The federal government is raising legal and practical questions about a recent California executive order attempting to end sales of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerOvernight Energy: Trump officials finalize plan to open up protected areas of Tongass to logging | Feds say offshore testing for oil can proceed despite drilling moratorium | Dems question EPA’s postponement of inequality training Democrats question EPA postponement of environmental inequality training OVERNIGHT ENERGY: California seeks to sell only electric cars by 2035 | EPA threatens to close New York City office after Trump threats to ‘anarchist’ cities | House energy package sparks criticism from left and right MORE wrote to California Gov. Gavin NewsomGavin NewsomGOP online donor platform offering supporters ‘Notorious A.C.B.’ shirts Newsom signs law allowing transgender inmates to be placed in prison by their gender identity OVERNIGHT ENERGY: California seeks to sell only electric cars by 2035 | EPA threatens to close New York City office after Trump threats to ‘anarchist’ cities | House energy package sparks criticism from left and right MORE (D) on Monday, saying he believes California would need to request a waiver from his agency for the order to be implemented and implying that the state’s electricity infrastructure is insufficient for a shift toward electric vehicles. 

“While the [executive order] seems to be mostly aspirational and on its own would accomplish very little, any attempt by the California Air Resources Board to implement sections of it may require California to request a waiver to U.S. EPA,” Wheeler wrote. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The EPA last year revoked a waiver that allowed California to set its own vehicle tailpipe emissions standards, so it appears unlikely that the agency would grant one on car sales under the current administration. 

California, alongside 22 other states, has sued the agency over that decision, arguing that its standards were achievable and that the EPA’s decision is bad for climate change. 

The executive order also comes as California has recently faced rolling blackouts, Wheeler noted. 

“California’s record of rolling blackouts — unprecedented in size and scope — coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today,” the country’s top environmental official wrote. 

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences,” he added. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Newsom, when he announced the initiative, said it would help the state meet its climate goals and also help create jobs in the state.

“We will move forward to green and decarbonize our vehicle fleet … substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as oxide nitrogen, in so doing, we’ll improve air quality and improve the economic climate here in the state of California,” he said last week. 

Newsom spokesperson Jesse Melgar defended the order in a statement this week, saying, “While the Trump Administration tries to drive this country off a climate cliff, California is once again assuming the mantle of leadership in the fight against climate change.”

“We aren’t going to back down from protecting our kids’ health and the air they breathe,” Melgar said. 

Click Here: camiseta river plate

The editorial board of The New York Times is imploring the world’s leading social media and technology companies to prepare themselves for a scenario in which President TrumpDonald John TrumpNew Biden campaign ad jabs at Trump’s reported 0 income tax payments Ocasio-Cortez: Trump contributed less in taxes ‘than waitresses and undocumented immigrants’ Third judge orders Postal Service to halt delivery cuts MORE claims victory on election night before he has been officially declared the winner. 

“Imagine: It’s midnight, and the electoral map looks quite red. But news networks and election officials aren’t calling the swing states, as this year’s record numbers of mail-in and absentee ballots have yet to be fully counted,” the Times wrote in an editorial published Sunday.

“Mr. Trump, leading in the popular vote, decides he’s seen enough. He takes to his social media platforms and declares that he has won re-election and will accept no other result. He tells his tens of millions of followers that the Democrats and the press will try to change the result and steal the election. The door to unrest and constitutional crisis swings wide open.” 

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump has for weeks questioned the integrity of voting by mail, arguing they would lead to fraud. Experts say there is no reason to think there would be more fraud with mail-in voting than in-person voting. 

The president cited these concerns when asked if he would accept the November election’s result and commit to a peaceful transition of power should he lose. 

“Well, we’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump told reporters last week. “I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.” 

The president has already had several of his social media posts about mail-in voting flagged by Twitter for containing false or misleading information. 

The Times editorial board suggested that if Trump tweets he has won the election before he legally has, social media platforms adjust their algorithms to downplay his posts. 

“Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have all pledged to crack down on misinformation around voting and electoral outcomes. Perhaps in the above scenario they append a label to the president’s posts saying that the information is disputed and that the results are not in,” the editorial reads.

ADVERTISEMENT

“They could introduce friction into the algorithms to slow the reach of the posts,” the board said. “But pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits most likely would have picked up the argument by then, amplifying the president’s message. What started as one prominent piece of voter disinformation easily could become widespread in the Republican Party and among a large segment of Americans. What would the platforms do then?”

The editorial laid out several ways the world’s largest tech companies can work now to prevent disinformation from Trump and his allies from spreading quickly on election night. 

These include “a consortium to formalize standards” for dealing with such a scenario and increased transparency on how the companies decide which posts to display most prominently on user’s feeds.

The Times argued that such companies want to be trusted and that this would be a way for them to earn that trust.

“The trust they’re asking for has not yet been earned. It’s time these companies came together and pledged their commitment to the public interest,” it wrote.

Click Here: cheap INTERNATIONAL jersey

HAPPY MONDAY! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news. Please send tips and comments to Rebecca Beitsch at rbeitsch@thehill.com. Follow her on Twitter: @rebeccabeitsch. Reach Rachel Frazin at rfrazin@thehill.com or follow her on Twitter: @RachelFrazin.

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our newsletter.

YOU’RE OUT: A federal judge on Friday ordered William Pendley to be removed as leader of the head of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a role that typically requires Senate confirmation. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Judge Brian Morris ruled that Pendley “served unlawfully as the Acting BLM Director for 424 days” and enjoined him from exercising the authority of the agency’s director. 

The ruling was issued in response to a lawsuit from Montana Gov. Steve BullockSteve BullockOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Court removes Pendley from role as public lands chief | Pendley court ruling could unravel Trump’s public lands decisions | 1 in 4 adults cite climate change in decision not to have children Pendley court ruling could unravel Trump’s public lands decisions Court removes Pendley from role as public lands chief MORE (D) challenging Pendley’s continued tenure and follows significant scrutiny from conservation groups.

Pendley has led the bureau in a temporary capacity since July 2019. His role at the agency has come under scrutiny because he has not been confirmed by the Senate.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

Pendley remained in his post first through a series of “secretarial orders” put forth by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and later, as reported by The Hill, through “succession orders,” with which Pendley gave himself the authority to remain the temporary leader of the agency. 

Morris, an Obama appointee, ruled that both a secretarial order and a succession order “represent unlawful attempts to avoid the constitutional requirements of the Appointments Clause and the statutory requirements of the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act].”

SO WHAT’S STILL IN? A federal judge’s decision to boot a top Trump appointee could jeopardize years of actions the administration has taken on public lands, including an expansion of oil and gas drilling and the decision to uproot the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters.

“Depending on what happens next this could invalidate an entire administration’s work of actions at the Bureau of Land Management,” said Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities, a public lands watchdog group. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Morris enjoined Pendley from continuing to serve in his role, but now the court will examine the numerous decisions the bureau has made along the way. Pendley has led the department through a relocation that uprooted all but 61 of BLM’s Washington-based staffers and oversaw a number of management plans that would increase access for the oil and gas industry through their up to 20 year lifespan.

“I think the judge is contemplating that 424 days — all of it. If [Pendley] wasn’t properly appointed or placed in his position, I think the judge is inclined to want to know why any of the actions he took were valid,” said Carl Tobias, a law processor at Richmond University School of Law.

One of the resource plans cited by Morris would open 95 percent of 650,000-acres of BLM land to resource extraction like mining and drilling.

“Reversing course on many of Pendley’s disastrous and illegal decisions is a critical next step,” Sen. Jon TesterJonathan (Jon) TesterOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Court removes Pendley from role as public lands chief | Pendley court ruling could unravel Trump’s public lands decisions | 1 in 4 adults cite climate change in decision not to have children Pendley court ruling could unravel Trump’s public lands decisions Democrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme Court MORE (D-Mt.) said in a statement to The Hill, adding that “Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans need to learn a lesson from this mess: turning a blind eye to the public and letting unqualified folks sit unconfirmed in powerful positions is unconstitutional and a dereliction of the Senate’s duty.”

Close observers of the BLM have complained the Trump administration has changed an organization that largely flew under the radar in previous administrations, responsible for balancing recreation and conservation on the nation’s nearly 250 million acres of public lands with energy development and grazing interests.

“They definitely have a fossil fuel extraction lean in terms of their mission for the BLM,” Steve Ellis, who retired from the top career position at BLM in 2016, previously told The Hill in discussing the Trump administration.

“BLM is a multiple use agency by law, but they’re tilting it way over to fossil fuels,” he added. “It’s not balanced right now.”

Weiss said land management plans in not just Montana but Colorado and New Mexico where “they opened up everything to oil and gas drilling” could face renewed scrutiny.

“If this stands the implications are drastic because if this becomes a template for other court districts then it puts at risk every land use plan that has come out and been finalized at least this year and possibly the entirety of the Trump administration,” he said.

Where it gets complicated is that Pendley did not put his signature on many of the directives taken under his leadership.

“Mr. Pendley didn’t sign off on as many decisions as he could have, probably because he knew this day would come,” House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), whose committee oversees the BLM, said in a statement to The Hill. 

Read more about the impacts of the court ruling here. 

AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT: Roughly a quarter of childless adults say climate change is a factor in their decision not to have children, according to a Monday poll from Morning Consult.

Eleven percent of those surveyed said climate change was a major reason they would not have children, while 15 percent said it was a minor reason.

Climate change rated behind other issues such as the economy, general political concerns, and career plans when it came to the decision to reproduce, but the poll shows the existential threat is weighing on people’s minds when it comes to family planning.

Those figures were starker for minorities, with 40 percent of Hispanic and 30 percent of Black respondents saying climate change factored into their decision compared to 23 percent of white respondents. 

Read more on that here. 

ON TAP TOMORROW:

The House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing titled “Police Cameras at the Department of the Interior: Inconsistencies, Failures, and Consequences.” Witnesses include Kelly Ghaisar, the mother of  Bijan Ghaisar, who was killed by Park Police in 2017. 

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY:

Bar for Environmental Cases Seen Higher With a Justice Barrett, Bloomberg Law reports

ADVERTISEMENT

E.P.A. to Promote Lead Testing Rule as Trump Tries to Burnish His Record, The New York Times reports

Mexican farmers revolt over sending water to US during drought, The Guardian reports

White House recruited climate critics for NOAA, E&E News reports

ICYMI: Stories from Monday and over the weekend…

Court removes Pendley from role as public lands chief

1 in 4 adults cite climate change in decision not to have children

Pendley court ruling could unravel Trump’s public lands decisions

FROM THE HILL’S OPINION PAGES: 

Here are five environmental policy questions that should be asked in the presidential debates, according to public health experts.  

The House Homeland Security Committee announced Friday that Rep. Lauren UnderwoodLauren UnderwoodHillicon Valley: Productivity, fatigue, cybersecurity emerge as top concerns amid pandemic | Facebook critics launch alternative oversight board | Google to temporarily bar election ads after polls close Underwood takes over as chair of House cybersecurity panel Obama announces first wave of 2020 endorsements MORE (D-Ill.) will take over as chair of the panel’s subcommittee on cybersecurity, infrastructure protection and innovation. 

Underwood, who serves as vice chair of the full Homeland Security panel, will take over the subcommittee chair position from Rep. Cedric RichmondCedric Levon RichmondHillicon Valley: Productivity, fatigue, cybersecurity emerge as top concerns amid pandemic | Facebook critics launch alternative oversight board | Google to temporarily bar election ads after polls close Underwood takes over as chair of House cybersecurity panel Rep. Bill Pascrell named chair of House oversight panel MORE (D-La.).

Richmond stepped down from the Homeland Security panel earlier this week to take a position on the House Ways and Means Committee, filling a position previously held by the late Rep. John LewisJohn LewisHillicon Valley: Productivity, fatigue, cybersecurity emerge as top concerns amid pandemic | Facebook critics launch alternative oversight board | Google to temporarily bar election ads after polls close Underwood takes over as chair of House cybersecurity panel Trump to pay respects to Ginsburg at Supreme Court MORE (D-Ga.).

ADVERTISEMENT

The cybersecurity subpanel has in the past addressed issues around election security, state and local cybersecurity needs, bolstering the cybersecurity workforce and oversight of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Science and Technology Directorate.

Underwood said in a statement Friday that she was “honored to step into this leadership role to secure our cyber and physical infrastructure in a way that reflects American values.”

“Our nation faces homeland security threats that endanger not only the lives of Americans, but the foundation of the democracy we hold dear,” Underwood said. “As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation, I look forward to advancing legislation that makes us safer—whether that means securing our elections against foreign interference and cyberattacks, or protecting our schools and houses of worship from targeted violence—and conducting oversight of the Administration to ensure the job gets done.”

She emphasized that “with the 2020 election currently underway across Illinois and the country, this committee’s work is more critical than ever before.”

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie ThompsonBennie Gordon ThompsonUnderwood takes over as chair of House cybersecurity panel House panel pans ICE detention medical care, oversight Senate to hold nomination hearing for Wolf next week MORE (D-Miss.) welcomed Underwood to the role.

ADVERTISEMENT

“From persistent attempts by foreign adversaries to influence our elections to growing cybersecurity threats amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, our country faces unprecedented threats and it is critical we have the leadership in place to tackle these growing challenges,” Thompson said in a statement. 

“It is my incredible honor to have Congresswoman Underwood serve as Chair of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation,” he added. “She has served admirably as the Vice Chair of the Committee and I know she is ready to confront the multifaceted issues facing our nation. I look forward to continuing our work together to secure our elections, protect our homeland, and conduct critical oversight of this Administration.” 

Rep. John KatkoJohn Michael KatkoHillicon Valley: Productivity, fatigue, cybersecurity emerge as top concerns amid pandemic | Facebook critics launch alternative oversight board | Google to temporarily bar election ads after polls close Lawmakers introduce legislation to boost cybersecurity of local governments, small businesses Underwood takes over as chair of House cybersecurity panel MORE (R-N.Y.), the ranking member on the cybersecurity subcommittee, also applauded Underwood taking over as chair.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

“I congratulate Congresswoman Underwood on her new role as Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation,” Katko said in a statement provided to The Hill. “We’ve worked together on a number of bipartisan initiatives, and am looking forward to continuing this partnership as we work to protect our nation against the ongoing threat of cyberattacks. I thank Chairman Richmond for his service on the Subcommittee and strong commitment to protecting our Homeland.”

Underwood has previously co-sponsored legislation to bolster state and local cybersecurity, a bill intended to increase media literacy to combat social media disinformation and multiple bills addressing election security concerns.

— Updated at 2:40 p.m.

A small majority of Americans support President TrumpDonald John TrumpCensus Bureau intends to wrap up count on Oct. 5 despite judge’s order Top House Republican calls for probe of source of NYT Trump tax documents New Yorkers report receiving ballots with wrong name, voter addresses MORE and the Senate moving ahead to fill the Supreme Court vacancy just over a month before the presidential election, according to a new poll.

The latest Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey finds that 53 percent say Trump is right to put forward a nominee for the Supreme Court without delay, including 51 percent of independents. In addition, 53 percent of voters say the Senate should consider the nominee right now.

The poll was conducted before Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgHarris says she hasn’t ‘made a plan one way or another’ on meeting Supreme Court nominee Trump, GOP aim to complete reshaping of federal judiciary Compromise, yes — but how? A pre-debate suggestion MORE. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The survey found that 51 percent of voters want a Supreme Court nominee who will affirm the right to have an abortion, while 26 percent want a justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade — the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that cleared the way for abortion access nationwide — and 23 percent say it is not an important issue to them. 

When voters are told that Democrats have considered retaliating against the nomination by adding justices or granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, 38 percent said that makes them less likely to vote for Democrats, 36 percent said more likely and 27 percent said it would have no effect. Forty-three percent of independents said it made them more likely to vote for Democrats, 33 percent said no effect and 23 percent said less likely.

When voters are told that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump, GOP aim to complete reshaping of federal judiciary Supreme Court fight should drive Democrats and help Biden Harris on SCOTUS fight: Ginsburg’s legacy ‘at stake’ MORE (R-Ky.) blocked former President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court because it was an election year in 2016, 39 percent said it made them less likely to vote for Republicans, 32 percent said no effect and 29 percent said it made them more likely to vote GOP. Forty-four percent of independents said no effect, 35 percent said less likely to vote Republican and 21 percent said more likely.

“The political charges back and forth about the process don’t really move people either way as they are seen as political maneuvering,” said Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll polling director Mark PennMark PennVoters split on whether Trump, Biden will win first debate: poll Biden holds narrow lead over Trump ahead of first debate: poll The Supreme Court vacancy — yet another congressional food fight MORE. “The public mildly supports the president and senate going ahead with a new nominee — but the real politics is on how the nominee herself resonates with the public.”

A strong majority of voters, 71 percent, have a favorable view of the Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

A plurality, 45 percent, say the court’s ideology strikes the right balance, with 35 percent saying it is too conservative and 21 percent too liberal. 

Sixty-one percent say the justices should interpret the Constitution as written, compared to 39 percent who say they should interpret it as they see it evolving. 

“Voters are far more satisfied with the Supreme Court than with either the president or Congress,” said Penn. “They generally support its landmark rulings while wanting judges that interpret the laws, over using the job for activism.”

The Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey of 1,314 registered voters was conducted between Sept. 22 and Sept. 24. 

It is a collaboration of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and The Harris Poll. The Hill will be working with Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll throughout 2020.

Full poll results will be posted online later this week. The survey is an online sample drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval.

Click Here: Bape Kid 1st Camo Ape Head rompers

A coalition of 40 organizations from across the political spectrum is calling for a congressional investigation into how the Pentagon used $1 billion in coronavirus relief funds.

Click Here: Bape Kid 1st Camo Ape Head rompers

In a letter to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, the groups also urged lawmakers to consider passing a new bill to suspend the Department of Defense’s (DOD) authority to use the funding.

“We believe the Pentagon’s decision-making with these funds, as recently reported, violates congressional intent at minimum, and represents a significant breach of trust with the taxpayers who fund the military’s budget and its emergency spending,” the organizations wrote in the letter, obtained by The Hill ahead of its public release.

ADVERTISEMENT

The letter was organized by progressive group Win Without War, the right-leaning National Taxpayers Union and the Project on Government Oversight.

“We believe that the select subcommittee should investigate when, how, and why the Pentagon decided that it could use these specific CARES Act funds in contravention of Congressional intent,” the letter said. “Any findings should be shared with the public to the maximum extent practicable. We would also ask that the select subcommittee consider recommending a rescission of DoD’s budget authority for this $1 billion fund in order to ensure Congress’s constitutional spending authority is not being violated.”

A subcommittee spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter, which comes after a Washington Post report Tuesday detailed how the Pentagon has used most of a $1 billion fund allocated by the CARES Act on defense contractors rather than medical supplies.

The DOD awarded contracts for jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms, among other military equipment, which critics argue is in contravention of the CARES Act stipulation that the funds be used to “prevent, prepare for and respond to coronavirus.”

The Pentagon has defended itself, arguing the money was never intended to be restricted to medical supplies, that it kept Congress fully informed of its plans and that helping the defense industrial bases through the pandemic is an appropriate response to the COVID-19 crisis.

ADVERTISEMENT

“As indicated by recent reporting, there appears to be a misunderstanding by some about what the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES” Act) did and did not do with respect to the Department of Defense,” chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a seven-paragraph statement Wednesday.

“The CARES Act did not limit — nor did it intend to limit in its language — the use of Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III to only medical resources,” he added. “As part of the efforts to mitigate economic damage, the act allowed monies to be spent to support individuals and industries that had been impacted by COVID. This is exactly what DOD has done.”

While the Post report provided new details on the exact contracts the Pentagon has awarded, the department notified Congress in late May it planned to use $688 million of the funding to shore up the defense industrial base. Several news outlets, including the Post, reported on the notification at the time.

Ellen Lord, under secretary of Defense for acquisition and sustainment, also testified before the House Armed Services Committee in June on plans to use funding on the defense industrial base (DIB).

Those disclosures prompted the House Appropriations Committee in July to write in a report accompanying the annual defense spending bill that “the committee’s expectation was that the department would address the need for PPE [personal protective equipment] industrial capacity rather than execute the funding for the DIB.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Nonetheless, the Post report set off a new wave of outrage. On Tuesday, two House Democrats called for a congressional investigation into the issue.

“For the administration to choose to use funds Congress made available to fight COVID-19 on the wish lists of defense contractors, instead of first protecting troops and the general public from the spread of the coronavirus, is unconscionable and should be investigated fully and prosecuted if warranted,” Reps. Mark PocanMark William PocanOvernight Defense: Nearly 500 former national security officials formally back Biden | 40 groups call on House panel to investigate Pentagon’s use of coronavirus funds 40 groups call on House panel to investigate Pentagon’s use of coronavirus funds Overnight Defense: Pentagon redirects pandemic funding to defense contractors | US planning for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May | Anti-Trump GOP group puts ads in military papers MORE (D-Wis.) and Barbara LeeBarbara Jean LeeOvernight Defense: Nearly 500 former national security officials formally back Biden | 40 groups call on House panel to investigate Pentagon’s use of coronavirus funds 40 groups call on House panel to investigate Pentagon’s use of coronavirus funds Overnight Defense: Pentagon redirects pandemic funding to defense contractors | US planning for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May | Anti-Trump GOP group puts ads in military papers MORE (D-Calif.) wrote in a letter to several committee chairs Tuesday.

In a separate statement Tuesday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam Smith40 groups call on House panel to investigate Pentagon’s use of coronavirus funds When ‘Buy American’ and common sense collide Overnight Defense: Marine Corps brushes off criticism of Marines’ appearance in GOP convention video | US troops injured in collision with Russian vehicle in Syria | Dems ask for probe of Vindman retaliation allegations MORE (D-Wash.) said the administration “carved up this billion-dollar appropriation and spent three dollars on defense contracts for every dollar it spent on acquiring health resources.”

“With the safety and lives of our health care, first responder, and essential workforces at stake, the department must be held accountable to administer the funding in the way Congress intended,” Smith said.

In their letter Thursday, the organization highlighted ongoing national shortages of protective equipment such as N95 masks, gowns and gloves, arguing the Pentagon “spends more on military bands annually than it has spent on securing N95 masks.”

“It’s unconscionable that the department would prioritize defense contractor wishlists over the health and safety of the American people,” Mandy Smithberger, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight, said in a statement. “Congress was clear that it wanted the department to use its powers to address PPE shortages that continue to this day, and the department shirked its duties.”

Google is set to win European Union antitrust approval for its $2.1 billion acquisition of FitBit, a Google spokesperson confirmed Tuesday. 

Google said it has been working with the European Commission on an “updated approach to safeguard consumers’ expectations” that Fitbit devices won’t be used for advertising. 

“This deal is about devices, not data. The wearables space is highly crowded, and we believe the combination of Google and Fitbit’s hardware efforts will increase competition in the sector, benefiting consumers and making the next generation of devices better and more affordable,” the spokesperson said in a statement. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“We’re also formalizing our longstanding commitment to supporting other wearable manufacturers on Android and to continue to allow Fitbit users to connect to third party services via APIs if they want to,” the spokesperson added. 

Reuters first reported the expected EU antitrust approval on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources. 

The newswire had reported Google offered to make it easier for rival makers of wearable devices to connect to the Android platform by offering them access to the Android application programmatic interface, Reuters reported.

Google’s acquisition of FitBit comes as the tech giant has struggled to break into the wearables market and will now more directly compete with Apple. 

Spokespeople for Google and FitBit were not immediately available to comment regarding the reported expected EU antitrust approval.

Updated at 10:06 a.m.

Click Here: Bape Kid 1st Camo Ape Head rompers

A pair of Democrats is asking the Pentagon’s internal watchdog to investigate how the department used $1 billion in coronavirus relief funds.

In a Friday letter to the Pentagon’s inspector general, Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenOvernight Defense: Appeals court revives House lawsuit against military funding for border wall | Dems push for limits on transferring military gear to police | Lawmakers ask for IG probe into Pentagon’s use of COVID-19 funds On The Money: Half of states deplete funds for Trump’s 0 unemployment expansion | EU appealing ruling in Apple tax case | House Democrats include more aid for airlines in coronavirus package Warren, Khanna request IG investigation into Pentagon’s use of coronavirus funds MORE (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaOvernight Defense: Appeals court revives House lawsuit against military funding for border wall | Dems push for limits on transferring military gear to police | Lawmakers ask for IG probe into Pentagon’s use of COVID-19 funds On The Money: Half of states deplete funds for Trump’s 0 unemployment expansion | EU appealing ruling in Apple tax case | House Democrats include more aid for airlines in coronavirus package The movement to reform animal agriculture has reached a tipping point MORE (D-Calif.) asked the watchdog to “review the potential misuse of funds by the department that were meant ‘to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.’ ”

“Instead of addressing the urgent needs of a pandemic that has killed over 200,000 Americans, it appears [the Department of Defense] DoD used taxpayer money meant to protect lives from COVID-19 to pad the pockets of defense contractors,” Senate Armed Services Committee member Warren and House Armed Services Committee member Khanna wrote in the letter to acting Inspector General Sean O’Donnell.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The reported misuse by DoD of federal funds meant for the response to the deadly pandemic plaguing our country is inconsistent with the will of Congress and may be illegal,” they added. “Accordingly, we request that the inspector general investigate DoD’s redistribution of CARES Act funds that were intended by Congress to respond to COVID-19 via the Defense Production Act.”

A spokesperson for the inspector general told The Hill that the office received the letter and is reviewing their request.

The call for an investigation comes after a Washington Post report Tuesday detailed how the Pentagon has used most of a $1 billion fund allocated by the CARES Act on defense contractors rather than medical supplies.

The DOD awarded contracts for jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms, among other military equipment, which critics argue is in contravention of stipulations in the CARES Act.

The Pentagon has defended itself, arguing the money was never intended to be restricted to medical supplies, that it kept Congress fully informed of its plans and that helping the defense industrial base through the pandemic-fueled economic downturn is an appropriate response to the COVID-19 crisis.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The CARES Act did not limit — nor did it intend to limit in its language — the use of Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III to only medical resources,” chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a seven-paragraph statement Wednesday. “As part of the efforts to mitigate economic damage, the act allowed monies to be spent to support individuals and industries that had been impacted by COVID. This is exactly what DOD has done.”

While the Post report provided new details on the exact contracts the Pentagon has awarded, the department notified Congress in late May it planned to use $688 million of the funding to shore up the defense industrial base. Several news outlets, including the Post, reported on the notification in early June.

Click Here: cheap Cowboys jersey

Still, the latest Post report set off a new wave of outrage. On Tuesday, two House Democrats called for a congressional investigation into the issue.

On Thursday, dozens of outside groups from across the political spectrum also called for a congressional investigation into how the Pentagon used the funding.

An eighth U.S. service member has been killed by the coronavirus, according to Pentagon data released Monday.

The death was included in Monday’s update of the chart the Pentagon keeps on its website of numbers of COVID-19 cases connected to the department.

More information on the death was not immediately available, and a Pentagon spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

The death revealed Monday is the first military COVID-19 death since late August, when Army reservist Sgt. 1st Class Clifford R. Gooding, 58, died of the disease.

Gooding was the fourth member of the Army Reserve to die from COVID-19.

His death followed the Aug. 20 death of a 36-year-old staff sergeant in the California National Guard.

The military’s first COVID-19 death in March also came from the National Guard: a 57-year-old New Jersey Guardsman.

So far, the Pentagon has only reported one coronavirus death from someone on active duty. Navy Chief Petty Officer Charles Robert Thacker Jr., a 41-year-old aviation ordnanceman, died in April after being one of more than 1,000 sailors from the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier who contracted the virus.

In total, the Pentagon has reported 65,657 cases of COVID-19 connected to the department, according to Monday’s figures.

That includes 45,246 cases among service members, 30,450 of whom have recovered and 613 of whom have been hospitalized over the course of the pandemic.

There have also been 10,109 cases among civilians, 6,034 cases among dependents and 4,268 cases among contractors. There have been 59 civilian deaths, seven dependent deaths and 22 contractor deaths, according to Monday’s chart.

Click Here: cheap Cowboys jersey