Tensions continue to simmer between Russia and the West, amid possibilities of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the latest, the Western allies rejected Russia's attempt at thwarting Ukraine's ambition of joining the NATO alliance.

Russia demands negotiations with US, another round of Biden-Putin talks?

Tornadoes destroyed everything in their path as 30 tornadoes rip through 6 US states. The worst tornado strike in Kentucky history.

The worst tornado in Kentucky history

Visuals from the aftermath of Tornadoes emerge. A trail of destruction that battered several US states have now claimed over 100 lives.

Tornadoes leave a trail of destruction in US states as fatalities rise over 100

A swarm of tornadoes has ravaged 6 US states, with over 100 people feared dead. US President Joe Biden has approved the emergency declaration of aids for the affected states.

Over 100 feared dead as multiple tornadoes rip through 6 US states

The request for information seemed mundane enough — the kind of thing bank regulators put out occasionally in the course of their duties.

Its intent, though, was anything but.

On Thursday, two board members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced a notice seeking public comment on the subject of bank mergers. The notice wasn’t actually on the FDIC’s own website. Soon afterward, the FDIC issued a statement that it had not approved any such request.

The standoff was a small sign of a bigger rift brewing at the FDIC, which has a hand in overseeing all U.S. banks but focuses closely on the smallest ones. The chair of the FDIC, Jelena McWilliams, is a Republican and a Trump appointee — one of the few remaining in an alphabet soup of federal bank regulators that includes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The others on the FDIC board — including Martin J. Gruenberg, a longtime member of the FDIC board, and Rohit Chopra, the newly confirmed director of the consumer bureau — are Democrats. And by posting a notice Thursday without McWilliams' approval, they took a step to assert their power over the organization she leads.

Their ultimate goal, experts say, is to paint McWilliams' resistance to posting the notice as justification for gaining control of the board and potentially even removing her.

“This is the first shot across the bow, seeing what the chairman’s response might be,” said Todd Phillips, a director at the progressive think tank the Center for American Progress, who has argued that Democrats should take control of the FDIC’s board away from McWilliams. “If they do end up being victorious on this issue, I think we’ll see the progressive directors throwing their weight around to move the FDIC in a direction that it hasn’t been in the past few years.”

On Thursday and Friday, progressives took pains to emphasize that the FDIC’s move was not simply a power grab and that they really did care about bank mergers.

“The FDIC has a responsibility to make sure that banking markets are healthy and competitive,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, chair of the Senate Banking Committee. He endorsed the board’s move.

The FDIC is governed by a five-member board whose members serve six-year terms. Its political makeup is supposed to generally allow input from both parties. At any time, a fully seated board will consist of two Republicans, two Democrats and a chair appointed by the president for a five-year term. One of the five seats is currently empty; the others are held by McWilliams, Gruenberg, Chopra and another bank regulator, the acting comptroller of the currency, Michael Hsu, also a Democrat.

Under McWilliams, the FDIC has adhered to Republican ideological lines on topics such as climate change and a general tendency to let banks take on more risk while holding less capital in reserve. If she left, the FDIC would very likely embrace President Joe Biden’s agenda, which involves shifting the federal government’s stance on big issues like climate change and income inequality.

In December 2020, after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election, McWilliams rushed through a change to an FDIC rule governing certain bank deposits. She circulated the final version of the proposal at midnight on the day before the board had to vote on it. Once Biden was able to make appointments to the FDIC board, the rule would not have had the votes to succeed.

And in late October, she abstained from a vote on adopting a report on the risks climate change poses to the U.S. financial system by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a body composed of the heads of various financial regulators that was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. McWilliams said she did not think the oversight council’s staff had been given enough time to research and write the report. But her decision was widely viewed as an indication that she would continue to remain loyal to Republicans.

The FDIC board members’ internal disagreement spilled into public view Thursday afternoon after Gruenberg, Chopra and Hsu voted over email to produce a request for public comment on the subject of bank mergers — and then posted their notice on the website of the consumer bureau, which Chopra runs.

“Although there has been a significant amount of consolidation in the banking sector over the last thirty years, fueled in large part by mergers and acquisitions, there has not been a significant review of the implementation of the Bank Merger Act by the agencies in that time,” the board members wrote at the beginning of their request.

The trio argued that the FDIC had contributed to the overall instability of the banking system when, in 2008 and 2009, it encouraged regional banks to buy up smaller institutions that had failed as a result of the global financial crisis.

Then came the fireworks. The FDIC’s public affairs office, which McWilliams controls, released a statement:

“Earlier today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) posted on its website a document, purportedly approved by the FDIC, requesting comment on bank mergers,” the statement, which was not attributed to any person, said. “No such document has been approved by the FDIC.”

For several weeks, McWilliams and her staff had been privately trying to counteract Chopra and Gruenberg, according to two people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. After learning of the effort to create a bank mergers public information request, McWilliams proposed an alternative text for the document, the people said, which the other board members quickly rejected.

When the voting process for the proposal began in late November, McWilliams did not vote, claiming that the process had violated procedure and no vote would be valid, the people said.

On Thursday, senior FDIC officials said they would not complete the process needed to make the information request official. They said the move by the two Democrats did not follow proper procedure and was therefore invalid.

Gruenberg disagreed.

“It is clear under the statute that the majority of the FDIC board of directors has authority to place items on the agenda for Board meetings and, alternatively, to circulate and act on notational votes, to implement actions of the board,” he said in a statement emailed to journalists Thursday. “No individual member of the Board may override the authority of the majority.”

An OCC spokesperson declined to speak directly about the vote, saying only that Hsu wanted to “work collaboratively with other regulators” on bank merger issues.

The two people familiar with the matter said that Chopra and Gruenberg would most likely have to sue McWilliams if they want to advance the matter further.

Hours after the two statements came out, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, the highest-ranking Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee, called the move a “failed, publicity-seeking attempted coup.”

Another Republican on the committee, Mike Crapo of Idaho, said in a post on Twitter on Friday that the progressive board members’ actions were “illegitimate.”

Norbert Michel, a director at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, said it was not clear that McWilliams' refusal to go along with the bank merger information request would even count as justification for firing her.

“The statute, in terms of getting her out, and getting her staff out, says you have to have no confidence that she will implement what she’s required to implement,” Michel said. The current situation did not count because it was not a directive from Biden, he said. Not even the Financial Stability Oversight Council climate report, Michel said, contained enough concrete policy prescriptions to make it count as something McWilliams was refusing to carry out.

The request for information seemed mundane enough — the kind of thing bank regulators put out occasionally in the course of their duties. Its intent, though, was anything but.

The request for information seemed mundane enough — the kind of thing bank regulators put out occasionally in the course of their duties. Its intent, though, was anything but. On Thursday, two board members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced a notice seeking public comment on the subject of bank mergers. The notice wasn’t actually on the FDIC’s own website. Soon afterward, the FDIC issued a statement that it had not approved any such request. The standoff was a small sign of a bigger rift brewing at the FDIC, which has a hand in overseeing all U.S. banks but focuses closely on the smallest ones. The chair of the FDIC, Jelena McWilliams, is a Republican and a Trump appointee — one of the few remaining in an alphabet soup of federal bank regulators that includes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The others on the FDIC board — including Martin J. Gruenberg, a longtime member of the FDIC board, and Rohit Chopra, the newly confirmed director of the consumer bureau — are Democrats. And by posting a notice Thursday without McWilliams' approval, they took a step to assert their power over the organization she leads. Their ultimate goal, experts say, is to paint McWilliams' resistance to posting the notice as justification for gaining control of the board and potentially even removing her. “This is the first shot across the bow, seeing what the chairman’s response might be,” said Todd Phillips, a director at the progressive think tank the Center for American Progress, who has argued that Democrats should take control of the FDIC’s board away from McWilliams. “If they do end up being victorious on this issue, I think we’ll see the progressive directors throwing their weight around to move the FDIC in a direction that it hasn’t been in the past few years.” On Thursday and Friday, progressives took pains to emphasize that the FDIC’s move was not simply a power grab and that they really did care about bank mergers. “The FDIC has a responsibility to make sure that banking markets are healthy and competitive,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, chair of the Senate Banking Committee. He endorsed the board’s move. The FDIC is governed by a five-member board whose members serve six-year terms. Its political makeup is supposed to generally allow input from both parties. At any time, a fully seated board will consist of two Republicans, two Democrats and a chair appointed by the president for a five-year term. One of the five seats is currently empty; the others are held by McWilliams, Gruenberg, Chopra and another bank regulator, the acting comptroller of the currency, Michael Hsu, also a Democrat. Under McWilliams, the FDIC has adhered to Republican ideological lines on topics such as climate change and a general tendency to let banks take on more risk while holding less capital in reserve. If she left, the FDIC would very likely embrace President Joe Biden’s agenda, which involves shifting the federal government’s stance on big issues like climate change and income inequality. In December 2020, after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election, McWilliams rushed through a change to an FDIC rule governing certain bank deposits. She circulated the final version of the proposal at midnight on the day before the board had to vote on it. Once Biden was able to make appointments to the FDIC board, the rule would not have had the votes to succeed. And in late October, she abstained from a vote on adopting a report on the risks climate change poses to the U.S. financial system by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a body composed of the heads of various financial regulators that was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. McWilliams said she did not think the oversight council’s staff had been given enough time to research and write the report. But her decision was widely viewed as an indication that she would continue to remain loyal to Republicans. The FDIC board members’ internal disagreement spilled into public view Thursday afternoon after Gruenberg, Chopra and Hsu voted over email to produce a request for public comment on the subject of bank mergers — and then posted their notice on the website of the consumer bureau, which Chopra runs. “Although there has been a significant amount of consolidation in the banking sector over the last thirty years, fueled in large part by mergers and acquisitions, there has not been a significant review of the implementation of the Bank Merger Act by the agencies in that time,” the board members wrote at the beginning of their request. The trio argued that the FDIC had contributed to the overall instability of the banking system when, in 2008 and 2009, it encouraged regional banks to buy up smaller institutions that had failed as a result of the global financial crisis. Then came the fireworks. The FDIC’s public affairs office, which McWilliams controls, released a statement: “Earlier today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) posted on its website a document, purportedly approved by the FDIC, requesting comment on bank mergers,” the statement, which was not attributed to any person, said. “No such document has been approved by the FDIC.” For several weeks, McWilliams and her staff had been privately trying to counteract Chopra and Gruenberg, according to two people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. After learning of the effort to create a bank mergers public information request, McWilliams proposed an alternative text for the document, the people said, which the other board members quickly rejected. When the voting process for the proposal began in late November, McWilliams did not vote, claiming that the process had violated procedure and no vote would be valid, the people said. On Thursday, senior FDIC officials said they would not complete the process needed to make the information request official. They said the move by the two Democrats did not follow proper procedure and was therefore invalid. Gruenberg disagreed. “It is clear under the statute that the majority of the FDIC board of directors has authority to place items on the agenda for Board meetings and, alternatively, to circulate and act on notational votes, to implement actions of the board,” he said in a statement emailed to journalists Thursday. “No individual member of the Board may override the authority of the majority.” An OCC spokesperson declined to speak directly about the vote, saying only that Hsu wanted to “work collaboratively with other regulators” on bank merger issues. The two people familiar with the matter said that Chopra and Gruenberg would most likely have to sue McWilliams if they want to advance the matter further. Hours after the two statements came out, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, the highest-ranking Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee, called the move a “failed, publicity-seeking attempted coup.” Another Republican on the committee, Mike Crapo of Idaho, said in a post on Twitter on Friday that the progressive board members’ actions were “illegitimate.” Norbert Michel, a director at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, said it was not clear that McWilliams' refusal to go along with the bank merger information request would even count as justification for firing her. “The statute, in terms of getting her out, and getting her staff out, says you have to have no confidence that she will implement what she’s required to implement,” Michel said. The current situation did not count because it was not a directive from Biden, he said. Not even the Financial Stability Oversight Council climate report, Michel said, contained enough concrete policy prescriptions to make it count as something McWilliams was refusing to carry out.

How bank regulators are trying to oust a Trump holdover

The president of the United States has commenced his ambitious democracy summit, it's a two-day long virtual affair with leaders from over 100 democracies logging in for their speeches. On day one, Joe Biden called on countries to make concrete commitments to reaffirm their democratic values. WION's correspondent Susan Tehrani brings in more on this.

US Prez Joe Biden hosts summit for democracy, PM Narendra Modi to deliver speech

US President Biden and Russian President Putin conducted summit talks over a video link on Tuesday which lasted for two hours.

The White House said President Biden "voiced deep concerns" over Russia's escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine.

Biden told the Russian president that the US and its allies would respond with "strong economic and other measures in the event of military escalation."

Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy, the White House added.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ahead-of-biden-putin-virtual-summit-russia-slams-us-move-to-boycott-beijing-winter-olympics-434860">Also Read:&nbsp;Ahead of Biden-Putin virtual summit, Russia slams US move to boycott Beijing Winter Olympics</a>

The two leaders also decided to follow up on development in Ukraine in coordination with allies and partners. &nbsp;

Biden and Putin also discussed US-Russia dialogue on strategic stability, ransomware including joint work on regional issues including Iran. &nbsp;

The White House added that President Biden would call US allies including Britain, France, Germany and Italy after talks with the Russian president.

The talks took place amid tensions between Russia and Ukraine with Russian troops reportedly amassed at the border. President Putin has repetedly&nbsp;denied Russia intends to invade Ukraine while asserting that the country's troops can move around freely inside their territory.

Western powers in the past one month have repeatedly warned Russia over escalation of tensions with Ukraine.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Agencies)

US President Biden and Russian President Putin conducted summit talks over a video link on Tuesday which lasted for two hours. The White House said President Biden "voiced deep concerns" over Russia's escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine.

US President Biden and Russian President Putin conducted summit talks over a video link on Tuesday which lasted for two hours. The White House said President Biden "voiced deep concerns" over Russia's escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine. Biden told the Russian president that the US and its allies would respond with "strong economic and other measures in the event of military escalation." Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy, the White House added. Also Read: Ahead of Biden-Putin virtual summit, Russia slams US move to boycott Beijing Winter Olympics The two leaders also decided to follow up on development in Ukraine in coordination with allies and partners. Biden and Putin also discussed US-Russia dialogue on strategic stability, ransomware including joint work on regional issues including Iran. The White House added that President Biden would call US allies including Britain, France, Germany and Italy after talks with the Russian president. The talks took place amid tensions between Russia and Ukraine with Russian troops reportedly amassed at the border. President Putin has repetedly denied Russia intends to invade Ukraine while asserting that the country's troops can move around freely inside their territory. Western powers in the past one month have repeatedly warned Russia over escalation of tensions with Ukraine. (With inputs from Agencies)

Will respond with strong economic measures over Ukraine escalation: Biden tells Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin briefed his US counterpart Joe Biden during the video talks about Ukraine's failure to comply with the Minsk agreements, according to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov.

"Our president informed [Biden] in sufficient detail about how Kiev fails to fulfill the relevant Minsk agreements. It was said directly that Ukraine sabotages the Minsk implementation, in addition, it sabotages the agreements reached within the framework of the Normandy Four summit, delays the negotiation process in the contact group, seeks to exclude Donbas from the negotiation process," Ushakov said following the leaders' talks.

Ushakov said that, in his meeting with Putin, Biden emphasised that the US and NATO are concerned about Russian force movements near Ukraine's borders.

According to Russian state-controlled RT News, the Kremlin said in a readout that Moscow is "seriously interested" in obtaining "reliable and firm legal guarantees" excluding NATO’s further expansion eastward and the deployment of "offensive strike weapons systems in countries adjacent to Russia." 
 
According to Ushakov, the two leaders spent a lot of time discussing Ukraine during their meetings.

According to him, Biden informed Putin that the US is preparing large-scale penalties in the event that the situation in Ukraine worsens.

According to Ushakov, Putin told Biden directly that Russia is concerned about Ukraine's and NATO's military buildup. 
 
Putin, he added, mentioned the recent NATO drills in the Black Sea.&nbsp;

According to a Russian presidential aide, Putin informed US President that the "red lines" for Moscow are NATO's continued eastward expansion and the deployment of offensive weapons in Ukraine. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-respond-with-strong-economic-measures-over-ukraine-escalation-biden-tells-putin-434960">Aslo read | Will respond with strong economic measures over Ukraine escalation: Biden tells Putin</a>

The subject of whether Putin committed not to deploy troops to Ukraine in a talk with Biden, according to Ushakov, is strange and was not even considered. 
 
Watch | Gravitas: Biden's 'carrots and sticks' for Putin

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-bidens-carrots-and-sticks-for-putin-434942/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

He claimed that Biden informed Putin in an acceptable manner about the possibility of further sanctions against Ukraine. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ahead-of-biden-putin-virtual-summit-russia-slams-us-move-to-boycott-beijing-winter-olympics-434860">Also Read:&nbsp;Ahead of Biden-Putin virtual summit, Russia slams US move to boycott Beijing Winter Olympics</a>

"Biden discussed the possibility of sanctions.What was previously spoken publicly and relayed to us through various routes has now been said, but in a more acceptable and presidential-worthy form", Ushakov explained.

What are the Minsk agreements on the Ukraine conflict?

The Minsk Protocol was an agreement aimed at ending the conflict in Ukraine's Donbas area.

It was drafted by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, which included Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with the leaders of France and Germany serving as mediators in the so-called Normandy Format.&nbsp;

Here are the 13 points of Minsk agreements, in brief:

1. An immediate and comprehensive ceasefire

2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides

3. Monitoring and verification by the OSCE

4. To start a dialogue on interim self-government for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledge their special status by a resolution of parliament.

5. A pardon and amnesty for people involved in the fighting

6. An exchange of hostages and prisoners.

7. Provision of humanitarian assistance.

8. Resumption of socio-economic ties, including pensions.

9. Restore full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine.

10. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment and mercenaries.

11. Constitutional reform in Ukraine including decentralisation, with specific mention of Donetsk and Luhansk.

12. Elections in Donetsk and Luhansk on terms to be agreed with their representatives.

13. Intensify the work of a Trilateral Contact Group including representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE.

(With inputs from agencies)

Russian President Vladimir Putin briefed his US counterpart Joe Biden during the video talks about Ukraine's failure to comply with the Minsk agreements, according to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov.

Russian President Vladimir Putin briefed his US counterpart Joe Biden during the video talks about Ukraine's failure to comply with the Minsk agreements, according to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov. "Our president informed [Biden] in sufficient detail about how Kiev fails to fulfill the relevant Minsk agreements. It was said directly that Ukraine sabotages the Minsk implementation, in addition, it sabotages the agreements reached within the framework of the Normandy Four summit, delays the negotiation process in the contact group, seeks to exclude Donbas from the negotiation process," Ushakov said following the leaders' talks. Ushakov said that, in his meeting with Putin, Biden emphasised that the US and NATO are concerned about Russian force movements near Ukraine's borders. According to Russian state-controlled RT News, the Kremlin said in a readout that Moscow is "seriously interested" in obtaining "reliable and firm legal guarantees" excluding NATO’s further expansion eastward and the deployment of "offensive strike weapons systems in countries adjacent to Russia." According to Ushakov, the two leaders spent a lot of time discussing Ukraine during their meetings. According to him, Biden informed Putin that the US is preparing large-scale penalties in the event that the situation in Ukraine worsens. According to Ushakov, Putin told Biden directly that Russia is concerned about Ukraine's and NATO's military buildup. Putin, he added, mentioned the recent NATO drills in the Black Sea. According to a Russian presidential aide, Putin informed US President that the "red lines" for Moscow are NATO's continued eastward expansion and the deployment of offensive weapons in Ukraine. Aslo read | Will respond with strong economic measures over Ukraine escalation: Biden tells Putin The subject of whether Putin committed not to deploy troops to Ukraine in a talk with Biden, according to Ushakov, is strange and was not even considered. Watch | Gravitas: Biden's 'carrots and sticks' for Putin He claimed that Biden informed Putin in an acceptable manner about the possibility of further sanctions against Ukraine. Also Read: Ahead of Biden-Putin virtual summit, Russia slams US move to boycott Beijing Winter Olympics "Biden discussed the possibility of sanctions.What was previously spoken publicly and relayed to us through various routes has now been said, but in a more acceptable and presidential-worthy form", Ushakov explained. What are the Minsk agreements on the Ukraine conflict? The Minsk Protocol was an agreement aimed at ending the conflict in Ukraine's Donbas area. It was drafted by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, which included Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with the leaders of France and Germany serving as mediators in the so-called Normandy Format. Here are the 13 points of Minsk agreements, in brief: 1. An immediate and comprehensive ceasefire 2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides 3. Monitoring and verification by the OSCE 4. To start a dialogue on interim self-government for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledge their special status by a resolution of parliament. 5. A pardon and amnesty for people involved in the fighting 6. An exchange of hostages and prisoners. 7. Provision of humanitarian assistance. 8. Resumption of socio-economic ties, including pensions. 9. Restore full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine. 10. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment and mercenaries. 11. Constitutional reform in Ukraine including decentralisation, with specific mention of Donetsk and Luhansk. 12. Elections in Donetsk and Luhansk on terms to be agreed with their representatives. 13. Intensify the work of a Trilateral Contact Group including representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE. (With inputs from agencies)

Ukraine failed to comply with the Minsk agreements: Putin informs Biden

US president Joe Biden and Russian president Vladimir Putin had a 'useful' meeting that allowed leaders to talk about the ongoing conflict over Ukraine.

Biden issues stern warning to Putin after 2-hour virtual summit

People can't get enough of one particularly 'hot'&nbsp;secret service agent of US President Joe Biden, who is making an impact on Social media.

The handsome agent was called one of "Biden's Baddies," drawing similarities to actor Tom Cruise in "Top Gun," and it's easy to understand why.

The US president was seen shopping in Nantucket on Friday, accompanied by several of his grandchildren, and his appearance drew swarms of fans.&nbsp;

However, not everyone was there to support the leader, as one of US President Joe Biden's Secret Service officers became viral on TikTok - where fans declare their love for him - after being seen standing guard during the presidential outing.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Is everyone else on hot secret service agent tik tok too or just me? Also I now get my all the famous ones got with their body guards if they all as smooth as that man
— Taylor | ia for the holidays (@Tayhatesevery1) <a href="https://twitter.com/Tayhatesevery1/status/1466055561728958464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 1, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Anyone else deep on “Biden’s hot secret service agent in Nantucket” TikTok?
— nikakaravites (@neeeekz) <a href="https://twitter.com/neeeekz/status/1465814860118245380?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 30, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A TikTok video shared by an account named @life_with_matt of the ‘hot’ secret service agent in Biden’s team has gone viral with around 3 million views.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Have y'all seen President Biden's hot secret service agent? Yowza!!! <a href="https://t.co/cM8QMwRvtP">pic.twitter.com/cM8QMwRvtP</a>
— MarieBrennan (@MarieB08) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarieB08/status/1466885237376679936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
*leaves boyfriend for Biden secret service agent* <a href="https://t.co/YL3FZxnvS8">pic.twitter.com/YL3FZxnvS8</a>
— roe jogan (@roejogan__) <a href="https://twitter.com/roejogan__/status/1465880026608406529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 1, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The unidentified agent was dressed in a long coat, khakis, and a black t-shirt with wayfarers, which drew comparisons to Tom Cruise's swag in 'Top Gun.'

The arrival of the new agent sparked a flurry of films recorded from various viewpoints by others and published on the platform.&nbsp;

People can't get enough of one particularly 'hot' secret service agent of US President Joe Biden, who is making an impact on Social media. The handsome agent was called one of "Biden's Baddies," drawing similarities to actor Tom Cruise in "Top Gun," and it's easy to understand why.

People can't get enough of one particularly 'hot' secret service agent of US President Joe Biden, who is making an impact on Social media. The handsome agent was called one of "Biden's Baddies," drawing similarities to actor Tom Cruise in "Top Gun," and it's easy to understand why. The US president was seen shopping in Nantucket on Friday, accompanied by several of his grandchildren, and his appearance drew swarms of fans. However, not everyone was there to support the leader, as one of US President Joe Biden's Secret Service officers became viral on TikTok - where fans declare their love for him - after being seen standing guard during the presidential outing. Is everyone else on hot secret service agent tik tok too or just me? Also I now get my all the famous ones got with their body guards if they all as smooth as that man — Taylor | ia for the holidays (@Tayhatesevery1) December 1, 2021 × Anyone else deep on “Biden’s hot secret service agent in Nantucket” TikTok? — nikakaravites (@neeeekz) November 30, 2021 × A TikTok video shared by an account named @life_with_matt of the ‘hot’ secret service agent in Biden’s team has gone viral with around 3 million views. Have y'all seen President Biden's hot secret service agent? Yowza!!! pic.twitter.com/cM8QMwRvtP — MarieBrennan (@MarieB08) December 3, 2021 × *leaves boyfriend for Biden secret service agent* pic.twitter.com/YL3FZxnvS8 — roe jogan (@roejogan__) December 1, 2021 × The unidentified agent was dressed in a long coat, khakis, and a black t-shirt with wayfarers, which drew comparisons to Tom Cruise's swag in 'Top Gun.' The arrival of the new agent sparked a flurry of films recorded from various viewpoints by others and published on the platform.

Internet obsesses over US President Joe Biden's 'hot' secret service agent

After months of heightened tensions and serious concerns, is Russia potentially planning to invade Ukraine? American president Joe Biden is now all set to hold talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, what is shaping to be a high-profile meet.

Biden and Putin's high-stakes meet to de-escalate Ukraine tensions

US President Joe Biden is all set to dial his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin amid invasion fears by Russia in Ukraine. Through the video call, Biden will bat for a diplomatic route to resolve tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia remains in denial about any such invasion plans.

Biden to dial Putin amid Russia's alleged plans to invade Ukraine

Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin to hold high-profile meet amid concerns over Ukraine invasion

President Joe Biden, confronting a worrisome new coronavirus variant and the potential of a winter surge, will lay out a new pandemic strategy Thursday afternoon that includes hundreds of vaccination sites aimed at families, booster shots for all adults, insurance reimbursement for at-home coronavirus tests and fresh travel restrictions, including a requirement that international travelers must show proof of a negative coronavirus test taken within a day before departing for the United States.

Biden plans to announce the strategy at the National Institutes of Health. It comes a day after the new omicron variant was detected in the United States for the first time, in California.

Senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview the plan, said it was aimed at keeping the economy, workplaces and schools open.

A big part of the plan is a renewed push to get people vaccinated, including the latest group to become eligible: children ages 5-11. The administration plans to launch “hundreds of family vaccination clinics” that will offer vaccinations and boosters for people of all eligible ages, according to a fact sheet provided by the White House.

The president will also announce a national campaign to reach the 100 million Americans who are eligible for booster shots and have not had them. The campaign will include paid advertising and free rides to vaccination sites coordinated by AARP, the advocacy group for older Americans. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency will launch what the administration is calling Family Mobile Vaccination Clinics, beginning with deployments to Washington and New Mexico. The goal is for states and localities to replicate the model “with full federal funding and support,” officials said.

Biden will call on employers to provide paid time off for employees to get boosters.

Biden ran for office in 2020 on a promise to get the pandemic under control. Since then, though, the virus “has thrown us a number of curveballs, and unfortunately they were thrown at 200 miles an hour,” said Michael Osterholm, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Many experts predict a surge in the United States over the winter, regardless of whether the omicron variant spreads widely in the country. The nation has been reporting an average of more than 80,000 new cases a day over the last few weeks, according to a New York Times database. Six months ago, the average was roughly 12,000 new cases a day.

The Biden administration’s pandemic response has relied heavily on vaccinations — too heavily, in the view of some experts, who have argued for months that testing and mask-wearing are also essential to containing the virus and will become even more so if the omicron variant is found to evade protection from vaccines.

The variant was first spotted by scientists in southern Africa and is now known to be present in more than 30 countries, including the United States. It has mutations that scientists say may allow it to spread more quickly and cause more breakthrough infections in vaccinated or previously infected people, though neither characteristic has yet been confirmed.

In the United States, home coronavirus tests have been relatively hard to come by because of supply shortages, and they are expensive — as much as $25 apiece. Dr. Carlos del Rio, an infectious disease specialist at Emory University, said that rather than have people go through the cumbersome process of seeking insurance reimbursement for tests, “we should just subsidize them and make it incredibly cheap.”

In Britain, he noted, rapid tests are free, and in Germany they cost consumers about $1 apiece.

Reimbursement for at-home tests in the United States will not happen immediately and will not be retroactive, the senior administration officials said, adding that federal agencies would issue guidance by Jan. 15 to clarify that insurers would have to reimburse people for at-home tests during the COVID-19 public health emergency. It was unclear how many tests a person could be reimbursed for buying.

Private insurers already cover the cost of coronavirus tests administered in doctors' offices and other medical facilities. At least eight at-home tests are on the U.S. market.

Looking forward, experts envision a world where people will test themselves as soon as they exhibit symptoms — and then, if they are positive, would go into quarantine and seek treatment with new antiviral medicines that are in development. The White House says it is taking steps to secure 13 million courses of antiviral treatments.

Biden’s new strategy will extend the current mask mandate for people on airplanes, trains and buses and in terminals and transit hubs through mid-March.

Only six states now require people to wear masks in indoor public settings regardless of their vaccination status. Three more — California, New York and Connecticut — require masks indoors for people who are unvaccinated.

President Joe Biden, confronting a worrisome new coronavirus variant and the potential of a winter surge, will lay out a new pandemic strategy Thursday afternoon that includes hundreds of vaccination sites aimed at families, booster shots for all adults, insurance reimbursement for at-home coronavirus tests and fresh travel restrictions, including a requirement that international travelers must show proof of a negative coronavirus test taken within a day before departing for the United States.

President Joe Biden, confronting a worrisome new coronavirus variant and the potential of a winter surge, will lay out a new pandemic strategy Thursday afternoon that includes hundreds of vaccination sites aimed at families, booster shots for all adults, insurance reimbursement for at-home coronavirus tests and fresh travel restrictions, including a requirement that international travelers must show proof of a negative coronavirus test taken within a day before departing for the United States. Biden plans to announce the strategy at the National Institutes of Health. It comes a day after the new omicron variant was detected in the United States for the first time, in California. Senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview the plan, said it was aimed at keeping the economy, workplaces and schools open. A big part of the plan is a renewed push to get people vaccinated, including the latest group to become eligible: children ages 5-11. The administration plans to launch “hundreds of family vaccination clinics” that will offer vaccinations and boosters for people of all eligible ages, according to a fact sheet provided by the White House. The president will also announce a national campaign to reach the 100 million Americans who are eligible for booster shots and have not had them. The campaign will include paid advertising and free rides to vaccination sites coordinated by AARP, the advocacy group for older Americans. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency will launch what the administration is calling Family Mobile Vaccination Clinics, beginning with deployments to Washington and New Mexico. The goal is for states and localities to replicate the model “with full federal funding and support,” officials said. Biden will call on employers to provide paid time off for employees to get boosters. Biden ran for office in 2020 on a promise to get the pandemic under control. Since then, though, the virus “has thrown us a number of curveballs, and unfortunately they were thrown at 200 miles an hour,” said Michael Osterholm, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Many experts predict a surge in the United States over the winter, regardless of whether the omicron variant spreads widely in the country. The nation has been reporting an average of more than 80,000 new cases a day over the last few weeks, according to a New York Times database. Six months ago, the average was roughly 12,000 new cases a day. The Biden administration’s pandemic response has relied heavily on vaccinations — too heavily, in the view of some experts, who have argued for months that testing and mask-wearing are also essential to containing the virus and will become even more so if the omicron variant is found to evade protection from vaccines. The variant was first spotted by scientists in southern Africa and is now known to be present in more than 30 countries, including the United States. It has mutations that scientists say may allow it to spread more quickly and cause more breakthrough infections in vaccinated or previously infected people, though neither characteristic has yet been confirmed. In the United States, home coronavirus tests have been relatively hard to come by because of supply shortages, and they are expensive — as much as $25 apiece. Dr. Carlos del Rio, an infectious disease specialist at Emory University, said that rather than have people go through the cumbersome process of seeking insurance reimbursement for tests, “we should just subsidize them and make it incredibly cheap.” In Britain, he noted, rapid tests are free, and in Germany they cost consumers about $1 apiece. Reimbursement for at-home tests in the United States will not happen immediately and will not be retroactive, the senior administration officials said, adding that federal agencies would issue guidance by Jan. 15 to clarify that insurers would have to reimburse people for at-home tests during the COVID-19 public health emergency. It was unclear how many tests a person could be reimbursed for buying. Private insurers already cover the cost of coronavirus tests administered in doctors' offices and other medical facilities. At least eight at-home tests are on the U.S. market. Looking forward, experts envision a world where people will test themselves as soon as they exhibit symptoms — and then, if they are positive, would go into quarantine and seek treatment with new antiviral medicines that are in development. The White House says it is taking steps to secure 13 million courses of antiviral treatments. Biden’s new strategy will extend the current mask mandate for people on airplanes, trains and buses and in terminals and transit hubs through mid-March. Only six states now require people to wear masks in indoor public settings regardless of their vaccination status. Three more — California, New York and Connecticut — require masks indoors for people who are unvaccinated.

Biden’s winter Covid plan is aimed at keeping the US economy open

US President Biden asked Americans to be calm while scientists strive to evaluate the power and transmissibility of the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus, claiming that the US is prepared to cope with the new strain moving throughout the world.

The variant is a "cause for concern, not a reason for panic," the president said, accompanied by chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and Vice President Kamala Harris.

He claims that the US has more COVID-19-fighting capabilities than it has in the past, and that it is in a far better position to combat the virus now than it was in March or even December 2020. 
 
WATCH:&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-president-joe-biden-says-omicron-variant-is-cause-for-concern-not-panic-432857/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Sooner or later, we're going to see cases of this new variant here in the United States," he said. "We'll have to face this new threat, just as we faced those that have come before it."

On Thursday, the president stated that he will unveil a more comprehensive strategy for combating COVID-19 and the Omicron variant in the coming weeks.

Biden said the country would not go back to lockdowns to stop the spread of Omicron. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fauci-defends-travel-ban-due-to-new-variant-omicron-says-it-is-necessary-and-justified-432668">Also Read:&nbsp;Fauci defends travel ban due to new variant omicron</a>

"While we have travel restrictions that can slow the speed of Omnicron, it cannot prevent it," the president said. "But here's what it does: it gives us time. It gives us time to take more actions; to move quicker — to make sure people understand you have to get your vaccine, you have to get the shot, you have to get the booster. "

The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified the Omicron variant as a "variant of concern" since it has more than 30 mutations in the spike protein alone.

Preliminary data shows an increased risk of transmission when compared to other variations of concern, according to the WHO.

As a result of this classification and information, new travel restrictions have been imposed, as well as study into the variant's influence on the efficacy of existing vaccinations and testing.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Biden asked Americans to be calm while scientists strive to evaluate the power and transmissibility of the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus, claiming that the US is prepared to cope with the new strain moving throughout the world.

US President Biden asked Americans to be calm while scientists strive to evaluate the power and transmissibility of the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus, claiming that the US is prepared to cope with the new strain moving throughout the world. The variant is a "cause for concern, not a reason for panic," the president said, accompanied by chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and Vice President Kamala Harris. He claims that the US has more COVID-19-fighting capabilities than it has in the past, and that it is in a far better position to combat the virus now than it was in March or even December 2020. WATCH: "Sooner or later, we're going to see cases of this new variant here in the United States," he said. "We'll have to face this new threat, just as we faced those that have come before it." On Thursday, the president stated that he will unveil a more comprehensive strategy for combating COVID-19 and the Omicron variant in the coming weeks. Biden said the country would not go back to lockdowns to stop the spread of Omicron. Also Read: Fauci defends travel ban due to new variant omicron "While we have travel restrictions that can slow the speed of Omnicron, it cannot prevent it," the president said. "But here's what it does: it gives us time. It gives us time to take more actions; to move quicker — to make sure people understand you have to get your vaccine, you have to get the shot, you have to get the booster. " The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified the Omicron variant as a "variant of concern" since it has more than 30 mutations in the spike protein alone. Preliminary data shows an increased risk of transmission when compared to other variations of concern, according to the WHO. As a result of this classification and information, new travel restrictions have been imposed, as well as study into the variant's influence on the efficacy of existing vaccinations and testing. (With inputs from agencies)

Omicron variant is 'cause for concern, not a cause for panic': Biden

The White House is receiving backlash for having a Christmas tree worth $139,000 for this year's Christmas. This will be topped with an additional $171,000 for the Christmas tree lighting ceremony. Not only this, but the White House has also reportedly spent $41,000 on Christmas decorations for the Eisenhower building and Jackson Place.

All of this is happening at a time when the world is facing a supply chain crisis, causing inflation.&nbsp;

A report by TMZ revealed that National Christmas Tree Lighting Festivities will include a live audience and performances by Patti LaBelle, Billy Porter, Chris Stapleton and others.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CWmSUHCpEmF/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:16px;">
<div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 19% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CWmSUHCpEmF/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"><svg height="50px" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 60 60" width="50px" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd" stroke="none" stroke-width="1"><g fill="#000000" transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></a></div>

<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CWmSUHCpEmF/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank">View this post on Instagram</a></div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CWmSUHCpEmF/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by First Lady Dr. Jill Biden (@flotus)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

First Lady Jill Biden recently welcomed the official White House Christmas tree, which is an 18.5ft long Fraser fir tree.

The tree was lavishly brought up to the north portico in a carriage driven by horses.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/supply-chain-crisis-us-christmas-tree-shortage-could-threaten-the-upcoming-festive-season-432475">Also read |&nbsp;Supply chain crisis: US Christmas tree shortage could threaten the upcoming festive season</a>

The 18.5ft long Fraser will now stand tall in the Blue Room of the White House.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, there have been concerns about the shortage of both plastic trees and live firs. This is because of the supply chain crisis and the effects of the climate crisis.

The American Christmas Tree Association, in a statement, assured the citizens that "Christmas will not be cancelled."

"Despite expectations of similar consumer demand in 2021, the Christmas tree industry could experience a shortage of both artificial and live trees," it said.&nbsp;

Weather events, including fires, drought, and heat waves have affected live Christmas tree crop yields. Some farmers in Oregon reported that they lost up to 90 per cent of their crops this year.&nbsp;

The White House is receiving backlash for having a Christmas tree worth $139,000 for this year's Christmas. This will be topped with an additional $171,000 for the Christmas tree lighting ceremony.

The White House is receiving backlash for having a Christmas tree worth $139,000 for this year's Christmas. This will be topped with an additional $171,000 for the Christmas tree lighting ceremony. Not only this, but the White House has also reportedly spent $41,000 on Christmas decorations for the Eisenhower building and Jackson Place. All of this is happening at a time when the world is facing a supply chain crisis, causing inflation. A report by TMZ revealed that National Christmas Tree Lighting Festivities will include a live audience and performances by Patti LaBelle, Billy Porter, Chris Stapleton and others. View this post on Instagram A post shared by First Lady Dr. Jill Biden (@flotus) × First Lady Jill Biden recently welcomed the official White House Christmas tree, which is an 18.5ft long Fraser fir tree. The tree was lavishly brought up to the north portico in a carriage driven by horses. Also read | Supply chain crisis: US Christmas tree shortage could threaten the upcoming festive season The 18.5ft long Fraser will now stand tall in the Blue Room of the White House. Meanwhile, there have been concerns about the shortage of both plastic trees and live firs. This is because of the supply chain crisis and the effects of the climate crisis. The American Christmas Tree Association, in a statement, assured the citizens that "Christmas will not be cancelled." "Despite expectations of similar consumer demand in 2021, the Christmas tree industry could experience a shortage of both artificial and live trees," it said. Weather events, including fires, drought, and heat waves have affected live Christmas tree crop yields. Some farmers in Oregon reported that they lost up to 90 per cent of their crops this year.

Biden slammed for buying White House Christmas tree worth $139K as world grapples with inflation

As the world continues to battle against the deadly coronavirus, US President Joe Biden on Friday urged other countries to match the "generosity" of the US and donate more COVID-19 vaccines. "This pandemic will not end until we have global vaccinations," he said.

"For the world community, the news about this new variant should make clearer than ever why this pandemic will not end until we have global vaccinations," Biden said.

"The United States has already donated more vaccines to other countries than every other country combined. It is time for other countries to match America's speed and generosity."

With this, he urged countries that are taking part in a ministerial-level meeting of the World Trade Organization to lift intellectual property protections on their coronavirus vaccines. This would allow the manufacturing to expand rapidly.

"This news today reiterates the importance of moving on this quickly," he said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/as-a-precautionary-measure-us-to-restrict-travel-over-fears-of-new-covid-19-variant-432251">Also read |&nbsp;As a 'precautionary measure', US to restrict travel over fears of new COVID-19 variant</a>

This comes in at a time when a new variant of Covid-19 has emerged. The variant termed Omicron, has been classified as a "variant of concern" by the WHO. “This variant has a large number of mutations, some of which are concerning,” the WHO said, adding, "preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of reinfection with this variant as compared to other variants of concern."

Global authorities are taking precautions for curbing the spread of a new coronavirus variant detected in South Africa, with several imposing travel curbs and tightening border control.&nbsp;

Countries including the UK, France, Scotland, Italy, Israel, Philippines, Canada, and the US have banned travellers from southern Africa over fears of the new variant.&nbsp;

US will be restricting travel from South Africa and seven other southern African countries, including, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi. Starting from Monday, only US citizens and residents will be allowed to travel from the region.

(With inputs from agencies)

As the world continues to battle against the deadly coronavirus, US President Joe Biden on Friday urged other countries to match the "generosity" of the US and donate more COVID-19 vaccines.

As the world continues to battle against the deadly coronavirus, US President Joe Biden on Friday urged other countries to match the "generosity" of the US and donate more COVID-19 vaccines. "This pandemic will not end until we have global vaccinations," he said. "For the world community, the news about this new variant should make clearer than ever why this pandemic will not end until we have global vaccinations," Biden said. "The United States has already donated more vaccines to other countries than every other country combined. It is time for other countries to match America's speed and generosity." With this, he urged countries that are taking part in a ministerial-level meeting of the World Trade Organization to lift intellectual property protections on their coronavirus vaccines. This would allow the manufacturing to expand rapidly. "This news today reiterates the importance of moving on this quickly," he said. Also read | As a 'precautionary measure', US to restrict travel over fears of new COVID-19 variant This comes in at a time when a new variant of Covid-19 has emerged. The variant termed Omicron, has been classified as a "variant of concern" by the WHO. “This variant has a large number of mutations, some of which are concerning,” the WHO said, adding, "preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of reinfection with this variant as compared to other variants of concern." Global authorities are taking precautions for curbing the spread of a new coronavirus variant detected in South Africa, with several imposing travel curbs and tightening border control. Countries including the UK, France, Scotland, Italy, Israel, Philippines, Canada, and the US have banned travellers from southern Africa over fears of the new variant. US will be restricting travel from South Africa and seven other southern African countries, including, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi. Starting from Monday, only US citizens and residents will be allowed to travel from the region. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden urges countries to donate more vaccines and match 'generosity' of the US

In a move that will most likely anger China, US President Joe Biden has invited Taiwan to a summit for democracy next month. According to the US state department, the summit is expected to focus on three principle themes- defending against authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and respect for human rights.

Joe Biden invites Taiwan to democracy summit, China & Russia not invited

President Joe Biden will renominate Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, to another four-year term — ensuring policy continuity at a moment of rapid inflation and vast economic uncertainty but potentially angering progressive Democrats who had been agitating for a change in leadership.

The much-awaited decision was a return to tradition in which the central bank’s top official is reappointed regardless of partisan identity — a norm bucked by former President Donald Trump, who appointed Powell instead of renominating Janet Yellen.

It reflected a general view by Biden and his top aides that Powell has done well in supporting the economy through the pandemic recession and its halting recovery. It is also a bet that Powell is the right leader to steer the Fed through an economically and political treacherous storm of price increases, which administration officials are convinced will dissipate next year.

Biden will also nominate Lael Brainard, a Fed governor whom many progressive groups had championed to replace Powell, to serve as the Fed’s vice chair. Renominating Powell — who won bipartisan support moments after the announcement — also spares the White House what might have been a bruising confirmation battle if the president had instead chosen Brainard, who has fewer Republican supporters in the Senate than Powell.

The stakes in the choice are unusually high.

Inflation has picked up sharply this year, with consumer prices increasing at the fastest pace in more than three decades in the year through October. The central bank is charged with keeping consumer prices stable while striving for maximum employment, and striking that balance could require difficult policy choices in the months ahead.

While taming inflation falls to the Fed, Biden has been suffering politically as prices rise for food, gas and airplane tickets. The president has repeatedly tried to reassure Americans that his economic policies will ultimately calm inflation, a message he is expected to repeat during remarks Tuesday.

His Fed decisions in recent weeks have become tangled in the politics of price increases, particularly as the president pushes Senate Democrats to coalesce around a $2.2 trillion climate change and social policy bill that Biden says will ease inflationary pressures in years to come but that Republicans warn will stoke higher prices immediately.

Biden said he was certain that both Powell and Brainard would work to stabilize inflation and keep the economic recovery on track.

“I’m confident that Chair Powell and Dr. Brainard’s focus on keeping inflation low, prices stable and delivering full employment will make our economy stronger than ever before,” Biden said in a statement Monday.

Powell’s reappointment suggests that the White House, which has a chance to fully reshape the Fed, is not aiming to completely overhaul the institution. The Biden administration already has one vacant governor role to fill, and two more seats will open early next year, giving Biden room to appoint at least three of seven governors. The president must also fill several leadership roles, including the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, a powerful position given its influence on bank oversight.

Biden has been under pressure from progressives and moderate Democrats to pick a diverse slate of leaders for the Fed who would prioritize tough bank regulation and do what they could to address climate change risks in the financial system.

Powell has come under criticism for being slow to address climate change and for backing measures that have chipped away at some post-crisis financial rules. In his statement Monday, Biden said he expected Powell, along with Brainard, to “address the economic risks posed by climate change and stay ahead of emerging risks in our financial system.”

Whether that will be enough to appease Powell’s critics remains to be seen. The Fed chair’s tenure has been criticized by some progressives, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who has called Powell “a dangerous man.” On Friday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., released a statement opposing Powell’s reappointment.

In a statement Monday, Whitehouse said that he was “disappointed” in Biden’s decision, saying that Powell had not taken climate change seriously enough.

“I sincerely hope that, if confirmed, Powell will reassess his past opposition to utilizing the Fed’s regulatory tools to minimize climate-related risks to the financial sector,” he said.

Other Democrats were more supportive, including Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who praised Powell for helping steer the economy through the pandemic. Brown’s position is important given he chairs the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Fed and will handle the confirmation hearings for both Powell and Brainard.

Republicans, who supported Powell when he was nominated as chair by Trump, also lauded Biden’s decision to reappoint the chair.

Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, released a statement saying he would support Powell’s nomination, as did several other of his party’s senators.

Biden’s decision was influenced by a complicated economic moment. Inflation has jumped higher thanks to booming consumer demand, tangled supply lines and labor shortages that have helped to push the cost of used cars, couches and even food and rent higher. Yet millions of workers are missing from the labor market compared with before the pandemic. As a result, the Fed may be left balancing its two key goals as it charts its future policy path.

So far, the central bank has decided to slow its large bond-purchase program, a first step toward withdrawing monetary policy support that will leave it more nimble to raise interest rates next year if reigning in the economy becomes necessary.

The federal funds rate has been set to near-zero since March 2020, keeping many types of borrowing cheap and helping to fuel home and car purchases and other types of demand that in turn set the stage for strong hiring. Raising it could cool off growth and weaken inflation.

Yet trying to slow price gains would come at a cost. Workers are still trickling back after severe job losses at the onset of the pandemic, and the Fed is hoping to give the job market more space and time to heal. That is especially true because continued waves of infection may be keeping many people from searching for work, either out of health concerns or because they lack child care.

Navigating the next steps will be no easy task.

Powell is a Republican who was first appointed by President Barack Obama as a Fed governor, then elevated to chair by Trump, whose decision to replace Yellen as Fed chair upended a long-standing tradition in which presidents reappoint Fed chairs of the opposite party who had done a good job.

Before the White House’s decision, some economists had argued that it would be valuable to restart that pattern. Doing so, the logic went, would signal that the Fed is a technocratic body that sets prudent economic policy without taking into account political considerations.

Plus, Powell is often lauded for his track record as chair, which has seen the central bank pursuing full employment with vigour. The Fed guided the economy through the start of the coronavirus pandemic, unveiling a series of market rescue programs that kept Wall Street functioning and averted a financial disaster that could have cascaded through the economy.

But Powell had faced opposition from some progressive Democrats, first over his history of voting for changes that made financial regulation looser for banks, and later because of an ethics scandal that took place while he was overseeing the central bank. Two of the Fed’s 12 regional presidents made significant financial trades for their private accounts in 2020, when the Fed was actively rescuing many markets from pandemic fallout.

Powell has said he defers to the person Congress has confirmed to the bank supervision role to set the agenda when it comes to regulatory matters. The Fed has unveiled new ethics rules since news of last year’s financial activity broke.

Presidential nominees to the Fed Board and Fed leadership positions must first pass through a Senate committee, then through a vote on the Senate floor.

President Joe Biden will renominate Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, to another four-year term — ensuring policy continuity at a moment of rapid inflation and vast economic uncertainty but potentially angering progressive Democrats who had been agitating for a change in leadership.

President Joe Biden will renominate Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, to another four-year term — ensuring policy continuity at a moment of rapid inflation and vast economic uncertainty but potentially angering progressive Democrats who had been agitating for a change in leadership. The much-awaited decision was a return to tradition in which the central bank’s top official is reappointed regardless of partisan identity — a norm bucked by former President Donald Trump, who appointed Powell instead of renominating Janet Yellen. It reflected a general view by Biden and his top aides that Powell has done well in supporting the economy through the pandemic recession and its halting recovery. It is also a bet that Powell is the right leader to steer the Fed through an economically and political treacherous storm of price increases, which administration officials are convinced will dissipate next year. Biden will also nominate Lael Brainard, a Fed governor whom many progressive groups had championed to replace Powell, to serve as the Fed’s vice chair. Renominating Powell — who won bipartisan support moments after the announcement — also spares the White House what might have been a bruising confirmation battle if the president had instead chosen Brainard, who has fewer Republican supporters in the Senate than Powell. The stakes in the choice are unusually high. Inflation has picked up sharply this year, with consumer prices increasing at the fastest pace in more than three decades in the year through October. The central bank is charged with keeping consumer prices stable while striving for maximum employment, and striking that balance could require difficult policy choices in the months ahead. While taming inflation falls to the Fed, Biden has been suffering politically as prices rise for food, gas and airplane tickets. The president has repeatedly tried to reassure Americans that his economic policies will ultimately calm inflation, a message he is expected to repeat during remarks Tuesday. His Fed decisions in recent weeks have become tangled in the politics of price increases, particularly as the president pushes Senate Democrats to coalesce around a $2.2 trillion climate change and social policy bill that Biden says will ease inflationary pressures in years to come but that Republicans warn will stoke higher prices immediately. Biden said he was certain that both Powell and Brainard would work to stabilize inflation and keep the economic recovery on track. “I’m confident that Chair Powell and Dr. Brainard’s focus on keeping inflation low, prices stable and delivering full employment will make our economy stronger than ever before,” Biden said in a statement Monday. Powell’s reappointment suggests that the White House, which has a chance to fully reshape the Fed, is not aiming to completely overhaul the institution. The Biden administration already has one vacant governor role to fill, and two more seats will open early next year, giving Biden room to appoint at least three of seven governors. The president must also fill several leadership roles, including the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, a powerful position given its influence on bank oversight. Biden has been under pressure from progressives and moderate Democrats to pick a diverse slate of leaders for the Fed who would prioritize tough bank regulation and do what they could to address climate change risks in the financial system. Powell has come under criticism for being slow to address climate change and for backing measures that have chipped away at some post-crisis financial rules. In his statement Monday, Biden said he expected Powell, along with Brainard, to “address the economic risks posed by climate change and stay ahead of emerging risks in our financial system.” Whether that will be enough to appease Powell’s critics remains to be seen. The Fed chair’s tenure has been criticized by some progressives, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who has called Powell “a dangerous man.” On Friday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., released a statement opposing Powell’s reappointment. In a statement Monday, Whitehouse said that he was “disappointed” in Biden’s decision, saying that Powell had not taken climate change seriously enough. “I sincerely hope that, if confirmed, Powell will reassess his past opposition to utilizing the Fed’s regulatory tools to minimize climate-related risks to the financial sector,” he said. Other Democrats were more supportive, including Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who praised Powell for helping steer the economy through the pandemic. Brown’s position is important given he chairs the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Fed and will handle the confirmation hearings for both Powell and Brainard. Republicans, who supported Powell when he was nominated as chair by Trump, also lauded Biden’s decision to reappoint the chair. Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, released a statement saying he would support Powell’s nomination, as did several other of his party’s senators. Biden’s decision was influenced by a complicated economic moment. Inflation has jumped higher thanks to booming consumer demand, tangled supply lines and labor shortages that have helped to push the cost of used cars, couches and even food and rent higher. Yet millions of workers are missing from the labor market compared with before the pandemic. As a result, the Fed may be left balancing its two key goals as it charts its future policy path. So far, the central bank has decided to slow its large bond-purchase program, a first step toward withdrawing monetary policy support that will leave it more nimble to raise interest rates next year if reigning in the economy becomes necessary. The federal funds rate has been set to near-zero since March 2020, keeping many types of borrowing cheap and helping to fuel home and car purchases and other types of demand that in turn set the stage for strong hiring. Raising it could cool off growth and weaken inflation. Yet trying to slow price gains would come at a cost. Workers are still trickling back after severe job losses at the onset of the pandemic, and the Fed is hoping to give the job market more space and time to heal. That is especially true because continued waves of infection may be keeping many people from searching for work, either out of health concerns or because they lack child care. Navigating the next steps will be no easy task. Powell is a Republican who was first appointed by President Barack Obama as a Fed governor, then elevated to chair by Trump, whose decision to replace Yellen as Fed chair upended a long-standing tradition in which presidents reappoint Fed chairs of the opposite party who had done a good job. Before the White House’s decision, some economists had argued that it would be valuable to restart that pattern. Doing so, the logic went, would signal that the Fed is a technocratic body that sets prudent economic policy without taking into account political considerations. Plus, Powell is often lauded for his track record as chair, which has seen the central bank pursuing full employment with vigour. The Fed guided the economy through the start of the coronavirus pandemic, unveiling a series of market rescue programs that kept Wall Street functioning and averted a financial disaster that could have cascaded through the economy. But Powell had faced opposition from some progressive Democrats, first over his history of voting for changes that made financial regulation looser for banks, and later because of an ethics scandal that took place while he was overseeing the central bank. Two of the Fed’s 12 regional presidents made significant financial trades for their private accounts in 2020, when the Fed was actively rescuing many markets from pandemic fallout. Powell has said he defers to the person Congress has confirmed to the bank supervision role to set the agenda when it comes to regulatory matters. The Fed has unveiled new ethics rules since news of last year’s financial activity broke. Presidential nominees to the Fed Board and Fed leadership positions must first pass through a Senate committee, then through a vote on the Senate floor.

Biden will keep Powell as Fed chair, resisting pressure for a shake-up

The choreography has been exquisite. President Biden spent his first nine months in office trying to gain leverage over China: He patched up trade disputes with America’s allies. He hosted the first-ever in-person meeting of leaders of “The Quad,” which forged deeper ties between the United States, India, Japan and Australia, all of which sit on the periphery of Chinese power. He convinced NATO, for the first time in its history, to describe China as a challenge to “alliance security.” He cajoled Congress into spending a trillion dollars to rebuild U.S. infrastructure, which he pitched, in part, as a way to counter China. Then, earlier this week, on the very day he signed the infrastructure bill into law, he held his first formal meeting with President Xi Jinping. The message was unmistakable: The United States will work with China to address common challenges while competing from a position of strength.

The strategy is clear, the execution — a few hiccups aside — impressive. But there’s a problem: Mr. Biden is trying to have it both ways. His aides insist there’s no tradeoff between treating China as an adversary and as a partner. Or, as a State Department spokesperson put it, “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.” That’s wishful thinking; the two goals collide. And for all the recent talk of better relations between Washington and Beijing, the Biden administration is still not prioritizing cooperation — although it is only through far deeper cooperation that the United States can address what menaces Americans most.

Take climate change, the single greatest long-term danger to life in the United States — and everywhere else. It should be the Biden administration’s top priority when it comes to China. But it’s not. Although the U.S. climate envoy, John Kerry, and his Chinese counterpart made headlines by signing a joint declaration on “enhancing climate action” earlier this month in Glasgow, the document was weaker than a joint statement the two governments signed seven years earlier, before U.S.-China relations nose-dived.

America’s hard line toward China undermines the fight against climate disaster in less obvious ways, too. To reduce carbon emissions, the United States must rapidly switch to cleaner energy sources like solar. The cheapest place to get solar cells is China. But the Biden administration has defended the Trump administration’s tariffs on solar technology. Some Chinese solar producers are based in Xinjiang, where Beijing brutally represses Uyghurs and other Muslims, and are thus subject to U.S. sanctions for using forced labor. But the solar tariffs are not restricted to Xinjiang. Why? Because the Biden team wants to weaken China’s hold over a prized industry. In so doing, however, it is making solar energy more expensive for Americans, which delays the United States’ transition away from fossil fuels.

It’s not just solar panels. Many green technologies will advance faster if American and Chinese researchers collaborate. But the Biden administration has maintained Trump administration visa restrictions that prevent students who attended Chinese universities with military ties from doing graduate work in the United States — even if there’s no evidence those students ever worked for the Chinese military themselves. The Biden administration is working to counter China’s mammoth Belt and Road infrastructure program when the two superpowers could more effectively fight global warming by jointly financing clean energy in poor countries. And by depicting China as a threat, Mr. Biden justifies higher Pentagon budgets — which, given the U.S. military’s status as the world’s largest institutional producer of greenhouse gasses, constitutes a climate disaster in and of itself.

If climate change constitutes the greatest security threat facing the United States, pandemics like Covid — which has killed more Americans than World War I, World War II, and the wars in Vietnam and Korea combined — come in second. There is ample evidence that U.S.-Chinese cooperation on public health saves American lives. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention helped China build an influenza surveillance system, which proved crucial to containing the H1N1 flu in 2009 and H7N9 flu in 2013. American public health experts went to work inside China’s own C.D.C. headquarters, which gave the United States greater insight into potential Chinese outbreaks. In 2016, Washington and Beijing even agreed to jointly fund a surveillance system in Africa to help the continent’s governments better combat viruses like Ebola.

Such cooperation might seem fanciful now given the sharp divergence between Washington and Beijing on issues from Taiwan to the South China Sea to China’s abominable record on human rights. But these disputes existed when George W. Bush and Barack Obama held office, too, and those presidents elevated cooperation on public health, nonetheless. They could do so because the U.S.-China relationship was less hostile overall. It was Donald Trump who pulled U.S. medical and scientific officials out of China and then used the Covid pandemic as an opportunity to further sever ties. By declaring, as one of Mr. Biden’s top China aides did, that “the period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end,” this administration has signaled that it does not consider a return to pre-Trump levels of U.S. public health cooperation possible, or even desirable. That’s exactly the wrong response to a pandemic that originated in China and has taken three-quarters of a million U.S. lives.

Mr. Biden deserves credit for trying to establish a “guardrail” so the United States and China avoid war. But guardrails aren’t enough. The inconvenient truths of today’s world require far greater cooperation between Washington and Beijing. And that greater cooperation isn’t compatible with growing antagonism because, as more than 200 experts on U.S.-China relations wrote in a public letter in 2019, while there are figures in China who support working more closely with the United States, “Washington’s adversarial stance toward Beijing weakens the influence of those voices in favor of assertive nationalists.”

The Biden administration cannot afford to triangulate between hawks who want to treat China as an enemy and progressives desperate for dramatic action to prevent climate and public health catastrophes. It needs to choose what it values most. Pretending not to choose is a choice, too.

The choreography has been exquisite. President Biden spent his first nine months in office trying to gain leverage over China: He patched up trade disputes with America’s allies.

The choreography has been exquisite. President Biden spent his first nine months in office trying to gain leverage over China: He patched up trade disputes with America’s allies. He hosted the first-ever in-person meeting of leaders of “The Quad,” which forged deeper ties between the United States, India, Japan and Australia, all of which sit on the periphery of Chinese power. He convinced NATO, for the first time in its history, to describe China as a challenge to “alliance security.” He cajoled Congress into spending a trillion dollars to rebuild U.S. infrastructure, which he pitched, in part, as a way to counter China. Then, earlier this week, on the very day he signed the infrastructure bill into law, he held his first formal meeting with President Xi Jinping. The message was unmistakable: The United States will work with China to address common challenges while competing from a position of strength. The strategy is clear, the execution — a few hiccups aside — impressive. But there’s a problem: Mr. Biden is trying to have it both ways. His aides insist there’s no tradeoff between treating China as an adversary and as a partner. Or, as a State Department spokesperson put it, “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.” That’s wishful thinking; the two goals collide. And for all the recent talk of better relations between Washington and Beijing, the Biden administration is still not prioritizing cooperation — although it is only through far deeper cooperation that the United States can address what menaces Americans most. Take climate change, the single greatest long-term danger to life in the United States — and everywhere else. It should be the Biden administration’s top priority when it comes to China. But it’s not. Although the U.S. climate envoy, John Kerry, and his Chinese counterpart made headlines by signing a joint declaration on “enhancing climate action” earlier this month in Glasgow, the document was weaker than a joint statement the two governments signed seven years earlier, before U.S.-China relations nose-dived. America’s hard line toward China undermines the fight against climate disaster in less obvious ways, too. To reduce carbon emissions, the United States must rapidly switch to cleaner energy sources like solar. The cheapest place to get solar cells is China. But the Biden administration has defended the Trump administration’s tariffs on solar technology. Some Chinese solar producers are based in Xinjiang, where Beijing brutally represses Uyghurs and other Muslims, and are thus subject to U.S. sanctions for using forced labor. But the solar tariffs are not restricted to Xinjiang. Why? Because the Biden team wants to weaken China’s hold over a prized industry. In so doing, however, it is making solar energy more expensive for Americans, which delays the United States’ transition away from fossil fuels. It’s not just solar panels. Many green technologies will advance faster if American and Chinese researchers collaborate. But the Biden administration has maintained Trump administration visa restrictions that prevent students who attended Chinese universities with military ties from doing graduate work in the United States — even if there’s no evidence those students ever worked for the Chinese military themselves. The Biden administration is working to counter China’s mammoth Belt and Road infrastructure program when the two superpowers could more effectively fight global warming by jointly financing clean energy in poor countries. And by depicting China as a threat, Mr. Biden justifies higher Pentagon budgets — which, given the U.S. military’s status as the world’s largest institutional producer of greenhouse gasses, constitutes a climate disaster in and of itself. If climate change constitutes the greatest security threat facing the United States, pandemics like Covid — which has killed more Americans than World War I, World War II, and the wars in Vietnam and Korea combined — come in second. There is ample evidence that U.S.-Chinese cooperation on public health saves American lives. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention helped China build an influenza surveillance system, which proved crucial to containing the H1N1 flu in 2009 and H7N9 flu in 2013. American public health experts went to work inside China’s own C.D.C. headquarters, which gave the United States greater insight into potential Chinese outbreaks. In 2016, Washington and Beijing even agreed to jointly fund a surveillance system in Africa to help the continent’s governments better combat viruses like Ebola. Such cooperation might seem fanciful now given the sharp divergence between Washington and Beijing on issues from Taiwan to the South China Sea to China’s abominable record on human rights. But these disputes existed when George W. Bush and Barack Obama held office, too, and those presidents elevated cooperation on public health, nonetheless. They could do so because the U.S.-China relationship was less hostile overall. It was Donald Trump who pulled U.S. medical and scientific officials out of China and then used the Covid pandemic as an opportunity to further sever ties. By declaring, as one of Mr. Biden’s top China aides did, that “the period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end,” this administration has signaled that it does not consider a return to pre-Trump levels of U.S. public health cooperation possible, or even desirable. That’s exactly the wrong response to a pandemic that originated in China and has taken three-quarters of a million U.S. lives. Mr. Biden deserves credit for trying to establish a “guardrail” so the United States and China avoid war. But guardrails aren’t enough. The inconvenient truths of today’s world require far greater cooperation between Washington and Beijing. And that greater cooperation isn’t compatible with growing antagonism because, as more than 200 experts on U.S.-China relations wrote in a public letter in 2019, while there are figures in China who support working more closely with the United States, “Washington’s adversarial stance toward Beijing weakens the influence of those voices in favor of assertive nationalists.” The Biden administration cannot afford to triangulate between hawks who want to treat China as an enemy and progressives desperate for dramatic action to prevent climate and public health catastrophes. It needs to choose what it values most. Pretending not to choose is a choice, too.

Biden thinks he can have it both ways on China. He's wrong

On the occasion of Transgender Day of Remembrance, US President Joe Biden released a statement mourning the loss of 46 transgender Americans lost their lives in 2021 because of violence. "Today, on Transgender Day of Remembrance, we mourn those we lost in the deadliest year on record for transgender Americans, as well as the countless other transgender people—disproportionately Black and brown transgender women and girls—who face brutal violence, discrimination, and harassment," read the statement.&nbsp;

The President highlighted how LGBTQI+ Americans, transgender people, live in fear constantly despite strengthening civil rights.

In order to ensure that the government protects the civil rights of transgender Americans, Biden charged his team with coordinating across the federal government to address the "epidemic of violence and advance equality for transgender people."

He further called on state leaders and lawmakers to battle the disturbing proliferation of discriminatory state legislation which targets transgender people, especially transgender children.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/wont-tolerate-taiwans-independence-says-china-430759">Also read |&nbsp;Won't tolerate Taiwan's independence, says China</a>

"As I have said before, these bills are nothing more than bullying disguised as legislation, they are un-American, and they endanger the safety and well-being of our children. I also continue to urge the Senate to swiftly pass the Equality Act so that all people are able to live free from fear and discrimination," the statement read. &nbsp;He deemed transgender people as the "bravest Americans."

Meanwhile, a recent study found out that transgender people are four times more likely to experience violent crimes than cisgender people. This was concluded after researchers analysed pooled data from the 2017 and 2018 National crime victimisation survey.&nbsp;

On the occasion of Transgender Day of Remembrance, US President Joe Biden released a statement mourning the loss of 46 transgender Americans lost their lives in 2021 because of violence.

On the occasion of Transgender Day of Remembrance, US President Joe Biden released a statement mourning the loss of 46 transgender Americans lost their lives in 2021 because of violence. "Today, on Transgender Day of Remembrance, we mourn those we lost in the deadliest year on record for transgender Americans, as well as the countless other transgender people—disproportionately Black and brown transgender women and girls—who face brutal violence, discrimination, and harassment," read the statement. The President highlighted how LGBTQI+ Americans, transgender people, live in fear constantly despite strengthening civil rights. In order to ensure that the government protects the civil rights of transgender Americans, Biden charged his team with coordinating across the federal government to address the "epidemic of violence and advance equality for transgender people." He further called on state leaders and lawmakers to battle the disturbing proliferation of discriminatory state legislation which targets transgender people, especially transgender children. Also read | Won't tolerate Taiwan's independence, says China "As I have said before, these bills are nothing more than bullying disguised as legislation, they are un-American, and they endanger the safety and well-being of our children. I also continue to urge the Senate to swiftly pass the Equality Act so that all people are able to live free from fear and discrimination," the statement read. He deemed transgender people as the "bravest Americans." Meanwhile, a recent study found out that transgender people are four times more likely to experience violent crimes than cisgender people. This was concluded after researchers analysed pooled data from the 2017 and 2018 National crime victimisation survey.

Transgender day of remembrance: Biden honours 46 transgender Americans killed due to violence in US

Earlier this week Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart XI Jinping sat down in a virtual meet and spoke for 3 and a half-hour meeting. This meeting was hailed to be an ice breaker between the 2 countries.

Washington still reluctant to completely trust Beijing

As Joe&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;pops the cork on his alcohol-free birthday bubbly this weekend he will not need to be reminded that he was born as close to the end of Abraham Lincoln's presidency as he was to the start of his own.

The veteran Democrat, who turns&nbsp;79&nbsp;on Saturday, has said publicly he intends to run for reelection but there has been&nbsp;persistent speculation&nbsp;that he could change his mind given his advanced years.

There is usually little intrigue around the nomination when a US president is still in his first term, as no occupant of the White House has declined to seek reelection since Lyndon Johnson more than 50 years ago.

But&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;would be 86 at the end of a second term, and&nbsp;potential&nbsp;successors&nbsp;and their sponsors are already circling, seeing another four years as an assignment too far in&nbsp;Biden's storied political career.

In a new Politico/Morning Consult poll, only 40 per cent of voters surveyed agreed with the statement that&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;"is in good health," while 50 per cent disagreed -- a 29-point shift over a year.

"If his health declines, as sometimes happens in one's 80s, his plans might change," said David Greenberg, a journalism and history professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

"That would create a wide-open field, with many of the 2020 runners-up as possibilities, as well as a lot of people who didn't run."

If&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;were to become the nation's first octogenarian presidential candidate, he would be somewhat undermining the status he gave himself during the campaign as a "bridge" to the next generation -- taken by many as a tacit assurance that he would not seek a second term.&nbsp;

History-making Kamala Harris -- the first woman and first Black and Asian American ever sworn in as vice president -- would be the heir apparent.

<h2>&nbsp;'Bold leader'&nbsp;</h2>

But her halo has slipped amid a run of negative press alleging dysfunction among her staff, casting doubt on her standing within the administration and reporting her frustrations over her thorny assignments.

Asked by ABC Thursday if she'd spoken to&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;about his plans for the future, Harris said "absolutely not," adding that the administration was focused on infrastructure, national security and other priorities.

She rejected reports that she was feeling misused or wrongly deployed, telling the channel: "We're getting things done, and we're doing it together."

But Harris has struggled to make an impact, with her approval dipping to 28 per cent in one survey, and headlines outlining her frustrations over being politically sidelined and set up for failure.&nbsp;

It is not unusual for vice presidents to be assigned some heavy lifting during their time in the West Wing, but Harris has been handed some particularly tough portfolios,&nbsp;from&nbsp;voting rights to the immigration crisis at the southern border.

Overseas, her recent trip to Paris went without hitches, but jaunts to Latin America and Asia have been less successful.

Harris visited Guatemala and Mexico in June as part of her immigration mission, giving an interview to NBC News that was widely regarded as a disaster.&nbsp;

Asked why she had not yet been to the border, Harris replied: "And I haven't been to Europe... And I mean, I don't understand the point that you're making. I'm not discounting the importance of the border."

Hours after the interview, several US media outlets reported that Harris's communications chief&nbsp;Ashley Etienne&nbsp;was leaving -- "to pursue other opportunities," according to White House officials -- adding to speculation about low morale among the staff.&nbsp;

<h2>&nbsp;'Hope and rumour'&nbsp;</h2>

Amid Harris's travails, another barrier-breaking Democrat, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has risen to the fore as the point man on implementing much of&nbsp;Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure package.&nbsp;

But the first openly gay US cabinet secretary is also the face of the supply-chain crisis that right-wing media are predicting will ruin the holiday season.&nbsp;

Critics also point to the biggest flaw of his impressive campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, a glaring lack of support&nbsp;from&nbsp;voters of colour.&nbsp;

Three analysts interviewed by AFP -- former congressional chief of staff Mark Bayer, University of Toledo politics professor Sam Nelson and Tommy Goodwin, a Washington-based lobbyist -- said Harris would nevertheless be the frontrunner in any Democratic succession, with Buttigieg also in the conversation.

"Beyond those two, it's worth keeping an eye on California Governor Gavin Newsom," said Goodwin, while Nelson singled out a number of previous hopefuls, including Beto O'Rourke, who is vying for the Texas governor's mansion in 2022.

From&nbsp;the Senate, Cory Booker is said to be putting out feelers in the critical primary state of New Hampshire, while&nbsp;Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar is on a book tour and&nbsp;Elizabeth Warren has begun endorsing candidates beyond her Massachusetts base.

But Peter Loge, an associate professor at George Washington University, says any talk of&nbsp;Biden's retirement would be premature, recalling similar claims about Donald Trump in 2019. &nbsp;

"There is always speculation based on hope and whispered rumours," Loge told AFP, "most of which isn't based on more than hope and rumour."

As Joe Biden pops the cork on his alcohol-free birthday bubbly this weekend he will not need to be reminded that he was born as close to the end of Abraham Lincoln's presidency as he was to the start of his own.

As Joe Biden pops the cork on his alcohol-free birthday bubbly this weekend he will not need to be reminded that he was born as close to the end of Abraham Lincoln's presidency as he was to the start of his own. The veteran Democrat, who turns 79 on Saturday, has said publicly he intends to run for reelection but there has been persistent speculation that he could change his mind given his advanced years. There is usually little intrigue around the nomination when a US president is still in his first term, as no occupant of the White House has declined to seek reelection since Lyndon Johnson more than 50 years ago. But Biden would be 86 at the end of a second term, and potential successors and their sponsors are already circling, seeing another four years as an assignment too far in Biden's storied political career. In a new Politico/Morning Consult poll, only 40 per cent of voters surveyed agreed with the statement that Biden "is in good health," while 50 per cent disagreed -- a 29-point shift over a year. "If his health declines, as sometimes happens in one's 80s, his plans might change," said David Greenberg, a journalism and history professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "That would create a wide-open field, with many of the 2020 runners-up as possibilities, as well as a lot of people who didn't run." If Biden were to become the nation's first octogenarian presidential candidate, he would be somewhat undermining the status he gave himself during the campaign as a "bridge" to the next generation -- taken by many as a tacit assurance that he would not seek a second term. History-making Kamala Harris -- the first woman and first Black and Asian American ever sworn in as vice president -- would be the heir apparent. 'Bold leader' But her halo has slipped amid a run of negative press alleging dysfunction among her staff, casting doubt on her standing within the administration and reporting her frustrations over her thorny assignments. Asked by ABC Thursday if she'd spoken to Biden about his plans for the future, Harris said "absolutely not," adding that the administration was focused on infrastructure, national security and other priorities. She rejected reports that she was feeling misused or wrongly deployed, telling the channel: "We're getting things done, and we're doing it together." But Harris has struggled to make an impact, with her approval dipping to 28 per cent in one survey, and headlines outlining her frustrations over being politically sidelined and set up for failure. It is not unusual for vice presidents to be assigned some heavy lifting during their time in the West Wing, but Harris has been handed some particularly tough portfolios, from voting rights to the immigration crisis at the southern border. Overseas, her recent trip to Paris went without hitches, but jaunts to Latin America and Asia have been less successful. Harris visited Guatemala and Mexico in June as part of her immigration mission, giving an interview to NBC News that was widely regarded as a disaster. Asked why she had not yet been to the border, Harris replied: "And I haven't been to Europe... And I mean, I don't understand the point that you're making. I'm not discounting the importance of the border." Hours after the interview, several US media outlets reported that Harris's communications chief Ashley Etienne was leaving -- "to pursue other opportunities," according to White House officials -- adding to speculation about low morale among the staff. 'Hope and rumour' Amid Harris's travails, another barrier-breaking Democrat, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has risen to the fore as the point man on implementing much of Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. But the first openly gay US cabinet secretary is also the face of the supply-chain crisis that right-wing media are predicting will ruin the holiday season. Critics also point to the biggest flaw of his impressive campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, a glaring lack of support from voters of colour. Three analysts interviewed by AFP -- former congressional chief of staff Mark Bayer, University of Toledo politics professor Sam Nelson and Tommy Goodwin, a Washington-based lobbyist -- said Harris would nevertheless be the frontrunner in any Democratic succession, with Buttigieg also in the conversation. "Beyond those two, it's worth keeping an eye on California Governor Gavin Newsom," said Goodwin, while Nelson singled out a number of previous hopefuls, including Beto O'Rourke, who is vying for the Texas governor's mansion in 2022. From the Senate, Cory Booker is said to be putting out feelers in the critical primary state of New Hampshire, while Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar is on a book tour and Elizabeth Warren has begun endorsing candidates beyond her Massachusetts base. But Peter Loge, an associate professor at George Washington University, says any talk of Biden's retirement would be premature, recalling similar claims about Donald Trump in 2019. "There is always speculation based on hope and whispered rumours," Loge told AFP, "most of which isn't based on more than hope and rumour."

Biden hits 79 as potential successors watch from wings

Plastic is one of the biggest enemies of the planet, the pollution caused by plastic waste continues to have a devastating impact on marine life. In the wake of the crisis, the US has said that it will back talks to tackle plastic pollution.

US to step up efforts to tackle plastic waste as it continues to devastate marine life

Days ahead of US prez Joe Biden's 79th birthday, a new poll has found American voters are split on whether Joe Biden is fit enough for the presidency. Around 40% of voters agreed that Biden is fit enough while 50% disagreed.

United States: Voters split over Joe Biden's health, fitness; Is Biden too old to be president?

US President Joe Biden held a virtual meeting with Xi Jinping. In this meeting, both the countries discussed common issues, strategic issues including mutual relations. Taiwan and human rights violations were Biden's top focus. During this meeting, Chinese President Xi said that America and China should respect each other.

Joe Biden, Xi Jinping trade warnings over Taiwan

A year after President Biden’s election, we’re beginning to see the contours of his foreign policy: He has something for everyone. For balance-of-power realists, he has countered China by working much more closely with “the Quad” — India, Australia, Japan and the United States — and creating a new British, Australian, U.S. nexus with the AUKUS submarine deal, no matter how clumsily handled.

For liberal internationalists, he has re-engaged with global institutions: rejoining the World Health Organization and the U.N.-sponsored Paris Agreement to limit climate change and recommitting to NATO. For those advocating “restraint” in America’s military might, he has ended at least the visible “forever wars.”

And for democracy and human rights activists committed to a values-based foreign policy, Mr. Biden will be hosting a Summit for Democracy next month. The administration has also ratcheted up both its rhetoric and its actions on human rights issues, accusing China of both genocide and crimes against humanity for its treatment of its Uyghur population and authorizing sanctions against several officials responsible for the war and humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia.

Yet when everyone gets something, no one gets everything, which is why the core principles of Mr. Biden’s worldview have been hard to pin down.

Not for lack of trying, however. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that Mr. Biden is continuing many of Donald Trump’s “America First” policies in a different guise. Joshua Shifrinson, a Boston University professor, and Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claim that the Biden Doctrine is “pragmatic realism,” pursuing U.S. interests “in a competitive world” and changing course as necessary to achieve them.

On the values-based side of the foreign policy ledger, a growing number of observers insist that the real Biden Doctrine is to preserve and prove “the supremacy of democracy” worldwide. As Jonathan Tepperman, former editor in chief of Foreign Policy, argues, the “global contest between democracies and autocracies” provides an “organizing principle” to link investing in infrastructure and industrial policy at home, pursuing a foreign policy for the middle class and working to build coalitions of democracies abroad.

Perhaps Mr. Biden is perfectly comfortable with multiple “Biden Doctrines.” He might say that reconciling conflicting impulses and brokering compromises is his trademark as a politician who knows how to get things done.

The problem is that swinging from one framework and set of goals to another without a set of clear principles and priorities risks falling radically short of the progress that the world needs on existential issues. What difference does it make whether the United States “beats China” if our cities are underwater, the Gulf Stream stops warming northern Europe and the United States, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees are on the move? If we destroy the biodiversity on the planet? If millions more people die from serial pandemics? If people the world over do not have the means to flourish and care for one another?

It is time to break free of 20th-century thinking. Two decades of Mr. Biden’s 50-odd years in public life were spent during the Cold War and a third during the 1990s with the United States as a hyperpower. For most of this period great-power competition and making the world safe for democracy were fused. “People” issues were relegated to human rights advocates and development experts. Diplomacy and defense were the provinces of nations and the field of international relations.

The frameworks, paradigms and doctrines of that era, of any kind, are simply insufficient to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Bolder thinking is required, thinking that shifts away from states, whether great powers or lesser powers, democracies or autocracies. It is time to put people first, to see the world first as a planet of eight billion people rather than as an artificially constructed system of 195 countries and to measure all state actions in terms of their impact on people. Instead of competing with China today on one issue and cooperating tomorrow on another, Mr. Biden must prioritize cooperation on global issues and challenge other nations, regardless of whether they are democracies, autocracies or something in between, to join in.

This approach is known as globalism, which has a bad name because of its association with globalization. But globalism is actually closer to localism, to beginning with people, where they live and what they need, regardless of what colored square on the map they happen to be born in. It is a people-centered rather than a state-centered approach to problem-solving on a global scale. It does not pretend that governments don’t exist or don’t matter, but rejects the idea that interstate rivalry matters as an end in itself — the essence of geopolitics.

Globalism also sees government officials as a set of actors who can contribute to either global problems or global solutions. To succeed as problem solvers, however, they must work side by side with global corporations and networks of cities, civic groups, faith groups, universities, scientists and others. These actors are not just “helpers” or catalysts or constituents. They are players in global politics.

Mr. Biden sometimes seems to be moving in this direction. His speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September laid out a long list of global problems, from health and climate change to inequality and corruption. In my view, his greatest foreign policy achievement to date was to secure a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15 percent, ensuring that corporations worldwide pay at least a portion of their fair share for the public goods — from roads to intellectual property laws — that they rely on and that benefit all citizens. The Biden administration also embraces an “all of society” approach to fighting climate change.

Time and again, however, Mr. Biden’s other goal — of beating China, or more broadly of lining up the democracies to beat the autocracies — gets in the way. This week, thanks to the work of John Kerry, the climate envoy, the United States and China reached an important agreement to cooperate on deeper cuts to both carbon dioxide and methane emissions. It’s not enough, however, and misses a larger opportunity to mobilize the United States, China, the European Union and India as co-leaders on a global climate challenge.

The lure of competition — often on the edge of conflict — with a rival superpower is just too strong, both for Mr. Biden and for the tight-knit band of brothers who form the core of his foreign policy team. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, are veterans of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” a concept designed and advanced in large part by Kurt Campbell, now the White House Asia czar.

From the perspective of 20th-century geopolitics, it makes sense for the Biden administration to approach its relationship with China as one in which the United States has many different goals: economic, military and diplomatic. On some issues, like climate or health, we seek China’s cooperation. On many more, like military primacy, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, fair trade, intellectual property rights, cybersecurity and human rights, our relationship requires competition and coercion. Hence we have the frequent trade-off debate, in which China hawks have demanded that Mr. Kerry not give an inch to get concessions on Chinese emissions or to encourage other actions that are necessary to stop the globe from warming another degree.

From a people-first perspective, saving the planet for humanity must be a goal that takes precedence over all others. The United States should openly challenge China to a competition to see which country can deliver the cleanest and safest environment for its people while at the same time increasing their well-being. Which country can build and deploy clean technologies the fastest? Which country can help the most developing countries upgrade their infrastructure and wean themselves off carbon?

It should be possible to develop common measures to assess the climate impact of China’s Belt and Road investments versus the Build Back Better World initiative — a project of the Group of 7 wealthiest economies — and the E.U.’s Global Gateway investments and to agree on a set of nongovernmental organizations charged with applying and publicizing these metrics. Global youth movements, from the Sunrise Movement in the United States to the China Youth Climate Action Network and Greta Thunberg’s followers everywhere, would be ideal candidates.

When it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, if our collective goal really is to vaccinate and treat as many people as possible worldwide, then it’s time to ignore geopolitics. Back in September, the Biden administration’s global vaccine summit brought together over 100 governments and an additional 100 global actors to commit to vaccinating 70 percent of the world’s people by 2022. China has said that it is now working with 19 nations to produce vaccines and cooperating with another 30 countries on vaccine distribution through the Belt and Road Initiative. Indeed, President Xi Jinping of China proposed a Global Vaccine Cooperation Action Initiative at the Group of 20 summit last month, without an apparent response from the United States. Aboard Air Force One, on his way to Rome, Mr. Sullivan told reporters that “the main thrust of the effort on Covid-19 is not actually traveling through the G20.” My translation: The Chinese and their partners have one effort and the United States and its partners have another.

Mr. Biden believes in the inherent value and ultimate superiority of democracy. He sees it as the form of government that best recognizes human dignity and agency, and that can deliver well-being and prosperity for the greatest number of people. So do I. But this conviction, which was as reflexive as breathing for most Americans during the 20th century, must now be put to an empirical test, starting at home.

Mr. Biden gets this, in part. He has made clear that the United States must demonstrate that our democracy can in fact represent and deliver results for our own people. Bolder thinking would insist that the United States face all the ways in which our democracy has fallen short for millions of our people and accept at least the possibility that other forms of government could be better. Beyond U.S. borders, the contest between democracy and autocracy should be an open competition to see which governments can deliver more — materially, intellectually, spiritual and all the other ways we measure human flourishing — for their people. One measure might be which country does the most to achieve the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals, as assessed by a global coalition of civic organizations.

Globalism is not mushy government idealism — far from it. It does not deny the existence or importance of government — at the local, state, national and international levels — or of intergovernmental diplomacy. But it insists that the great-power games, as deadly as they have been and could still be, must give way to planetary politics, in which human beings matter more than nationalities. Competition itself is fine and natural, but it needs to be competition to achieve a goal that benefits us all.

Under normal circumstances, administrations set goals and navigate the conflicting interests that are the essence of politics. They muddle through one crisis, one summit, one speech at a time. But we are not living in normal times. As Mr. Biden understands and is striving to achieve on the domestic front, it’s time for bold, transformative change. To vaccinate fewer people globally in the hope of demonstrating American or even democratic superiority is a moral calamity that will hurt us all.

To some, adopting people-centered policies at the national and global levels might seem so fanciful as to be delusional. But history shows that it is possible to change course, even drastically. Just over a hundred years ago, the United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and turned its back on the League of Nations. At the time, no one would have predicted that a quarter century later, President Franklin Roosevelt would be a principal architect of the United Nations and that the United States would embrace a set of global institutions designed to maintain peace, prosperity and security. Gen Z and many millennials are already thinking in planetary terms, putting people ahead of states. It is time for the rest of us to catch up.

A year after President Biden’s election, we’re beginning to see the contours of his foreign policy: He has something for everyone. For balance-of-power realists, he has countered China by working much more closely with “the Quad” — India, Australia, Japan and the United States — and creating a new British, Australian, U.

A year after President Biden’s election, we’re beginning to see the contours of his foreign policy: He has something for everyone. For balance-of-power realists, he has countered China by working much more closely with “the Quad” — India, Australia, Japan and the United States — and creating a new British, Australian, U.S. nexus with the AUKUS submarine deal, no matter how clumsily handled. For liberal internationalists, he has re-engaged with global institutions: rejoining the World Health Organization and the U.N.-sponsored Paris Agreement to limit climate change and recommitting to NATO. For those advocating “restraint” in America’s military might, he has ended at least the visible “forever wars.” And for democracy and human rights activists committed to a values-based foreign policy, Mr. Biden will be hosting a Summit for Democracy next month. The administration has also ratcheted up both its rhetoric and its actions on human rights issues, accusing China of both genocide and crimes against humanity for its treatment of its Uyghur population and authorizing sanctions against several officials responsible for the war and humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia. Yet when everyone gets something, no one gets everything, which is why the core principles of Mr. Biden’s worldview have been hard to pin down. Not for lack of trying, however. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that Mr. Biden is continuing many of Donald Trump’s “America First” policies in a different guise. Joshua Shifrinson, a Boston University professor, and Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claim that the Biden Doctrine is “pragmatic realism,” pursuing U.S. interests “in a competitive world” and changing course as necessary to achieve them. On the values-based side of the foreign policy ledger, a growing number of observers insist that the real Biden Doctrine is to preserve and prove “the supremacy of democracy” worldwide. As Jonathan Tepperman, former editor in chief of Foreign Policy, argues, the “global contest between democracies and autocracies” provides an “organizing principle” to link investing in infrastructure and industrial policy at home, pursuing a foreign policy for the middle class and working to build coalitions of democracies abroad. Perhaps Mr. Biden is perfectly comfortable with multiple “Biden Doctrines.” He might say that reconciling conflicting impulses and brokering compromises is his trademark as a politician who knows how to get things done. The problem is that swinging from one framework and set of goals to another without a set of clear principles and priorities risks falling radically short of the progress that the world needs on existential issues. What difference does it make whether the United States “beats China” if our cities are underwater, the Gulf Stream stops warming northern Europe and the United States, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees are on the move? If we destroy the biodiversity on the planet? If millions more people die from serial pandemics? If people the world over do not have the means to flourish and care for one another? It is time to break free of 20th-century thinking. Two decades of Mr. Biden’s 50-odd years in public life were spent during the Cold War and a third during the 1990s with the United States as a hyperpower. For most of this period great-power competition and making the world safe for democracy were fused. “People” issues were relegated to human rights advocates and development experts. Diplomacy and defense were the provinces of nations and the field of international relations. The frameworks, paradigms and doctrines of that era, of any kind, are simply insufficient to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Bolder thinking is required, thinking that shifts away from states, whether great powers or lesser powers, democracies or autocracies. It is time to put people first, to see the world first as a planet of eight billion people rather than as an artificially constructed system of 195 countries and to measure all state actions in terms of their impact on people. Instead of competing with China today on one issue and cooperating tomorrow on another, Mr. Biden must prioritize cooperation on global issues and challenge other nations, regardless of whether they are democracies, autocracies or something in between, to join in. This approach is known as globalism, which has a bad name because of its association with globalization. But globalism is actually closer to localism, to beginning with people, where they live and what they need, regardless of what colored square on the map they happen to be born in. It is a people-centered rather than a state-centered approach to problem-solving on a global scale. It does not pretend that governments don’t exist or don’t matter, but rejects the idea that interstate rivalry matters as an end in itself — the essence of geopolitics. Globalism also sees government officials as a set of actors who can contribute to either global problems or global solutions. To succeed as problem solvers, however, they must work side by side with global corporations and networks of cities, civic groups, faith groups, universities, scientists and others. These actors are not just “helpers” or catalysts or constituents. They are players in global politics. Mr. Biden sometimes seems to be moving in this direction. His speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September laid out a long list of global problems, from health and climate change to inequality and corruption. In my view, his greatest foreign policy achievement to date was to secure a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15 percent, ensuring that corporations worldwide pay at least a portion of their fair share for the public goods — from roads to intellectual property laws — that they rely on and that benefit all citizens. The Biden administration also embraces an “all of society” approach to fighting climate change. Time and again, however, Mr. Biden’s other goal — of beating China, or more broadly of lining up the democracies to beat the autocracies — gets in the way. This week, thanks to the work of John Kerry, the climate envoy, the United States and China reached an important agreement to cooperate on deeper cuts to both carbon dioxide and methane emissions. It’s not enough, however, and misses a larger opportunity to mobilize the United States, China, the European Union and India as co-leaders on a global climate challenge. The lure of competition — often on the edge of conflict — with a rival superpower is just too strong, both for Mr. Biden and for the tight-knit band of brothers who form the core of his foreign policy team. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, are veterans of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” a concept designed and advanced in large part by Kurt Campbell, now the White House Asia czar. From the perspective of 20th-century geopolitics, it makes sense for the Biden administration to approach its relationship with China as one in which the United States has many different goals: economic, military and diplomatic. On some issues, like climate or health, we seek China’s cooperation. On many more, like military primacy, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, fair trade, intellectual property rights, cybersecurity and human rights, our relationship requires competition and coercion. Hence we have the frequent trade-off debate, in which China hawks have demanded that Mr. Kerry not give an inch to get concessions on Chinese emissions or to encourage other actions that are necessary to stop the globe from warming another degree. From a people-first perspective, saving the planet for humanity must be a goal that takes precedence over all others. The United States should openly challenge China to a competition to see which country can deliver the cleanest and safest environment for its people while at the same time increasing their well-being. Which country can build and deploy clean technologies the fastest? Which country can help the most developing countries upgrade their infrastructure and wean themselves off carbon? It should be possible to develop common measures to assess the climate impact of China’s Belt and Road investments versus the Build Back Better World initiative — a project of the Group of 7 wealthiest economies — and the E.U.’s Global Gateway investments and to agree on a set of nongovernmental organizations charged with applying and publicizing these metrics. Global youth movements, from the Sunrise Movement in the United States to the China Youth Climate Action Network and Greta Thunberg’s followers everywhere, would be ideal candidates. When it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, if our collective goal really is to vaccinate and treat as many people as possible worldwide, then it’s time to ignore geopolitics. Back in September, the Biden administration’s global vaccine summit brought together over 100 governments and an additional 100 global actors to commit to vaccinating 70 percent of the world’s people by 2022. China has said that it is now working with 19 nations to produce vaccines and cooperating with another 30 countries on vaccine distribution through the Belt and Road Initiative. Indeed, President Xi Jinping of China proposed a Global Vaccine Cooperation Action Initiative at the Group of 20 summit last month, without an apparent response from the United States. Aboard Air Force One, on his way to Rome, Mr. Sullivan told reporters that “the main thrust of the effort on Covid-19 is not actually traveling through the G20.” My translation: The Chinese and their partners have one effort and the United States and its partners have another. Mr. Biden believes in the inherent value and ultimate superiority of democracy. He sees it as the form of government that best recognizes human dignity and agency, and that can deliver well-being and prosperity for the greatest number of people. So do I. But this conviction, which was as reflexive as breathing for most Americans during the 20th century, must now be put to an empirical test, starting at home. Mr. Biden gets this, in part. He has made clear that the United States must demonstrate that our democracy can in fact represent and deliver results for our own people. Bolder thinking would insist that the United States face all the ways in which our democracy has fallen short for millions of our people and accept at least the possibility that other forms of government could be better. Beyond U.S. borders, the contest between democracy and autocracy should be an open competition to see which governments can deliver more — materially, intellectually, spiritual and all the other ways we measure human flourishing — for their people. One measure might be which country does the most to achieve the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals, as assessed by a global coalition of civic organizations. Globalism is not mushy government idealism — far from it. It does not deny the existence or importance of government — at the local, state, national and international levels — or of intergovernmental diplomacy. But it insists that the great-power games, as deadly as they have been and could still be, must give way to planetary politics, in which human beings matter more than nationalities. Competition itself is fine and natural, but it needs to be competition to achieve a goal that benefits us all. Under normal circumstances, administrations set goals and navigate the conflicting interests that are the essence of politics. They muddle through one crisis, one summit, one speech at a time. But we are not living in normal times. As Mr. Biden understands and is striving to achieve on the domestic front, it’s time for bold, transformative change. To vaccinate fewer people globally in the hope of demonstrating American or even democratic superiority is a moral calamity that will hurt us all. To some, adopting people-centered policies at the national and global levels might seem so fanciful as to be delusional. But history shows that it is possible to change course, even drastically. Just over a hundred years ago, the United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and turned its back on the League of Nations. At the time, no one would have predicted that a quarter century later, President Franklin Roosevelt would be a principal architect of the United Nations and that the United States would embrace a set of global institutions designed to maintain peace, prosperity and security. Gen Z and many millennials are already thinking in planetary terms, putting people ahead of states. It is time for the rest of us to catch up.

It’s time to get honest about the Biden doctrine

President Joe Biden signed into law a $1 trillion infrastructure bill at a White House ceremony on Monday. The white House witnessed a rare bipartisan for the signing.

United States: Joe Biden signs $1 TN infrastructure bill into law

Taiwan took centre stage as Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping met for a virtual meet. The talks were held in a cordial manner but the tensions remained palpable. Xi Jinping warned on Taiwan, saying that the US was playing with fire.

Biden-Xi meet: China warns United States about 'playing with fire' on Taiwan

China & US race to become the world's top superpowers, their leaders are facing contrasting political scenarios back home. US President Joe Biden's approval rating has witnessed a downward trend in the past two months. While Xi Jinping is all set for a 3rd term in office.

Xi & Biden face contrasting domestic political scenarios

US President Joe Biden opened the virtual summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping from the White House early on Tuesday morning. This is the first meeting between the two leaders since Biden has assumed office. The highly anticipated summit is expected to be one of the most extensive meetings under the Biden administration, Washington is hopeful of setting the agenda.

Xi Jinping: China-US should advance cause for world peace

biden

Biden, News on Biden, stories on Biden, articles on Biden, Biden stories at Wion, Biden news, Biden latest news