White House
1/6 hearings fuel the question: Did Trump commit a crime?
The House Jan. 6 committee has heard dramatic testimony from former White House aides and others about Donald Trump’s relentless efforts to overturn the 2020 election — and his encouragement of supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol bent on achieving his goal. But the big question remains: Was any of it criminal?
Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide in Trump’s White House, added fresh urgency to the question Tuesday as she delivered explosive new testimony about Trump’s actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. She said Trump was informed that there were armed protesters at his morning rally before he stood onstage and told them to “fight like hell” at the Capitol. Then he argued with his security detail, she said, trying to go with the crowd.
Trump’s aides knew there could be legal consequences. Hutchinson said White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told her “we’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump had gone to the Capitol that day as Congress was certifying President Joe Biden’s win. Cipollone said Trump could be exposing himself to obstruction of justice charges or defrauding the electoral count, she said.
On the heels of Hutchinson’s public testimony, the House committee on Wednesday issued a subpoena for Cipollone, saying in a letter that while he had provided an “informal interview” on April 13, his refusal to provide on-the-record testimony made their subpoena necessary.
The Justice Department has recently expanded its investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, targeting some of Trump’s allies in Washington and around the country who participated in his scheme to invalidate Biden’s victory. But prosecutors have not indicated whether they will bring a case against the former president.
A look at potential crimes, and what Congress and the Justice Department might do:
WHAT HAS THE EVIDENCE SHOWN?
Witnesses have testified that Trump was repeatedly advised by campaign aides and top government officials that he had lost the election to Biden and that his claims of widespread voter fraud were divorced from reality.
Yet he pressed ahead, shouting the false allegations that culminated in the riot at the Capitol.
Still in office, he leaned on the Justice Department to get government law enforcement officials to take up his cause. He pressured the states — asking Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” votes, for example — and Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the joint session of Congress that day.
Read: 1/6 panel: Told repeatedly he lost, Trump refused to go
Hutchinson testified that Trump said he wanted metal detectors removed from the area near where he was delivering a speech on Jan. 6. He said it did not matter to him if the supporters, who were to head to the Capitol, were carrying weapons because they were not there to hurt him.
Trump took to his social media website on Tuesday to deny much of Hutchinson’s testimony, which was based on both her own interactions with Trump and information from others who talked to him that day.
WERE ANY CRIMES COMMITTED BY TRUMP?
He hasn’t been charged, but legal experts believe the testimony, presuming it can be corroborated, does give prosecutors avenues to pursue.
Federal law, for instance, makes it a crime to incite, organize, encourage or promote a riot like the one that enveloped the Capitol. But that’s a high bar for prosecutors to clear. Trump’s exhortation to “fight like hell” could be construed as a more general call to action. He was acquitted by the Senate of an incitement charge in his impeachment trial after the insurrection.
Still, a federal judge in February, in rejecting a request by Trump to toss out conspiracy lawsuits from Democratic lawmakers and two Capitol Police officers, said Trump’s words “plausibly” led to the riot. And Hutchinson’s first-hand account of hearing Trump complain about metal detectors suggested he was aware that some supporters were capable of violence but brushed it off.
READ: Biden suspends rules limiting immigrant arrest, deportation
A more likely option for prosecution, said Jimmy Gurule, a former federal prosecutor who is a Notre Dame law professor, would be to pursue a case that Trump conspired to defraud the United States through his wide-ranging efforts to overturn the election and to obstruct the congressional proceeding at which the results were to be certified.
That broad statute was cited by the House committee when it asserted in a March legal filing that it had evidence Trump had engaged in a “criminal conspiracy.”
“He was perpetuating the big lie. To what end? To remain in power and to prevent Biden from assuming the reins of the presidency,” Gurule said. “It was fraud on the American people.”
Some legal experts say it doesn’t matter if Trump believed the election was stolen or not. But others say much would depend on the president’s intent and state of mind and whether he supported activities he knew to be unlawful. Though witnesses have testified under oath about telling Trump he had lost, it would be hard to prove what he actually believed.
“I can confidently say that any serious felony-level federal crime that is going to be charged here is going to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal intent,” said Samuel Buell, a Duke University criminal law professor.
“Any argument that he doesn’t believe that he’s doing something that is against the law ... is still an argument he can make and still something the prosecutor has to prove.”
WILL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY BRING A CASE?
That’s anyone’s guess. The congressional hearings have produced eye-popping testimony, but the one-sided presentation of facts, with no opportunities for cross-examination of witnesses, is a far cry from the burden of proof and trial constraints in criminal prosecutions.
One of the more striking accounts from Hutchinson — that Trump, irate at being driven to the White House instead of the Capitol on Jan. 6, tried to grab at the steering wheel of his presidential vehicle — was something she heard second-hand, likely inadmissible before a jury.
There are clear signs prosecutors are moving beyond the rioters, serving subpoenas last week on multiple state Republican Party chairmen in examining a scheme by Trump allies to create slates of alternate, or fake, electors in an attempt to subvert the vote.
Attorney General Merrick Garland, a former federal appeals court judge and circumspect by nature, has pledged the Justice Department will hold accountable wrongdoers “at any level” — more than 800 people have been charged so far — but he has not said one way or another that he’s considering a case against Trump.
Some Democrats in Congress have been pressing Garland to act. The Jan. 6 committee itself could make a formal criminal referral based on its more than 1,000 interviews. The Justice Department wouldn’t have to act on such a referral, but it has been pressuring the panel to hand over its interview transcripts as it weighs making its own case.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.
There’ no legal bar to prosecuting Trump as a former president. Since he is no longer in office, Justice Department legal opinions that shielded him from criminal charges no longer apply.
But while it may be hard for the department to turn away from a case if the cumulative evidence is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, there are other factors to consider. No former president has ever been prosecuted by the Justice Department, and a criminal case against the already polarizing former president risks dividing the country even further.
Trump has also been laying the groundwork for another presidential run, and the department may want to avoid any perception that it is targeting a political adversary of Biden in the heat of an election.
“It will be,” Buell said, “one of the hardest issues that any U.S. attorney general has ever confronted.”
Actor McConaughey calls for gun legislation at White House
Academy Award–winning actor Matthew McConaughey made an appearance at the White House Tuesday to call on Congress to “reach a higher ground” and pass gun control legislation in honor of the children and teachers killed in last month’s shooting rampage at an elementary school in his hometown of Uvalde, Texas.
In a highly personal 22-minute speech, McConaughey exhorted a gridlocked Congress to pass gun reforms that can save lives without infringing on Second Amendment rights.
McConaughey, a gun owner himself, used his star power to make an argument for legislation in a fashion that the Biden administration has not been able to muster, offering a clear connection to the small Texas town and vividly detailing the sheer loss of the 19 children and two teachers in the second worst mass school shooting in U.S. history.
He specifically called on Congress to bolster background checks for gun purchases and raise the minimum age to purchase an AR-15-style rifle to 21 from 18.
“We want secure and safe schools and we want gun laws that won’t make it so easy for the bad guys to get the damn guns,” McConaughey said.
McConaughey, who earlier this year considered a run for governor of Texas before taking a pass, met briefly in private with President Joe Biden before addressing the White House press corps from the James Brady briefing room.
Also read: Officials: Texas shooter talked about guns in private chats
McConaughey has also met with key lawmakers this week, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that handles gun legislation, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, and the panel’s ranking Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
Also Tuesday, the son of Ruth Whitfield, an 86-year-old woman killed when a gunman opened fire in a racist attack on Black shoppers in Buffalo, New York, last month, called on Congress to act against the “cancer of white supremacy” and the nation’s epidemic of gun violence.
“Is there nothing that you personally are willing to do to stop the cancer of white supremacy and the domestic terrorism it inspires?” Garnell Whitfield Jr. asked members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
McConaughey, who declined to take questions, spoke of his own connections to the town. He said his mother taught kindergarten less than a mile from Uvalde’s Robb Elementary School, the site of the May 24 shooting. He also noted that Uvalde was the place where he was taught about responsibilities that come with gun ownership.
“Uvalde is where I was taught to revere the power and the capability of the tool that we call a gun,” he said
McConaughey said he and his wife drove back to Uvalde on the day after the shooting and spent time with the families of some of the victims and others directly affected by the rampage.
He said every parent he spoke to expressed that “they want their children’s dreams to live on.”
“They want to make their loss of life matter,” McConaughey said.
He related the personal stories of a number of the victims.
He told the story of Maite Rodriguez, an aspiring marine biologist. McConaughey's wife, Camila, sitting nearby, held a pair of green Converse sneakers resembling those that the girl often wore.
Also read: NRA speakers unshaken on gun rights after school massacre
McConaughey said the sneakers "turned out to be the only clear evidence that could identify her after the shooting."
He held up artwork from Alithia Ramirez, who dreamed of attending art school in Paris. And then there was Eliahna “Ellie” Garcia, who loved dancing and church and already knew how to drive tractors. Ellie was looking forward to reading a Bible verse at an upcoming church service when she was killed.
McConaughey acknowledged that gun legislation would not end mass shootings but suggested that steps can be taken to lessen the chances of such tragedies happening so frequently.
"We need to invest in mental healthcare. We need safer schools. We need to restrain sensationalized media coverage. We need to restore our family values. We need to restore our American values and we need responsible gun ownership,” McConaughey said.
“Is this a cure-all? Hell no, but people are hurting."
White House: Intel shows Putin misled by advisers on Ukraine
U.S. intelligence officials have determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin is being misinformed by advisers about his military’s poor performance in Ukraine, according to the White House. The advisers are scared to tell him the truth, the intel says.
The findings, recently declassified, indicate that Putin is aware of the situation on information coming to him and there now is persistent tension between him and senior Russian military officials.
The U.S. believes Putin is being misled not only about his military’s performance but also “how the Russian economy is b eing crippled by sanctions because, again, his senior advisers are too afraid to tell him the truth,” White House communications director Kate Bedingfield said Wednesday.
Earlier, President Joe Biden said in an exchange with reporters that he could not comment on the intelligence.
The administration is hopeful that divulging the finding could help prod Putin to reconsider his options in Ukraine, according to a U.S. official. The official was not authorized to comment and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The war has ground to a bloody stalemate in much of the country, with heavy casualties and Russian troop morale sinking as Ukrainian forces and volunteers put up an unexpectedly stout defense.
But the publicity could also risk further isolating Putin, who U.S. officials have said seems at least in part driven by a desire to win back Russian prestige lost by the fall of the Soviet Union.
“What it does is underscore that this has been a strategic blunder for Russia,” Bedingfield said of the intelligence finding. “But I’m not going to characterize how ... Vladimir Putin might be thinking about this.”
Meanwhile, Biden told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a 55 minute call that an additional $500 million in direct aid for Ukraine was on its way. It’s the latest burst in American assistance as the Russian invasion grinds on.
Asked about the latest intelligence, Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested that a dynamic within the Kremlin exists where advisers are unwilling to speak to Putin with candor.
“One of the Achilles’ heels of autocracies is that you don’t have people in those systems that speak truth to power or have the ability to speak truth to power, and I think that’s what we’re seeing in Russia,” Blinken told reporters during a stop in Algeria on Wednesday.
The unidentified official did not detail underlying evidence for how U.S. intelligence made its determination.
The intelligence community has concluded that Putin was unaware that his military had been using and losing conscripts in Ukraine. They also have determined he is not fully aware of the extent to which the Russian economy is being damaged by economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and allies.
The findings demonstrate a “clear breakdown in the flow of accurate information” to Putin, and show that Putin’s senior advisers are “afraid to tell him the truth,” the official said.
Biden notified Zelenskyy about the latest tranche of assistance during a call in which the leaders also reviewed security aid already delivered to Ukraine and the effects that weaponry has had on the war, according to the White House.
READ: Biden ending Europe trip with unity message that echoes past
Zelesnkyy has pressed the Biden administration and other Western allies to provide Ukraine with military jets, something that the U.S. and other NATO countries have thus far been unwilling to accommodate out of concern it could lead to Russia broadening the war beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Prior to Wednesday’s announcement of $500 million in aid, the Biden administration had sent Ukraine about $2 billion in humanitarian and security assistance since the start of the war last month.
Congress approved $13.6 billion that Congress approved earlier this month as part of a broader spending bill. Bedingfield said the latest round of financial assistance could be used by the Ukrainian government “to bolster its economy and pay for budgetary expenses” including government salaries and maintaining services.
Ukraine’s presidential website says Zelenskyy told Biden: “We need peace, and it will be achieved only when we have a strong position on the battlefield. Our morale is firm, there is enough determination, but we need your immediate support.”
Zelenskyy in a Twitter posting said that he also spoke to Biden about new sanctions against Russia. Bedingfield said the administration is looking at options to expand and deepen current sanctions.
The new intelligence came after the White House on Tuesday expressed skepticism about Russia’s public announcement that it would dial back operations near Kyiv in an effort to increase trust in ongoing talks between Ukrainian and Russian officials in Turkey.
Russian forces pounded areas around Ukraine’s capital and another city overnight, regional leaders said Wednesday.
The Pentagon said Wednesday that over the past 24 hours it had seen some Russian troops in the areas around Kyiv moving north toward or into Belarus.
Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in interviews with CNN and Fox Business that the U.S. does not view this as a withdrawal but as an attempt by Russia to resupply, refit and then reposition the troops.
Putin has long been seen outside Russia as insular and surrounded by officials who don’t always tell him the truth. U.S. officials have said publicly they believe that limited flow of information –- possibly exacerbated by Putin’s heightened isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic -– may have given the Russian president unrealistic views of how quickly he could overrun Ukraine.
The Biden administration before the war launched an unprecedented effort to publicize what it believed were Putin’s invasion plans, drawing on intelligence findings. While Russia still invaded, the White House was widely credited with drawing attention to Ukraine and pushing initially reluctant allies to back tough sanctions that have hammered the Russian economy.
But underscoring the limits of intelligence, the U.S. also underestimated Ukraine’s will to fight before the invasion, said Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in recent testimony before Congress.
White House: Top scientist resigns over treatment of staff
President Joe Biden’s top science adviser Dr. Eric Lander resigned Monday, hours after the White House confirmed that an internal investigation found credible evidence that he mistreated his staff.
An internal review last year, prompted by a workplace complaint, found evidence that Lander, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and science adviser to Biden, bullied staffers and treated them disrespectfully. The White House rebuked Lander over his interactions with his staff, but initially signaled Monday that he would be allowed to remain on the job, despite Biden’s Inauguration Day assertion that he expected “honesty and decency” from all who worked for his administration and would fire anyone who shows disrespect to others “on the spot.”
But later Monday evening, press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden had accepted Lander’s resignation with “gratitude for his work at OTSP on the pandemic, the Cancer Moonshot, climate change, and other key priorities.”
Lander, in his resignation letter, said, “I am devastated that I caused hurt to past and present colleagues by the way in which I have spoken to them.”
“I believe it is not possible to continue effectively in my role, and the work of this office is far too important to be hindered,” he added.
The White House said Biden did not request Lander’s resignation. It marks the first Cabinet-level departure of the Biden administration.
Also read: Biden picks women of color to lead White House budget office
Earlier Monday, Psaki said senior administration officials had met with Lander about his actions and management of the office, but indicated he would be allowed to stay in the job, saying the administration was following a “process” to handle workplace complaints.
“Following the conclusion of the thorough investigation into these actions, senior White House officials conveyed directly to Dr. Lander that his behavior was inappropriate, and the corrective actions that were needed, which the White House will monitor for compliance moving forward,” she said.
Psaki added, “The president has been crystal clear with all of us about his high expectations of how he and his staff should be creating a respectful work environment.”
The White House said Lander and OSTP would be required to take certain corrective actions as part of the review. It also said the review did not find “credible evidence” of gender-based discrimination and that the reassignment of the staffer who filed the original complaint was “deemed appropriate.”
Lander on Friday issued an apology to staffers in his office, acknowledging “I have spoken to colleagues within OSTP in a disrespectful or demeaning way.”
“I am deeply sorry for my conduct,” he added. “I especially want to apologize to those of you who I treated poorly, or were present at the time.”
The letter and the findings against Lander were first reported by Politico.
Lander’s conduct and the White House’s initial decision to stand by him sparked some consternation inside the White House and among Biden allies and created an unnecessary distraction from Biden’s agenda.
Also read: High inflation? Low polling? White House blames the pandemic
By late Monday, Lander came to believe he was in an untenable position and resigned effective no later than Feb. 18, “in order to permit an orderly transfer.”
In a statement Monday, the American Association for the Advancement of Science said Lander would no longer be invited to speak at its meeting next week, saying he was not conducting himself in a “manner befitting a scientist or scientific leader — much less a cabinet-level leader in the administration.′
“Unfortunately, toxic behavioral issues still make their way into the STEM community where they stifle participation and innovation. OSTP should be a model for a respectful and positive workplace for the scientific community — not one that further exacerbates these issues,” the group’s leadership said.
Lander, whose position was elevated to Cabinet-rank by Biden, appeared prominently with the president last week when he relaunched his “Cancer Moonshot” program to marshal federal resources behind research and treatment for cancer diseases.
The founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Lander is a mathematician and molecular biologist. He was lead author of the first paper announcing the details of the human genome, the so-called “book of life.”
His confirmation to his role in the Biden administration was delayed for months as senators sought more information about meetings he had with the late Jeffrey Epstein, a disgraced financier who was charged with sex trafficking before his suicide. Lander also was criticized for downplaying the contributions of two Nobel Prize-winning female scientists.
At his confirmation hearing last year, Lander apologized for a 2016 article he wrote that downplayed the work of the female scientists. At the hearing, he also called Epstein “an abhorrent individual.″
Lander said he “understated the importance of those key advances” by biochemists Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna. The two were later awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Lander’s departure on the grounds of Biden’s respectful workplace policy echoed the February 2021 resignation of then-White House deputy press secretary TJ Ducklo, who was suspended and then resigned over threatening conversations with a reporter.
India, US Likely To Move Forward On Set Of initiatives In 2022: White House
In 2022, India and the United States are expected to move forward on a wide-ranging set of initiatives, including fight against the pandemic, climate change, QUAD, and new and emerging technologies, the White House said on Monday.
“As you know, back in September, the (US) president (Joe Biden) hosted Prime Minister Modi at the White House and their meeting was about launching a new chapter in the history of US-India relationship. At that time, the two leaders laid out their shared vision for US-India relationship and (we) will continue to work closely this year,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters at her daily news conference, reports NDTV.
READ: India, US pledge to bolster strategic ties
“You can expect our governments will be moving forward on a wide-ranging set of initiatives from cooperating to fight the pandemic, scaling up action to address climate change, working bilaterally and through the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue), expand our cooperation in trade and investment, cyber, and in new and emerging technologies,” Psaki said.
READ: PM meets President; apprises him of India, US tours
She was responding to questions on the agenda of the Biden administration with regard to the India-US relationship in 2022.
White House details plans to vaccinate 28M children age 5-11
Children ages 5 to 11 will soon be able to get a COVID-19 shot at their pediatrician’s office, local pharmacy and potentially even their school, the White House said Wednesday as it detailed plans for the expected authorization of the Pfizer shot for elementary school youngsters in a matter of weeks.
Federal regulators will meet over the next two weeks to weigh the safety and effectiveness of giving low-dose shots to the roughly 28 million children in that age group.
Within hours of formal approval, which is expected after the Food and Drug Administration signs off and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory panel meets on Nov. 2-3, millions of doses will begin going out to providers across the country, along with the smaller needles needed for injecting young children.
Within days of that, the vaccine will be ready to go into arms on a wide scale.
“We’re completing the operational planning to ensure vaccinations for kids ages 5 to 11 are available, easy and convenient,” White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients said. “We’re going to be ready, pending the FDA and CDC decision.”
The Pfizer vaccine requires two doses three weeks apart and a two-week wait for full protection to kick in, meaning the first youngsters in line will be fully covered by Christmas.
Read: Moderna has no plans to share its COVID-19 vaccine recipe
Some parents can hardly wait.
Dr. Sterling Ransone said his rural Deltaville, Virginia, office is already getting calls from people asking for appointments for their children and saying, “I want my shot now.”
“Judging by the number of calls, I think we’re going to be slammed for the first several weeks,” said Ransone, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Justin Shady, a film and TV writer in Chicago, said his 6-year-old daughter, Grey, got nervous when he told her she would be getting the shots soon. But he is bribing her with a trip to Disney World, and “she’s all in.”
The family likes to travel, “we really just want to get back in the swing of seeing the world,” Shady said.
Also read: Covid vaccine: India's Covaxin gets emergency use approval for kids aged 2-18
As for youngsters under 5, Pfizer and Moderna are studying their vaccines in children down to 6 months old, with results expected later in the year.
The Biden administration noted that the expansion of shots to children under 12 will not look like the start of the country’s vaccine rollout 10 months ago, when limited doses and inadequate capacity meant a painstaking wait for many Americans.
The country now has ample supplies of the Pfizer shot to vaccinate the children who will soon be eligible, officials said, and they have been working for months to ensure widespread availability of shots. About 15 million doses will be shipped to providers across the U.S. in the first week after approval, the White House said.
More than 25,000 pediatricians and primary care providers have already signed on to dispense the vaccine to elementary school children, the White House said, in addition to the tens of thousands of drugstores that are already administering shots to adults.
Hundreds of school- and community-based clinics will also be funded and supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help speed the process.
In addition to doctors’ offices, schools are likely be popular spots for the shots.
In Maryland, state officials have offered to help schools set up vaccination clinics. Denver’s public schools plan to hold mass vaccination events for young children, along with smaller clinics offering shots during the school day and in the evenings. Chicago’s public health department is working closely with schools, which have already been hosting vaccination events for students age 12 and older and their families.
The White House is also preparing a stepped-up campaign to educate parents and children about the safety of the shots and the ease of getting them. As has been the case for adult vaccinations, the administration believes trusted messengers — educators, doctors and community leaders — will be vital to encouraging vaccinations.
Dr. Lisa Reed, medical director for family medicine at MAHEC, a western North Carolina safety net provider that serves patients from rural Appalachia and more urban communities such as the tourist town of Asheville, said it is going to take effort to get some families on board.
Reed said she lives “in a community that has a lot of vaccine hesitancy, unfortunately.”
“Some have lower health literacy or belong to ethnic groups that are more hesitant in general” because of a history of mistrust, she said. And Asheville, she said, has a sizeable population of well-educated adults who are longtime vaccine skeptics.
While children run a lower risk than older people of getting seriously ill from COVID-19, at least 637 people age 18 or under have died from the virus in the U.S., according to the CDC. Six million U.S. children been infected, 1 million of them since early September amid the spread of the more contagious delta variant, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
Health officials believe that expanding the vaccine drive will not only curb the alarming number of infections in children but also reduce the spread of the virus to vulnerable adults. It could also help schools stay open and youngsters get back on track academically, and contribute to the nation’s broader recovery from the pandemic.
“COVID has also disrupted our kids’ lives. It’s made school harder, it’s disrupted their ability to see friends and family, it’s made youth sports more challenging,” U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy told NBC. “Getting our kids vaccinated, we have the prospect of protecting them, but also getting all of those activities back that are so important to our children.”
Murthy said the administration, which is imposing vaccine mandates for millions of adults, is leaving it up to state and local officials to decide whether to require schoolchildren to get vaccinated. But he said such measures would be “a reasonable thing to consider.”
“It’s also consistent with what we’ve done for other childhood vaccines, like measles, mumps, polio,” he said.
The U.S. has purchased 65 million doses of the Pfizer pediatric shot, which is expected to be one-third the dose given to adults and adolescents, according to officials. They will be shipped in smaller packages of about 100 doses each, so that more providers can deliver them, and they won’t require the super-cold storage that the adult version did at first.
About 219 million Americans age 12 and up, or 66% of the total population, have received a COVID-19 shot, and nearly 190 million are fully vaccinated.
US panel backs COVID-19 boosters only for seniors, high-risk
Dealing the White House a stinging setback, a government advisory panel overwhelmingly rejected a plan Friday to give Pfizer COVID-19 booster shots across the board, and instead endorsed the extra vaccine dose only for those who are 65 or older or run a high risk of severe disease.
The twin votes represented a heavy blow to the Biden administration’s sweeping effort, announced a month ago, to shore up nearly all Americans’ protection amid the spread of the highly contagious delta variant.
The nonbinding recommendation — from an influential committee of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration — is not the last word. The FDA will consider the group’s advice and make its own decision, probably within days. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is set to weigh in next week.
In a surprising turn, the advisory panel rejected, 16-2, boosters for almost everyone. Members cited a lack of safety data on extra doses and also raised doubts about the value of mass boosters, rather than ones targeted to specific groups.
Then, in an 18-0 vote, it endorsed extra shots for people 65 and older and those at risk of serious disease. Panel members also agreed that health workers and others who run a high risk of being exposed to the virus on the job should get boosters, too.
That would help salvage part of the White House’s campaign but would still be a huge step back from the far-reaching proposal to offer third shots of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to Americans eight months after they get their second dose.
The White House sought to frame the action as progress.
“Today was an important step forward in providing better protection to Americans from COVID-19,” said White House spokesman Kevin Munoz. “We stand ready to provide booster shots to eligible Americans once the process concludes at the end of next week.”
The CDC has said it is considering boosters for older people, nursing home residents and front-line health care workers, rather than all adults.
The FDA and CDC will most likely decide at some later point whether people who received the Moderna or Johnson & Johnson shots should get boosters.
During several hours of vigorous debate Friday, members of the panel questioned the value of offering boosters to almost everybody 16 and over.
“I don’t think a booster dose is going to significantly contribute to controlling the pandemic,” said Dr. Cody Meissner of Tufts University. “And I think it’s important that the main message we transmit is that we’ve got to get everyone two doses.”
Dr. Amanda Cohn of the CDC said, “At this moment it is clear that the unvaccinated are driving transmission in the United States.”
In a statement, Kathrin U. Jansen, Pfizer head of vaccine research and development, said the company continues to believe that boosters will be a “critical tool in the ongoing effort to control the spread of this virus.”
Scientists inside and outside the government have been divided recently over the need for boosters and who should get them, and the World Health Organization has strongly objected to rich nations giving a third round of shots when poor countries don’t have enough vaccine for their first.
While research suggests immunity levels in those who have been vaccinated wane over time and boosters can reverse that, the Pfizer vaccine is still highly protective against severe illness and death, even amid the delta variant.
The unexpected turn of events could reinforce criticism that the Biden administration got out ahead of the science in its push for boosters. President Joe Biden promised early on that his administration would “follow the science,” in the wake of disclosures of political meddling in the Trump administration’s coronavirus response.
The FDA panel’s overwhelming initial rejection came despite full-throated arguments about the need for boosters from both Pfizer and health officials from Israel, which began offering boosters to its citizens in July.
Sharon Alroy-Preis of Israel’s Ministry of Health said the booster dose improves protection tenfold against infection in people 60 and older.
“It’s like a fresh vaccine,” bringing protection back to original levels and helping Israel “dampen severe cases in the fourth wave,” she said.
Representatives for Pfizer argued that it is important to start shoring up immunity before protection begins to erode. A company study of 44,000 people showed effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 96% two months after the second dose, but had dropped to 84% by around six months.
Both Pfizer and the Israeli representatives faced pushback from panelists. Several were skeptical about the relevance of Israel’s experience to the U.S. Another concern was whether third doses would exacerbate serious side effects, including rare instances of heart inflammation in younger men.
Pfizer pointed to Israeli data from nearly 3 million boosters to suggest side effect rates would be similar to those already reported.
Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he was supportive of a third dose for adults over 60 or 65, but “I really have trouble” supporting it for anyone down to age 16.
While an extra shot would probably at least temporarily reduce cases with mild or no symptoms, “the question becomes what will be the impact of that on the arc of the pandemic, which may not be all that much,” Offit said.
Also read: Germany urged to waive intellectual property rules for COVID19 vaccines
Biden’s top health advisers, including the heads of the FDA and CDC, first announced plans for widespread booster shots in mid-August, setting the week of Sept. 20 as an all-but-certain start date. But that was before FDA staff scientists had completed their own assessments of the data.
Earlier this week, two top FDA vaccine reviewers joined a group of international scientists in publishing an editorial rejecting the need for boosters in healthy people. The scientists said studies show the shots are working well.
On Friday, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said the Biden administration announcement was not aimed at pressuring regulators to act but was instead an attempt to be transparent with the public and be prepared in the event that boosters won approval.
“We have always said that this initial plan would be contingent on the FDA and the CDC’s independent evaluation,” Murthy said.
READ: UK commits £3.1 mn aid to minimise impact of disasters in Bangladesh, other countries
The Biden plan has also raised major ethical concerns about impoverished parts of the world still clamoring for vaccine. But the administration argued that the plan was not an us-or-them choice, noting that the U.S. is supplying large quantities of vaccine to the rest of the globe.
The U.S. has already approved Pfizer and Moderna boosters for certain people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients and transplant recipients.
Also read: UK OKs vaccines for 12 year olds, aims to avoid lockdowns
Some Americans, healthy or not, have managed to get boosters, in some cases simply by showing up and asking for a shot. And some health systems already are offering extra doses to high-risk people.
Peter Haas nominated next US Ambassador to Bangladesh
US President Joe Biden has named Peter D. Haas as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Bangladesh, says the White House.
The US President has also named three individuals to serve as Ambassadors of the US, including Eric M. Garcetti, a nominee for Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, to India.
Read US Ambassador joins student leadership workshop in Rajshahi
Haas, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as acting Assistant Secretary of State and concurrently as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Economic and Business Affairs for the Department of State, said the White House in a statement.
Previously, Haas was Senior Advisor/Deputy Assistant Secretary for Trade Policy and Negotiations for the State Department and prior to that was the Deputy Permanent Representative to the US Mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, France.
Read US Ambassador Miller visits art exhibition on PM at Cosmos Centre
Over his career he has served in positions across five geographic bureaus of the State Department including as Consul General of the US Consulate General Mumbai, India.
Haas holds a BA in International Studies and German from Illinois Wesleyan University. He attended the London School of Economics as a Marshall Scholar, where he earned MSc (Econ) degrees in both the Politics of the World Economy and Comparative Government.
Read Outgoing US ambassador says world must end Taiwan’s exclusion
He is the recipient of the James Clement Dunn Award for Excellence and the Cordell Hull Award for Economic Achievement by Senior Officers. His foreign languages are French and German.
Ambassador Earl R Miller is approaching the end of his three-year assignment as U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh.
Read Working on how US companies can invest in Sylhet: US Ambassador
"These nomination announcements are a regular part of the confirmation process for new U.S. ambassadors," said a spokesperson at the US Embassy in Dhaka.
White House calling out critics of door-to-door vaccine push
“A disservice to the country.” “Inaccurate disinformation.” “Literally killing people.”
For months, the Biden White House refrained from criticizing Republican officials who played down the importance of coronavirus vaccinations or sought to make political hay of the federal government’s all-out effort to drive shots into arms. Not any longer.
With the COVID-19 vaccination rate plateauing across the country, the White House is returning fire at those they see as spreading harmful misinformation or fear about the shots.
When South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster tried this week to block door-to-door efforts to drive up the vaccination rate in his state, White House press secretary Jen Psaki did not mince words in her reaction.
READ: New vibe at White House: Hugs are in; masks are (mostly) out
“The failure to provide accurate public health information, including the efficacy of vaccines and the accessibility of them to people across the country, including South Carolina, is literally killing people, so maybe they should consider that,” she said Friday.
While 67% of American adults have gotten at least one dose, officials are increasingly worried about vast geographic disparity in vaccination rates, and the emergence of what some experts warn could be two dramatically different realities for the country in the coming months: High vaccine uptake and lower caseloads in more Democratic-leaning parts of the country, and fresh hot spots and the development of dangerous variants in more GOP-leaning areas.
In the early months of the administration, the White House largely declined to criticize state and local officials’ handling of their vaccination programs, eager to maintain their buy-in and to prevent the politicization of the lifesaving campaign.
The recent change in tone comes after some GOP officials criticized President Joe Biden for calling for a door-to-door campaign to spread information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines in hopes it would encourage more people to get vaccinated.
“Now we need to go to community-by-community, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, and oftentimes, door-to-door — literally knocking on doors — to get help to the remaining people” who need to be vaccinated, Biden said Tuesday.
The grassroots component of the vaccination campaign has been in operation since April, when supplies of shots began outpacing demand. It was outlined and funded by Congress in the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill passed in March and overwhelmingly is carried out by local officials and private sector workers and volunteers.
READ: White House, Kremlin aim for Biden-Putin summit in Geneva
But some in the GOP saw a political opening, catering to the party’s small-government roots and libertarian wing.
“The Biden Administration wants to knock on your door to see if you’re vaccinated,” tweeted Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. “What’s next? Knocking on your door to see if you own a gun?”McMaster asked his state’s health department to bar state and local health groups from “the use of the Biden Administration’s ‘targeted’ ‘door to door’ tactics.”
“A South Carolinian’s decision to get vaccinated is a personal one for them to make and not the government’s,” McMaster wrote in a letter to the department. “Enticing, coercing, intimidating, mandating, or pressuring anyone to take the vaccine is a bad policy which will deteriorate the public’s trust and confidence in the State’s vaccination efforts.”
In Missouri, meanwhile, GOP Gov. Mike Parson tweeted: “I have directed our health department to let the federal government know that sending government employees or agents door-to-door to compel vaccination would NOT be an effective OR a welcome strategy in Missouri!”
Earlier in the week, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich sent a letter to Biden condemning the new strategy.
For the usually reserved Biden White House, which has long harbored private frustrations about some states’ laggard vaccination programs but refused to condemn them publicly for fear of playing up political divides in public health, it was a bridge too far.
“For those individuals, organizations that are feeding misinformation and trying to mischaracterize this type of trusted-messenger work, I believe you are doing a disservice to the country and to the doctors, the faith leaders, community leaders and others who are working to get people vaccinated, save lives and help end this pandemic,” White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients said Thursday.
Months ago, the Biden White House refrained from responding when officials criticized its vaccine allocation strategy of sending more doses directly to pharmacies instead of through state health departments after the former strategy proved more effective. It largely kept quiet as it watched officials sow fears of vaccine “passports” and assiduously avoided engaging publicly with fringe lawmakers who promoted vaccine skepticism.
The new public expression of frustration comes amid lingering disbelief that tens of millions of Americans continue to refuse to get vaccinated, needlessly extending the pandemic and costing lives, as government health officials emphasize that nearly all serious cases and deaths are now preventable.
White House officials are quick to point out that their criticism is not related to the officials’ political affiliation but to their rhetoric. They credit effective communication and leadership on the vaccines by GOP officials including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine. But they continue to be concerned that some GOP officials are seeking to boost their own fortunes by feeding into doubts about the vaccination.
Psaki on Thursday rebutted some allegations about the door-knocking program, noting that in most cases: “They are not members of the government. They are not federal government employees. They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking.”
Acknowledging the rhetoric has been “a bit frustrating to us,” she also noted that there are indications the door-knocking has helped promote shots in areas lagging behind the rest of the country. “Alabama: The adult vaccination rate increased by 3.9%; 149,000 additional adults got their first dose in June,” she said, adding that Florida saw an increase of 4.4% and Georgia of 3.5%.
READ: New vibe at White House: Hugs are in; masks are (mostly) out
“This is important work that’s leading to more vaccinations,” said Zients, “and it’s done by people who care about the health of their family, friends and neighbors.”
Bangladesh to get over 10 lakh AstraZeneca doses from COVAX: FM
Bangladesh will get some 10.8 lakh doses of AstraZeneca vaccine soon under COVAX facility.
These AstraZeneca vaccine doses have been allocated from the COVAX supply, said Foreign Minister Dr AK Abdul Momen on Friday.
He said the COVAX programme has not mentioned the source of this supply of AstraZeneca vaccine doses to Bangladesh.
The AstraZeneca vaccine doses will arrive soon, Dr Momen said.
Bangladesh Ambassador to the US conveyed the development to the Foreign Minister.
Bangladesh earlier sought 2 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine from the US for addressing Bangladesh's immediate needs but the US is yet to reply to that particular request.
Read:Bangladesh receives 2nd shipment of medical supplies from US
Dr Momen said the US is only giving assurances, and he received a letter from the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday which he says a very good in a sense.