Newark mayor returns to immigration detention center days after trespassing arrest
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — Newark Mayor Ras Baraka briefly returned Tuesday to the gates of the federal immigration detention center where he was arrested last week on trespassing charges.
Baraka, a Democrat running for governor in the June 10 primary, was turned away from Delaney Hall, the facility where he was arrested Friday. He departed and stayed about a half hour away from the building, according to NJ.com.
Witnesses said the arrest last week came after Baraka attempted to join three members of New Jersey's congressional delegation, Reps. Robert Menendez, LaMonica McIver, and Bonnie Watson Coleman, in attempting to enter the facility.
Baraka, an outspoken opponent of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown and vocal opponent of the facility's opening, faces a court hearing on the trespassing charge on Thursday. He has denied the trespassing charge
It wasn't immediately clear how Baraka's appearance at the gates Tuesday differed from Friday when he was arrested. He denied being on the detention facility's property, which is run by private prison operator Geo Group. Alina Habba, interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, said on the social platform X that Baraka trespassed there again.
In video of the Friday altercation shared with The Associated Press, a federal official in a jacket with the logo of the Homeland Security Investigations can be heard telling Baraka he could not enter the facility because 'you are not a Congress member.'
Baraka then left the secure area, rejoining protesters on the public side of the gate. Video showed him speaking through the gate to a man in a suit, who said: 'They're talking about coming back to arrest you.'
'I'm not on their property. They can't come out on the street and arrest me,' Baraka replied.
Minutes later several ICE agents, some wearing face coverings, surrounded him and others on the public side. As protesters cried out, 'Shame,' Baraka was dragged back through the gate in handcuffs.
Delaney Hall is a two-story building next to a county prison and formerly operated as a halfway house. In February, ICE awarded a 15-year contract to The Geo Group Inc. to run the detention center. Geo valued the contract at $1 billion, in an unusually long and large agreement for ICE.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
22 minutes ago
As a generation of gay and lesbian people ages, memories of worse — and better — times swirl
WASHINGTON -- David Perry recalls being young and gay in 1980s Washington D.C. and having 'an absolute blast.' He was fresh out of college, raised in Richmond, Virginia, and had long viewed the nation's capital as 'the big city' where he could finally embrace his true self. He came out of the closet here, got a job at the National Endowment for the Arts where his boss was a gay Republican, and 'lost my virginity in D.C. on August 27, 1980,' he says, chuckling. The bars and clubs were packed with gay men and women — Republican and Democrat — and almost all of them deep in the closet. 'There were a lot of gay men in D.C., and they all seemed to work for the White House or members of Congress. It was kind of a joke. This was pre-Internet, pre-Facebook, pre-all of that. So people could be kind of on the down-low. You would run into congresspeople at the bar,' Perry says. 'The closet was pretty transparent. It's just that no one talked about it.' He also remembers a billboard near the Dupont Circle Metro station with a counter ticking off the total number of of AIDS deaths in the District of Columbia. 'I remember when the number was three,' says Perry, 63. Now Perry, a public relations professional in San Francisco, is part of a generation that can find itself overshadowed amidst the after-parties and DJ sets of World Pride, which wraps up this weekend with a two-day block party on Pennsylvania Avenue. Advocates warn of a quiet crisis among retirement-age LGBTQ+ people and a community at risk of becoming marginalized inside their own community. 'It's really easy for Pride to be about young people and parties,' says Sophie Fisher, LGBTQ program coordinator for Seabury Resources for Aging, a company that runs queer-friendly retirement homes and assisted-living facilities and which organized a pair of Silver Pride events last month for LGBTQ+ people over age 55. These were 'the first people through the wall' in the battle for gay rights and protections, Fisher says. Now, 'they kind of get swept under the rug.' The challenges and obstacles for elderly LGBTQ+ people can be daunting. 'We're a society that really values youth as is. When you throw in LGBTQ on top of that, it's a double whammy,' says Christina Da Costa of the group SAGE — Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders. 'When you combine so many factors, you have a population that's a lot less likely to thrive than their younger brethren.' Older LGBTQ+ people are far more likely to have no contact with their family and less likely to have children to help care for them, Da Costa says. Gay men over 60 are the precise generation that saw their peer group decimated by AIDS. The result: chronic loneliness and isolation. 'As you age, it becomes difficult to find your peer group because you don't go out to bars anymore,' says Yvonne Smith, a 73-year-old D.C. resident who moved to Washington at age 14. 'There are people isolated and alone out there.' These seniors are also often poorer than their younger brethren. Many were kicked out of the house the moment they came out of the closet, and being openly queer or nonbinary could make you unemployable or vulnerable to firing deep into the 1990s. 'You didn't want to be coming out of a gay bar, see one of your co-workers or one of your students,' Smith says. 'People were afraid that if it was known you were gay, they would lose their security clearance or not be hired at all.' In April, founders cut the ribbon on Mary's House, a new 15-unit living facility for LGBTQ+ seniors in southeast Washington. These kind of inclusive senior-care centers are becoming an increasing priority for LGBTQ+ elders. Rayceen Pendarvis, a D.C. queer icon, performer and presenter, says older community members who enter retirement homes or assisted-living centers can face social isolation or hostility from judgmental residents. 'As we age, we lose our peers. We lose our loved ones and some of us no longer have the ability to maintain our homes,' says Pendarvis, who identifies as 'two-spirit' and eschews all pronouns. 'Sometimes they go in, and they go back into the closet. It's very painful for some.' Perry and others see a clear divide between their generation and the younger LGBTQ+ crowd. Younger people, Perry says, drink and smoke a lot less and do much less bar-hopping in the dating-app age. Others can't help but gripe a bit about how these youngsters don't know how good they have it. 'They take all these protections for granted,' Smith says. The younger generation 'got comfortable,' Pendarvis says, and sometimes doesn't fully understand the multigenerational fight that came before. 'We had to fight to get the rights that we have today,' Pendarvis said. 'We fought for a place at the table. We CREATED the table!' Now that fight is on again as President Donald Trump's administration sets the community on edge with an open culture war targeting trans protections and drag shows, and enforcing a binary view of gender identity. The struggle against that campaign may be complicated by a quiet reality inside the LGBTQ+ community: These issues remain a topic of controversy among some LGBTQ+ seniors. Perry said he has observed that some older lesbians remain leery of trans women; likewise, he said, some older gay men are leery of the drag-queen phenomenon. 'There is a good deal of generational sensitivity that needs to be practiced by our older gay brethren,' he says. 'The gender fluidity that has come about in the last 15 years, I would be lying if I said I didn't have to adjust my understanding of it sometimes.' Despite the internal complexities, many are hoping to see a renewed sense of militancy and street politics in the younger LGBTQ+ generation. Sunday's rally and March for Freedom, starting at the Lincoln Memorial, is expected to be particularly defiant given the 2025 context. 'I think we're going to see a whole new era of activism,' Perry says. 'I think we will find our spine and our walking shoes – maybe orthopedic – and protest again. But I really hope that the younger generation helps us pick up this torch.'
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Cuts to SNAP Target a Federal Program That Actually Works
Of all the cuts in the budget reconciliation bill working its way through Congress, few make less sense than those aimed at the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has been feeding the nation's poor for decades. Fully 42 million people rely on SNAP's modest benefits to feed themselves and their children — 1 in every 8 Americans. Under the proposed cuts, 4 million would lose all or part of their benefits.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
