(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Stanford University has made it clear that the Internet Observatory, a research group that has been accused of participating in social media censorship, is committed to its mission and will remain open.
Amidst the uncertainty, various news sources have been reporting conflicting information about the future of the observatory, with some suggesting its closure.
A recent report by the tech newsletter Platformer stated that the observatory may close after several key staffers, including founding director Alex Stamos, left or did not renew their contracts.
Other news sources reported that the observatory was “[collapsing] under pressure,” being “wound down” and “closing,” the College Fix reported. Some people on social media were also suggesting that the observatory was being permanently “shut down.”
Stanford, however, contradicted those reports in its recent statement on the observatory’s website.
“Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure. SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted. As a result, SIO continues to actively seek support for its research and teaching programs under new leadership,” the statement said.
In addition, SIO will continue its “critical work” through the “publication of the Journal of Online Trust & Safety, the Trust & Safety Research Conference, and the Trust & Safety Teaching Consortium.”
In the statement, the university also announced that the observatory’s staff will be conducting research on “misinformation” during the 2024 election.
On its website, the observatory stated that it is a non-partisan, on-campus political research group that focuses on the misuse of social media, including issues related to elections and COVID-19 vaccine “misinformation.”
However, the observatory was criticized for participating in a joint project with the University of Washington called the Election Integrity Partnership during the 2020 and 2022 elections.
As expected, the university stated that the project’s purpose was to “defend our elections against those who seek to undermine them by exploiting weaknesses in the online information environment.”
In reality, the universities frequently collaborated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to censor “misinformation” from everyone who opposes the regime online.
In its recent statement, Stanford wrote that the SIO project would continue under new leadership and that it “remains deeply concerned” about congressional and legal efforts to “undermine” the legitimacy of “much-needed academic research” at universities across the country.
Asked in an exclusive interview with Headline USA whether she was going to be traveling to the GOP convention in Milwaukee, she replied, “I don’t plan to at this time. We’ll see what happens.”
Of this much, one can be certain: Gabbard was being her usual forthright self.
“She will look you in the eye and she will tell you the truth,” said former Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., shortly thereafter, during the introduction of his former congressional colleague at a book-signing event and political fundraiser in Greensboro, N.C., which also featured state-level candidates including lieutenant gubernatorial nominee Hal Weatherman.
In an era where gaslighting is the norm, Walker’s characterization of Gabbard would be a powerful testament to anyone. Although it may seem simple, underpinning those 14 words is a reputation that is very difficult to earn—and even more difficult to retain.
If ever the Trump administration were taking a risk on letting a mole into its ranks, on paper at least, Gabbard, the red-pilled ex-representative from Hawaii, would be a likely candidate.
Yet, time and again Gabbard has proven herself to be an anomaly who flouts expectations while following her own moral compass, most notably in her disavowal of the Democratic Party in October 2022.
“Today’s Democratic Party is led by this elitist cabal of warmongers, and in my book, For Love of Country, I go into detail in my own personal experiences and the reasons why I could no longer call myself a Democrat,” she told Headline USA—a statement that closely tracked with her original blog post outlining those reasons.
However, Gabbard is far from unique in that regard. In fact, she noted that she encountered ex-Democrats on an almost daily basis reaching out to her in solidarity.
Much like Ronald Reagan famously quipped in 1962, they often feel that the party left them.
“The Democratic Party of today is wholly unrecognizable to the party that I joined over 20 years ago,” Gabbard said.
“And I hear from or meet Democrats from across the country, almost every day—whether people send me a DM on Instagram or send me an e-mail, or I run into them in the airport—who express the same thing,” she continued. “People who may have been lifelong Democrats or people who were raised in a Democrat family, just saying that they don’t recognize today’s Democrat party and they have no connection to the insane, woke, warmongering policies of today’s Democratic Party.”
In a question-and-answer session with Walker, Gabbard offered a similar reflection, recalling how she was once berated by the Obama administration for daring to question its foreign policy.
And she recalled her frustration with the Democratic mantra “vote blue, no matter who.”
Gabbard told the packed house on Friday—many of whom paid $100 for entry to the event, which included a copy of the book to be signed by Gabbard, as well as catered refreshments from host venue the Painted Plate—that American freedoms currently faced what seemed to be an unparalleled threat in the nation’s history.
“Growing up, I never would have imagined that we would be debating free speech in America and whether or not it should exist,” she said, referencing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri, which said the government did nothing wrong in colluding with social-media companies like Facebook and Twitter to suppress vital information about the COVID-19 pandemic, Hunter Biden laptop, 2020 election and more.
As Walker noted in his introduction to Gabbard, she has done more than simply cultivate a sterling reputation as a truth-teller—she’s turned it into a veritable brand.
Because of her candor, honesty, integrity and valor (serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army and currently as an active military reservist), she has become the very antithesis of the modern leftist in the Biden era.
Thus, it comes as no surprise that Gabbard has been called upon frequently to comment on the recent implosion of the Biden campaign following President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate with Trump last month.
Although she has every reason to feel vindicated by it, given her own tumultuous history with the Democrats, Gabbard said it was no cause for joy, even seeming to take pity on Biden—whom she said she has “known … for a long time”—despite his extensive track-record of corruption during his more lucid moments.
“What we are seeing is the lies coming from the Democrat elite have been exposed,” Gabbard told Headline USA.
“We are seeing how, in broad daylight, it is not actually Joe Biden making the decisions and calling the shots—whether it be related to economic or foreign policy—it’s the Tony Blinkens and the Jake Sullivans and the Hillary Clintons and Lloyd Austins who are making these decisions, which should be troubling to every American because we didn’t vote for any of those people,” she added.
On one hand, Gabbard seemed alarmed at the idea of having an empty vessel at the Resolution Desk, noting it was “a huge problem for us as Americans to have someone in that position who is incapable of fulfilling that responsibility.”
She said she was particularly troubled that the commander in chief could not even recall during the debate the 13 service members whose lives were lost in Afghanistan and the three whose lives were lost in Jordan—among the known U.S. military casualties to occur on Biden’s watch, although others are likely to have fallen in America’s shadow war in Ukraine.
“He couldn’t even remember a single one of their families,” Gabbard said.
“He should not be in that position, but we also shouldn’t be under any kind of illusion that, should he be forced out or choose to leave, that anything will be different with a President Kamala Harris or anyone else that they choose to fill that position,” she continued. “The Deep State—the military industrial complex—they will continue calling the shots. They only care about power. They don’t care whose face—whose picture is hanging on the wall.”
As for the prospects of her own service in the Trump administration, Gabbard didn’t rule out the possibility that she might yet have an outside shot at the running-mate offer, even though Trump’s campaign has floated several other names as finalists.
“I think that is a question for one man and one man alone,” she said.
“It’s not something I’m thinking about,” she added. “My goal—this is the most important election of of our lifetimes because it is our freedom, and our safety and security, that’s on the line.”
Gabbard said that one position she would love to be offered was the role of secretary of State, citing her eight years of service in Congress on the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees—as well as her more than two decades in uniform, including as a current battalion commander.
“I could directly wrestle control away from the military–industrial complex and the neocons of Washingtonandactually bein a position to help effect the kind of policies President Trump talks about: toactually bring about peace, to walk us back from the brink of nuclear war—an issue he talks about quite strongly and with great concern—and to get our country back on track,” she said.
In her interview with Walker, Gabbard said that wherever the years ahead may take her, and whatever may happen in the most important election of our lifetimes, she will continue to serve to the best of her ability.
“Whatever role, whatever opportunity, whatever title or position I have, my goal is to try to be of the best service I can to our country,” she said.
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) U.S. Judge Tanya Chutkan’s newest comments on the sentencing of a Jan. 6 defendant further expose her entrenched views on the Capitol protest, despite calls for her recusal in former President Donald Trump’s case.
“The effects of that day are still being felt,” Chutkan said during the sentencing of Spencer Offman, according to Politico.
Offman is one of the thousands of defendants who have fallen victim to the DOJ’s prosecution of individuals who allegedly participated in the protests.
During Offman’s hearing, Chutkan described the protests as a “violent attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power,” and claimed protesters were “desecrating the center of our government.”
This is not the first time Chutkan has openly expressed her anti-Trump bias.
In September 2023, Trump cited her partisan remarks as grounds for her recusal from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against him. Chutkan had previously suggested Trump should be jailed for Jan. 6, even before Smith filed his charges.
In December 2021, she claimed a defendant participated in Jan. 6 out of “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” Similarly, in October 2022, she stated that “the architects of that horrific event will likely never be charged.”
Despite these remarks, Chutkan denied Trump’s recusal request, continuing to preside over the case.
She also rejected Trump’s argument that his post-election actions were part of his official duties, which he claimed should grant him immunity from criminal prosecution.
Trump appealed Chutkan’s decision, taking the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices affirmed that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, excluding personal actions.
The court ordered Chutkan to reexamine which of Smith’s charges pertain to Trump’s presidential acts.
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Former Obama aides have pushed back against alleged White House leaks accusing them of drafting George Clooney’s op-ed, which calls for President Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 race.
Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer, both former aides to the Obama White House and now co-hosts of the Pod Save America, responded to Biden’s aides who suggested they are behind the push to oust Biden as the Democratic nominee for president.
“The incompetence of spending your time fighting Pod Save America, David Axelrod, George Clooney… and the most popular figure in the Democratic Party at a time when you’re struggling… is f**king insane,” Pfeiffer said on Friday.
Biden campaign has declared war on Pod Save America. The White House is apparently telling reporters Jon Favreau wrote Clooney’s op-ed. pic.twitter.com/9ZAWYQ9eRJ
Favreau chimed in, calling the White House’s attack against them “stupid s**t.”
Fueling Favreau’s fiery response are comments from Biden advisers to The New York Times, describing him and his podcast co-hosts as “operatives who worked for a cerebral, cool-guy president and never understood the world.”
Also at the center of Favreau’s anger are White House-led leaks suggesting he ghostwrote Clooney’s infamous op-ed, in which Clooney admitted to witnessing Biden’s cognitive decline and urged him to step down.
“That’s the rumor that a bunch of outlets were ready to go with until they finally reached to me,” Favreau said, laughing. “You have bigger f**king fish to fry. Why are you spending time on us for? Go f**king beat Donald Trump … or help your candidate be on message and deliver messages.”
“I mean, it was a well-written op-ed so it’s kind of a compliment,” Pfeiffer responded, seemingly mocking the rumors.
Pfeiffer later added, “They’re so focused on remaining the nominee that they’ve lost the thread that the goal is to be re-elected.”
The podcast co-hosts’ remarks come as Biden allies fight tooth and nail to quell mounting calls for Biden to pass the torch to a different nominee, as several polls suggest former President Donald Trump is cruising back to the White House.
Central to these polls is Biden’s evident cognitive decline, frequent gaffes, forced gait, inability to speak coherently and constant states of confusion.
After Harris implied on stage during a Democratic primary debate before the 2020 election that Joe is racist, Jill made it very clear that she didn’t like it.
“Go f*** yourself,” she said, as she admitted during a conference call with supporters, the Daily Mailreported.
Since then, the relationship between them started going downhill, never to recover.
The Mail’s political insiders said that Democratic advisors are now struggling to convince Jill that she should forget about her hatred toward Harris and make sure that Joe passes the mantle to her since the entire establishment now wants him to leave the race because of his disastrous performance during the last debate caused by dementia.
One former Democrat operative in Jill’s circle revealed that the long-seated animosity between Harris and Jill is “100%” because of part of Jill’s resistance to having Joe step aside since she became addicted to power because Joe currently listens only to her.
According to Jill, the only thing that could be worse than Joe leaving the White House is Harris becoming the president of the United States.
The hatred between the two started in June 2019, when Kamala was running against Joe and condemned him during a televised debate for opposing aspects of mandatory busing for school desegregation.
“Jill holds grudges. She doesn’t let things go and she has never forgiven Kamala for comments that some took to be allegations of racism,” one Democrat insider said.
That was the reason why Jill never wanted Harris to be Joe’s vice president in the first place, according to one insider.
“Jill was trying to stop Kamala joining the Biden ticket in 2020. She has hated her ever since the school bus thing. But she bit her tongue because Biden boxed himself into a corner by saying he would pick a black woman for his running mate,” the informants said.
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took climate activists to task on Thursday after they disrupted his speech in Washington, D.C.
Cruz was attending a dinner with the Fund for American Studies at the Four Seasons Hotel in the nation’s capital when a group of protesters took seats at the front of the stage and began chanting, “No fossil fuels! No fossil fuels!”
Cruz, unfazed by the heckling, countered with his chant, “More fossil fuels! More fossil fuels!” Shortly thereafter, Cruz began questioning the protestors on their pollution knowledge.
— Tiana Lowe Doescher (@TianaTheFirst) July 12, 2024
“Young man, which country is the biggest climate polluter on planet Earth? You have no idea,” Cruz asked. “You’re a protester and you’re utterly ignorant about what you’re protesting about. What’s the answer?”
Cruz then turned to the crowd to further mock the protesters, saying, “He’s literally protesting about climate, and he can’t tell you who the biggest polluter on planet Earth is.”
One protester incorrectly answered that the United States was the largest polluter.
“By the way, the answer is Communist China,” Cruz corrected while directly addressing the activists.
A fired-up Cruz continued, “Which country leads the world in reduction of carbon emissions? Do you know the answer to that? I’d give you a hint, it was the wrong answer you gave me before. It’s the United States of America!”
Earlier in his remarks, Cruz mocked the hecklers, asking, “Did none of you have the bravery to glue your hand to a bus or something? Like throw a can of soup on the Mona Lisa? No… you just gotta sit here in D.C.”
Cruz’s confrontation with the seemingly uninformed activists follows Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., scolding a climate activist who attempted to corner her with a “big oil” question for a viral video.
“I was wondering how much money it would take to buy you back from Big Oil?” the protestor asked, after falsely posing as a Britt fan and asking for a photo.
In response, Britt quickly placed her hand on the woman’s shoulder, and said, “Oh you! Look at how dishonest that was. You asked if you could take a selfie and now you’re asking questions.”
As Britt boarded a nearby elevator, she wittingly concluded, “Listen, we’ve got to be not only energy independent but energy dominant. We do it better than anybody.”
Subsequently, the video has since gone viral—but not for the reasons the “big oil” activist wanted.
Bless her heart. The U.S. must not just be energy independent, but energy dominant. Thanks to @sunrisemvmt for helping get my elevator pitch out.
(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Illegal aliens continue invading the United States through the southern border, which resulted in holding centers overflowing with them, even though the Biden administration tried to “crack down” on illegals crossing the border recently for the votes at this year’s election.
Internal agency data leaked to the New York Postrevealed that as of July 9, 2024, Border Patrol facilities in the San Diego region were at 150% capacity with more than 1,500 illegals in custody, even though holding centers in the region were meant to detain just 1,000 people.
The facilities were already above capacity before Biden started pretending that he cared about the country’s border by signing a June 4, 2024, executive order that was designed to limit the ability of many illegals to claim asylum while border crossings remain high.
However, there are major loopholes and exemptions in the order that allow illegals to continue to stay in the country, with one of the biggest loopholes being in San Diego.
Manny Bayon, National Border Patrol Council President for the San Diego sector, said that the San Diego-area holding facilities for illegals are still over-flowing.
Bayon then said that because illegals who cross into the San Diego region have a better chance of avoiding the rules and staying in the country due to an order, that agents should release illegals from more than 100 countries in Europe, Asia and Africa, the news source reported.
People from those countries are harder to deport because their home governments don’t readily accept deportation flights.
A border patrol agent said that many of the illegals coming through the San Diego sector are from “all over the world.”
“China, India — there’s a lot of Indians, there’s just like a s–t ton — and Central Americans,” the agent said, adding that, in practice, anyone who is pregnant or injured is also being released with a future court date, despite Biden’s recent order.
Illegals who arrive as unaccompanied children or those who come at a legal port of entry using the CBP One phone app are also exempt from the policy’s restrictions.
However, those who aren’t exempt from the executive order could also stay inside the country as long as they say that they are afraid of returning to their home country.
(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Okeefe Media Group recently released internal documents given by a Disney whistleblower that revealed the Walt Disney Company has a long history of pushing a pro-LGBT agenda onto children, specifically during “Pride” month.
EXCLUSIVE: An insider source at @Disney has provided @OKeefeMedia with startling internal documents and communications. These documents reveal Disney's promotion of Pride events for children that involve n*ked men, maps of Disney-sponsored pride parades nationwide, Disney’s… pic.twitter.com/W7qLbGUQff
The documents indicated that the far-left company promoted LGBT “children’s” events that featured naked adult males and “polysexual” online meetings.
The company also released a map of the all-ages “Pride” parades sponsored by them, with many of those parades including adult nudity and sexually charged performances.
The Walt Disney Company also partnered with “Zebra Youth,” a support program for LGBT homeless and at-risk people between the ages of 13 and 24.
The July 11, 2024, video was released as part of an exclusive series from James O’Keefe’s company that was called “The Disney Files,” an undercover investigation into Disney’s leftist internal communications apparatus that aims to indoctrinate children.
The whistleblower also revealed that there is a category designated to “Disney Pride” on the company’s employee Slack channel, which is utilized for internal communications.
Disney’s mobile products operations manager, Honi Harrison-Cheshire, promoted Seattle’s all-ages “Pride” Parade on the platform and encouraged people to register for it.
The parade, which was co-sponsored by the company, included adult male nudists on bikes and fully nude “transgenders” inappropriately making out while being naked in front of children.
Additionally, Disney will be hosting its own “Disney Pride” parades all around the country for the rest of the year.
The company also co-sponsored this year’s annual San Francisco “Pride” parade, which included public homosexual sex acts in front of attendees, among whom were children.
Aside from sexually grooming children, Disney also became more “LGBTQ-friendly,” offering employee medical benefits that cover the costs of body mutilation procedures and hosting “Name Change Clinics,” which is an employee workshop designed to teach someone how to change their name after “transitioning genders.”
In addition to that, Disney is also working on installing “gender-neutral” bathrooms at their resorts and theme parks in Anaheim, Calif., and Orlando, Fla., and offered to join “polyamorous swingers meet-up groups” hosted by members of the company.
(Arjun Singh, The Center Square) Congress’s job approval rating among voters in June was just 16%, one of the lowest in history. But not all members of Congress are equal, not in the eyes of a taxpayer-focused group that scored them on fiscal responsibility.
The National Taxpayers’ Union (NTU), a fiscally conservative taxpayer advocacy organization, released its annual list of “Taxpayer Scores” for members of the House of Representatives to assess their fiscal voting record. The scores, on a scale of 100, are assessed according to votes taken on spending, taxation, and borrowing, with members scored according to whether their vote supported a “pro-taxpayer” platform.
For 2023, the first session of the 118th Congress, the NTU assessed the House overall to have an average score of 43%. Among House Republicans, who hold the majority, the average score was 74%, while the average score was 11% among House Democrats.
“It is essential for Americans to be informed as to how their elected officials vote, not just what they say,” Pete Sepp, president of NTU, said in a statement to The Center Square. “Average citizens and families need to make fiscally sound decisions and we expected nothing less from Congress. NTU’s rating holds our lawmakers accountable.”
The highest-scoring member of the U.S. House was Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, a Republican who has criticized excessive government spending and who supported an effort to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson for bringing spending legislation to the floor. Massie was rated at 96% and given a “Taxpayers’ Friend Award” by the NTU, along with 37 of his Republican colleagues.
Not a single Democratic member was scored highly by the NTU. The lowest-scoring member in the House was Rep. Robert Cortez “Bobby” Scott, D-VA, who had a score of just 5%. During the fiscal 2024 appropriations process, Scott requested several million dollars’ worth of targeted spending measures, known as “earmarks,” to be added into appropriations bills.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-LA, was scored at 81%, while House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger, R-Texas, who oversaw the 2024 appropriations process, scored 68%. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y, by contrast, scored 10% while former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, scored 11%.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-MO, whose committee has jurisdiction over all taxation, scored at 77%.
Speaker Johnson did not receive a score as, by custom, the speaker usually doesn’t vote on routine bills and his vote is not recorded unless desired. Johnson was instrumental in the passage of two consolidated appropriations bills in March 2024 that funded the government, spending measures that were heavily criticized by fiscal conservatives.
Each vote taken was weighted according to its relative importance to fiscal responsibility as judged by NTU, with conservative legislation receiving a higher rating. The most heavily weighted vote was on the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, a partisan bill that would have raised the federal debt limit to avoid a default in exchange for heavy spending cuts.
Some members of Congress who received high scores touted their performance.
“Congresswoman Spartz was honored with Taxpayers’ Friend Award by National Taxpayers Union,” the Office of Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-IN, wrote on X.
(Elias Irizarry, Headline USA) WASHINGTON D.C.–A nonpartisan panel led by former President Donald Trump’s top intelligence official proposed forcing China to pay trillions of dollars in reparations in a new report released by the Heritage Foundation.
“It is the belief of this Commission that the Chinese government and its affiliates can be and should be held liable for damages to the United States and its people,” said the report, released Monday by the think-tank’s Non-Partisan Commission on China and COVID-19.
The nine-member commission, chaired by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, directly faulted the Chinese government for the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in $18 trillion damages in the U.S. alone.
Other notable members of the commission included:
Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Jamie Metzl, a former Democratic State Department official and prominent lab-leak proponent
At a panel discussion Monday, Ratcliffe and his fellow commissioners outlined the findings of the newly published report.
“All nine of us, both parties, unanimously, we are of the opinion that the most likely origin was a research-related incident,” Ratcliffe said.
China “took actions which are inexcusable—and for which they should be accountable—to destroy samples, to hide evidence, to jail journalists, to silence scientists, to obfuscate or refuse to participate in an honest investigation.”
Redfield received criticism from both the Right and Left during the pandemic. On one hand, he signed off on much of the CDC’s absurd—and, ultimately, ineffective—guidance for COVID prevention, including mask mandates and social distancing. That led to the closure of many schools and businesses.
However, Redfield said his difference of opinion on the origin of the virus, and his opposition to the controversial and risky research that likely led to its creation at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, resulted in him being shut out of many of the high level discussions about the pandemic as he jostled for influence with National Institutes of Health virologist Anthony Fauci and others.
“As a virologist, I’ve always felt that the origin of this virus was gain of function research and laboratory action,” Redfield stated.
“When a virus goes from animals to humans, it takes a long time for that virus to learn how to efficiently transmit human-to-human,” he added. “But when COVID came, it was immediately one of the most infectious viruses I’ve ever seen as a virologist.”
Redfield said that researchers now know that there are documents found from the Wuhan laboratory that acknowledged that laboratory scientists successfully learned how to teach the virus to infect human tissue, which backed his belief that the COVID-19 virus was engineered with the intention of infecting humans.
In seeking restitution from China, the commission reported that there would be substantial obstacles as a result of the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which was written to give immunity to foreign governments from the jurisdiction of U.S. federal and state courts.
The commission stated, though, that there were exceptions within FSIA that would permit legal action against China.
“The PRC’s acts and omissions that caused the global spread of COVID-19 were tortious, commercial, and nondiscretionary in nature, and they caused direct injury, property damage, and death within the United States,” the report argued. “Claims premised on conduct of these sorts fall within recognized exceptions to sovereign immunity.”
Additionally, the commission named as potential defendants several other parties: China Southern Airlines, China Eastern Airlines and Chinese National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm), as well as manufacturers of personal protective equipment.
They argued that negligence, liability for abnormally dangerous activities, public nuisance, anti-competitive behavior, fraudulent misrepresentation, as well as civil racketeering violations were all legitimate claims that could, in the future, be cited in court to support action against the Chinese government by American citizens.
In their conclusion, they made several recommendations for Congress to take in making sure that COVID-19 “never happens again.”
One such recommendation pushed for the creation of a bipartisan reparations and compensation task force to cover claims against China.
Others laid out paths the United States could take to hold China accountable and punish them for COVID-19, including economic sanctions on specific officials and entities that covered up COVID-19, as well as restricting all U.S. outbound investment into biotechnology.
“Across the world, the COVID-19 pandemic left 28 million persons dead, whole economies shattered, and the vulnerable impoverished—in addition to creating a mental health crisis,” the report concluded. “Better to take bold action now than to ask ourselves why we didn’t do more if an even deadlier pandemic emerges in the future.”
