After President Donald Trump sent out a tweet this past weekend that included a suggestion to fire one of the most recognizable and trusted names on his coronavirus task force, a Democratic senator hopes to pass legislation to prevent him from doing so without just cause or oversight.
Trump’s tweet included the hashtag #FireFauci, a reference to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The hashtag came from a different user and was in reference to a statement in which Fauci suggested earlier action would have prevented a number of unnecessary COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.
Fauci and Trump have disagreed on a number of subjects, including on when it might be appropriate to suspend stay-in-place orders meant to prevent the spread of the disease. Trump is seemingly adamant about wanting to “reopen” the economy by May 1, while Fauci, in a recent interview, has argued that “the virus decides” when it’s right to get things back to where they were before.
Because the president’s tweet suggested Fauci should get fired, many started to worry that his termination was imminent. Trump and other members of the administration put those rumors to rest on Monday.
“This media chatter is ridiculous. President Trump is not firing Dr. Fauci,” deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said.
Still, there’s reason to be skeptical of those assurances — Trump has often clashed with other members of his administration, then said he wasn’t going to fire them, only to do so shortly after. Such was the case with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whom Trump said in December 2017 was not getting fired, in spite of reports that the two were not getting along.
“He’s not leaving and while we disagree on certain subjects, (I call the final shots) we work well together and America is highly respected again!” Trump wrote in a tweet at the time.
Three months later, Tillerson was indeed fired.
Worries over another instance like this happening led Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts to author legislation intended to limit the president’s firing power of people in positions like Fauci’s. It’s important to protect such people, Markey said in a statement, because they provide the president and the American people with truthful assessments, and they shouldn’t be terminated just for doing so.
“Trump has an allergy to both — science and the truth,” Markey explained. “Our response to the coronavirus crisis must be based on science, on data, and on the truth. We cannot allow Donald Trump to silence Dr. Fauci or any other government scientists.”
“If Donald Trump doesn’t like science-based evidence because it doesn’t support his partisan, fact-free view of the world, he cannot be permitted to silence the truth-tellers,” Markey added.
The bill would afford National Institutes of Health (NIH) directors’ jobs the same protections as similar posts in other governmental agencies where there are tighter restrictions on the president’s ability to fire people, such as the Federal Trade Commission.
In short, a president couldn’t fire a health expert like Fauci for any old reason. Just cause must be provided, per Markey’s bill.
According to the legislation, directors of the NIH could only be fired “on the basis of malfeasance by, neglect of office by, or incapacity of the director” in their role.
It’s unclear whether the bill has a chance at passage at this time in the Senate, which is controlled by a Republican Party that is generally supportive of preserving this president’s powers. At the same time, however, Fauci has tremendous approval ratings among the American public, and opposition to a bill protecting his job may be a mistake, politically speaking.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.