American president Joe Biden has held a formal press briefing marking his very first year in office. Speaking of the country's fight against covid-19, president Biden said that the United States is now in a better place to fight the virus than it was when he had become president exactly a year ago but Biden has also admitted that more could have of course been done earlier to try and boost the covid-19 testing when the omicron variant emerged.

One year of presidency, US President Joe Biden hails his response to Covid pandemic

US Supreme Court has delivered a blow to President Biden's COVID strategy, blocking his mandate that all unvaccinated employees of large businesses provide weekly negative tests.

US President Joe Biden: Disappointed as Supreme Court blocks vaccine mandate

In a major political gamble, President Biden failed to gather support from lawmakers as US's voting reforms bill hits the roadblock.

US: President Joe Biden's voting reforms bill hits the roadblock

US: President Joe Biden fails to unite democrats as voting reforms bill hits the roadblock

In a major political gamble, President Biden called on Democratic lawmakers to change Senate rules to override Republican opposition so that his government can pass two pending bills in congress that will significantly expand voting rights in the country.

US: President Biden called on lawmakers to change Senate rules to override Republican opposition

Hundreds of homeowners in Colorado were allowed to take stock of what remained of their homes after a wildfire devastated communities last week. Nearly 1000 homes and other structures were destroyed, as a result of fire, hundreds more were damaged.

United States: Cause of Colorado wildfires still unknown

U.S. President Biden's remarks on the one-year anniversary of the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, and the COVID Omicron variant forcing U.S. universities back to remote learning

U.S. President Biden's remarks on the first anniversary of Capitol Riots

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Friday on the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace through vaccine mandates.

The challengers — states led by Republican officials, businesses, religious groups and others — say Congress has not authorized the measures, adding that they are unnecessary and in some ways counterproductive.

The administration says that workplace safety and health care laws have given it ample authority to take bold action in the face of a lethal pandemic.

The more sweeping of the two measures, directed at businesses with 100 or more employees, would impose a vaccine-or-testing mandate on more than 84 million workers. The administration estimated that the rule would cause 22 million people to get vaccinated and prevent 250,000 hospitalisations.

The other measure requires workers at hospitals and other health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The requirement would affect more than 17 million workers, the administration said, and would “save hundreds or even thousands of lives each month.”

The Supreme Court remains closed to the public, but the justices are taking the bench to hear the arguments in person and the court will provide a live audio feed on its website.

All of the justices are fully vaccinated and have received a booster shot, a court spokesperson said.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state vaccine mandates in a variety of settings against constitutional challenges. The cases before the court are different, as they primarily present the question of whether Congress has authorized the executive branch to institute the requirements.

The answer will mostly turn on the language of the relevant statutes and on whether the administration followed proper procedures in issuing the requirements.

The vaccination-or-testing requirement for large employers was issued in November by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Employers are allowed to give their workers the option to be tested weekly instead of getting the vaccine, although they are not required to pay for the testing. The rule makes an exception for employees with religious objections and those who do not come into close contact with other people at their jobs, like those who work at home or exclusively outdoors.

Under a 1970 law, OSHA has the authority to issue emergency rules for workplace safety, provided it can show that workers are exposed to a grave danger and that the rule is necessary.

States, businesses and others challenged the measure in appeals courts around the nation, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, ruled in favor of some of the challengers, blocking the measure.

After the challenges were consolidated before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, a divided three-judge panel reinstated the measure.

“The record establishes that COVID-19 has continued to spread, mutate, kill and block the safe return of American workers to their jobs,” Judge Jane B. Stranch wrote for the majority. “To protect workers, OSHA can and must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.”

In dissent, Judge Joan L. Larsen wrote that the administration “likely lacks congressional authority” to impose the vaccine-or-testing requirement.

“The mandate is aimed directly at protecting the unvaccinated from their own choices,” she wrote. “Vaccines are freely available, and unvaccinated people may choose to protect themselves at any time.”

In the Supreme Court case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the challengers argued that the regulation did not address a workplace issue and so exceeded the agency’s lawful authority.

“COVID-19 is not an occupational danger that OSHA may regulate,” lawyers for Ohio and 26 other states told the justices in a recent brief.

They added that agencies seeking to issue regulations on “major questions” with broad economic or political implications must have clear congressional authorization.

The second case, Biden v. Missouri, concerns a regulation issued in November requiring health care workers at facilities that receive federal money under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

States led by Republican officials challenged the regulation, obtaining injunctions against it covering about half of the nation. Two federal appeals courts, in New Orleans and St. Louis, refused to stay those injunctions while appeals moved forward.

A third federal appeals court, in Atlanta, sided with the Biden administration.

“Health care workers have long been required to obtain inoculations for infectious diseases, such as measles, rubella, mumps and others,” Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum and Jill A. Pryor wrote for a divided three-judge panel, “because required vaccination is a common-sense measure designed to prevent health care workers, whose job it is to improve patients’ health, from making them sicker.”

The Biden administration argued that a federal statute gave it broad authority to impose regulations concerning the health and safety of patients at facilities that receive federal money. The statute gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the general power to issue regulations to ensure the “efficient administration” of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and parts of the statute concerning various kinds of facilities generally also authorize the secretary to impose requirements to protect the health and safety of patients.

“It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic health and safety condition than a requirement that workers at hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities take the step that most effectively prevents transmission of a deadly virus to vulnerable patients,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote in a Supreme Court brief.

In response, lawyers for Missouri and other states wrote that the “sweeping and unprecedented vaccine mandate for health care workers threatens to create a crisis in health care facilities in rural America.”

“The mandate would force millions of workers to choose between losing their jobs or complying with an unlawful federal mandate,” they wrote. Had a judge not issued an injunction, they added, “last year’s health care heroes would have become this year’s unemployed.”

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Friday on the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace through vaccine mandates.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Friday on the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace through vaccine mandates. The challengers — states led by Republican officials, businesses, religious groups and others — say Congress has not authorized the measures, adding that they are unnecessary and in some ways counterproductive. The administration says that workplace safety and health care laws have given it ample authority to take bold action in the face of a lethal pandemic. The more sweeping of the two measures, directed at businesses with 100 or more employees, would impose a vaccine-or-testing mandate on more than 84 million workers. The administration estimated that the rule would cause 22 million people to get vaccinated and prevent 250,000 hospitalisations. The other measure requires workers at hospitals and other health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The requirement would affect more than 17 million workers, the administration said, and would “save hundreds or even thousands of lives each month.” The Supreme Court remains closed to the public, but the justices are taking the bench to hear the arguments in person and the court will provide a live audio feed on its website. All of the justices are fully vaccinated and have received a booster shot, a court spokesperson said. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state vaccine mandates in a variety of settings against constitutional challenges. The cases before the court are different, as they primarily present the question of whether Congress has authorized the executive branch to institute the requirements. The answer will mostly turn on the language of the relevant statutes and on whether the administration followed proper procedures in issuing the requirements. The vaccination-or-testing requirement for large employers was issued in November by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Employers are allowed to give their workers the option to be tested weekly instead of getting the vaccine, although they are not required to pay for the testing. The rule makes an exception for employees with religious objections and those who do not come into close contact with other people at their jobs, like those who work at home or exclusively outdoors. Under a 1970 law, OSHA has the authority to issue emergency rules for workplace safety, provided it can show that workers are exposed to a grave danger and that the rule is necessary. States, businesses and others challenged the measure in appeals courts around the nation, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, ruled in favor of some of the challengers, blocking the measure. After the challenges were consolidated before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, a divided three-judge panel reinstated the measure. “The record establishes that COVID-19 has continued to spread, mutate, kill and block the safe return of American workers to their jobs,” Judge Jane B. Stranch wrote for the majority. “To protect workers, OSHA can and must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.” In dissent, Judge Joan L. Larsen wrote that the administration “likely lacks congressional authority” to impose the vaccine-or-testing requirement. “The mandate is aimed directly at protecting the unvaccinated from their own choices,” she wrote. “Vaccines are freely available, and unvaccinated people may choose to protect themselves at any time.” In the Supreme Court case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the challengers argued that the regulation did not address a workplace issue and so exceeded the agency’s lawful authority. “COVID-19 is not an occupational danger that OSHA may regulate,” lawyers for Ohio and 26 other states told the justices in a recent brief. They added that agencies seeking to issue regulations on “major questions” with broad economic or political implications must have clear congressional authorization. The second case, Biden v. Missouri, concerns a regulation issued in November requiring health care workers at facilities that receive federal money under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption. States led by Republican officials challenged the regulation, obtaining injunctions against it covering about half of the nation. Two federal appeals courts, in New Orleans and St. Louis, refused to stay those injunctions while appeals moved forward. A third federal appeals court, in Atlanta, sided with the Biden administration. “Health care workers have long been required to obtain inoculations for infectious diseases, such as measles, rubella, mumps and others,” Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum and Jill A. Pryor wrote for a divided three-judge panel, “because required vaccination is a common-sense measure designed to prevent health care workers, whose job it is to improve patients’ health, from making them sicker.” The Biden administration argued that a federal statute gave it broad authority to impose regulations concerning the health and safety of patients at facilities that receive federal money. The statute gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the general power to issue regulations to ensure the “efficient administration” of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and parts of the statute concerning various kinds of facilities generally also authorize the secretary to impose requirements to protect the health and safety of patients. “It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic health and safety condition than a requirement that workers at hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities take the step that most effectively prevents transmission of a deadly virus to vulnerable patients,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote in a Supreme Court brief. In response, lawyers for Missouri and other states wrote that the “sweeping and unprecedented vaccine mandate for health care workers threatens to create a crisis in health care facilities in rural America.” “The mandate would force millions of workers to choose between losing their jobs or complying with an unlawful federal mandate,” they wrote. Had a judge not issued an injunction, they added, “last year’s health care heroes would have become this year’s unemployed.”

Supreme court hears major challenges to Biden’s vaccine mandates

In the year 2020, Joe Biden campaigned as a leader who could unite America a leader who could bring the polarized country together. But a year later, the United States still remains divided it has been a year since the US capitol witnessed its worst riots in history. An attack on the American democracy outside the capital last year. Biden's inaugural address was focused on healing and now Joe Biden left the rhetoric blaming former president Donald Trump for the chaos and carnage at the capitol last year.

Capitol Riots Anniversary: Trump is a defeated president, says US president Joe Biden

The former president of the United States of America has created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election he's done so because he values power over principle, because he sees his own interest is more important than America's interest and because his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy.

Capitol Riots: 'Trump has always valued his own interest over America's,' says Prez Joe Biden

January the 6th 2021, it's a significantly infamous day in the United States of America. Just one year ago today an angry mob broke into the capital as the world witnessed the insurrection live on television. One year on the Americans have woken up to commemorate the painful events in a few minutes from now a ceremony will take place at Capitol hill.

US: One year anniversary of Capitol Riots, a sombre ceremony at Capitol hill

On the first anniversary of the US Capitol riots, President Joe Biden made a powerful speech as he accused his predecessor Donald Trump of blocking the democratic transfer of power on January 6, 2021, as he deemed him as a "defeated former president."&nbsp;

"Even before the first ballot was cast, the former president was preemptively sowing doubt about the election results. He built his lie over months. It wasn’t based in any facts. He was just looking for an excuse, a pretext to cover for the truth," he said.&nbsp;

He further added, "He’s not just a former president. He’s a defeated former president."

"Defeated by a margin of over 7 million of your votes, and a full and free and fair election. There is simply zero proof the election results were inaccurate."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/one-year-of-us-capitol-riots-key-takeaways-and-prominent-faces-of-the-day-that-divided-america-442672">Also read |&nbsp;One year of US Capitol Riots: Key takeaways and prominent faces of the day that divided America</a>

Continuing his speech, Biden further said that the US and the entire world were locked in a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. "We're living at an inflection point in history, both at home and abroad. We're engaged anew in a struggle between democracy and autocracy. I will allow no one to place a dagger at the throat of democracy," he said.&nbsp;

On January 6, 2021, the US lawmakers were moving towards certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the election and pro-Trump protesters stormed the US Capitol to disrupt the legitimate transfer. The horrifying scene forced Congress to put a sudden pause on the ceremonial event confirming Biden's sweeping win in the elections. In the aftermath, the doors of the Senate were locked and a citywide curfew was announced.&nbsp;

After one complete year, several federal prosecutors have charged more than 700 people who were a part of this attack. New criminals are being tracked every week, even until now.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

On the first anniversary of the US Capitol riots, President Joe Biden made a powerful speech as he accused his predecessor Donald Trump of blocking the democratic transfer of power on January 6, 2021, as he deemed him as a "defeated former president.

On the first anniversary of the US Capitol riots, President Joe Biden made a powerful speech as he accused his predecessor Donald Trump of blocking the democratic transfer of power on January 6, 2021, as he deemed him as a "defeated former president." "Even before the first ballot was cast, the former president was preemptively sowing doubt about the election results. He built his lie over months. It wasn’t based in any facts. He was just looking for an excuse, a pretext to cover for the truth," he said. He further added, "He’s not just a former president. He’s a defeated former president." "Defeated by a margin of over 7 million of your votes, and a full and free and fair election. There is simply zero proof the election results were inaccurate." Also read | One year of US Capitol Riots: Key takeaways and prominent faces of the day that divided America Continuing his speech, Biden further said that the US and the entire world were locked in a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. "We're living at an inflection point in history, both at home and abroad. We're engaged anew in a struggle between democracy and autocracy. I will allow no one to place a dagger at the throat of democracy," he said. On January 6, 2021, the US lawmakers were moving towards certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the election and pro-Trump protesters stormed the US Capitol to disrupt the legitimate transfer. The horrifying scene forced Congress to put a sudden pause on the ceremonial event confirming Biden's sweeping win in the elections. In the aftermath, the doors of the Senate were locked and a citywide curfew was announced. After one complete year, several federal prosecutors have charged more than 700 people who were a part of this attack. New criminals are being tracked every week, even until now. (With inputs from agencies)

In his speech on the anniversary of Capitol riots, Biden deems Trump as a 'defeated former President'

United states former US president Donald Trump has abruptly decided to ditch his planned press conference in Florida which was billed as an address on the first anniversary of the January 6th Capitol hill riots. The former president was expected to defend the actions of his supporters one year ago but he's now cancelled his appearance.

Donald Trump cancels talk on Capitol Riots, Joe Biden to address alone

Iran is issuing new threats to the US. Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi wants Former US President Donald Trump punished. He said Trump should be "prosecuted and killed" for ordering the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani. Palki Sharma has more.

Gravitas: Iran demands Trump be "prosecuted and killed"

The Presidents of the United States and Russia held a telephonic conversation that lasted about 50 minutes. This is the second such conversation between the world leaders within 3 weeks.

US President Joe Biden warns his Russian Counterpart Vladimir Putin of heavy price over Ukraine

US President Joe Biden spoke for over an hour with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, agreeing to continue and advance their communication ahead of a summit in Geneva early next year.

Their second phone conversation this month occurred amid mounting Western concerns about Russia's force buildup near Ukraine.

The simmering conflict has recently worsened as the Kremlin has stepped up its demands for more security guarantees.&nbsp; 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-trains-civilians-to-defend-against-russian-invasion-440536">Also Read:&nbsp;Ukraine trains civilians to defend against Russian invasion</a>

What was Russia's reaction to the call?

According to Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned his US counterpart, Joe Biden, that fresh sanctions against Russia over the situation in Ukraine could result in the two countries' relations being severed.

According to Ushakov, Biden warned Putin about further financial, military, and economic sanctions if tensions along Russia's western borders escalated.&nbsp;

"Our president clearly responded that this would be a colossal mistake that of course may result in the full severance of relations," the Kremlin aided said.

He added that such sanctions would have serious consequences and expressed hope this would not happen. 
 
Watch | Ukraine Tensions: Biden and Putin hold 50-minute phone call

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ukraine-tensions-biden-and-putin-hold-50-minute-phone-call-441302/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

He went on to say that, despite the pleasantries shared, the call constituted a concrete political development.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amid-tensions-with-ukraine-russia-inducts-s-550-air-defence-system-report-440960">Also Read:&nbsp;Amid tensions with Ukraine, Russia inducts S-550 air defence system</a>

What about the United States?

According to the White House, Biden told Putin that if Ukraine is invaded, the United States and its allies will respond forcefully.&nbsp;

"President Biden urged Russia to de-escalate tensions with Ukraine, "White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said in a statement.

"He made clear that the United States and its allies and partners will respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine," she added.&nbsp; 
 
Thursday`s phone call was the second conversation between Biden and Putin in December. The two leaders spoke on December 7 in a video conference that ended with a pledge to restart diplomatic discussions, Xinhua news agency reported.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden spoke for over an hour with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, agreeing to continue and advance their communication ahead of a summit in Geneva early next year.

US President Joe Biden spoke for over an hour with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, agreeing to continue and advance their communication ahead of a summit in Geneva early next year. Their second phone conversation this month occurred amid mounting Western concerns about Russia's force buildup near Ukraine. The simmering conflict has recently worsened as the Kremlin has stepped up its demands for more security guarantees. Also Read: Ukraine trains civilians to defend against Russian invasion What was Russia's reaction to the call? According to Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned his US counterpart, Joe Biden, that fresh sanctions against Russia over the situation in Ukraine could result in the two countries' relations being severed. According to Ushakov, Biden warned Putin about further financial, military, and economic sanctions if tensions along Russia's western borders escalated. "Our president clearly responded that this would be a colossal mistake that of course may result in the full severance of relations," the Kremlin aided said. He added that such sanctions would have serious consequences and expressed hope this would not happen. Watch | Ukraine Tensions: Biden and Putin hold 50-minute phone call He went on to say that, despite the pleasantries shared, the call constituted a concrete political development. Also Read: Amid tensions with Ukraine, Russia inducts S-550 air defence system What about the United States? According to the White House, Biden told Putin that if Ukraine is invaded, the United States and its allies will respond forcefully. "President Biden urged Russia to de-escalate tensions with Ukraine, "White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said in a statement. "He made clear that the United States and its allies and partners will respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine," she added. Thursday`s phone call was the second conversation between Biden and Putin in December. The two leaders spoke on December 7 in a video conference that ended with a pledge to restart diplomatic discussions, Xinhua news agency reported. (With inputs from agencies)

US-Russia talks: Biden affirms sanctions threat; Putin says that would be colossal mistake

Ukraine Tensions: Biden and Putin hold 50-minute phone call

Biden, Putin hold 50-minute phone call in a bid to ease tensions over Ukraine

Ukraine conflict: Biden, Putin trade warnings during their 50-minute telephonic conversation

The presidents of United States and Russia are set to hold a telephonic conversation and there will be another round of talks on security next month. The phone call will be covering Ukraine and Moscow security demands from the west, this is going to be the second telephony conversation between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in less than one month.

Ukraine Tensions: Biden and Putin phone call seeks diplomatic path forward

Coronavirus has outpaced the American government once again. The Omicron variant has taken over from the previous variants. Long queues are expanding outside testing centres across the country, the isolation period for infected patients has been reduced and the promised free rapid home test kits are nowhere to be seen.

Americans struggle to find free rapid test kits,  Biden govt fails to deliver promise

As rising inflation threatens his presidency, President Joe Biden is turning to the federal government’s antitrust authorities to try to tame red-hot price increases that his administration believes are partly driven by a lack of corporate competition.

Biden has prodded the Agriculture Department to investigate large meatpackers that control a significant share of poultry and pork markets, accusing them of raising prices, underpaying farmers — and tripling their profit margins during the pandemic. As gas prices surged, he publicly encouraged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate accusations that large oil companies had artificially inflated prices, behavior that the administration says continued even after global oil prices began to fall in recent weeks.

The push has extended to little-known agencies, such as the Federal Maritime Commission, which Biden has urged to search for price gouging by large shipping companies at the heart of the supply chain.

The turn to antitrust levers stems from Biden’s belief that rising levels of corporate concentration in the U.S. economy have empowered a few large players in each industry to raise prices higher than a more competitive market would allow.

Corporate culpability for rising prices remains unclear. Inflation is at a 40-year high because of pandemic-related factors such as broken supply chains and high demand for goods from consumers still flush with government-provided cash. But as the price increases have spread across sectors, including food and gasoline, the administration has come under increasing pressure to find ways to respond.

White House officials concede that their antitrust moves are unlikely to reduce costs for U.S. businesses or consumers immediately. The efforts, they say, will be more effective down the road. But the rise of inflation has given the White House an opportunity to take action that Democrats have long encouraged, and that Biden made an early focus of his tenure: using the power of government to break up monopolies and promote economic competition.

In July, before the recent run-up in prices, Biden issued an executive order that included 72 directives for Cabinet and independent agencies to more vigorously enforce antitrust laws and to pursue specific actions to promote competition, such as eliminating noncompete agreements for workers and forcing tech companies such as Apple to allow consumers to repair their own products.

He has also tapped antitrust crusaders for key roles, including Lina Khan to be chair of the FTC, and Jonathan Kanter, an adversary of Facebook and Google, to lead the antitrust division of the Justice Department. Tim Wu, a proponent of breaking up Facebook and other large companies, was brought on as a special White House adviser to Biden on competition issues.

White House officials say fighting inflation was not the initial motivation for Biden’s competition agenda. But, they say, the push has given him some of his most powerful tools to take action against rising prices, and it will play a central role in federal efforts to reduce costs for consumers over the long term.

That role could grow even more prominent if Democrats lose control of the House or Senate in next year’s midterm elections and Biden is forced to rely on executive actions to advance his economic agenda.

The administration’s focus on increasing competition “will spawn more innovation, more disruption, more startup businesses in the U.S.,” said Brian Deese, who heads the White House’s National Economic Council. And, he added, it “will deliver lower prices for Americans right away.”

Biden’s efforts to promote competition and potentially break up large players have rattled big companies and angered prominent industry groups in Washington at a time when businesses are already grappling with supply chain problems, higher input costs and labor shortages.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has accused the Biden administration of interfering with the work of independent agencies even as it threatened litigation against the FTC, an independent consumer protection agency.

Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer for the chamber, said in an interview that the measures would do little to blunt inflation.

“It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of inflation and frankly a poorly dressed-up political argument,” Bradley said, adding that inflation had been very low in the past decade during a period of corporate consolidation. “Did they get soft concentration all of a sudden and in nine months it produced rampant inflation? Of course not.”

Much of the business community concern is aimed at the FTC, which, empowered by Biden’s executive order, has targeted companies without looping in the White House.

An FTC official said the agency was pursuing its own agenda under Khan.

Late last month, the commission ordered nine large retailers, including Walmart, Amazon and Kroger, to turn over detailed information to help root out the sources of supply chain disruptions that were “harming competition in the U.S. economy.”

The demand for documents was news to the White House, which had arranged for Biden to meet that same day with a group of retailers to discuss the administration’s efforts to relieve backlogs at the nation’s ports and to highlight the companies’ promises that their shelves would be well stocked for the holiday season. Among the top executives attending the White House event were officials from Kroger and Walmart.

White House officials say they are pleased with the zeal that federal agencies have shown for Biden’s antitrust efforts. Administration officials say the biggest successes so far include blocking the merger of a large American railroad, Kansas City Southern, with a Canadian counterpart and the merger of two large insurance companies, Aon and Willis Towers Watson, which officials say could both have resulted in higher costs for consumers. They also cite a regulation allowing hearing aids to be sold without prescriptions and the auctioning of some gate slots at Newark Liberty International Airport to low-cost airlines.

More dramatic results could emerge from a Justice Department fight against consolidation in the sugar industry and new efforts by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget to require that future federal regulations be evaluated, in part, based on how they might affect competition in regulated industries.

The Agriculture Department has distributed $500 million to help seed new entrants in the meatpacking industries to challenge the small group of corporate giants that dominate it.

The Federal Maritime Commission has investigated the handful of corporate shipping alliances that effectively control the flow of goods across the world’s oceans and that have raised prices as much as ninefold during the pandemic, according to data from freight-tracking firm Freightos. The commission’s analysis determined that market forces — particularly the rising demand for furniture and other items by consumers who have cut down on travel and dining out — are driving the increases, said Daniel Maffei, a former New York congressman who is chair of the commission.

But, Maffei said, the focus on antitrust has given the commission tools and confidence to investigate other abuses by shipping companies, now and in the future, when demand falls and companies might be tempted to try to keep their freight rates artificially high. “I think it has upped our credibility” with companies and discouraged anticompetitive behavior, he said.

Perhaps the administration’s most sustained focus, in the near term, has been on the meat industry. A report from the National Economic Council this month accused the largest meat-processing companies of price gouging to pad profits. According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for meat were up 16% in November compared with the same month last year.

“We’re seeing the dominant meat processors use their market power to extract bigger and bigger profit margins for themselves,” the report said. “Businesses that face meaningful competition can’t do that, because they would lose business to a competitor that did not hike its margins.”

The North American Meat Institute, an industry lobbying group, denied the allegations and accused the Biden administration of cherry-picking economic data. It said that the White House was overlooking the record levels of demand for beef, pork and poultry.

“The White House Economic Council is again demonstrating its ignorance of agricultural economics and the fundamentals of supply and demand,” said Julie Anna Potts, president of the meat institute.

The clash between Biden and “Big Meat” has put the spotlight on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who held the same position for the eight years of the Obama administration. Some agricultural groups criticized Vilsack’s nomination because he had failed to mount an antitrust effort during his previous tenure and instead oversaw an era of consolidation in the farm sector, including the merger of Monsanto and Bayer. After leaving the Obama administration, Vilsack became a dairy industry lobbyist.

Vilsack is now responsible for developing new rules to strengthen a law — the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 — that is intended to protect farmers from anti-competitive practices in the meat industry and to promote ways for consumers to buy directly from farmers. But the rules, which were assigned as part of Biden’s July executive order on competition, have yet to be announced. That has revived suggestions that Vilsack is beholden to big agricultural corporations.

“These markets have been concentrated for a long time,” said Austin Frerick, deputy director of the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale University, which researches competition policy and antitrust enforcement. “He didn’t fix it in his first eight years. Why do we think he’s going to fix it now?”

Kate Waters, a spokesperson for Vilsack, said the agency was working as quickly as possible through the rule-making process. She also noted that Vilsack had deployed economic relief money to bolster capacity at small meat-processing plants, pointing to the agency’s new Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program, which provides loan guarantees to help meat and poultry processors expand capacity.

Progressive groups have pushed the administration to target more industries, such as retail and grocery chains, which they say are also driving up prices and profit margins.

“The Biden administration understands this and knows this,” said Rakeen Mabud, managing director of policy and research at the Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. But, she said, “I would like to see more.”

As rising inflation threatens his presidency, President Joe Biden is turning to the federal government’s antitrust authorities to try to tame red-hot price increases that his administration believes are partly driven by a lack of corporate competition.

As rising inflation threatens his presidency, President Joe Biden is turning to the federal government’s antitrust authorities to try to tame red-hot price increases that his administration believes are partly driven by a lack of corporate competition. Biden has prodded the Agriculture Department to investigate large meatpackers that control a significant share of poultry and pork markets, accusing them of raising prices, underpaying farmers — and tripling their profit margins during the pandemic. As gas prices surged, he publicly encouraged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate accusations that large oil companies had artificially inflated prices, behavior that the administration says continued even after global oil prices began to fall in recent weeks. The push has extended to little-known agencies, such as the Federal Maritime Commission, which Biden has urged to search for price gouging by large shipping companies at the heart of the supply chain. The turn to antitrust levers stems from Biden’s belief that rising levels of corporate concentration in the U.S. economy have empowered a few large players in each industry to raise prices higher than a more competitive market would allow. Corporate culpability for rising prices remains unclear. Inflation is at a 40-year high because of pandemic-related factors such as broken supply chains and high demand for goods from consumers still flush with government-provided cash. But as the price increases have spread across sectors, including food and gasoline, the administration has come under increasing pressure to find ways to respond. White House officials concede that their antitrust moves are unlikely to reduce costs for U.S. businesses or consumers immediately. The efforts, they say, will be more effective down the road. But the rise of inflation has given the White House an opportunity to take action that Democrats have long encouraged, and that Biden made an early focus of his tenure: using the power of government to break up monopolies and promote economic competition. In July, before the recent run-up in prices, Biden issued an executive order that included 72 directives for Cabinet and independent agencies to more vigorously enforce antitrust laws and to pursue specific actions to promote competition, such as eliminating noncompete agreements for workers and forcing tech companies such as Apple to allow consumers to repair their own products. He has also tapped antitrust crusaders for key roles, including Lina Khan to be chair of the FTC, and Jonathan Kanter, an adversary of Facebook and Google, to lead the antitrust division of the Justice Department. Tim Wu, a proponent of breaking up Facebook and other large companies, was brought on as a special White House adviser to Biden on competition issues. White House officials say fighting inflation was not the initial motivation for Biden’s competition agenda. But, they say, the push has given him some of his most powerful tools to take action against rising prices, and it will play a central role in federal efforts to reduce costs for consumers over the long term. That role could grow even more prominent if Democrats lose control of the House or Senate in next year’s midterm elections and Biden is forced to rely on executive actions to advance his economic agenda. The administration’s focus on increasing competition “will spawn more innovation, more disruption, more startup businesses in the U.S.,” said Brian Deese, who heads the White House’s National Economic Council. And, he added, it “will deliver lower prices for Americans right away.” Biden’s efforts to promote competition and potentially break up large players have rattled big companies and angered prominent industry groups in Washington at a time when businesses are already grappling with supply chain problems, higher input costs and labor shortages. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has accused the Biden administration of interfering with the work of independent agencies even as it threatened litigation against the FTC, an independent consumer protection agency. Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer for the chamber, said in an interview that the measures would do little to blunt inflation. “It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of inflation and frankly a poorly dressed-up political argument,” Bradley said, adding that inflation had been very low in the past decade during a period of corporate consolidation. “Did they get soft concentration all of a sudden and in nine months it produced rampant inflation? Of course not.” Much of the business community concern is aimed at the FTC, which, empowered by Biden’s executive order, has targeted companies without looping in the White House. An FTC official said the agency was pursuing its own agenda under Khan. Late last month, the commission ordered nine large retailers, including Walmart, Amazon and Kroger, to turn over detailed information to help root out the sources of supply chain disruptions that were “harming competition in the U.S. economy.” The demand for documents was news to the White House, which had arranged for Biden to meet that same day with a group of retailers to discuss the administration’s efforts to relieve backlogs at the nation’s ports and to highlight the companies’ promises that their shelves would be well stocked for the holiday season. Among the top executives attending the White House event were officials from Kroger and Walmart. White House officials say they are pleased with the zeal that federal agencies have shown for Biden’s antitrust efforts. Administration officials say the biggest successes so far include blocking the merger of a large American railroad, Kansas City Southern, with a Canadian counterpart and the merger of two large insurance companies, Aon and Willis Towers Watson, which officials say could both have resulted in higher costs for consumers. They also cite a regulation allowing hearing aids to be sold without prescriptions and the auctioning of some gate slots at Newark Liberty International Airport to low-cost airlines. More dramatic results could emerge from a Justice Department fight against consolidation in the sugar industry and new efforts by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget to require that future federal regulations be evaluated, in part, based on how they might affect competition in regulated industries. The Agriculture Department has distributed $500 million to help seed new entrants in the meatpacking industries to challenge the small group of corporate giants that dominate it. The Federal Maritime Commission has investigated the handful of corporate shipping alliances that effectively control the flow of goods across the world’s oceans and that have raised prices as much as ninefold during the pandemic, according to data from freight-tracking firm Freightos. The commission’s analysis determined that market forces — particularly the rising demand for furniture and other items by consumers who have cut down on travel and dining out — are driving the increases, said Daniel Maffei, a former New York congressman who is chair of the commission. But, Maffei said, the focus on antitrust has given the commission tools and confidence to investigate other abuses by shipping companies, now and in the future, when demand falls and companies might be tempted to try to keep their freight rates artificially high. “I think it has upped our credibility” with companies and discouraged anticompetitive behavior, he said. Perhaps the administration’s most sustained focus, in the near term, has been on the meat industry. A report from the National Economic Council this month accused the largest meat-processing companies of price gouging to pad profits. According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for meat were up 16% in November compared with the same month last year. “We’re seeing the dominant meat processors use their market power to extract bigger and bigger profit margins for themselves,” the report said. “Businesses that face meaningful competition can’t do that, because they would lose business to a competitor that did not hike its margins.” The North American Meat Institute, an industry lobbying group, denied the allegations and accused the Biden administration of cherry-picking economic data. It said that the White House was overlooking the record levels of demand for beef, pork and poultry. “The White House Economic Council is again demonstrating its ignorance of agricultural economics and the fundamentals of supply and demand,” said Julie Anna Potts, president of the meat institute. The clash between Biden and “Big Meat” has put the spotlight on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who held the same position for the eight years of the Obama administration. Some agricultural groups criticized Vilsack’s nomination because he had failed to mount an antitrust effort during his previous tenure and instead oversaw an era of consolidation in the farm sector, including the merger of Monsanto and Bayer. After leaving the Obama administration, Vilsack became a dairy industry lobbyist. Vilsack is now responsible for developing new rules to strengthen a law — the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 — that is intended to protect farmers from anti-competitive practices in the meat industry and to promote ways for consumers to buy directly from farmers. But the rules, which were assigned as part of Biden’s July executive order on competition, have yet to be announced. That has revived suggestions that Vilsack is beholden to big agricultural corporations. “These markets have been concentrated for a long time,” said Austin Frerick, deputy director of the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale University, which researches competition policy and antitrust enforcement. “He didn’t fix it in his first eight years. Why do we think he’s going to fix it now?” Kate Waters, a spokesperson for Vilsack, said the agency was working as quickly as possible through the rule-making process. She also noted that Vilsack had deployed economic relief money to bolster capacity at small meat-processing plants, pointing to the agency’s new Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program, which provides loan guarantees to help meat and poultry processors expand capacity. Progressive groups have pushed the administration to target more industries, such as retail and grocery chains, which they say are also driving up prices and profit margins. “The Biden administration understands this and knows this,” said Rakeen Mabud, managing director of policy and research at the Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. But, she said, “I would like to see more.”

As prices rise, Biden turns to antitrust enforcers

U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday pledged to ease a shortage of COVID-19 tests as the Omicron variant spreads across U.S. states this holiday week, threatening to overwhelm hospitals and stifle travel plans.

US President Joe Biden discusses White House response to Omicron

President Vladimir Putin is seeking security guarantees from the West in exchange for pulling back from Ukraine. Will Joe Biden agree to halt NATO's eastward expansion? Or will he push ahead with sanctions? Palki Shama tells you.

Gravitas: Putin's ultimatum for Joe Biden

biden

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