Category Archives: China

Do You Recognize Chinese Propaganda?

Posted on by

Fake accounts, false news stories, bots and media paid by Chinese operatives. Sounds like Russia right? Same playbook, only perhaps more aggressive. As a public service, this article provides you as an internet user, a consumer of news and holding accounts on social media, be fair warned you could be vulnerable to Chinese propaganda.

(UPI) — The Trump administration on Monday designated four more major Chinese state-run media outlets as foreign missions for being propaganda mouthpieces of the Chinese Communist Party, a move that will likely worsen already strained relations between Washington and Beijing and attract retaliatory measures.

China Central Television, China News Service, the People’s Daily and the Global Times were all designated Monday as foreign missions as they are “substantially owned or effectively controlled” by the Chinese government, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a statement.

The companies will have to report the names of their staff and their real estate holdings to the Office of Foreign Missions within the State Department, treating the companies as arms of the Chinese government in the United States like foreign embassies or consulates.

“The decision to designate these entities is not based on any content produced by these entities, nor does it place any restrictions on what the designated entities may publish in the United States,” she said. “It simply recognizes them for what they are.” More here.

 

***

There is a backstory, a good one on how this came to be.

A radio station controlled by the Chinese Communist Party propaganda outlet Phoenix TV has been ordered by the Trump administration to cease its broadcasts within 48 hours.

Here’s how pro-China station Phoenix TV got into the White ... source

The Federal Communications Commission ruled on Monday that a Mexico-based radio station owned in part by Phoenix TV—one of the Communist regime’s leading propaganda organs—must end its broadcasts due to its failure to disclose its ties to China.

Prior to the FCC’s ruling, the station was exploiting a loophole that allows content produced in the United States to be broadcast from foreign radio towers, such as those in Mexico. Phoenix TV, which is headquartered in California, produced its content domestically and then used the more powerful Mexican station to broadcast across the U.S. border.

The FCC denied a license for that radio station, XEWW-AM, because it “failed to include in their application a key participant, Phoenix Radio, which produces the Mandarin programming in its studio,” the agency disclosed. Phoenix Radio, Phoenix TV’s radio affiliate, was using the station to broadcast Chinese propaganda across Southern California, in violation of FCC statutes.

Phoenix TV first found itself in Congress’s crosshairs earlier this year, after one of its reporters confronted President Donald Trump during a White House briefing about the coronavirus pandemic and Chinese government efforts to cover up the illness. The station’s presence at the White House generated concerns about the proliferation of Chinese state-controlled press organs in the United States.

The Mexican radio station failed to disclose Phoenix TV’s “extensive role” in producing content, an FCC spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon. “It was a violation of the Communications Act for that company, which has ties to the Chinese government, not to be included on the application filed with the Commission. Therefore, the application was deficient and was dismissed.”

Phoenix TV used Mexican radio towers to skirt U.S. laws barring the dissemination of foreign propaganda in America. The FCC’s ruling is a sign the Trump administration seeks to more aggressively police these types of outlets, which for years have operated with little oversight. Congress has moved in recent months to crack down on a range of Chinese broadcasters and social media accounts that help the Communist regime saturate the American marketplace with state-approved propaganda.

The Free Beacon first reported in April that Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) was leading a charge to see the Mexican station shut down over its ties to Phoenix TV. Cruz introduced legislation exposing how Phoenix TV used a series of corporate cutouts to purchase the Mexican radio station and use its airwaves to broadcast Communist propaganda in the United States. The legislation would have closed loopholes in the FCC’s statutes that permitted Phoenix TV to operate in this manner.

“Today’s decision sends an important message to the world that the U.S. will not allow China to exploit FCC loopholes and spread its propaganda over our airwaves,” Cruz told the Free Beacon. “More importantly, this decision is a critical step in countering the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to control what Americans see, hear, and ultimately think.”

The FCC ruling accuses XEWW-AM’s owners of trying to hide the station’s ties to Phoenix TV. The station’s license application, the FCC said, did not disclose Phoenix TV’s role in producing the station’s broadcasts. The license was rejected on this basis. While the station can resubmit its application at a later date, it is likely to be rejected due to mounting concerns about Phoenix TV’s distribution of Communist regime propaganda.

Cruz first raised concerns with the FCC in 2018, when the H&H Capital investment group purchased the Mexican station. H&H, Cruz said, is completely enmeshed in Phoenix TV’s operations. H&H is owned in large part by Vivian Huo, a U.S. citizen and Beijing native who formerly worked for several Chinese-run media outlets.

China Buying Private Schools in America

Posted on by

The death of knowledge and the death of outrage…..exactly who in government approves these transactions?

***

  • In December 2017, two different Chinese investment firms bought primary schools and at least one secondary school in the United States.
  • Foreign nationals can obtain F-1 visas to attend U.S. schools beginning in kindergarten and running through graduate and post-graduate education.
  • In 2018, 39,904 Chinese F-1 students were attending secondary schools in the United States.
  • The strong demand among Chinese nationals for a U.S. secondary education reportedly comes from their families’ belief that attending an American high school will increase the likelihood that those students will be subsequently accepted to U.S. colleges and universities.

CIS: An almost two-and-a half year-old article in China Daily detailed an interesting phenomenon: Chinese investors purchasing private K-12 schools in the United States “in the hopes of cashing in on Chinese students’ quest for admission into a US college.” That report not only highlights an interesting pathway for foreign students to obtain a student visa to attend U.S. colleges and universities, but it also shines a light on the F-1 nonimmigrant student visa program at the primary and secondary level.

The article explained that in December 2017, “Primavera Capital, a China-based private equity firm, paid about $500 million for the Stratford School system, which operates schools throughout California.” That same month, Newopen Group, a “Chinese education company”, bought Florida Preparatory Academy for an undisclosed amount.

Stratford School - Preschools - Santa Clara, CA - Reviews ... Santa Clara/ The Stratford School system website has a slogan on their home page: A CLASSROOM OF COLLABORATION CAN CHANGE THE WORLD. There are 25 campuses in California

According to its website, Primavera Capital Group, which has offices in Beijing and Hong Kong, has a heavy presence of Goldman Sachs alumni, many of whom themselves have degrees from elite American universities (including Harvard, Columbia, NYU, and my alma mater, the University of Virginia).

Newopen USA is described as “a subsidiary of the Chongqing, China, based Newopen Group”. LinkedIn describes a “Chongqing Newopen Education Group” as “the most influential and valuable education group in China”, which “manages 2 universities, 5 middle schools, 2 affiliated primary schools, 31 kindergartens” (Florida Preparatory Academy is not on the list).

The website for that organization is largely in Mandarin (the English-language version does not load), but the Google Translate version states that it was established in 1993 and “currently has 2 universities, 13 primary and secondary schools, [and] 31 kindergartens”; its educational sites include Los Angeles and Florida — logically Florida Preparatory Academy.

Stratford School’s website lists 30 separate locations, five in Southern California and 25 in the greater Bay Area (including in tech-heavy San Jose, Palo Alto, and San Francisco). Those locations offer differing levels of education, from pre-school through eighth grade (a high school is planned), as well as summer camps. Its curriculum “introduces learning and innovation skills through STEM based learning. Anchored in science and math, the STEM classroom emphasizes critical thinking, authentic problem solving, creativity, and innovation.”

Florida Preparatory Academy, “a coeducational college-prep school for grades 5-12” founded in 1961, describes itself as “a premier day and boarding school in Melbourne, Florida.” Among other programs (including an “English Language Program … designed for International Students that are learning English as a new language”), it offers a “unique dual enrollment opportunity at Florida Institute of Technology and Eastern Florida State College”.

Notably: “Any high school senior completing six or more credits at Florida Tech with a 3.0 overall GPA is guaranteed … [a]dmission to Florida Tech upon completion of the full-time undergraduate admission process.” Such admission would facilitate, if not guarantee, the extension of F-1 status for foreign students.

Florida Preparatory Academy is not cheap, at least for students who live there full time: seven-day boarding students (likely the vast majority of F-1s) pay $40,500 in tuition, room, and board (before uniforms). Day students, by comparison, only pay $14,200.

Returning to the China Daily article, I would note that a key point for the investments by Primavera and Newopen in those institutions is to tap into the market of parents in China who want to put their children on a path to higher education in the United States. That article notes: “The strong demand comes from the Chinese families’ belief that the experience at US secondary schools will increase their children’s chances of being accepted to US universities.”

Although we generally think of F-1 student visas in the context of colleges and universities, those visas are also available for foreign nationals to study in the United States at a private K-12 school, or a public high school, as well. Study at a public high school is limited to 12 months for an F-1, and the foreign student must reimburse the costs of tuition (dependents of F-1s, known as “F-2s”, can study wherever they like, including public school), but there is no limit on the amount of time that a foreign student can attend a private K-12 school.

The first step to obtaining that visa is acceptance by a school approved by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP, which is administered by ICE), followed by that school’s issuance of a Form I-20 and the filing of an application by the student at a U.S. embassy or consulate for an F-1 visa.

The list of SEVP certified schools runs 272 pages, and includes the middle schools run by Stratford Schools in Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Fremont, as well as Florida Preparatory Academy. Tuition at the three Stratford schools runs $23,510 per year, and there is no boarding option, raising the question of where F-1 middle school students live.

There are, by my count, at least 200 elementary schools on the list (the level of education offered for many is not entirely clear, and I am basing my count on the number identified as “elementary”) and at least 75 middle schools (again, they are not all identified as such, and there are likely many more).

The number of high schools is similarly not clear from the SEVP list (not all identify themselves as such), but one report stated that 2,800 U.S. high schools hosted international students in 2016.

How many Chinese students are in pre-college programs in the United States? I was unable to find the number of those at the primary school level, but the report, “Globally Mobile Youth: Trends in International Secondary Students in the US, 2013-2016”, from the Institute of International Education (IIE), states that in 2016, there were 59,392 secondary school students in the United States on F-1 visas (an additional 22,589 were exchange students on J-1s).

Of that number, 33,275 (56 percent) were from China. According to SEVP, by 2018 (the last year for which reporting was available) there were 39,904 F-1 students at the secondary school level from that country — an increase of almost 17 percent in two years.

Consistent with excerpts above from China Daily, the IIE report states: “A common perception among international secondary students and their families is that a U.S. educational experience at the secondary level will make them more competitive applicants to American colleges and universities.” Given the increase in F-1 secondary students from China, and the actions of Primavera Capital and Newopen Group, that perception is likely correct.

With respect to the fact that F-1 students at public high schools are limited to one year of study, the report notes that some “students may seek to transfer to a private school after completing their public school experience or come to a public school for just their senior year and then apply to a college or university in the United States.” And, relevant to the Florida Preparatory Academy/Florida Tech “dual enrollment opportunity”, the report states:

There have also been instances of higher education institutions establishing affiliated international high schools on their campuses to aid higher education recruitment. These expanding models widen the opportunities for international students to receive a U.S. high school education that provides a clear pathway to U.S. higher education.

In summary, F-1 student status is not limited to college and university students, but is available to foreign nationals beginning in kindergarten. For many foreign nationals — and in particular students from China — K-12 education in the United States, while an expensive endeavor, is a pathway to higher education. At least two different firms have put money on it.

Sanction China by Stopping World Bank Loans to CCP

Posted on by

Decoupling the United States from China is a convoluted and complicated process. Some lawmakers make it sound easy by just terminating manufacturing agreements by U.S. companies and bring it stateside. Ah but hold on…it is important to know some other details that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are not telling you.

Consider the items below:

1.  Commerce Department official warned Congress recently that China is raising billions of dollars in U.S. capital markets and the activity could undermine American security.

Nazak Nikakhtar, assistant secretary for international trade at the Commerce Department, testified last month that Chinese companies raised $48 billion from American capital markets from 2013 through the end of last year.

Ms. Nikakhtar told the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission that 172 Chinese companies in September were listed on the three largest U.S. exchanges — Nasdaq, the New York Stock Exchange and the NYSE American — with a total market capitalization of more than $1 trillion. More here.

Confucius Institutes and U.S. Exchange Programs: Public ...

2. Charles Lieber, the chair of Harvard University’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, and two Chinese nationals who were researchers at Boston University and a Boston hospital were charged by the U.S. Justice Department with lying about their purported links to the Chinese government. But hold on, it is much worse. China has a real impact on all levels of the U.S. education system. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a 96 page report describing the Confucius Institute and how those agreements work with domestic universities. Further, major universities failed to report the other monies they receive from China among other countries. It is shocking how foreign money has infiltrated the U.S. education system and to learn which country does what and how much, click here.

China moon landing: Spacecraft makes first landing on moon ...

3. China launched its Long March 5B rocket into space. This is an effort by China to build a modular space station. It did however fall out of orbit falling for the most part into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa near the Ivory Coast. Additionally, as China continues to launch at least 12 more space operations it already has landed on the dark side of the moon. China and Russia are in fact collaborating on lunar operations including for shared bases. Russia’s operations coordinating with China are centered and funded by Roscosmos for Space Activities and the Skulkovo Foundation. This is the foundation where Hillary Clinton created U.S. technology (Silicon Valley) and Skulkovo via the Clinton Foundation via a major donor known as Viktor Vekselberg. This is the other scandal of technology transfer(s) to rogue nations.

4. We are already somewhat versed in Chinese complicity in the pandemic and the World Health Organization but lets go to the World Bank shall we? As of early 2019, China was sitting on cash reserves of some $3 trillion. It is the world’s second-largest economy, behind the U.S. It directly lends more money to other nations each year than the $2 billion or so it borrows from the World Bank annually. The World Bank, based in Washington, D.C., was established after World War II to help European countries rebuild. Its mission has evolved over the years and is now to finance development in low- and middle-income countries with the goal of eliminating extreme poverty.

“From a pure economic vantage point, there is no good reason for the World Bank to continue making loans to China,” says Eswar Prasad, a professor of economics at Cornell University.

“The Chinese don’t need the money,” Prasad says. “There is a glaring optics problem.” He adds that the argument could be made that the money lent to China could be put to better use elsewhere.

And it’s not as if the World Bank has an infinite amount of money to parcel out. Its lending budget, drawn from reserves, donations and the interest it earns on capital, is limited. So a dollar lent to China is a dollar that is not available for a project somewhere else in the world. The Trump administration, which regularly beats up on China, accusing it of manipulating global trade rules for its own benefit, has blasted the World Bank for lending too much to China.

Prasad says the World Bank’s lending to China is becoming “untenable” and will have to stop fairly soon.

Bert Hofman, the World Bank’s country director for China, says the amount of money China is borrowing each year from the global bank is just a small fraction of what the country is investing each year in domestic programs. And he believes that a motivation for China’s borrowing goes beyond money.

“The reason they still borrow is because they feel that the expertise of the World Bank is valuable to them,” Hofman says.

World Bank loans come with advisers and auditors who help implement (and monitor) bank-funded projects.

China gets access to international experts. The World Bank remains engaged with China and is able to see how new projects play out in this booming middle-income country. Hofman sees it as a win-win.

Prasad agrees that there are still some good reasons for the World Bank to remain engaged with China. Many of the bank’s loans to China are for projects addressing climate change and mitigating pollution from the country’s booming factories.

“The risk the World Bank faces is that if it only lends to very poor countries, it might end up not having much of a role to play in the large, fast-growing emerging-market economies,” Prasad says. “So the World Bank, in a bid to remain relevant and push its agenda on issues such as climate change and social development, has continued to lend to China.” More here.

***

The World Bank said its board adopted a new plan to aid China with $1 billion to $1.5 billion in low-interest loans annually through June 2025, despite the objections of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and several U.S. lawmakers.

World Bank approves $300mn for agriculture reforms in ...

Mnuchin told a House Financial Services Committee hearing that the Treasury’s representative on the board had objected on to the plan on Wednesday, adding he wants the World Bank to “graduate” China from its concessional loan programs for low- and middle-income countries.

The five-year lending strategy plan was published on Thursday afternoon after the World Bank’s board “expressed broad support” for the multilateral development lender’s engagement in China’s structural and environmental reforms.

The World Bank said its lending would decline over the “country partnership framework” plan, in line with reformsagreed under a $13 billion capital increase agreed in 2018.

The World Bank loaned China $1.3 billion in the fiscal 2019 year ended June 30, down from about $2.4 billion during fiscal 2017. The new plan calls for lending to “gradually decline” from the previous five-year average of $1.8 billion.

“Lending levels may fluctuate up and down from year to year due to normal pipeline management based on project readiness,” the World Bank said in its plan.

*** So we have a collection of reparation options due to the pandemic when it comes to China, we have a building space battlefield, we have corruption within China and now we have the U.S. at major odds with the Chinese Communist Party’s in violation of the One Country, Two Systems Act of 1997 with regard to Hong Kong. Secretary of State Pompeo declared to Congress that Hong Kong was no longer autonomous with The CCP which is correct but this will spark continued hostilities between the two nations even as naval conflicts continue in the South China Sea.

None of this will be easy but the reader should know more details to assess what may be ahead in global relations.

 

Legislation to Regain US Control of Critical Minerals from China

Posted on by

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today introduced the Onshoring Rare Earths Act of 2020 or ORE Act, legislation to end U.S. dependence on China for rare earth elements and other critical minerals used to manufacture our defense technologies and high tech products by establishing a supply chain for these minerals in the U.S., including by requiring the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to source these minerals domestically.

Upon introducing the legislation, Sen. Cruz said:

“Our ability as a nation to manufacture defense technologies and support our military is dangerously dependent on our ability to access rare earth elements and critical minerals mined, refined, and manufactured almost exclusively in China. Much like the Chinese Communist Party has threatened to cut off the U.S. from life-saving medicines made in China, the Chinese Communist Party could also cut off our access to these materials, significantly threatening U.S. national security. The ORE Act will help ensure China never has that opportunity by establishing a rare earth elements and critical minerals supply chain in the U.S.”

*** Rare earth mineral deal inked by US and Australia — what ... photo

Noted by Forbes:

A whole slate of new bad behaviors by China’s repressive regime have been laid bare by the COVID-19 crisis. There were already plenty of complaints before the pandemic began, but the coronavirus seems to be supercharging the pressure on U.S. companies to reduce their Chinese sourcing. One of the biggest recent challenges in that regard has been China’s dominance in mining and processing critical rare earth minerals. These are vital building blocks for everything from smart phones, EV batteries and medical imaging machines to advanced defense weaponry, so our reliance on a less-than-friendly nation for our supply presents a huge political and economic risk. But right now China controls 90% of global rare earth production.

It’s amazing good fortune, then, that out in the barren scrub of Far West Texas 85 miles east of El Paso, an unassuming 1,250-tall mountain called Round Top holds the promise of making America largely self-sufficient in these critical minerals. The mountain contains five out of six light rare earths (such as neodymium), 10 out of 11 heavy rare earths (dysprosium, for example), and all five permanent magnet materials. What’s more, Round Top has large deposits of lithium, critical for batteries in EVs and power storage. More here.

See the U.S map here.

The global map is here.

According to the United States Geological Survey, as of 2018, China produced around 80% of world demand for rare earth metals (down from 95% in 2010). Their ores are rich in yttrium, lanthanum, and neodymium.

Since August of 2010, fears over Chinese dominance of crucial rare earth supplies have lingered as China restricted export quotas of the metals with no official explanation, immediately sparking debate over decentralization of world rare earth production.

Rare earth element mines, deposits, and occurrences photo

Great quantities of rare earth ores were found in California in 1949, and more are being sought throughout North America, but current mining is not significant enough to strategically control any portion of the global rare earths market (the Mountain Pass mine in California still has to ship its minerals to China to be processed).

Rare earths are traded on the NYSE in the form of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that represent a basket of supplier and mining stocks, as opposed to trading in the metals themselves. This is due to their rarity and price, as well as their almost strictly industrial consumption. Rare earth metals are not considered a good physical investment like precious metals, which hold low-tech intrinsic value.

*** How did this happen?

In part:

Economically, the biggest changes happened in the 1990s and early 2000s, starting when the United States conferred permanent “Most Favored Nation” status on China.

These decisions proved disastrous.

“Prior to that, we could only give China [Most Favored Nation status] one year at a time because we had a law that said you can’t give a communist country permanent [Most Favored Nation] trade treatment,” said Mulloy. “Each year, if China wasn’t behaving properly, we could take it away.”

“It was a terrible mistake to give it up because we were unable to manage or govern the Chinese after that,” agreed Halper.

The next shoe to drop came with China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization.

The U.S. only approved China’s entry on the condition that we could continue to punish what we considered unfair trade practices by China or anyone else. But when that position was challenged within the World Trade Organization, we agreed not to penalize anyone unless we won a dispute at the World Trade Organization.

We handcuffed ourselves and we’ve been handcuffed ever since. What was once an $80 billion trade deficit is now at $4.5 trillion. It should have been foreseeable, but Wall Street and multinational corporations, which foresaw big returns from China, lobbied Congress hard to get these things approved.

 

Pandemic Playbook Faults

Posted on by

Several weeks ago, Politico published an article describing how President Trump failed to adhere to the 2016 Pandemic Playbook complete with the document itself. That is found here.

Here's the Pandemic Playbook That Trump Ignored

After it was brought to my attention, I read it thoroughly and began to break it down to determine the failures and faults. NBC News has picked up the same blame mission posted today.

The summary is noted below.

Pandemic Playbook Faults

It begins with Congress when in the funding process of 2015 to 2016 or even to 2017, appropriations were never allocated to specific pandemic outbreaks other than the normal funding architecture for what is known as ICBRNR. This includes the omission of the Strategic National Stockpile inventory that was not adequate for a national outbreak, yet is annexed by individual state stockpiles including medical facility inventories. FAULT 1

The World Health Organization is the lead global organization of which the United States is the largest financial contributor to provide recommendations from assessments that include epidemiology, humanitarian/development/ public health impact, transmission/outbreak/potential for public concern. WHO was willingly prevented from doing this by the Chinese Communist Party.

Dr. Mike Ryan, WHO’s top emergencies expert, asked about an international business meeting held at a Singapore hotel on Jan 20-22, said it did not appear to have spread the virus widely.

“No, I think it is way too early and much more of an exaggeration to consider the Singapore conference event a ‘super-spreading event’,” Ryan said. ( Reuters: February 10, 2020)   FAULT 2

The WHO is to advise on travel, perform surveillance, infection control, tender medical cure(s) to the host country. After this advise and action by WHO, U.S. Health and Human Services then based on WHO assessments and recommendations, launches the National Emergency Action Center. WHO finally under pressure from the international community, admitted an error in its assessment of the Wuhan Laboratory on January 28, 2020. FAULT 3 (2 days later, President Trump restricted/halted flights from China into the United States).

Meanwhile, the United States through the U.S. State Department had several operations launched to address the potential global outbreak and that included running private flights to various locations around the globe to retrieve American citizens and bring them home. Further, earnest offers were being provided to Wuhan and Beijing by the USG to send in virologist and medical personnel to examine research protocols, gather lab samples, perform specimen sharing, collaborate on pharmaceuticals and treatments as well as to review global stockpiles, medical treatment infrastructure (read hospitals) and to offer proposed budget items to the U.S. Congress. Not only did were these offers extended to China, but to any other nation that was lacking in resources including Italy and Iran. FAULT 4 for China

Meanwhile as the Senate impeachment hearings began on January 16, 2020, the Trump administration launched the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29, 2020. The first known case of COVID -19 was reported in Washington State on January 20, 2020 as a 35 year old man had just returned from Wuhan on January 15. It was not until March 11, 2020 that WHO declared COVID -19 a pandemic. FAULT 5

As for all the other U.S. Federal agencies, they take the lead from HHS which takes the lead from WHO. The number of Federal agencies is substantial and not only do they include the normal well known agencies, they also include the Veterans Administration, USAID, Office of Global Affairs, embassies, FBI, CIA, GOARN otherwise the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network. There of course is the CDC with clinical trial research papers, various trial invitations, there is the Customs and Border Patrol and the U.S. Coast Guard for cross border travel and sea travel, the FAA and the branches of the U.S. military. Orchestrate all that for the benefit of the state Governors who hold the most significant power and responsibility when outbreaks occur. It is the Federal government that only provides guidance and assistance as a multi-state event occurs.

This summary comes from reading the Politico article on how President Trump failed the Pandemic Playbook. That is hardly the case if one actually reads the whole playbook. After the 2016 playbook was authored and published in 2015 for 2016, did Congress standup a hearing to determine funding specific to a pandemic? The playbook recommended early budget and financial analysis and supplemental funding from Congress. Did that happen? NO Fault 6.

There is more but based on the items in the playbook, it was done by committee as a result of the Ebola outbreak in 2014. The playbook per the text is merely a checklist for domestic and international guidance.