I want to describe something very disturbing that I’ve seen lately in issuances from the federal government: the repeated, false descriptions of straightforward agency action in response to COVID-19 as attributable to President Trump’s “bold,” “aggressive,” and “rapid” action.

In this thread, I will provide examples of what I mean. These examples all come from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

I am a lawyer and have worked with state Medicaid programs, in one way or another, since 2006.* In those almost 14 years, I have never seen anything like this.

* This thread represents my own views and observations, not those of my employer. I put this thread together after hours and am posting as a concerned citizen representing only myself.

Example 1—March 17—CMS cites President Trump’s “bold action” in declaring a national emergency.

Was it bold? Or just the bare minimum we could have expected from our president? Why does the national emergency declaration need to be characterized at all? Just tell us that it happened and what it means for us.

Example 2—March 19—CMS again cites President Trump’s “bold action” in declaring a national emergency.

Example 3—March 19—CMS moves on to calling it a “bold move” and says that the administration is taking “aggressive efforts against COVID-19.”

Maybe we have different definitions of “aggressive.” I don’t think it’s a fair way to describe denial, delay, and lack of coordination (except where coordination is aimed at creating confusion and undermining state efforts to fend for themselves). Maybe aggressive racism counts?

Example 4—March 22—we’re back to “bold action.”

Example 5—March 24—and now we’re back to the “Trump Administration’s aggressive moves” to address COVID-19.

Example 6—March 30—more about the administration’s “aggressive efforts.”

Example 7—April 3—again with the “aggressive efforts.” Do you feel taken care of?

Example 8—April 20—now the administration’s efforts are “rapid and aggressive.”

Rapid!!

"It may never be known how many thousands of deaths, or millions of infections, might have been prevented with a response that was more coherent, urgent and effective." https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/04/04/coronavirus-government-dysfunction/?arc404=true

One or two instances of this kind of partisan cheerleading would be bad. For it to appear at the head of every other issuance is a disgrace.

I’m not making a legal argument here—though maybe those familiar with the Hatch Act and related authorities could chime in. My concerns are more that all these canned paeans (a) get folks’ hackles up and (b) may be intended to do so for nefarious reasons.

On (a): Most of us did not vote for this president. But even many who did now disapprove of his handling of the pandemic. I’m guessing that the transparent falsehoods don’t sit well even with them.

On (b): We have norms for a reason. Avoiding unnecessary partisan branding of straightforward, nonpartisan government actions is a good thing. It helps us feel that our government is acting for all of us, no matter our own affiliations.

That’s why the breach of this norm could be bad news. It undermines our trust in a square-dealing govt. If they distort in such obvious + craven ways, what other misfeasance is happening behind the scenes? If one were trying to cultivate distrust in govt, this could be a tool....

To be clear, I don’t think there is bad behavior behind the scenes at CMS—I just think that what we’re seeing here (presumably tacked on by PR teams at press time) could create that impression.

As far as I can tell, the folks who run these programs are doing their darndest to keep them running, and running well. CMS staff up and down the line—and in regional offices—have been unfailingly committed and available to provide guidance and support.

If I were them, I would object to having all my good work tarnished as it has been.