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

Amid heightened tensions president of the world's two largest economies, the United States and China Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are meeting virtually. 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.

Virtual meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping amid rising economic, military tensions

Amid heightened tensions president of the world's two largest economies, the United States and China Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are meeting virtually.

High stakes meet between Joe Biden, Xi Jinping

Joe Biden, Xi Jinping hold crucial meeting; Taiwan and Human Rights violations top focus

Joe Biden tells Xi Jinping not to undermine Taiwan's sovereignty

Joe Biden raises concerns of human right abuses

Presidents of the world's two largest economies, the United States and China, Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are set to meet virtually. 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.

Biden-Xi summit: Presidents of world's two largest economies to meet, Chinese aggression in focus

Amid heightened tensions, leaders of the world's two largest economies, Xi Jinping and US president Joe Biden are set to meet virtually. The most anticipated meet is expected to be one of the most extensive ones under the Biden administration.

What to expect from Joe Biden- Xi Jinping's virtual summit?

Amid heightened tensions, leaders of the world's two largest leaders Xi Jinping and US prez Joe Biden are set to meet virtually. The most anticipated meet is expected to be one of the most extensive ones under the Biden administration.

Ahead of Joe Biden and Xi Jinping's virtual meet, China warns US on Taiwan support

A coalition of conservative religious groups is waging an intensive lobbying effort to remove a nondiscrimination provision from President Joe Biden’s ambitious prekindergarten and child care plans, fearing it would disqualify their programs from receiving a huge new infusion of federal money.

The fight could have major consequences for a central component of Biden’s $1.85 trillion social policy bill, which the House is to consider as soon as this week. It could go a long way toward determining which programs, neighbourhoods and families can benefit from the landmark early-childhood benefits established in the legislation, given that child care centres and preschools affiliated with religious organisations make up a substantial share of those offered in the United States — serving as many as 53 per cent of families, according to a survey last year by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/liberals-dig-in-against-infrastructure-bill-as-party-divisions-persist-416842">Liberals dig in against infrastructure bill as party divisions persist</a>

The provision at issue is a standard one in many federal laws, which would mandate that all providers comply with federal nondiscrimination statutes. Religious organisations, whose child care programs are currently exempt from some such laws, argue that it would effectively block many of their providers from participating, while civil rights advocates contend it is long past time for such institutions to comply.

Some of the faith groups are pressing lawmakers to scrap or modify the nondiscrimination language, asserting that it would essentially shut them out of the new federal program unless they made major changes to the way they operate. For instance, it could bar federal funds from going to programs that refused to hire a gay employee, gave preference to applicants of their faith or failed to renovate their facilities to accommodate students with disabilities.

The organisations argue that the rules would force them to choose between participating in the child care initiative and continuing to teach religious content, convene all-boys or all-girls programs, or give preferences in hiring or admissions to people of their religion. Congressional staff members working on the bill do not believe it prohibits religious organisations from teaching religious content.

The groups — including the US&nbsp;leaders of the Catholic Church and one of the country’s largest Orthodox Jewish groups — contend that unless the bill is rewritten, they will be forced to turn away families that want to use benefits from the bill to send children to their centres.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/key-to-bidens-climate-agenda-likely-to-be-cut-because-of-manchin-opposition-421381">Key to Biden’s climate agenda likely to be cut because of Manchin opposition</a>

“It will be detrimental to our ability to participate,” said Jennifer Daniels, the associate director for public policy at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “It would impact our ability to stick with our Catholic mission in a variety of ways. We’ve worked really hard to make our concerns known.”

Their efforts appear to have gained some traction in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote on the social policy bill, has privately told Democrats, he wants to ensure that religious programs can fully participate in the child care initiative.

But in the House, Democrats are just as adamant that the provision be retained in order to prevent federal money from flowing to any organisation that discriminates. Defenders include the Congressional Black Caucus and Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va. and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee, who wrote it into the social policy legislation.

The fight over preschool and child care programs is among the major conflicts that remain to be resolved before the social policy legislation can clear Congress and be signed into law by Biden.

“The Build Back Better Act must not allow government-funded discrimination — in employment or in the provision of services to participants — in publicly funded programs,” Scott and Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio and the chair of the Black Caucus wrote in a previously undisclosed letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“We believe that allowing such discrimination financed with public funds collected from all taxpayers is wrong,” the lawmakers wrote. “We are asking you to oppose any effort to remove or change the nondiscrimination provisions included in the child care and universal preschool provisions of the Build Back Better Act.”

The bill would provide nearly $400 billion to help states build universal prekindergarten and affordable child care programs over six years. It is intended to ensure that the vast majority of families — those with four-person households earning up to $300,000 — spend no more than 7 per cent of their income on child care. Families that earn less than 75 per cent of the state’s median income would pay nothing.

It explicitly includes religious organisations.

“Nothing in this section shall preclude the use of such certificates for sectarian child care services if freely chosen by the parent,” it says. “For the purposes of this section, child care certificates shall be considered federal financial assistance to the provider.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gaffe-prone-us-leaders-do-it-again-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-mistakes-obama-for-biden-416891">Gaffe-prone US leaders do it again: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mistakes Obama for Biden</a>

At issue is what’s arguably a major change the bill would make in how the federal government treats institutions that receive aid for the care of small children. For decades, low-income families have received funds from the Child Care and Development Block Grant program that they may use at a variety of child care centres. But since those centres are not necessarily considered direct recipients of federal funds, they are not bound by some nondiscrimination laws.

A similar situation exists for religious elementary schools that receive money through local school systems to educate low-income students.

Scott’s legislation would categorize any prekindergarten or child care centre that participates in the new program as a federal financial recipient, requiring it to either comply with nondiscrimination laws or turn away families, the conservative religious organisations argue.

“Religious providers are absolutely eligible to participate in the program — including receiving certificate funding, which is not considered direct federal financial assistance,” an aide to the Senate’s education committee said. “We are working with concerned organisations to ensure this distinction is clear.”

The bill would also prohibit any child care provider from using the funds to perform work on “buildings or facilities that are used primarily for sectarian instruction or religious worship.”

Senate Democrats say they are working to accommodate the religious organisations that object but will not agree to anything that would allow religious providers to discriminate against families that want to enrol children in their facilities. They note that some religious organisations — particularly those with a less conservative worldview — have no problem with the bill, including a few that signed a letter urging its passage.

And civil rights groups have pushed back hard at the efforts to remove the nondiscrimination provision, saying that any institution that wants to receive federal funds must submit to such laws.

“Who do they want to shut out? Is it the lesbian mom you want to shut out?” said Liz King, the director of the Education Equity Program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Is it the children with autism you want to shut out? Since at least 1964, the law and basic principle has been that federal funds cannot be used to discriminate. No one should have to subsidize their own discrimination.”

But religious organisations that have spent decades successfully steering clear of federal mandates say the legislation could be crippling to their educational programs.

“As a general rule, Catholic schools and most nonpublic schools purposefully avoid federal financial recipient status, because it triggers a whole host of federal regulatory obligations with which nonpublic schools are not currently required to comply,” Michael B. Sheedy, the executive director of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote in a letter last week to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “The provisions of most obvious concern include nondiscrimination provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity that could create religious freedom issues for religious providers.”

Manchin raised the issue at a recent closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats, emphasizing that the church and other faith-based organisations play a crucial role in helping care for many families in West Virginia, according to a person familiar with his comments.

Watch |&nbsp;US House expected to vote on Biden's social spending &amp; climate change bill

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-house-expected-to-vote-on-bidens-social-spending-climate-change-bill-426857/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Manchin argued that a little bit of funding would go a long way in helping religiously affiliated institutions provide a quality education for pre-K children, the person said, and he insisted they be eligible for any funds that are available. His position found widespread agreement among the other Democratic senators in the room, said two people familiar with the private discussion who described it on the condition of anonymity. Democrats did not get into the finer details of the dispute during their discussion, they said.

The debate is the latest skirmish in the battle over the role of religious organisations in participating in government programs — and how to include them while ensuring federal nondiscrimination protections that may conflict with their practices and beliefs.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against someone because of the “individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” It exempted church groups and faith-based organisations, but the act made no mention of whether such provisions could be applied if the groups were to accept federal funding.

Former President George W. Bush, through a series of executive orders, made it easier for churches and other faith-based organisations to receive federal money while circumventing certain anti-discrimination laws.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Orthodox Union want those practices to stay in place. In recent days, they have made the case to members of Congress that they could not accept money to run preschool or child care programs unless the bill expressly exempts them from anti-discrimination laws, such as Title IX, which protects against discrimination by sex, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which they argue could require costly upgrades to old buildings, including houses of worship.

“We appreciate that key Senate Democrats have told us that they agree that churches and synagogues must be included, but the devil is indeed in the details,” said Nathan J. Diament, the public policy director at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. “Right now, the way the bill text is drafted, there are details that will deter, if not make it impossible for, faith-based providers to participate.”

A coalition of conservative religious groups is waging an intensive lobbying effort to remove a nondiscrimination provision from President Joe Biden’s ambitious prekindergarten and child care plans, fearing it would disqualify their programs from receiving a huge new infusion of federal money.

A coalition of conservative religious groups is waging an intensive lobbying effort to remove a nondiscrimination provision from President Joe Biden’s ambitious prekindergarten and child care plans, fearing it would disqualify their programs from receiving a huge new infusion of federal money. The fight could have major consequences for a central component of Biden’s $1.85 trillion social policy bill, which the House is to consider as soon as this week. It could go a long way toward determining which programs, neighbourhoods and families can benefit from the landmark early-childhood benefits established in the legislation, given that child care centres and preschools affiliated with religious organisations make up a substantial share of those offered in the United States — serving as many as 53 per cent of families, according to a survey last year by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Also read | Liberals dig in against infrastructure bill as party divisions persist The provision at issue is a standard one in many federal laws, which would mandate that all providers comply with federal nondiscrimination statutes. Religious organisations, whose child care programs are currently exempt from some such laws, argue that it would effectively block many of their providers from participating, while civil rights advocates contend it is long past time for such institutions to comply. Some of the faith groups are pressing lawmakers to scrap or modify the nondiscrimination language, asserting that it would essentially shut them out of the new federal program unless they made major changes to the way they operate. For instance, it could bar federal funds from going to programs that refused to hire a gay employee, gave preference to applicants of their faith or failed to renovate their facilities to accommodate students with disabilities. The organisations argue that the rules would force them to choose between participating in the child care initiative and continuing to teach religious content, convene all-boys or all-girls programs, or give preferences in hiring or admissions to people of their religion. Congressional staff members working on the bill do not believe it prohibits religious organisations from teaching religious content. The groups — including the US leaders of the Catholic Church and one of the country’s largest Orthodox Jewish groups — contend that unless the bill is rewritten, they will be forced to turn away families that want to use benefits from the bill to send children to their centres. Also read | Key to Biden’s climate agenda likely to be cut because of Manchin opposition “It will be detrimental to our ability to participate,” said Jennifer Daniels, the associate director for public policy at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “It would impact our ability to stick with our Catholic mission in a variety of ways. We’ve worked really hard to make our concerns known.” Their efforts appear to have gained some traction in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote on the social policy bill, has privately told Democrats, he wants to ensure that religious programs can fully participate in the child care initiative. But in the House, Democrats are just as adamant that the provision be retained in order to prevent federal money from flowing to any organisation that discriminates. Defenders include the Congressional Black Caucus and Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va. and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee, who wrote it into the social policy legislation. The fight over preschool and child care programs is among the major conflicts that remain to be resolved before the social policy legislation can clear Congress and be signed into law by Biden. “The Build Back Better Act must not allow government-funded discrimination — in employment or in the provision of services to participants — in publicly funded programs,” Scott and Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio and the chair of the Black Caucus wrote in a previously undisclosed letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “We believe that allowing such discrimination financed with public funds collected from all taxpayers is wrong,” the lawmakers wrote. “We are asking you to oppose any effort to remove or change the nondiscrimination provisions included in the child care and universal preschool provisions of the Build Back Better Act.” The bill would provide nearly $400 billion to help states build universal prekindergarten and affordable child care programs over six years. It is intended to ensure that the vast majority of families — those with four-person households earning up to $300,000 — spend no more than 7 per cent of their income on child care. Families that earn less than 75 per cent of the state’s median income would pay nothing. It explicitly includes religious organisations. “Nothing in this section shall preclude the use of such certificates for sectarian child care services if freely chosen by the parent,” it says. “For the purposes of this section, child care certificates shall be considered federal financial assistance to the provider.” Also read | Gaffe-prone US leaders do it again: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mistakes Obama for Biden At issue is what’s arguably a major change the bill would make in how the federal government treats institutions that receive aid for the care of small children. For decades, low-income families have received funds from the Child Care and Development Block Grant program that they may use at a variety of child care centres. But since those centres are not necessarily considered direct recipients of federal funds, they are not bound by some nondiscrimination laws. A similar situation exists for religious elementary schools that receive money through local school systems to educate low-income students. Scott’s legislation would categorize any prekindergarten or child care centre that participates in the new program as a federal financial recipient, requiring it to either comply with nondiscrimination laws or turn away families, the conservative religious organisations argue. “Religious providers are absolutely eligible to participate in the program — including receiving certificate funding, which is not considered direct federal financial assistance,” an aide to the Senate’s education committee said. “We are working with concerned organisations to ensure this distinction is clear.” The bill would also prohibit any child care provider from using the funds to perform work on “buildings or facilities that are used primarily for sectarian instruction or religious worship.” Senate Democrats say they are working to accommodate the religious organisations that object but will not agree to anything that would allow religious providers to discriminate against families that want to enrol children in their facilities. They note that some religious organisations — particularly those with a less conservative worldview — have no problem with the bill, including a few that signed a letter urging its passage. And civil rights groups have pushed back hard at the efforts to remove the nondiscrimination provision, saying that any institution that wants to receive federal funds must submit to such laws. “Who do they want to shut out? Is it the lesbian mom you want to shut out?” said Liz King, the director of the Education Equity Program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Is it the children with autism you want to shut out? Since at least 1964, the law and basic principle has been that federal funds cannot be used to discriminate. No one should have to subsidize their own discrimination.” But religious organisations that have spent decades successfully steering clear of federal mandates say the legislation could be crippling to their educational programs. “As a general rule, Catholic schools and most nonpublic schools purposefully avoid federal financial recipient status, because it triggers a whole host of federal regulatory obligations with which nonpublic schools are not currently required to comply,” Michael B. Sheedy, the executive director of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote in a letter last week to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “The provisions of most obvious concern include nondiscrimination provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity that could create religious freedom issues for religious providers.” Manchin raised the issue at a recent closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats, emphasizing that the church and other faith-based organisations play a crucial role in helping care for many families in West Virginia, according to a person familiar with his comments. Watch | US House expected to vote on Biden's social spending & climate change bill Manchin argued that a little bit of funding would go a long way in helping religiously affiliated institutions provide a quality education for pre-K children, the person said, and he insisted they be eligible for any funds that are available. His position found widespread agreement among the other Democratic senators in the room, said two people familiar with the private discussion who described it on the condition of anonymity. Democrats did not get into the finer details of the dispute during their discussion, they said. The debate is the latest skirmish in the battle over the role of religious organisations in participating in government programs — and how to include them while ensuring federal nondiscrimination protections that may conflict with their practices and beliefs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against someone because of the “individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” It exempted church groups and faith-based organisations, but the act made no mention of whether such provisions could be applied if the groups were to accept federal funding. Former President George W. Bush, through a series of executive orders, made it easier for churches and other faith-based organisations to receive federal money while circumventing certain anti-discrimination laws. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Orthodox Union want those practices to stay in place. In recent days, they have made the case to members of Congress that they could not accept money to run preschool or child care programs unless the bill expressly exempts them from anti-discrimination laws, such as Title IX, which protects against discrimination by sex, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which they argue could require costly upgrades to old buildings, including houses of worship. “We appreciate that key Senate Democrats have told us that they agree that churches and synagogues must be included, but the devil is indeed in the details,” said Nathan J. Diament, the public policy director at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. “Right now, the way the bill text is drafted, there are details that will deter, if not make it impossible for, faith-based providers to participate.”

Faith groups push to scrap mandates in Biden’s child care plan

Barack Obama's performance at COP26 has left many wondering who the real U.S. President is. Is it Joe Biden? Or is it still Obama? Here's what Palki Sharma has to say.

Gravitas: Obama outshines Biden at COP26 Climate Summit

Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin met in Geneva in June this year, the focus of the world was on this summit; the two leaders may meet for talks in person in early 2022.

Putin, Biden may meet for talks in 2022, Geneva summit agreements to be discussed

It has been twenty years since the start of a global war on terror by the united states of America. U.S. President Joe Biden promised the world to end 'relentless war' and start 'relentless diplomacy' after he was seated in the white house. A new U.S. Intelligence report suggests that there are plenty of concerns for the Biden administration even after their chaotic withdrawal in Afghanistan.

New US Intelligence report suggests plenty of concerns for Biden administration

The US has approved a $650 million weapon sale to Saudi Arabia. After setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US faces a crisis of credibility in West Asia. Palki Sharma tells you how the Biden administration is trying to rebuild trust with allies in West Asia.

Gravitas: Biden faces a crisis of credibility in West Asia

biden

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