time since 2010, the federal government is sending U.S. firefighters — including some from California — to help combat Australia’s wildfires, which have burned about 12.35 million acres of land and killed at least 17 people. According to the National Interagency Fire Center — the government agency that is coordinating the deployment of firefighters from the U.S. — roughly 100 firefighters have been been sent to Australia over the last four weeks, with 50 to 60 more planned to be dispatched Monday. At least sixteen of those firefighters have been sent from California, where fires scorched thousands of acres across the state throughout the fall.Canada is also sending firefighters to Australia for the first time. Stephen Tulle, duty officer with the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center, told CBC that a group of about 36 is assisting.In November, the U.S. fire center sent a liaison to Australia to work with counterparts there on the U.S. resources needed to help battle the growing blazes. Working in coordination with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. center issued a sign-up document for firefighters interested in being dispatched.Once those firefighters were vetted and cleared to travel internationally, groups began 30-day deployments on Dec. 5. The second group left Dec. 19 and a third left Monday. A fourth group will leave Saturday, and another this Monday. The firefighters who volunteered for the assignment are on paid status earning their normal salary, fire center public affairs officer Kari Cobb said. Firefighting techniques vary in each state. Scott McLean, spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said that firefighters dispatched to Australia would need “orientation and operational training prior to going out on the line.”The exchange of fire resources is made through an agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior and Emergency Management Australia.“It works really well because Australia has a different fire season than we do in the United States,” Cobb said.In August 2018, Australia and New Zealand sent roughly 140 firefighters to the U.S. for nearly 30 days. Cobb said that the group was stationed in Northern California, Washington and Oregon.At least 17 people have died and roughly 1,400 homes have been destroyed since the fires started in Australia. On Tuesday morning, 4,000 people in the coastal town of Mallacoota fled to the shore as winds pushed flames toward their homes.On Thursday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison was confronted with criticism and jeers during a visit to Cobargo from residents who believe that too little is being done to mitigate a destruction that prompted New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian to declare a seven-day state of emergency, granting fire officials more authority. It’s the third state of emergency for New South Wales in the last two months.The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump threatened to attack multiple Iranian sites if the Middle Eastern nation strikes any American people or assets in a series of tweets Saturday, as Iran mourns the loss of a top leader, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a US airstrike in Iraq on Friday.Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei promised “harsh revenge” for Soleimani’s death, who was considered the second-most powerful Iranian official, after a three-day mourning period.If Iran follows through on that promise, the US will target 52 sites within the country “some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture,” Trump wrote. “Those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!” Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 ....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020 The Trump administration already faces questions about the legality of its attack on Soleimani, and Sunday, Iranian officials accused Trump of threatening to carry out war crimes against the country. “Having committed grave breaches of int’l law in Friday’s cowardly assassinations, [Trump] threatens to commit again new breaches of JUS COGENS,” Javad Zarif tweeted, with “jus cogens” referring to the norms of international law. “Targeting cultural sites is a WAR CRIME.”Zarif went on to compare Trump to ISIS, which also targeted cultural sites during its offensive in Syria and Iraq, a comparison that was echoed by Iran’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi, who tweeted Sunday, “Like ISIS, Like Hitler, Like Genghis! They all hate cultures. Trump is a terrorist in a suit.”On CNN’s State of the Union, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended Trump’s threats of strike on cultural targets, calling them “consistent with the rule of law” and promising that the Trump administration will “do the things that are right.” He did not specify how attacking cultural or civilian targets would be consistent with international law.Ahead of Pompeo’s television appearance, Trump doubled down on his threats on Twitter, writing that the US military is the “biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!” He also said that if Iran retaliates as promised, “we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before!” The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020 According to a CNN interview with Khamenei’s military adviser, Maj. Gen. Hossein Dehghan, Iran does, in fact, plan to attack US military installations in retaliation for the assassination of Soleimani. Dehghan also said that Iran will work to strike when US leaders least expect it, saying, “Our reaction will be wise, well considered and in time, with decisive deterrent effect.”Soleimani’s killing was a game-changer in a longstanding escalation of tensions between the US and Iran that began with Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and continued with a series of crippling sanctions over the country’s missile program and support for terrorism.As Vox’s Dylan Scott has explained, Iran has met each of these US actions with increasingly bold responses: Iran has responded with a series of provocative acts, from attacking container ships in the Persian Gulf to drone strikes on Saudi oil facilities. Through its proxy militias, it has also struck directly at American assets, last week killing a US contractor near the Iraqi city of Kirkuk, which in turn lead to US strikes on Iranian militias and then violent protests at the US embassy in Baghdad led by those Iranian-backed militias.These escalating tensions, further heightened by the killing of Soleimani, Trump’s recent threats, and Iran’s promises of revenge, mean the US and Iran have taken another major step toward a conflict that national security expert Ilan Goldenberg told Vox’s Alex Ward would be “so much worse than Iraq.”Fortunately, experts have said that all-out warfare is unlikely (though still possible) given that neither country is likely to be eager to jump into armed conflict. But Iranian officials have deemed Soleimani a “martyr” whose death requires retaliation. The flag of General Soleimani in defense of the country's territorial integrity and the fight against terrorism and extremism in the region will be raised, and the path of resistance to US excesses will continue. The great nation of Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime.— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) January 3, 2020 Soleimani’s death has united Iranians across the political spectrum as they undergo three days of national mourning to commemorate the leader deemed a hero. State news outlets allotted their entire broadcasts Friday to commemorate him, and comedy films and concerts were postponed, Al Jazeera reported.Tens of thousands of mourners filled the streets of Ahvaz and Mashhad Sunday, where Soleimani’s remains were transported for public processions. Aerial view of tens of thousands of mourners at Qassem Suleimani funeral today in Ahvaz #Iran. The man was seen as villain by enemies but idolized by many in Iran. Ahvaz saw anti regime protests last month: pic.twitter.com/4j8jieMNnh— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) January 5, 2020 Mourners in Baghdad Saturday chanted “Death to America” and “We will take our revenge,” according to the Associated Press.And beyond tit-for-tat actions between Iran and the US, Soleimani’s killing seems poised to have other, far-reaching repercussions.Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Sunday morning Iranian officials are planning an even larger retreat from the broken nuclear deal than originally planned. The country has already begun stockpiling uranium and exceeding enrichment limits imposed by the agreement, and Sunday afternoon Iranian officials said the country will no longer abide by any of the commitments outlined in the deal. In Iraq too, where Soleimani’s death took place, leaders hope to make radical changes to the current state of affairs. That country’s prime minister recommended parliament order US troops to leave the country over concerns the US violated Iraqi sovereignty in its assassination. Sunday, lawmakers quickly voted for a resolution to do just that, in a move that could completely alter the US-Iraq relationship and fundamentally change the fight against ISIS. Even before the vote and Iran’s announcement on its nuclear plans, experts agreed the escalating tensions would cause further instability in the Middle East. Just days after Soleimani was killed, that instability seems all the more certain.

In a reality-based world, this would at least be embarrassing for the president. His allies could still argue, of course, that the error was innocent or minor enough not to warrant impeachment. But the precepts of the Trump-era GOP state that admitting that the president might have erred, even in good faith, is forbidden. Hence Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin dismissed the GAO report—literally a report on whether the law was followed—as “legalistic.”Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama took an even more laughable tack. “Timing looked a little suspect to everybody I think,” he told CNN. “I’ve never known GAO to get involved in partisan politics and stuff like that. It’s probably not good for the GAO.”Notably, Shelby’s concern isn’t that the report might be inaccurate. It’s that it might be politically inconvenient. Setting aside the semi-veiled threat—nice nonpartisan office you’ve got there; shame if some partisans took offense and wrecked it—Shelby’s comment is absurd. As GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong wrote in the decision, the office is simply discharging its statutory duty: A senator, the Democrat Chris Van Hollen, asked for an investigation, and GAO did what it’s required to do.The concern over the timing is a red herring, too. There’s no more opportune time for GAO to issue a report on whether the administration broke the law on the Ukraine aid than at the very moment the Senate is opening an impeachment trial of the president over the Ukraine scandal. But one man’s opportune is another’s—specifically Trump’s—inconvenient, and the messenger gets caught in the middle.Is it any wonder that other officials would just as soon opt out? Every year, the nation’s top intelligence officials brief the House and Senate on their “worldwide threat assessment”—part of the proceeding in public, and other parts behind closed doors due to sensitivities. Last year’s public edition was a fiasco. The intelligence chiefs came, and they spoke candidly about North Korea and the Islamic State, with the unfortunate coincidence that the truth was at odds with what Trump had been claiming publicly. The president tweeted, “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” and claimed that officials told him they’d been misquoted. Again: The hearing was public and video is available.The intelligence officials don’t have much choice. They can’t come to Congress and lie. But telling the truth puts them in conflict with their boss. So this time around, they’re simply trying to persuade Congress not to hold a public hearing, Politico reports. The message is that they can tell the truth, but not where it might create friction with the truth-free president. And that means ordinary Americans won’t get to hear for themselves about the greatest threats they face.The Washington Post recently reported on an investigation by the Justice Department into Hillary Clinton. After Trump became president, having insisted that Clinton hadn’t been properly investigated, DOJ appointed a U.S. attorney to do a review. But the Post reported that the prosecutor hadn’t found anything. In fact, the review was effectively complete before Special Counsel Robert Mueller produced his report in May. But there’s been no official closure. It isn’t hard to guess at why: Who wants to be the one to tell Trump that the investigation didn’t find anything?

An expletive-ridden video showing the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, expressing frustration at his inability to get information from police and vowing to change cabinet ministers if needed to protect his family has been released at the order of a supreme court justice in a new blow to the far-right president.The two-hour video of a cabinet meeting, with portions redacted, was released as part of an inquiry into allegations that the president was trying to illegally interfere in a criminal investigation of his son, a claim made by the former justice minister Sergio Moro when he resigned last month.The former minister told investigators that Bolsonaro openly demanded he make changes in key federal police positions, including the head of the agency as a whole. Moro resigned after Bolsonaro fired the federal police director-general without consulting him.Bolsonaro has denied inappropriate pressure and insisted his quotes were misinterpreted.The video shows the president complaining: “I already tried to change our security in Rio de Janeiro and I couldn’t. That is over. I’m not going to wait for [the federal police] to fuck my family and friends just for shits and giggles.”Bolsonaro has insisted that he was referring to the head of his security detail, though he had, in fact, successfully changed that position recently. Moro said he was alluding to the head of police operations in Rio, who presumably might have been involved into investigations into the president’s sons, who live there.At another point, the president also complains about his inability to get information from the police or other agencies.“You can’t work like that. It’s difficult. That’s why I will interfere. Period,” he said.Bolsonaro’s popularity has been sagging in part due to the resignation of Moro, widely seen as an anti-corruption crusader, and to his attempts to minimize the coronavirus pandemic, which has now killed more than 20,000 Brazilians and at an increasing pace.The released footage also shows environment minister Ricardo Salles calling on the government to push through further deregulation of environmental policy while people are distracted by the coronavirus pandemic. “We need to make an effort while we are in this calm moment in terms of press coverage, because they are only talking about Covid, and push through and change all the rules and simplify norms,” Salles says in the video.Deforestation hit an 11-year high last year and has increased 55% in the first four months of the year, compared with a year ago, with environmental groups blaming Bolsonaro’s policies.Bolsonaro has called for development of the Amazon, saying it is necessary to lift people out of poverty and that he is being unfairly demonized by the media.Asked to respond to the video, the Environment Ministry issued a comment from Salles: “I have always defended de-bureaucratization and simplifying norms, in all areas, with good sense and all within the law. The tangle of irrational laws hinders investments, the generation of jobs and, therefore, sustainable development in Brazil.”In the video Salles complained about legal challenges to proposed environmental rule changes, that the government needed legal “artillery” to defend the changes and should bypass Congress.“We don’t need Congress. Because things that need Congress, with the mess that is there, we are not going to get passed.”Greenpeace Brasil spokeswoman Luiza Lima said in a statement that “Salles believes that people dying in line at hospitals is a good opportunity to move forward on his anti-environmental project.” Topics Brazil Jair Bolsonaro Americas news

Enlarge this image Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates face money laundering and other charges as part of the special counsel's investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. Jacquelyn Martin/AP hide caption toggle caption Jacquelyn Martin/AP Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates face money laundering and other charges as part of the special counsel's investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. Jacquelyn Martin/AP President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is suing the Justice Department and special counsel Robert Mueller, alleging that Mueller has exceeded his mandate by investigating matters unrelated to the 2016 election.Manafort and business associate Rick Gates face money laundering and other charges as part of the special counsel's investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.Both have pleaded not guilty.Manafort's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleges that Mueller's team has "diverged" from its stated focus on potential collusion with the Russians who attacked the 2016 election and instead zeroed in on Manafort for "unrelated, decade-old business dealings" in Ukraine.It says those business interests date to as early as 2005 and have "no connection whatsoever" with the 2016 campaign. The suit also argues that the investigation of Manafort is "completely unmoored from the special counsel's original jurisdiction."Mueller's office declined to comment.A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said: "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants." Manafort has filed suit as the politics surrounding the investigation are heating up. Many House Republicans say that the special counsel's probe is tainted by political bias and that it will never give Trump a fair shake. Some of the president's surrogates have called for Mueller's investigation to be shut down and for the Justice Department to appoint another special counsel to investigate former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.The president has repeatedly called the investigation a "witch hunt," but he also recently told the New York Times that he thinks Mueller is "going to be fair." Trump also said — again — that "there's been no collusion."Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also was named as a defendant in the Manafort civil suit. Rosenstein appointed Mueller in May after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein supervises Mueller's investigation in lieu of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from Russia-related matters because of his role in the Trump campaign.Rosenstein's order appointing Mueller empowers the special counsel to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." But it also authorizes Mueller to probe "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."Manafort's lawsuit alleges that the deputy attorney general's order in effect wrongly gives Mueller "carte blanche" to look into and pursue criminal charges against "anything he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote from the specific matter" of Russia.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. This article is co-published with The New York Times. Just days after he took office in 2017, President Donald Trump set out to make good on his campaign pledge to halt illegal immigration. In a pair of executive orders, he ordered “all legally available resources” to be shifted to border detention facilities and called for hiring 10,000 new immigration officers. The logistical challenges were daunting, but as luck would have it, Immigration and Customs Enforcement already had a partner on its payroll: McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm brought on under the Obama administration to help engineer an “organizational transformation” in the ICE division charged with deporting migrants who are in the United States unlawfully. ICE quickly redirected McKinsey toward helping the agency figure out how to execute the White House’s clampdown on illegal immigration. But the money-saving recommendations the consultants came up with made some career ICE staff uncomfortable. They proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, as well as on medical care and supervision of detainees, according to interviews with people who worked on the project for both ICE and McKinsey and 1,500 pages of documents obtained from the agency after ProPublica filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. McKinsey’s team also looked for ways to accelerate the deportation process, provoking worries among some ICE staff members that the recommendations risked short-circuiting due process protections for migrants fighting removal from the United States. The consultants, three people who worked on the project said, seemed focused solely on cutting costs and speeding up deportations — activities whose success could be measured in numbers — with little acknowledgment that these policies affected thousands of human beings. In what one former official described as “heated meetings” with McKinsey consultants, agency staff members questioned whether saving pennies on food and medical care for detainees justified the potential human cost. But the consulting firm’s sway at ICE grew to the point that McKinsey’s staff even ghostwrote a government contracting document that defined the consulting team’s own responsibilities and justified the firm’s retention, a contract extension worth $2.2 million. “Can they do that?” an ICE official wrote to a contracting officer in May 2017. The response reflects how deeply ICE had come to rely on McKinsey’s assistance. “Well it obviously isn’t ideal to have a contractor tell us what we want to ask them to do,” the contracting officer replied. But unless someone from the government could articulate the agency’s objectives, the officer added, “what other option is there?” ICE extended the contract. The New York Times reported last year that McKinsey ultimately did more than $20 million in consulting work for ICE, a commitment to one of the Trump administration’s most controversial endeavors that raised concerns among some of McKinsey’s employees and former partners. The firm’s global managing partner, Kevin Sneader, assured them in a 2018 email that the firm had never focused on developing, advising or implementing immigration policies. He said McKinsey “will not, under any circumstances, engage in work, anywhere in the world, that advances or assists policies that are at odds with our values.” But the new documents and interviews reveal that the firm was deeply involved in executing policies fundamental to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. McKinsey’s recommendations for spending cuts went too far for some career ICE employees, and a number of the proposals were never implemented. McKinsey has faced mounting scrutiny over the past two years, as reports by The New York Times, ProPublica and others have raised questions about whether the firm has crossed ethical and legal lines in pursuit of profit. The consultancy returned millions of dollars in fees after South African authorities implicated it in a profiteering scheme. The exposure of its history advising opioid makers on ways to bolster sales induced the usually secretive firm to declare publicly that its opioid work had ended. Last month, the Times reported that McKinsey’s bankruptcy practice is the subject of a federal criminal investigation. The firm has denied wrongdoing in each case, but it apologized for missteps in South Africa. “The scope of our work, contractually agreed to during the Obama administration, was designed to help the agency find ways to operate more effectively and cost-efficiently,” a McKinsey spokesman said of the firm’s consulting for ICE. “The focus of our work did not change as a result of these executive orders.” In a statement, ICE spokesman Bryan D. Cox said McKinsey’s work “yielded measurable improvements in mission outcomes, including a notable decrease in the time to remove aliens with a final order of removal.” McKinsey responded quickly to Trump’s executive orders on immigration. On Feb. 13, the consultants presented ICE officials a set of “initiatives to improve ICE Hiring and address the Executive Order,” according to an accompanying slide deck. Hiring 10,000 immigration officers was an immense undertaking, and similar attempts to swiftly ramp up staffing, under the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, ended badly. They resulted in lax hiring standards, according to experts, and a subsequent spike in misconduct and corruption cases among Border Patrol officers. To expedite the process in 2017, McKinsey proposed hiring en masse, including what the consultants called “super one-stop hiring”: ICE could rent a gymnasium or similar space and compress the recruitment, screening and hiring process into a single day. The consultants, they wrote in a slide deck, aimed “to reduce time to hire by 30-50% (hundreds of days)” — significantly improving ICE’s capability to staff the president’s immigration crackdown. By the summer of 2017, according to contracting records and a former ICE official, the agency had begun to adopt McKinsey’s proposals to speed up hiring. (ICE has hired only a fraction of the 10,000 officers called for because of budget constraints.) Within months, McKinsey was making significant strides toward advancing the Trump administration’s policy goals. The firm’s work showed “quantifiable benefits,” ICE officials stated in an October 2017 contracting document, “including increased total removals and reductions in time to remove a detainee.” As some McKinsey consultants worked on the staffing challenge, others took aim at the logistical hurdles posed by an expected influx of detainees flowing from the Trump administration’s directive to enforce immigration laws more strictly. The consulting team became so driven to save money, people involved in the project said, that consultants sometimes ignored — and even complained to agency managers about — ICE staffers who objected that McKinsey’s cost-cutting proposals risked jeopardizing the health and safety of migrants. Cox, the ICE spokesman, denied that McKinsey’s recommendations could harm the well-being or due process rights of detainees. McKinsey’s spokesman said the firm’s work aimed to identify where detention center contractors were overcharging ICE — long a concern of watchdog agencies — and to propose remedies. McKinsey, the firm’s presentations show, pursued “detention savings opportunities” in blunt ways. The consultants encouraged ICE to adopt a “longer-term strategy” with “operational decisions to fill low cost beds before expensive beds.” In practice, that meant shunting detainees to less expensive — and sometimes less safe — facilities, often rural county jails. “There’s a concerted effort to try to ship folks ICE sees as long-term detainees to these low-cost facilities run by local sheriffs’ offices where conditions are abysmal,” said Eunice Cho, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who focuses on issues involving the detention of immigrants. (The ACLU has brought several lawsuits against ICE, including over its detention policies, during the Trump administration.) McKinsey also looked to cut costs by lowering standards at ICE detention facilities, according to an internal ICE email and two former agency officials. McKinsey, an ICE supervisor wrote in an email dated March 30, 2017, was “looking for ways to cut or reduce standards because they are too costly,” albeit, the supervisor added, “without sacrificing quality, safety and mission.” The consultants found it difficult to attach a dollar figure to the standards themselves, the former ICE officials said. So they shifted their focus to trimming operating costs at several detention centers and coaching agency officials as they renegotiated contracts with companies managing some of those facilities. The renegotiated contracts saved ICE $16 million, according to Cox, the ICE spokesman, who insisted that no “degradation to service” resulted. One of Trump’s executive orders had directed immigration agencies to concentrate resources near the southern border, and the consultants prioritized slashing costs at those facilities. The McKinsey proposals that most troubled agency staffers — like cutting spending on food, medical care and maintenance — were not incorporated into the new contracts, one former ICE official said. Internal project emails point to cutbacks in guard staffing as the source of most cost savings. But the McKinsey recommendations remain on the books at ICE. The consultants analyzed how the agency could save money at detention centers beyond those where they helped renegotiate contracts — including several near the border, like ICE’s largest family detention facility, in Dilley, Texas — and Cox said these analyses remain reference points for future efforts to curb spending. A report issued this summer by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general raised concerns about food quality and upkeep at several ICE facilities, both categories on which McKinsey recommended ICE spend less. McKinsey’s work at ICE ended in July 2018. Among agency officials, there was growing dissatisfaction with the consultants’ work, and leadership turnover in the agency had left the consulting firm with few defenders, two former ICE officials said. But the firm’s work supporting the Trump administration’s immigration clampdown has continued. Just a week after Sneader announced that the ICE engagement was over, McKinsey signed a $2 million contract to advise Customs and Border Protection as it drafted a new border strategy to replace the Obama administration’s approach, and it has since signed still another contract with CBP — worth up to $8.4 million — that will keep the firm at the agency through September 2020 at least. Among the border strategy priorities listed in McKinsey slide decks for the CBP are: “invest in impedance and denial capability,” “work with partner agencies and components to maximize programs that discourage illegal entries” and, in one instance, simply, “Wall.” testPromoTitleReplace testPromoDekReplace Join HuffPost Today! No thanks. Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost

A consensus that international cooperation is required to limit the danger from global heating has existed for decades. The success of the rearguard action against this knowledge, led by fossil fuel interests, is a catastrophe whose full extent is yet to unfold. Central bankers are now demanding that a “whole economy transition” must follow the pandemic if the world is to avoid the extreme disruption that temperature rises of 4C would bring.Arguably, the chaos unleashed by coronavirus has made such a future seem less remote, and action to prevent it more necessary. The risk is that the virus will have the opposite effect: focusing minds on the threat right now rather than the one that can be ignored for a few more years.Nowhere is this danger greater than in Brazil. South America’s most populous country is responsible for 2.25% of global emissions (by comparison, the US, with a population 50% bigger, emits seven times as much). But accelerating deforestation places Brazil, which has 60% of the Amazon rainforest within its borders, at the heart of the struggle to prevent runaway global heating. That is because the Amazon is the planet’s biggest terrestrial carbon sink and plays a crucial role in the water cycle, as well as providing a home to more species than anywhere else on land.Twenty-eight years ago, in June 1992, the UN framework convention on climate change was opened for signature in Rio de Janeiro. But since Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, took office 18 months ago his government has sabotaged years of work by environmentalist and indigenous activists aimed at protecting the rainforest, and instead fanned the flames of its destruction by illegal loggers, miners and cattle ranchers. In the year to July 2019, losses rocketed to 9,800 sq km and research predicts that the rainforest is on course for a tipping point that would see it become a carbon emitter in the mid-2030s. Now there are fears that the coronavirus pandemic may speed this up.On Thursday, Brazil overtook Italy to become the country with the third-highest Covid-19 death toll (behind the US and UK), after a daily record of 1,743 fatalities took the total to more than 34,000. While Mr Bolsonaro continues to attack public health measures, the indigenous population of the Amazon region appears increasingly under threat from violence as well as disease, with five killings in Maranhão state in six months.The tropical rainforest may seem distant. But we cannot afford to wring our hands and look away. Every possible lever must be pulled that could influence Brazil’s government and meat industry. This week, the Guardian reported that UK banks have provided more than $2bn (£1.5bn) in backing to companies linked to deforestation. Those institutions must now come under pressure, along with US investors such as BlackRock. So must politicians and regulators.It will take a huge international effort to preserve the Amazon rainforest. Agribusiness is responsible for more than one-fifth of Brazil’s GDP. If the cattle industry is to face curbs, there must also be incentives. International trade and climate negotiators have their work cut out. There is a job to be done by public opinion too. Topics Amazon rainforest Opinion Cattle Agriculture Farming Brazil Climate change Environmental activism editorials

Jair Bolsonaro swore 34 times during a two-hour cabinet meeting some think could help bring his four-year term to a premature end. Brazilians are horrified by their president's lack of focus on Covid-19, which has killed more than 21,000 people Full story: critics hope tirade could end rule

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran and the U.S. conducted a prisoner exchange Saturday that saw a detained Princeton graduate student released for an Iranian scientist held by America, marking a potential breakthrough between Tehran and Washington after months of tensions. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made the first announcement on the trade via Twitter. The trade involves graduate student Xiyue Wang and scientist Massoud Soleimani. “Glad that Professor Massoud Soleimani and Mr. Xiyue Wang will be joining their families shortly,” Zarif wrote. “Many thanks to all engaged, particularly the Swiss government.” In his tweet, Zarif confirmed rumors that had been circulating for days that a deal was in the works to free Wang. Amb. McMullen was honored to present the American flag to freed U.S. prisoner Xiyue Wang, who has been held on false charges in Iran for 3 years. pic.twitter.com/TrbRXEWjzR— U.S. Embassy Bern (@USEmbassyBern) December 7, 2019 President Donald Trump separately acknowledged Wang was free in a statement from the White House, saying he “is returning to the United States.” “Mr. Wang had been held under the pretense of espionage since August 2016,” Trump said. “We thank our Swiss partners for their assistance in negotiating Mr. Wang’s release with Iran.” The Swiss Embassy in Tehran looks out for America’s interests in the country as the U.S. Embassy there has been closed since the 1979 student takeover and 444-day hostage crisis. Brian Hook, the U.S. special representative for Iran, accompanied the Iranian scientist to Switzerland to make the exchange and will return with Wang, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity as the information had yet to be released. The swap took place in Zurich and Hook and Wang are now en route to Landstuhl in Germany where Wang will be examined by doctors, the official said. Hook is expected to return to the U.S. from Germany alone, as Wang is expected to be evaluated for several days. Another American is coming home. Xiyue Wang, who has been held on false charges in Iran for over three years, has been released and is on his way back to the United States. Mr. Wang will soon be reunited with his wife and son, who have missed him dearly. (1/2)— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) December 7, 2019 We will not rest until we bring every American detained in Iran and around the world back home to their loved ones. We thank the Swiss government for facilitating the return of Mr. Wang, and are pleased the Iranian government has been constructive in this matter. (2/2)— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) December 7, 2019 Although Hook was present for the swap, the official said Trump’s national security adviser Robert O’Brien played the lead role in the negotiations dating from his time as the special representative for hostage affairs at the State Department. Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency later reported that Soleimani was with Iranian officials in Switzerland. Soleimani was expected to return to Iran in the coming hours. Zarif later posted pictures of himself on Twitter with Soleimani in front of an Iranian government jet and later with the two talking on board. Wang was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Iran for allegedly “infiltrating” the country and sending confidential material abroad. His family and Princeton University strongly denied the claims. Wang was arrested while conducting research on the Qajar dynasty that once ruled Iran for his doctorate in the late 19th and early 20th-century Eurasian history, according to Princeton. Hua Qu, the wife of Xiyue Wang, released a statement saying “our family is complete once again.” “Our son Shaofan and I have waited three long years for this day and it’s hard to express in words how excited we are to be reunited with Xiyue,” she said. “We are thankful to everyone who helped make this happen.” Princeton University spokesman Ben Chang said the school was aware of Wang’s release. “We are working with the family and government officials to facilitate his return to the United States,” Chang said. Princeton University can confirm the release of its graduate student, Xiyue Wang, from Iran. We are working with his family and the U.S. government to ensure his safe and speedy return to the United States. Fuller statement coming shortly. pic.twitter.com/QhUd1nY8uY— Princeton University (@Princeton) December 7, 2019 — Princeton University (@Princeton) December 7, 2019 Iran’s Revolutionary Court tried Wang. That court typically handles espionage cases and others involving smuggling, blasphemy and attempts to overthrow its Islamic government. Westerners and Iranian dual nationals with ties to the West often find themselves tried and convicted in closed-door trials in these courts, only later to be used as bargaining chips in negotiations. Soleimani — who works in stem cell research, hematology and regenerative medicine — was arrested by U.S. authorities on charges he had violated trade sanctions by trying to have biological material brought to Iran. He and his lawyers maintain his innocence, saying he seized on a former student’s plans to travel from the U.S. to Iran in September 2016 as a chance to get recombinant proteins used in his research for a fraction of the price he’d pay at home. Tensions have been high between Iran and the U.S. since President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers in May 2018. In the time since, the U.S. has imposed harsh sanctions on Iran’s economy. There also have been a series of attacks across the Mideast that the U.S. blames on Iran. Other Americans held in Iran include the 81-year-old businessman Baquer Namazi who has been held for over two years and diagnosed with epilepsy. Both Baquer Namazi and his son Siamak Namazi, also a dual national who has been held for over three years, are serving a 10-year sentence after they were convicted of collaborating with a hostile power. An Iranian-American art dealer Karan Vafadari and his Iranian wife, Afarin Neyssari, received 27-year and 16-year prison sentences, respectively. Also held is U.S. Navy veteran Michael White. Former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who vanished in Iran in 2007 while on an unauthorized CIA mission, remains missing as well. Iran says that Levinson is not in the country and that it has no further information about him, but his family holds Tehran responsible for his disappearance. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, while saying Wang would soon be able to go home to his family, acknowledged other Americans remain held by Iran. “The United States will not rest until we bring every American detained in Iran and around the world back home to their loved ones,” Pompeo said in a statement. testPromoTitleReplace testPromoDekReplace Join HuffPost Today! No thanks. Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost

Manaus is hard-hit by coronavirus but still has hospital space for the neediest patients flown in from the Amazon.This flight brought two people from down the river in Parintins, a city with a population of just over 100,000 about 230 miles (370 km) away. They need the medical care Manaus can provide. One of the patients, a man, is able to move himself with the help from medics onto a stretcher. The only motion from the other patient, a woman, is the slow heave of her chest.Waiting ambulances take the two away. The crew begin cleaning and refurbishing the plane. This team never lost a patient in flight, although they have had to intubate one midair. Dr. Selma Haddad is part of a team that flies the sickest patients to Manaus.Dr. Selma Haddad climbs out of her protective clothing on the tarmac and inhales. "It's very hard. You carry a weight that you don't see. Every time I carry this weight."Workers have made hundreds of crosses to mark new graves at the Parque Taruma Cemetery.At the Parque Taruma Cemetery, more than 1,500 graves have been dug since the pandemic came to the Amazon. Men and heavy machinery sometimes work at night to meet the demand, opening up large trenches as mass graves. Five coffins that arrive in just two hours get placed in a group grave. Pedro Chaves said it was distressing to not only lose his mother but to have to wait for her to be buried.Standing in mourning for his mother is Pedro Chaves, angry that he has to wait for the trench to be full before the coffin is covered. "We are here around 30 minutes waiting for more bodies," he says. "I just want to put my Mum there and finish this. My family doesn't need this."Chaves says his mother died from complications of diabetes, not the virus. Others say Covid-19 was not to blame for their losses. With so little testing, it is impossible to know for sure.As a constant parade of angry, grief-stricken locals passes through the cemetery, workers sit in a corner, hammering makeshift crosses and grave boundaries together in the Amazonian humidity.Across town, at the newly built Gilberto Novaes field hospital, a stream of new patients arrives. A dozen indigenous people from the outer limits of the city stagger breathless from the ambulances into wheelchairs and straight to the ICU. Health workers and patients fight coronavirus in the ICU of Gilberto Novaes hospital.The ICU is frenetic, packed with the sick and those trying to save them. Circulating among the beds is Miqueias Moreira Kokama, the head of the Kokama indigenous community. He was appointed just two weeks ago when his father died from coronavirus. In pictures: Coronavirus surges in Brazil"I took my father into hospital where he was intubated for 5 days," he says. "Now we have 300 with symptoms and 30 in hospital."In the Kokama community itself, the virus has emptied the streets. Resident Vanda Ortega Witoto points at each house on one road, ticking off the families that are now self-isolating. At the next street, she explains that the deathly silence stems from everyone being in hospital. Miqueias Moreira Kokama lost his father to coronavirus and then had to lead his community.At first they felt their distance from the city gave them protection. But then the first symptoms appeared and the slum's poor sanitation helped the virus take hold. Yet help did not come, Witoto says, with local officials saying it was the duty of the federal government to help the indigenous people and the federal government doing nothing. So when a relative was coughing, in pain and unable to get out from a hammock, she donned a mask and gloves to drive them herself to the hospital. "It was a very difficult moment, to expose myself and seek help for her."The Kokama feeldoubly under threat, fromthe pandemic and the actions of the government whom they accuse of threatening their very existence.Witito says Bolsonaro "has been behaving in this pandemic by attacking our territory, expelling the indigenous people from their territories and opening our lands to agribusiness."At the end of the day, a moment of hope warms the community. Witoto's mother, Brazileia Martiniano Barrozo, has been released from the hospital and returns to streets now echoing with celebratory fireworks and cheers from neighbors.JUST WATCHEDBrazilian president called mayor 'a piece of s***.' See mayor's response.ReplayMore Videos ...MUST WATCHBrazilian president called mayor 'a piece of s***.' See mayor's response. 03:49Manaus Mayor Arthur Virgilio Neto isn't just fighting the spread of Covid-19, he's alsocaught in a row with President Bolsonarowho called him a "piece of sh**" in a cabinet meeting, the recording of which the Supreme Court released last week.Virgilio Neto told us he felt Bolsonaro's "dream is to be a dictatorship but he's too stupid." He added the President should "shut up and stay at home," and was partially responsible for Brazil's rising death toll because of the way he had dismissed the dangeras a "little flu."

When Jeff Bezos was looking for a home for his fledgling online bookseller, amazon.com, in 1994, his first choice is said to have been a Native American reservation. The location would have presented generous tax breaks if the state of California had not intervened and halted the plan.Next stop was Seattle, which Bezos said he selected because Washington state had – among other things – a smallish population. At the time only those retailers with a physical presence in a state paid sales taxes, so a home state with a small population meant the lowest possible sales tax burden. Sales made into other more populous states would not be taxed.It was a strategic decision that would characterise Amazon’s attitude towards paying tax over the next two decades. Its critics allege that it owes its position as the world’s largest online retailer in part to its use of contrived and artificial tax arrangements that – while legal – endow it with competitive advantages no bricks-and-mortar retailer could ever hope to enjoy.The company deployed the strategy in Luxembourg, the tiny European country that became, in the words of the Tax Justice Network, “the Death Star of financial secrecy” in a national bid to attract capital through tax competition. The architect of that transformation, Jean-Claude Juncker, later became the president of the European commission, and has been dogged by questions about his suitability for the post in an atmosphere of increasing anger about tax avoidance ever since.Amazon first arrived in Luxembourg in 2003, and within a few months secured a confidential agreement with the country’s tax authorities. Bob Comfort, Amazon’s head of tax, would later tell the Luxembourgish newspaper d’Lëtzebuerger Land that Juncker had personally offered to help Amazon. “His message was simply: ‘If you encounter problems which you don’t seem to be able to resolve, please come back and tell me. I’ll try to help.’” Comfort was later appointed Luxembourg’s “honorary consul to Seattle”, the location of Amazon’s US headquarters.Fast-forward a decade, and Amazon would find itself in the crosshairs of Europe’s competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, best known for her ruling that Apple enjoyed €13bn of illegal state aid from Ireland in the form of preferential tax treatment. Her investigation into Amazon would focus on the nature of its secret deal with Luxembourg. But the details of that deal would be revealed not as a result of her inquiry, but by a parallel investigation by the Internal Revenue Service in the US.The tax strategy, internally codenamed Project Goldcrest after the national bird of Luxembourg, was fundamental to Amazon’s plan to put the duchy at the heart of the European business of its global empire. Though highly complicated, at its core the scheme involved the following interplay between entities in Luxembourg and the US:1. Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS (AEHT) would own the legal right to use Amazon’s intellectual property, or IP, outside the United States. Because it was a specific type of legal entity, called a “non-resident partnership”, any money it received from other Amazon entities in exchange for the right to use that IP would be tax-free.2. Amazon EU Sarl, which operates Amazon’s European businesses, would pay AEHT hundreds of millions of euros in “royalty fees” for that IP each year. The cost of the royalties would be offset against its own tax bill.3. AEHT would pay Amazon’s US business its own royalty fees for the right to license out that IP in Europe.While EU regulators argued that the royalties between the two Luxembourg companies were too high, US regulators argued the royalties paid back to Amazon’s American headquarters were too low. The net effect of the baroque Project Goldcrest was to reduce Amazon’s taxes everywhere. Last year the EU ordered Amazon to repay €250m in “illegal tax advantages” following its investigation, and last month the European commission proposed a new 3% “digital tax” on the revenues (rather than profits) of large technology companies – to prevent them avoiding taxes by shifting their profits around the globe.In the UK, campaigners have long held suspicions that HM Revenue and Customs selects which taxpayers to pursue for alleged underpayment according to political expediency. HMRC has always denied these claims, and says it treats all taxpayers equally according to the law. But those allegations were made substantially more credible two months ago, when a VAT campaigner released a covert recording of his off-the-record conversation with an HMRC official in the pub. The subject of their discussion: Amazon. “I’ve heard from the Treasury; the Treasury didn’t want us to be too hard on Amazon,” the official said, before adding “but I think that was ‘yet’”. HMRC did not respond to the specifics of the recording, but reiterated that it “has not been told to be soft on multinationals and no taxpayer gets preferential treatment”. A student at the University of Alabama pushes a large Amazon Dash button, which was part of Birmingham’s campaign to lure Amazon’s second headquarters. Photograph: Brynn Anderson/APMore recently Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Amazon of underpayment of taxes – although the US president has previously bragged that paying little to no tax made him “smart”, and his grudge against the company is likely to be partly motivated by his hatred of the Bezos-owned Washington Post. But one focus of Trump’s attacks, an arrangement between Amazon and the United States Postal Service, which the president alleges is unfairly generous, is emblematic of the company’s strategy of haggling with public authorities. Amazon is presently inviting US cities to outbid each other in a contest to host its “second headquarters”, waving the promise of 50,000 jobs and $5bn of investment in front of the winning applicant. Maryland offered $5bn of tax incentives – dollar for dollar the same as the pledged investment – for the company to opt for Montgomery County, while California offered between $300m and $1bn of breaks. New Jersey even promised $7bn of tax incentives – $2bn more than Amazon’s maximum investment. Whichever city wins, it seems likely that tax will influence its decision-making: the firm’s published criteria for bidders specifically cites “a stable and business-friendly environment and tax structure” as a high priority.• This article was amended on 26 April 2018 to clarify the source of our assertion about why Amazon based itself in Washington state.

Thousands of mourners flooded the streets of Baghdad Saturday and called for revenge against the US after Iranian military leader Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a drone strike early Friday morning.Chants of “Death to America, death to Israel” and “We will take our revenge!” emanated from the crowd, according to The Associated Press. Other mourners chanted “America is the Great Satan” as they made their way through Baghdad’s streets. Soleimani, who led the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force (IRGC-QF), was killed alongside several Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leaders in a convoy at Baghdad’s International Airport Friday. The strike, authorized by President Donald Trump, escalated tensions between Iran and the United States after an already tense week in which Iranian-backed militia members stormed the US Embassy in Baghdad in response to a US airstrike on Iran-backed fighters based in Syria and Iraq that killed 25. That airstrike was, in turn, retaliation for the death of an American contractor in Iraq, who was killed in a rocket strike in Kirkuk, Iraq, that also wounded four US troops — US officials blamed the attack on Kataib Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia in Iraq. The leader of Kataib Hezbollah, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was also killed in the Friday morning drone strike.The funeral processions for Soleimani and al-Muhandis began in Kadhimuyah, a neighborhood in Baghdad, and drew large crowds of Iraqi mourners. Banners of Iranian-backed paramilitary groups in Iraq were waved in the crowds, and officials from both Iraq and Iran were spotted amongst the mourners. — Arwa Ibrahim (@arwaib) January 4, 2020 In the wake of the strike that killed Soleimani, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for three days of mourning before seeking retaliation, saying “a forceful revenge awaits the criminals who have his blood and the blood of the other martyrs last night on their hands.” What that response will look like is unclear. Experts have argued it could take the form of cyberattacks, attacks on US military positions and diplomatic outposts in the Middle East, or — as the New York Times’s Rukmini Callimachi has reported — attempted kidnappings and executions of US citizens in the most extreme case. Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, told Vox’s Dylan Scott she believes Iran “will look for the time and place of its own choosing in terms of a response,” and that it is likely the country’s leaders will use the assassination of Soleimani to shore up support at home before trying to strike back at the US.As a precaution, however, the Department of Homeland Security has warned federal and local officials to work to secure their computer systems, and the US has urged all citizens to make their way out of Iraq after closing its embassy in Baghdad.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo assured Americans that Soleimani’s death would be celebrated in Iraq — and even Iran — tweeting out a video Thursday that Pompeo claimed showed Iraqis celebrating in the streets after he was killed. But the Saturday morning funeral processions speak to a much more complex situation on the ground, one that illustrates both Soleimani’s far-reaching power in the region and the complex political relationship between Iran and Iraq.For instance, while the funeral was a stark show of support for the deceased military leader and his country, Iraq’s recent national protest movement has brought considerable anti-Iranian sentiment into the open. In November, three Iraqi protesters were killed after they stormed an Iranian consulate in the city of Karabala. The demonstrators were publicly pushing back on Iran’s growing influence in Iraq, and their deaths came as anti-government protesters in Baghdad had fatal clashes with security forces. As Vox’s Jen Kirby reported:The unrest in Iraq began in early October, with Iraqis protesting the lack of job opportunities and high unemployment, and what they saw as the government’s inability to deliver basic services, like electricity, and repair badly damaged infrastructure. These socioeconomic grievances morphed into larger anti-corruption protests. Anger over the Iraqi government’s incompetence and lack of accountability has also fueled Iraqis’ anger toward Iran, which demonstrators feel has outsized control over Iraq’s politicians and domestic affairs.Ben Van Heuvelen, the editor-in-chief of Iraq Oil Report, told Vox that Soleimani was a divisive figure who encapsulated the complex nature of the current Iraq-Iran relationship — and who represented what protesters are most incensed about when it comes to Iran’s influence on Iraqi politics. For some Iraqis, Van Heuvelen said, Soleimani is an indispensable part of Iraq’s political scene: a trusted mediator, a powerful dealmaker, and a reliable force against the ISIS incursion in the region. For others, he represents Iran’s deep and longstanding meddling in Iraq. He’s also been directly involved in formulating the response to Iraq’s protest movement, in which government-backed forces have killed over 400 demonstrators.“Even those Iraqis who are happy to see him gone are probably unhappy about the manner in which he was killed,” Van Heuvelen told Vox. “Over the past three months, one major grievance expressed by Iraq’s protest movement is that the political class has failed to establish a strong sovereign state and has allowed Iraq to be a battleground for US and Iranian proxy conflict.” Van Heuvelen added, “So, for the demonstrators, Soleimani has been something of a villain — the personification of Iranian meddling — yet the American assassination of Soleimani is also a painful symbol of Iraq’s humiliating loss of sovereignty.”The Iraqi government has condemned the airstrike as just that: an attack on its sovereignty. In response, the Iraqi parliament is scheduled to meet for an emergency session on Sunday, and will debate whether to revoke the legal authorization for more than 5,000 US forces to be in the country. US soldiers are currently stationed across the nation to combat a potential resurgence of ISIS.Regardless of what the politicians decide during the session, Van Heuvelen said the killing of Soleimani has united both the pro- and anti-Iran factions in Iraq around one key concern: “All Iraqis are justifiably worried that Iraq will suffer the most from any further escalation of US-Iran hostilities.”

This week, several more House Democrats — including assistant speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), and Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) — announced they support an impeachment inquiry aimed at President Donald Trump.And when you hear that, you may wonder — wait a minute, hasn’t an impeachment inquiry already started?After all, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), went on CNN earlier this month and said his committee was in the midst of “formal impeachment proceedings.” Journalists at media outlets such as Politico, the Washington Post and The Hill all interpreted this as Nadler finally officially confirming that the long-awaited “impeachment inquiry” has begun.But there’s a good deal of weirdness about this: namely, that Nadler never actually uttered the phrase “impeachment inquiry” in that interview, and that he continues to seem allergic to using it. Meanwhile, there has been no official vote either in the House or in the Judiciary Committee to open or approve an impeachment inquiry. It’s the latest in Democrats’ increasingly awkward contortions over whether to impeach Trump (for Mueller’s findings or various other reasons). They know full well that, barring some truly shocking political development, an impeachment push will not win over Republicans in the Senate, meaning it will not remove Trump from office. And House speaker Nancy Pelosi is wary of forcing her Democratic members in districts that backed Trump to take a controversial, divisive vote. But the party’s base is demanding more be done to hold Trump accountable, and there are primary challenges to worry about. So gradually, more and more House Democrats have been saying they support an impeachment inquiry (which, we should note, does not necessarily commit to supporting a final impeachment vote) — more than half the caucus now says they back an inquiry. The House Judiciary Committee is accordingly trying to do ... well, something impeachment-y. But we don’t yet know whether their effort will lead to a major impeachment battle that will dominate headlines for months or whether it will just fizzle out. And they might not know, either.Back on March 4, 2019, Nadler announced that the House Judiciary Committee would investigate “alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.” Nadler soon sent a plethora of document requests and subpoenas for testimony. This has been the House’s main probe into the Mueller report’s findings and other Trump scandals.In the months since, activists and Democratic voters have increasingly demanded Trump’s impeachment (for a variety of reasons, from the Mueller investigation’s findings to Trump’s general conduct in office). The next incremental step toward that was often framed as “opening a formal impeachment inquiry” — something that was done in advance of the impeachment efforts for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. (I delved into the history more in this explainer.)For months, pro-impeachment members of the Judiciary Committee demanded the opening of an impeachment inquiry— and Nadler reportedly pushed Pelosi to let him do it behind the scenes (while remaining noncommittal in public). And media organizations counted the increasing number of Democrats saying they supported an inquiry.But in late July, the pro-impeachment House faction shifted its rhetorical strategy. They began arguing that, actually, they don’t even need to open a formal impeachment inquiry. They (accurately) pointed out that there’s no rule requiring such a thing — the current Judiciary Committee doesn’t need extra subpoena power and they can technically write and vote on articles of impeachment whenever they want. Around this time, Nadler also announced with great fanfare that, as part of his committee’s court effort to gain access to Mueller’s grand jury material, he said the House needed to “consider whether” to approve “articles of impeachment.” But when asked if his probe should now be categorized as that long-awaited “impeachment inquiry,” Nadler demurred, saying “too much has been made of” that particular phrase.All this leads up to a truly strange appearance by Nadler on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront on August 8. (The full transcript is at this link and the video is here.)“Breaking news, an impeachment earthquake!” Burnett said. With Nadler sitting right across the table from her in the studio but not yet speaking, she then cut to CNN’s Manu Raju on Capitol Hill and said: “Manu, your source is telling you that Nadler is there.” “Yeah,” Raju said, explaining that he has been told the committee is “moving forward to determine whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment.”Burnett then immediately followed up with Nadler himself. “Obviously, you know, we’ve spoken with someone familiar with your thinking and we asked, do you support an impeachment inquiry? The source told CNN, ‘It’s clear as day.’” She paused. “Is it?”It ... was not clear as day.“Well, I think it’s important not to get hung up on semantics,” Nadler answered. “The fact is we are doing an investigation. We are investigating the facts. We’re investigating the evidence. We are going into court to get witnesses, all with a view toward deciding and recommending to the House whether to impeach the president. We have the power to vote articles of impeachment. And we are investigating now to get the evidence to decide whether to do so.”So, Nadler specifically did not make the news-making announcement that CNN’s source was right and he supported an impeachment inquiry. Instead, he said people shouldn’t “get hung up on semantics” and said the same thing he’s been saying for months: that his committee has an investigation going and maybe it will eventually lead to impeachment, but maybe not.After a couple minutes, Burnett tried again to actually make some news by spurring Nadler to use the magic “impeachment inquiry” phrase.“A lot of people say, ‘Okay, you say let’s not get wrapped up in words,’” Burnett said. “But words can matter when they apply to what information you can get and how the American people see it, right?’”She continued: “I’m trying to understand this. A lot of Democrats — they don’t want to be forced to vote for an impeachment inquiry. But they presumably would be willing to vote for impeachment itself if you presented them with the evidence.”Nadler cut in here to say: “There’s no such thing. The committee has initiated an investigation into the various malfeasances —”“So, you’re saying this is exactly the same as what we call ‘formal impeachment proceedings’ by another name?” Burnett asked.“This — this is formal impeach — impeachment proceedings,” Nadler said. Boom, there it was, it seemed: the promised “earthquake.” Reporters soon used this sentence to claim that Nadler had made major news in the interview by saying or confirming for the first time he was conducting an impeachment inquiry.But right after Nadler uttered that halting sentence to Burnett, he went back to saying the same stuff he’s been saying for ages.“We are investigating all the evidence. We’re gathering the evidence. And we will at the conclusion of this, hopefully, by the end of the year, vote to — vote articles of impeachment to the House floor, or we won’t,” Nadler said. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”I have some sympathy for Nadler here. He’s right that this is a semantic question. If he did come out and did utter the magical phrase “impeachment inquiry” — or hold a vote in his committee to officially open an inquiry — nothing substantive would change. Still, it’s at least somewhat noteworthy that he has so far refused to end the ambiguity by doing either of these things. And the “should Democrats start an impeachment inquiry” question has essentially been a stand-in for the true question splitting the party: whether Democrats should move full steam ahead with impeaching Trump in the House.Two weeks after Nadler’s CNN appearances, the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips reports that, per House Democratic aides “close to the process,” it’s not clear whether Nadler’s recent statements signaled any substantive escalation, compared to what his committee has previously been doing.Currently, members of the House are out of Washington until September. After that, Nadler is hoping for favorable court rulings on getting Mueller’s grand jury material and compelling testimony from recalcitrant witnesses. He’s also said he’ll have hearings with other witnesses in September and October. And his timeline for an ultimate decision on impeachment articles is “by the end of the year.”But no Democrats are against a continued investigation by Nadler of potential crimes by Trump. The real controversy is whether to put impeachment at the top of the House’s agenda and begin a political battle that would dominate headlines for the foreseeable future. And it’s still a debate that is clearly unresolved.

An American graduate student who was held in an Iranian prison for more than three years was finally headed home Saturday after a prisoner swap between the two countries.Xiyue Wang, 38, was released in Switzerland in exchange for Iranian citizen Massoud Soleimani, who was being held in an Atlanta jail over accusations he violated U.S. sanctions."We thank our Swiss partners for their assistance in negotiating Mr. Wang’s release with Iran," said President Donald Trump in a statement confirming the news."The highest priority of the United States is the safety and well-being of its citizens. Freeing Americans held captive is of vital importance to my Administration, and we will continue to work hard to bring home all our citizens wrongfully held captive overseas."Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif posted on Twitter early Saturday ahead of the swap, and again after it was confirmed.A senior administration official told NBC News that the Swiss took the lead in the negotiations over the past three to four weeks. Those discussions for the release of Wang, a Chinese-born naturalized American citizen and a fourth-year doctoral student of history at Princeton University, came without pre-conditions on issues such as ending the Iranian nuclear program or its long-range ballistic missile program, the official said.Wang was arrested in August 2016 while carrying out research on Iran’s Qajar dynasty for his Ph.D., according to the university, his wife and the U.S. government.He was convicted of two counts of espionage in April 2017 and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He had been held in Evin Prison, the Tehran facility that houses most of the country's political prisoners.Iran released video in November 2017 of Wang allegedly trying to smuggle documents. Then-State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert explicitly denied Wang was working on behalf of any U.S. government agency.The U.S. had repeatedly called for his release. In his statement Saturday, Trump said he "had been held under the pretense of espionage."Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.His wife, Qu Hua, had worked with Princeton trying to win his release. She told NBC News in November 2017 that Wang was struggling with depression in prison.He was also missing out on watching their son grow up, she said, having last seen the boy when he was only 2 years old."My son told his teacher that, 'When I grow up, my daddy will come home.'"After the news that he would do just that this weekend, Qu said in a statement that "Our family is complete once again.""Our son Shaofan and I have waited three long years for this day and it’s hard to express in words how excited we are to be reunited with Xiyue. We are thankful to everyone who helped make this happen," she said."The entire Princeton University community is overjoyed that Xiyue Wang can finally return home to his wife and young son, and we look forward to welcoming him back to campus," said Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber.Wang's lawyer also celebrated the news, urging both countries to "keep open a pathway."A senior administration official confirmed to NBC News that Wang was flown from Tehran to Zurich, where he was met by U.S. Special Representative Brian Hook. Hook then accompanied Wang to Ramstein Air Base in Germany. He will undergo further evaluation at a local medical center before heading home.Wang was among at least four other Americans being held by Iran, including Iranian-American father and son Siamak and Baquer Namazi, navy veteran Michael White and former FBI agent Robert Levinson.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Saturday that "The United States will not rest until we bring every American detained in Iran and around the world back home to their loved ones.""We thank the Swiss government for facilitating the return of Mr. Wang," Pompeo added, "and are pleased that Tehran has been constructive in this matter. We continue to call for the release of all U.S. citizens unjustly detained in Iran."The effort to secure Wang’s release began to gain traction over the past several months, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.Iran’s release in June of Nizar Zakka, a U.S. permanent legal resident of Lebanese descent, helped “break the ice,” one of the sources said.Zakka said after he was freed that he believed his release was a sign that Iran was ready to negotiate for a possible prisoner exchange, and the families of Americans held in Iran shared that view.Iran’s foreign minister had made it clear in a number of public statements that Tehran was open to the idea and Iranian state media devoted much attention to the case of Soleimani,Soleimani, a stem-cell researcher at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran, was on his way to perform research at the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Minnesota when he was arrested by U.S. authorities in 2018. He was accused of violating trade sanctions by trying to export chemicals known as growth factors, which are commonly used in medical research. He was scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday.The prisoner swap comes amid growing tensions between Iran and the U.S. and its allies in the Gulf.The Pentagon said Thursday that the U.S. was formulating plans to potentially deploy more U.S. troops to the Middle East in response to a growing threat from Tehran.Crushing sanctions imposed by President Donald Trump last year following the U.S. withdrawal from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers have left Iran facing widespread economic discontent.Demonstrations erupted across the country recently in response to a 50 percent hike in gas prices. U.S. officials, along with human rights groups, said as many as 1,000 Iranians were killed and thousands more imprisoned since the protests began on Nov. 15.Alireza Miryousefi, a spokesman for Iran’s mission to the United Nations, called the casualty numbers "purely speculative and highly inaccurate," while adding an investigation into the "disturbances" and "those affected, whether injured or killed" was ongoing.Trump weighed in on the protests Tuesday, saying in a tweet that "America supports the brave people of Iran who are protesting for their freedom."

Megxit might be getting more attention than Brexit this week (also some other things), but there’s actually some Brexit news happening: The United Kingdom just came one step closer to leaving the European Union at the end of January.On Thursday, the UK House of Commons easily approved the legislation needed to codify the Brexit deal into UK law, voting 330 to 231. The bill will now go to the House of Lords, Parliament’s other chamber, where it will also be voted on, and officially become law later this month. Which means the UK will be out of the EU, finally, by January 31, 2020.Prime Minister Boris Johnson showed what a difference an 80-seat Conservative majority, which he won in last month’s elections, makes. Unlike Brexit votes past, complicated by close votes and lots of amendments and roadblocking from rebel lawmakers, this process has been drama-free. Indeed, almost exactly a year ago, then-Prime Minister Theresa May suffered a historic and humiliating defeat on her Brexit deal. This time around, Johnson swiftly and decisively passed a revised version of her agreement. The House of Commons gave its initial approval to this legislation in late December and just returned from vacation on Tuesday, meaning everything got wrapped up in about three days.Now the Brexit legislation goes to the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber, where it will face its next test. While the House of Lords might take issue with parts of the Brexit legislation, it isn’t likely to derail Brexit. The chamber traditionally respects the elected majority, and Johnson and the Conservatives are doing exactly what they promised in their election manifesto. A spokesperson for the prime minister said the government wants to get this legislation through both houses of Parliament “as smoothly as possible.”Instead, everyone is starting to look toward the next stage: the negotiations on the post-divorce EU-UK relationship. Those are expected to start on February 1, a day after the UK officially quits the bloc. EU leaders are very publicly casting doubt on Johnson’s ambitious timeline of getting everything sorted by the end of 2020.So the Brexit chaos isn’t over, really, it’s just about to enter a new phase. But at least when it comes to the breakup, everything is, at last, moving forward as planned. First, a quick recap: Johnson tweaked the Brexit deal in October, but couldn’t pass it through Parliament, as lawmakers rejected his supercharged timeline. He then had to ask the EU for an extension, making the new Brexit deadline January 31. Johnson then called for elections, and enough opposition MPs agreed to allow him to do so. In December, he won a historic majority, which sealed the UK’s fate: The country would leave the EU at the start of 2020.With this resounding majority, Johnson made some additional tweaks to his Brexit legislation that puts the deal into UK law. That included weakening protections for refugee children, removing some commitments on workers’ rights, and eliminating the option to extend the Brexit transition period past 2020, which is what sets up that ambitious 11-month timeline to strike an agreement on the future EU-UK partnership. Still, the House of Commons gave this legislation initial approval in December, just before the Christmas holidays.Lawmakers returned in the new year and finalized the remaining stages in three days. On Wednesday, opposition MPs introduced amendments. That included putting back some of the issues like workers’ rights, which they want to closely align with the EU. (Johnson has said the UK will address workers’ rights in separate legislation.) MPs also tried to reintroduce the amendment that would have guaranteed unaccompanied refugee children the right to unite with family in UK after Brexit, but that was also defeated. Johnson has said it will remain government policy to reunite kids, but it doesn’t have to go in the Brexit legislation. (An amendment to get Big Ben to chime the moment the UK leaves the EU was, sadly, not selected for a vote.)In the end, all of the opposition’s attempts to amend the Brexit bill were defeated. It was another reminder of what an empowered Conservative majority can do. That led to this latest vote in the House of Commons on Thursday, which was assured before it even happened. The House of Lords may pick apart sections of the legislation — particularly that provision on refugee children, which was initially championed by a lord.These battles will be important, but they’re unlikely to sideline Brexit. The EU Parliament must also okay the Brexit plan, but that’s mostly a formality. Taken together, there is likely no stopping Brexit at this point. Mark the calendars — for real this time — for January 31.The next phase, though, will be something.After January 31, the EU and the UK will enter a standstill period. The UK will officially cease to be part of the EU and will lose any decision-making powers, but it will still follow all the EU rules. The transition ends in 2020, but it can be extended, once, until 2022, if more time is needed for negotiations on future relations. Johnson has said the UK doesn’t need it.Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president who took over last year, seems to disagree. This week, she warned that it would be “basically impossible” to negotiate a future relationship and ratify it by year’s end. That’s because this isn’t just about trade, though trade is a big one. The EU and UK have to talk about all the things: security, fishing, transport, and a whole lot more. There’s perhaps a chance of some side or interim deals. But a real, comprehensive deal? The EU really doesn’t think it’s possible.Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said that the EU is “ready to do its best” when it came to reaching an agreement on the future relationship, but the EU is preparing for the reality that talks could fail. And, the EU said it would keep planning for the possibility that no deal would be reached by the end of 2020, which could again threaten serious economic disruption.In reality, there’s flexibility here. Johnson could always change his mind and ask Parliament to amend the legislation to allow for the possibility of an extension to the transition period. It doesn’t mean he will, but perhaps he’s hoping once Brexit officially happens in January that the British public might not be as tuned in — especially since some of the parliamentary drama that dominated Brexit last year has ended. But, for both the UK and Europe, the next stage of negotiations is going to be the hardest part of Brexit.

With the question of a criminal prosecution resolved, what leaps from the OIG report is the parallel between Comey’s press conference about Clinton and his decision about the memos. In both cases, Comey violated procedures and policies in pursuit of what he believed was a larger imperative, concluding that his own judgment was more useful for protecting the Justice Department and the FBI.In the Clinton case, Comey became concerned that an ill-advised chance meeting between then–Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton would mean the public might not trust Lynch’s determination about whether to charge Hillary Clinton. So Comey took it upon himself to publicly announce his recommendation, against DOJ policy, because he believed it would protect the department from public opprobrium. A previous OIG report concluded that “Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General.” (Many former DOJ officials also criticized Comey’s actions.) Nor did his end run protect the department. The email investigation, and especially Comey’s abortive reopening of it in October 2016, played a decisive role in the presidential election, turning the FBI into a political player.President Donald Trump infamously used Comey’s missteps as a pretext to fire him in May 2017, even though the president admitted soon after that he’d actually removed Comey over “the Russia thing.” By then, Trump had repeatedly improperly pressured Comey—asking him for personal loyalty, and asking him to drop a probe into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Comey had been memorializing those interactions in memos. After Trump fired him, Comey kept the memos, and eventually sent several of them to his friend.Once again, Comey had violated policy, OIG said: “As a departing FBI employee, Comey was required to relinquish any official documents in his possession and to seek specific authorization from the FBI in order to personally retain any FBI documents. Comey failed to comply with these requirements.” OIG notes that Comey claimed the memos were personal, but dismissed that distinction, saying it “finds no support in the law and is wholly incompatible with the plain language of the statutes, regulations, and policies defining Federal records, and the terms of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.”Why did he do this? “Comey disclosed the contents of Memo 4 in an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions—to appoint a Special Counsel and preserve any tapes as evidence,” OIG reported. In other words, Comey had again decided that what he believed was a higher calling—getting a special counsel to investigate Trump—was more important than following the rules.Maybe Comey was right. His leak may very well have been the difference between a special-counsel investigation and none, and Robert Mueller’s investigation was an essential look at the White House, which revealed the dysfunction, disregard for law, and obstruction-of-justice-in-all-but-name that suffuses the Trump administration. It is difficult to imagine the Justice Department having achieved anything nearly so complete and untainted, especially in light of Trump’s attempts to bully Mueller, as well as politically motivated investigations of Trump’s political opponents—including, arguably, this OIG report.

On 10 October, at a rally for his faithful in Wisconsin, the president of the United States spewed lies and spread hate. He claimed, for example, that the Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Somali refugee elected in the blue wave of 2018, supported terrorism and, repeating an obscene rightwing smear, that she had married her brother. He attacked refugees like her: “As you know, for many years, leaders in Washington brought large numbers of refugees to your state from Somalia without considering the impact on schools and communities and taxpayers. Since coming into office, I have reduced refugee resettlement by 85%.” He added: “In the Trump administration we will always protect American families first.”But American families don’t need to be protected from refugees. Even to frame it that way is a dehumanization of the most vulnerable and an attempt to induce fear when there is no basis for it. Omar is an American citizen and a congresswoman elected by her fellow Minnesotans, but Trump and his ilk talk about immigrants as though even those who are citizens, even those who vote, are not Americans.“IMMIGRANTS WILL OUTVOTE AMERICANS,” hate-spreader Ann Coulter recently declared – but immigrants who vote are American citizens. Much of what Trump said was gibberish and garbage, but that line about Somali refugees matters. We have over and over in the United States talked about refugees from the perspective not of the refugees fleeing for their lives – people who have lost everything, and who have rights under our laws – but of the people who are already safe and secure.So many of our problems are storytelling problems. So often those who do have voices use them to limit who else is heard and to shout down others who speak. Our job is always to listen harder, to listen to who is excluded, to imagine what happens if you shift the center of the story.I grew up on cowboy movies in which Native Americans defending themselves in their homelands were portrayed as invaders galloping into the frame of the camera. The camera stayed with the actual invaders, the white people in covered wagons, and by making them the fixed center of the movies made them the victims instead of the perpetrators; the stable presence, not the disruptors.The same night Trump attacked refugees, again, Democratic presidential candidates gathered at a forum on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer rights – which was itself a victory; I don’t think anything quite like that has happened before in American politics. The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren was asked what she would say to someone who told her: “My faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman.” It was a weird question. The supreme court has ruled that marriage equality is the constitutional law of the land; we are not going to revisit that decision any more than we are going to revisit the decision that people of different races can marry. No one would ask a politician what they would say to someone opposed to interracial marriage.Warren responded: “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that. And I’m going to say, ‘Then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that.’” She paused for a moment and then added: “If you can find one.” The audience applauded and cheered, a lot, and social media had a ball. But immediately afterward, she talked about the Christianity of her childhood and how at the root of it was “the preciousness of each and every life”. She added: “The hatefulness, frankly, always really shocked me, especially for people of faith, because I think the whole foundation is the worth of every single human being.”That was a Thursday night. By Saturday conservatives – including Marco Rubio on Twitter – were attacking her as elitist. Their premise was that same-sex marriage offends conservatives and her joke insulted “men”, not one made-up man, a framework overlooking that most Democratic men are pro-marriage equality and not a few American men are already married to men. Conservative pundit John Ziegler groused that she was “imbecilic” in “insulting Christian males” and thereby “conceding Pennsylvania and Florida to Trump”. The Washington Post ran a piece by a journalist with a record of concern-trolling Warren. The story dug up a strategist for Bill Clinton who called her joke a “stab” and “a battle cry for men to turn out against Elizabeth Warren”, cited Ziegler complaining “the white male is under attack” and fretted that her stance was “condescending toward white working-class Americans”. Just as refugees are described in terms of how they affect people who are safe in prosperous countries, not in terms of the refugees’ needs, too many people transformed a question about the rights of gay and lesbian people into a focus on the needs of straight men, or even conservative straight white men. Whose story was it?Their premise in attacking Warren as elitist was that a basic human right – the right to marry who you love – is less important than not offending the minority who don’t believe in this human right. Some people matter more than others, and the people who matter most are the true authentic America to which we must bow down. You could boil the whole argument down to “equality is elitist”. I heard more about Warren’s possible insult of one imaginary man than I did about the president’s attack on the thousands of Somali Americans in Minnesota. It’s a position that comes from people so deeply embedded in unequal ideas of who matters that they cannot see who they are and how they think.The same is true of the charge that Warren’s tax on the super-rich is, in Beto O’Rourke’s unfortunate phrase, “punitive”. What’s punitive is a system that allows people to live in anxiety and misery and die of treatable conditions in the wealthiest country in the world. Why should the debate about healthcare be focused on the 75,000 richest households in the US, those with more than $50m, rather than the desperate straits of the tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured and those broken economically by medical debt?When the feminist hurricane called #MeToo swept the US and then to some extent the world, something complex and mysterious changed so that stories that had been disbelieved, rejected, silenced, trivialized, could be heard for the first time in ways that mattered. Some of the stories were, at first, about the most powerful men in media and entertainment; then their women victims; then, eventually, California farmworker women and janitors and restaurant workers.Yet too often the journalism and conversations focused on how all this affected men. We had so many stories about how men didn’t feel as comfortable and confident at work, but I don’t recall a single story about how women felt more comfortable and confident that their bosses and co-workers wouldn’t harass or assault them. You see this kind of framework over and over: for example, the problem of homelessness gets framed as how it annoys those with houses rather than traumatizes those without.Whenever a story of social conflict breaks, the first question to ask is: whose story is it? Who’s been put at the center? Who does the narrator tell us matters? Whose rights and needs do they dismiss? And what happens if you move the center? Rebecca Solnit’s most recent book is called Whose Story Is This? Old Conflicts, New Chapters. A version of this essay was part of her talk at the International Festival of Literature in Oaxaca Topics Donald Trump Opinion US politics Refugees Elizabeth Warren comment

Whether or not you believe in climate change, Mother Nature doesn’t care. She just does what she does. And she’s going to unleash wildfires, tornadoes, and hurricanes this season, regardless of the pandemic. Mother Nature doesn’t care that you’re in lockdown as flood waters rise. She couldn’t give a hoot that you’re scared to evacuate to a public shelter. It’s your problem. Yours alone. And we all have to become preppers to power through cascading natural calamities. With local authorities stretched thin by COVID-19, we can’t count on them or FEMA to save us. Prepping makes you calmer because you have a plan and supplies. You’ll feel more confident to stare that earthquake down. And you increase your odds of survival.Consider this. The past two years were among the worst on record for natural disasters in the United States. This summer augurs to be a knockout as well. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projects “above-normal” hurricane action over the Atlantic starting in weeks. California expects the annual blazes. Floods are forecast along the Mississippi. And dams break, as we saw on May 19 in Michigan, forcing 10,000 people to flee their homes. Many evacuees, already hunkered down in a state ravaged by the virus, opted to sleep in their cars rather than risk infection in public shelters. Consider all the freaky climatic stuff that’s going on these days that’s bound to take authorities by surprise. Brooklyn experienced a twister a few years back that blew off some roofs. Brooklyn! Bad events often have a domino effect, so your worst-case scenario is going to include the potential for more than one event, such as a tandem volcano and earthquake or hills denuded by wildfires triggering mudslides.The unprecedented health emergency of COVID-19 makes dealing with one catastrophe mind-bending, let alone two or three. Even if resources were not depleted, emergency responders have never dealt with anything on this scale. Social distancing has hobbled training to fight wildfires on the West Coast. Firefighters must work farther spread out from each other instead of the typical tight teams. Elsewhere, humanitarian resources have been diverted to manage the coronavirus. Nonprofits all over the country are maxed out. Some have laid off staff and run coffers dry. Shelters will have to consider spacing people six feet apart, which will mean fewer people can stay there. Ask yourself: should I need a doctor, where would you seek medical help? I live in viral New York City, so damned if I’m going to a hospital. There’s a big risk of infection. That’s why I’m sounding the alarm: Become as self-sufficient as possible. Think this through now to avoid feeling frazzled when the inevitable hits. I’m not suggesting we become survivalists who hoard grain and dig bunkers. l’m a diminutive 62-year-old who lives in Manhattan. I don’t have a wind-powered farm. I don’t hunt for dinner. I don’t sew my own clothes. I do, however, have a month’s supply of food, wipes, gloves, sanitizer, and masks in my basement. I have a medical kit and know how to use it. I had all those things before the pandemic began, and I will continually top it up until a vaccine is found. You should, too.I’m talking about sensible preparation. Download the FEMA emergency app and ask local authorities about evacuation routes and emergency contact numbers. Buy a hand-cranked NOAA radio with a USB charger for smartphones. The crank powers up the radio’s internal battery so you won’t need batteries. Lack of communication is one of the most unsettling aspects of disasters and being able to get information and call for help is critical. Consider buying or renting a satellite phone if there’s a risk of power or cell outages. Amass supplies for at least two weeks and pack a go-to bag that includes your personal PPE for COVID-19: masks, gloves, sanitizer, etc. Make copies of all important documents and store them in a plastic folder. Keep a full tank in the car. If authorities say evacuate, go. Don’t be one of those people who refuse to leave their homes in a category 5 hurricane and then waste valuable resources being rescued. That puts a strain on emergency responders who should be saving the lives of sick or elderly folks who truly couldn’t get out. Once you’ve figured out where to go, discuss this evacuation plan with your family and the kids’ school as well as where to go in case you can’t contact one another and not everyone can reach that spot.If you want to skedaddle out of town, check with cousin Lucy beforehand to confirm that you can crash at her house for two weeks of quarantine. (And ascertain that Ben the cat is truly welcome, too. Courtesy goes a long way when you’re camping in someone’s living room for an extended time.)Here’s my strategy. I have the New York City emergency alert app and have identified the nearest shelter. (We lack an out-of-town refuge, as well as a car.) It’s a 10-minute walk from the house, which is doable in rubber boots in a foot of water. We asked the neighbor to cut down an ominously swaying branch that could crash onto the house in a gale. (I’m still waiting, Mister, in case you’re reading this.)We just replaced the aged weather radio; it was so worn out that a wire served as the antenna. We updated our forehead flashlights to lighter LED models with longer battery life. We swept gutters, put $5,000 in the fireproof safe and are contemplating getting a pump for the cellar. We cleaned the sleeping bags and refueled the propane camping stove. We checked the house valves in order to shut off the water and gas.That’s the gear. I’m working on staying fit. Weight training and eating properly bolsters your immunity from disease and helps you drag survivors from a burning building. Apropos, every individual over the age of 12 should take an emergency first aid course. I do a refresher every year, to keep the skills fresh. Learn how to set a broken leg and staunch bleeding. Learn how to treat a burn. You may be alone for hours waiting for an EMT.This may seem overwhelming, but, believe me, it becomes second nature with practice. I learned the value of prepping 20 years ago when I worked as a foreign correspondent in places like Sudan where people died of starvation or had no plumbing. I relied on satellite phones and routinely packed MREs for trips where food was in short supply. I took bucket baths. (I also recommend vodka shampoos—great for sparkling pores and hair.)I always carried extra cables and batteries and chargers. And cash, because the banking system failed or never worked to begin with. I carried enough medications like antibiotics to fill a Rite Aid. In Russia, I toted an avoska (“just in case” bag) when the economy collapsed in 1998. Shops ran out of staples, so I was always looking for depleted items. My husband and I transported these habits when we moved to Harlem 20 years ago. People thought we were nuts. What could possibly happen here? A few friends got my drift after Hurricane Sandy flooded tracts of the city. But it took a global pandemic and quarantine and economic ruin to change their minds. While everyone else panicked over empty supermarket shelves, we had a nice smorgasbord in the basement.Mother Nature is preparing. You can too.—Judith Matloff teaches crisis reporting at Columbia’s Journalism School. She just published a manual for all hazards, How to Drag a Body and Other Safety Tips You Hope to Never Need.

McKinsey also looked to cut costs by lowering standards at ICE detention facilities, according to an internal ICE email and two former agency officials. McKinsey, an ICE supervisor wrote in an email dated March 30, 2017, was “looking for ways to cut or reduce standards because they are too costly,” albeit, the supervisor added, “without sacrificing quality, safety and mission.”The consultants found it difficult to attach a dollar figure to the standards themselves, the former ICE officials said. So they shifted their focus to trimming operating costs at several detention centers and coaching agency officials as they renegotiated contracts with companies managing some of those facilities. The renegotiated contracts saved ICE $16 million, according to Mr. Cox, the ICE spokesman, who insisted that no “degradation to service” resulted.One of Mr. Trump’s executive orders had directed immigration agencies to concentrate resources near the southern border, and the consultants prioritized slashing costs at those facilities.The McKinsey proposals that most troubled agency workers — like cutting spending on food, medical care and maintenance — were not incorporated into the new contracts, one former ICE official said. Internal project emails point to cutbacks in guard staffing as the source of most cost savings.But the McKinsey recommendations remain on the books at ICE. The consultants analyzed how the agency could save money at detention centers beyond those where they helped renegotiate contracts — including several near the border, like ICE’s largest family-detention facility, in Dilley, Texas — and Mr. Cox said these analyses remain reference points for future efforts to curb spending. A report issued this summer by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general raised concerns about food quality and upkeep at several ICE facilities, both categories on which McKinsey recommended ICE spend less.McKinsey’s work at ICE ended in July 2018. Among agency officials, there was growing dissatisfaction with the consultants’ work, and leadership turnover in the agency had left the consulting firm with few defenders, two former ICE officials said.But the firm’s work supporting the Trump administration’s immigration clampdown has continued. Just a week after Mr. Sneader announced that the ICE engagement was over, McKinsey signed a $2 million contract to advise Customs and Border Protection as it drafted a new border strategy to replace the Obama administration’s approach, and it has since signed still another contract with C.B.P. — worth up to $8.4 million — that will keep the firm at the agency at least through September 2020.

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds.