US President Joe Biden told Americans Wednesday in his first speech to Congress that the nation has pulled off a massive logistical success with its battle against the coronavirus pandemic.

"Because of you, the American people, our progress these past 100 days against one of the worst pandemics in history is one of the greatest logistical achievements our country has ever seen," the president said in an address to a joint session of Congress.

The 78-year-old Biden noted that senior deaths from Covid have plunged some 80 percent since January, more than half of all US adults have received at least one vaccine dose, and that first responders considered the vaccine as "a dose of hope."

Biden argued in his first speech to Congress on Wednesday that he had restored Americans' faith in democracy nearly 100 days after he succeeded Donald Trump in office, and was set to unveil a $1.8 trillion spending and tax-credit plan.

Biden appeared in the chamber of the US&nbsp;House of Representatives at an event scaled back this year because of the pandemic, with a small, specially selected group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers arrayed before him, and the first woman to serve as US&nbsp;vice president, Kamala Harris, behind him.

Seizing on the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to advance his priorities at a time of political polarization, Biden told the joint session and millions of people watching on television that "America is ready for a takeoff."

"Now, after just 100 days, I can report to the nation: America is on the move again, turning peril into possibility, crisis into opportunity, setback into strength," Biden said.

He argued that the new spending and tax-credit package, which together with an earlier infrastructure and jobs plan, totals around $4 trillion, rivaling the annual federal budget,&nbsp;is a once-in-a-generation investment vital to America's future.

"Tonight, I come to talk about crisis&nbsp;and opportunity," he said. "About rebuilding our nation&nbsp;and revitalising our democracy. And winning the future for America."

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden told Americans Wednesday in his first speech to Congress that the nation has pulled off a massive logistical success with its battle against the coronavirus pandemic.

US President Joe Biden told Americans Wednesday in his first speech to Congress that the nation has pulled off a massive logistical success with its battle against the coronavirus pandemic. "Because of you, the American people, our progress these past 100 days against one of the worst pandemics in history is one of the greatest logistical achievements our country has ever seen," the president said in an address to a joint session of Congress. The 78-year-old Biden noted that senior deaths from Covid have plunged some 80 percent since January, more than half of all US adults have received at least one vaccine dose, and that first responders considered the vaccine as "a dose of hope." Biden argued in his first speech to Congress on Wednesday that he had restored Americans' faith in democracy nearly 100 days after he succeeded Donald Trump in office, and was set to unveil a $1.8 trillion spending and tax-credit plan. Biden appeared in the chamber of the US House of Representatives at an event scaled back this year because of the pandemic, with a small, specially selected group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers arrayed before him, and the first woman to serve as US vice president, Kamala Harris, behind him. Seizing on the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to advance his priorities at a time of political polarization, Biden told the joint session and millions of people watching on television that "America is ready for a takeoff." "Now, after just 100 days, I can report to the nation: America is on the move again, turning peril into possibility, crisis into opportunity, setback into strength," Biden said. He argued that the new spending and tax-credit package, which together with an earlier infrastructure and jobs plan, totals around $4 trillion, rivaling the annual federal budget, is a once-in-a-generation investment vital to America's future. "Tonight, I come to talk about crisis and opportunity," he said. "About rebuilding our nation and revitalising our democracy. And winning the future for America." (With inputs from agencies)

Biden hails US coronavirus fight as one of 'greatest logistical achievements'

A bipartisan group of US&nbsp;senators&nbsp;on Tuesday&nbsp;urged the&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;administration to slap&nbsp;more&nbsp;sanctions&nbsp;on the military&nbsp;junta&nbsp;in&nbsp;Myanmar, including choking revenues to a state energy company, in response to its coup and violent crackdown on protesters.

Senators&nbsp;Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, and Marco Rubio, a Republican, and four others&nbsp;urged Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in a letter to "explore new avenues to support the people of Burma in their ongoing struggle for democracy in the face of escalating crimes against humanity."

They want the&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;administration to stop royalties flowing from businesses including US&nbsp;energy major Chevron Corp to&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;Oil and Gas Enterprise, or MOGE, an agency within the Energy Ministry. MOGE provides financial support to military leaders, including General Min Aung Hlaing, already under US&nbsp;sanctions.

MOGE is a partner in Yadana, a natural gas field in which Chevron has a 28.3 per cent&nbsp;stake.

Human rights groups have&nbsp;urged energy companies including Chevron and Total to cut ties to&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;after the military ousted the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi on February&nbsp;1, detaining her and cracking down on protesters.&nbsp;More&nbsp;than 750 people have since been killed.

Gas revenues from joint ventures involving companies like Total and Chevron are the most significant single source of foreign exchange revenue for the&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;government, generating cash payments of about $1.1 billion annually, the&nbsp;senators&nbsp;said.

They proposed the ventures pay revenue into a trust to be held until&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;has a democratically elected government or to be used for humanitarian purposes, according to the letter, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.

A Chevron representative said any diversion of revenues or taxes owed to MOGE into an escrow account "could be considered a breach of contract and potentially put employees of the joint venture partners at undue risk of criminal prosecution."

Total did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The State and Treasury departments did not immediately respond.

Chevron paid around $50 million to&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;between 2014 and 2018, according to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which works to increase transparency in international business.

A bipartisan group of US senators on Tuesday urged the Biden administration to slap more sanctions on the military junta in Myanmar, including choking revenues to a state energy company, in response to its coup and violent crackdown on protesters.

A bipartisan group of US senators on Tuesday urged the Biden administration to slap more sanctions on the military junta in Myanmar, including choking revenues to a state energy company, in response to its coup and violent crackdown on protesters. Senators Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, and Marco Rubio, a Republican, and four others urged Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in a letter to "explore new avenues to support the people of Burma in their ongoing struggle for democracy in the face of escalating crimes against humanity." They want the Biden administration to stop royalties flowing from businesses including US energy major Chevron Corp to Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, or MOGE, an agency within the Energy Ministry. MOGE provides financial support to military leaders, including General Min Aung Hlaing, already under US sanctions. MOGE is a partner in Yadana, a natural gas field in which Chevron has a 28.3 per cent stake. Human rights groups have urged energy companies including Chevron and Total to cut ties to Myanmar after the military ousted the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi on February 1, detaining her and cracking down on protesters. More than 750 people have since been killed. Gas revenues from joint ventures involving companies like Total and Chevron are the most significant single source of foreign exchange revenue for the Myanmar government, generating cash payments of about $1.1 billion annually, the senators said. They proposed the ventures pay revenue into a trust to be held until Myanmar has a democratically elected government or to be used for humanitarian purposes, according to the letter, a copy of which was seen by Reuters. A Chevron representative said any diversion of revenues or taxes owed to MOGE into an escrow account "could be considered a breach of contract and potentially put employees of the joint venture partners at undue risk of criminal prosecution." Total did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The State and Treasury departments did not immediately respond. Chevron paid around $50 million to Myanmar between 2014 and 2018, according to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which works to increase transparency in international business.

Senators urge Biden to impose more sanctions on Myanmar junta

The US proposal envisages a 21% minimum corporate tax rate has got backing from France and Germany. This move will add momentum to efforts to overhaul global rules despite reluctance from some smaller European countries.

The US has proposed that countries should be able to tax more corporate profits based on revenues within their borders in a bid to reach a global taxation deal, according to two people familiar with the offer.

United States Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen had thrown the weight of the U.S. government behind a push for a global corporate minimum tax rate, possibly carving a path to a long-sought deal updating international tax rules for the first time in a generation.

“If the Biden administration proposes a 21% rate and there is consensus, it would be acceptable for us,” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said.

WHY A GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX?

Major economies are aiming to discourage multinational companies from shifting profits - and tax revenues - to low-tax countries regardless of where their sales are made. Increasingly, income from intangible sources such as drug patents, software and royalties on intellectual property has migrated to these jurisdictions, allowing companies to avoid paying higher taxes in their traditional home countries.

With a broadly agreed global minimum tax, the Biden administration hopes to reduce such tax base erosion without putting American firms at a financial disadvantage, allowing them to compete on innovation, infrastructure and other attributes.

The Trump administration took a first stab at capturing revenues lost to tax havens with a U.S. corporate offshore minimum tax in 2017. The "Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income," or GILTI, the tax rate was only 10.5% - half the domestic corporate tax rate.

HOW WOULD A GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX WORK?

The global minimum tax rate would apply to companies' overseas profits. Therefore, if countries agree on a global minimum, governments could still set whatever local corporate tax rate they want.

But if companies pay lower rates in a particular country, their home governments could "top-up" their taxes to the agreed minimum rate, eliminating the advantage of shifting profits to a tax haven.

The Biden administration has said it wants to deny exemptions for taxes paid to countries that don't agree to a minimum rate.

The OECD said last month that governments broadly agreed already on the basic design of the minimum tax although the rate remains to be agreed upon. International tax experts say that is the thorniest issue.

Other items still to be negotiated include whether industries like investment funds and real estate investment trusts should be covered, when to apply the new rate and ensuring it is compatible with the 2017 U.S. tax reforms aimed at deterring tax-base erosion.

(With inputs from agencies)

The US proposal envisages a 21% minimum corporate tax rate has got backing from France and Germany. This move will add momentum to efforts to overhaul global rules despite reluctance from some smaller European countries.

The US proposal envisages a 21% minimum corporate tax rate has got backing from France and Germany. This move will add momentum to efforts to overhaul global rules despite reluctance from some smaller European countries. The US has proposed that countries should be able to tax more corporate profits based on revenues within their borders in a bid to reach a global taxation deal, according to two people familiar with the offer. United States Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen had thrown the weight of the U.S. government behind a push for a global corporate minimum tax rate, possibly carving a path to a long-sought deal updating international tax rules for the first time in a generation. “If the Biden administration proposes a 21% rate and there is consensus, it would be acceptable for us,” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said. WHY A GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX? Major economies are aiming to discourage multinational companies from shifting profits - and tax revenues - to low-tax countries regardless of where their sales are made. Increasingly, income from intangible sources such as drug patents, software and royalties on intellectual property has migrated to these jurisdictions, allowing companies to avoid paying higher taxes in their traditional home countries. With a broadly agreed global minimum tax, the Biden administration hopes to reduce such tax base erosion without putting American firms at a financial disadvantage, allowing them to compete on innovation, infrastructure and other attributes. The Trump administration took a first stab at capturing revenues lost to tax havens with a U.S. corporate offshore minimum tax in 2017. The "Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income," or GILTI, the tax rate was only 10.5% - half the domestic corporate tax rate. HOW WOULD A GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX WORK? The global minimum tax rate would apply to companies' overseas profits. Therefore, if countries agree on a global minimum, governments could still set whatever local corporate tax rate they want. But if companies pay lower rates in a particular country, their home governments could "top-up" their taxes to the agreed minimum rate, eliminating the advantage of shifting profits to a tax haven. The Biden administration has said it wants to deny exemptions for taxes paid to countries that don't agree to a minimum rate. The OECD said last month that governments broadly agreed already on the basic design of the minimum tax although the rate remains to be agreed upon. International tax experts say that is the thorniest issue. Other items still to be negotiated include whether industries like investment funds and real estate investment trusts should be covered, when to apply the new rate and ensuring it is compatible with the 2017 U.S. tax reforms aimed at deterring tax-base erosion. (With inputs from agencies)

Global minimum corporate tax: US gets support from France, Germany on a 21% tax plan

The Biden administration has come under criticism from several quarters, including from members and supporters of the Democratic party, for not releasing surplus COVID-19 vaccines to India when the country is experiencing its worst-ever public health crisis.&nbsp;

Indian-American Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi urged the Biden administration to release doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to countries currently experiencing the deadly surge in COVID-19 cases. &nbsp;

"We are currently sitting on close to 40 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the US stockpile, a stockpile which we're not using and which we've already opened to combat COVID-19 in Mexico and Canada," he said.&nbsp;

To curb the spread of this virus internationally and to protect public health and the international economy, the US needs to get these vaccines out the door now, he said.&nbsp;

"I respectfully but strongly call on the Biden administration to release millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses to countries hardest hit by the spread of COVID-19, including India, Argentina, and potentially others, he added.&nbsp;

Indian-American Congressman from California Ro Khanna said that the leadership of the influential Congressional India Caucus will discuss with the government officials and the Indian envoy in the US to send urgent health supplies to help India fight its battle against coronavirus.&nbsp;

"The US-India caucus leadership will be discussing with government officials and Indian Ambassador on a bipartisan basis to send AZ vaccines we will never use, PPE, oxygen and other immediate aid. Time is of the essence to mobilise," Khanna said on Sunday.&nbsp;

India logged a record of 3,49,691 new coronavirus infections in a day on Sunday, taking its total tally of COVID-19 cases to 1,69,60,172. The death toll increased to 1,92,311 with a record 2,767 daily new fatalities, according to the official data.&nbsp;

The Biden administration has come under criticism from several quarters, including from members and supporters of the Democratic party, for not releasing surplus COVID-19 vaccines to India when the country is experiencing its worst-ever public health crisis.

The Biden administration has come under criticism from several quarters, including from members and supporters of the Democratic party, for not releasing surplus COVID-19 vaccines to India when the country is experiencing its worst-ever public health crisis. Indian-American Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi urged the Biden administration to release doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to countries currently experiencing the deadly surge in COVID-19 cases. "We are currently sitting on close to 40 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the US stockpile, a stockpile which we're not using and which we've already opened to combat COVID-19 in Mexico and Canada," he said. To curb the spread of this virus internationally and to protect public health and the international economy, the US needs to get these vaccines out the door now, he said. "I respectfully but strongly call on the Biden administration to release millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses to countries hardest hit by the spread of COVID-19, including India, Argentina, and potentially others, he added. Indian-American Congressman from California Ro Khanna said that the leadership of the influential Congressional India Caucus will discuss with the government officials and the Indian envoy in the US to send urgent health supplies to help India fight its battle against coronavirus. "The US-India caucus leadership will be discussing with government officials and Indian Ambassador on a bipartisan basis to send AZ vaccines we will never use, PPE, oxygen and other immediate aid. Time is of the essence to mobilise," Khanna said on Sunday. India logged a record of 3,49,691 new coronavirus infections in a day on Sunday, taking its total tally of COVID-19 cases to 1,69,60,172. The death toll increased to 1,92,311 with a record 2,767 daily new fatalities, according to the official data.

Biden admin criticised for not releasing surplus COVID-19 vaccines to India  

Weeks after the US President Joe Biden labelled his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin as a “killer”, a top Putin aide has said there is a possibility of a summit between the two leaders in June.

This news came from Putin’s top foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov who said “June is being named, there are even concrete dates”.

Also read |&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-unfriendly-embassies-may-face-russian-hiring-bans-379912" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-unfriendly-embassies-may-face-russian-hiring-bans-379912&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi3wL3Av5nwAhUKzDgGHdifCukQFjABegQICRAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Xicua1p5R45fYs0FJCv7X" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-unfriendly-embassies-may-face-russian-hiring-bans-379912" target="_blank">Putin: 'Unfriendly' embassies may face Russian hiring bans</a>

This has come almost a month after Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on the same show, had claimed that the summit idea was “received positively and is currently under consideration".

Meanwhile, Joe Biden is scheduled to attend the G7 summit in Britain and the NATO and EU summits in Brussel in the month of June, as per the White House announcement made on Friday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/kremlin-says-russia-will-study-us-proposal-for-putin-biden-summit-377788">Watch |</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/kremlin-says-russia-will-study-us-proposal-for-putin-biden-summit-377788/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, it has not yet been made clear if the US President will be meeting his Russian counterpart or not in a potential summit.

Austria and Finland, in the meantime, have expressed interest in hosting a meeting between the two leaders to act as a mediator.

Weeks after the US President Joe Biden labelled his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin as a “killer”, a top Putin aide has said there is a possibility of a summit between the two leaders in June.

Weeks after the US President Joe Biden labelled his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin as a “killer”, a top Putin aide has said there is a possibility of a summit between the two leaders in June. This news came from Putin’s top foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov who said “June is being named, there are even concrete dates”. Also read | Putin: 'Unfriendly' embassies may face Russian hiring bans This has come almost a month after Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on the same show, had claimed that the summit idea was “received positively and is currently under consideration". Meanwhile, Joe Biden is scheduled to attend the G7 summit in Britain and the NATO and EU summits in Brussel in the month of June, as per the White House announcement made on Friday. Watch | However, it has not yet been made clear if the US President will be meeting his Russian counterpart or not in a potential summit. Austria and Finland, in the meantime, have expressed interest in hosting a meeting between the two leaders to act as a mediator.

Putin-Biden may meet in June for a summit: Top Kremlin aide

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies tumbled on Friday due to concern that US President Joe Biden's plan to raise tax for the rich would curb investments in digital assets. Bitcoin, the most popular currency fell below USD 50,000 mark for the first time since March and slumped to USD 47,555.

News reports on Thursday said the Biden administration is planning a raft of proposed changes to the U.S. tax code, including a plan to nearly double taxes on capital gains to 39.6% for people earning more than $1 million.

Other cryptocurrencies felt the heat of the negative sentiment too. Ether and XRP fell 3.5 per cent and 6.7 per cent respectively. while dogecoin, created as a joke for early crypto adopters and which had surged about 8,000% this year prior to this latest setback, was down 20% at $0.21, according to price and data tracker CoinGecko.&nbsp;

"With a high growth rate in the bitcoin price, crypto holders that have accrued gains will be subjected to this tax increment," said Nick Spanos, founder at Bitcoin Center NYC. He sees bitcoin dropping further in the coming days.

Bitcoin is on track for an 11.3% loss on the week, its worst weekly showing since late February. On the year, however, it was still up 72%.

But while social media lit up with posts about the plan hurting cryptocurrencies, and individual investors complaining about losses, some traders and analysts said declines are likely to be temporary.

"I don't think Biden's taxes plans will have a big impact on bitcoin," said Ruud Feltkamp, CEO at automated crypto trading bot Cryptohopper. "Bitcoin has only gone up for a long time, it is only natural to see a consolidation. Traders are simply cashing in on winnings."

Others also remained bullish on bitcoin's long term prospects, but noted it might take time before prices start increasing again.

"Investors will see the price drop across the crypto market as an opportunity to widen their portfolio by averaging up their investment outlay and buying new altcoins," said Don Guo, chief executive officer at Broctagon Fintech Group. He added that for bitcoin, investors will see it as an opportunity to buy bitcoin at a lower price.

(With inputs from agencies)

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies tumbled on Friday due to concern that US President Joe Biden's plan to raise tax for the rich would curb investments in digital assets.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies tumbled on Friday due to concern that US President Joe Biden's plan to raise tax for the rich would curb investments in digital assets. Bitcoin, the most popular currency fell below USD 50,000 mark for the first time since March and slumped to USD 47,555. News reports on Thursday said the Biden administration is planning a raft of proposed changes to the U.S. tax code, including a plan to nearly double taxes on capital gains to 39.6% for people earning more than $1 million. Other cryptocurrencies felt the heat of the negative sentiment too. Ether and XRP fell 3.5 per cent and 6.7 per cent respectively. while dogecoin, created as a joke for early crypto adopters and which had surged about 8,000% this year prior to this latest setback, was down 20% at $0.21, according to price and data tracker CoinGecko. "With a high growth rate in the bitcoin price, crypto holders that have accrued gains will be subjected to this tax increment," said Nick Spanos, founder at Bitcoin Center NYC. He sees bitcoin dropping further in the coming days. Bitcoin is on track for an 11.3% loss on the week, its worst weekly showing since late February. On the year, however, it was still up 72%. But while social media lit up with posts about the plan hurting cryptocurrencies, and individual investors complaining about losses, some traders and analysts said declines are likely to be temporary. "I don't think Biden's taxes plans will have a big impact on bitcoin," said Ruud Feltkamp, CEO at automated crypto trading bot Cryptohopper. "Bitcoin has only gone up for a long time, it is only natural to see a consolidation. Traders are simply cashing in on winnings." Others also remained bullish on bitcoin's long term prospects, but noted it might take time before prices start increasing again. "Investors will see the price drop across the crypto market as an opportunity to widen their portfolio by averaging up their investment outlay and buying new altcoins," said Don Guo, chief executive officer at Broctagon Fintech Group. He added that for bitcoin, investors will see it as an opportunity to buy bitcoin at a lower price. (With inputs from agencies)

Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies tumble over Biden tax plan fears

US&nbsp;President Joe&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;is&nbsp;expected&nbsp;to formally&nbsp;recognise&nbsp;the&nbsp;massacre&nbsp;of&nbsp;Armenians&nbsp;by the Ottoman Empire during World War One as an act of&nbsp;genocide,&nbsp;sources&nbsp;said on Wednesday, a move likely to infuriate Turkey and further strain already frayed ties between the two NATO allies.

The move would be largely symbolic but would mean breaking away from decades of carefully calibrated language from the White House and come at a time when Ankara and Washington are already at loggerheads over a string of issues.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-expected-to-recognize-massacre-of-armenians-as-genocide-379206/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Biden&nbsp;is likely going to use the word "genocide" as part of a statement on April 24 when annual commemorations for the victims are held around the world, three&nbsp;sources&nbsp;familiar with the matter said.

"My understanding is that he took the decision and will use the word&nbsp;genocide&nbsp;in his statement on Saturday," said a source familiar with the matter.&nbsp;Sources&nbsp;cautioned that given the importance of bilateral ties with Turkey,&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;may still choose not to use the term at the last minute.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday told reporters the White House would likely have "more to say" about the issue on Saturday, but declined to elaborate.

The State Department referred queries on the issue to the White House and National Security Council had no comment beyond what Psaki said.

A year ago, while still a presidential candidate,&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;commemorated the 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children who lost their lives in the final years of the Ottoman Empire and said he would back efforts to&nbsp;recognize&nbsp;those killings as a&nbsp;genocide.

"Today, we remember the atrocities faced by the Armenian people in the Metz Yeghern — the Armenian&nbsp;Genocide. If elected, I pledge to support a resolution recognizing the Armenian&nbsp;Genocide&nbsp;and will make universal human rights a top priority," he said on Twitter at the time.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Today, we remember the atrocities faced by the Armenian people in the Metz Yeghern — the Armenian Genocide. If elected, I pledge to support a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide and will make universal human rights a top priority. <a href="https://t.co/Afl5lMLPR3">https://t.co/Afl5lMLPR3</a>
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1253722368041607168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Turkey accepts that many&nbsp;Armenians&nbsp;living in the Ottoman Empire were killed in clashes with Ottoman forces during World War One, but contests the figures and denies the killings were systematically orchestrated and constitute a&nbsp;genocide.

For decades, measures recognizing the Armenian&nbsp;genocide&nbsp;stalled in the US&nbsp;Congress and US&nbsp;presidents have refrained from calling it that, stymied by concerns about relations with Turkey and intense lobbying by Ankara.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan had established a close bond with former US&nbsp;President Donald Trump, but he has yet to speak to&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;since he became president on Jan. 20.

While Turkish and American officials have held talks since then, the&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;administration has stepped up pressure on Turkey by frequently expressing its discontent over Ankara's human rights track record, and the gap between the two sides over a host of issues including Turkey's purchase of Russian weapons systems and policy differences in Syria remains.

Any move by&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;to&nbsp;recognize&nbsp;the mass killings as a&nbsp;genocide&nbsp;will further harm already strained ties between the NATO allies, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday.

Ian Bremmer, founder of the Eurasia Group research and consulting firm, said&nbsp;Biden's&nbsp;expected&nbsp;move reflected the deteriorating relationship between the NATO allies, but Erdogan's response would be likely limited.

"Erdogan is ... unlikely to provoke the US&nbsp;with actions that could further undermine Turkey’s weak economy," he said.

In 2019, the US&nbsp;Senate passed a non-binding resolution recognizing the killings as a&nbsp;genocide, in a historic move that deeply angered Turkey.

Representative Adam Schiff and a group of 100 bipartisan lawmakers sent a letter to&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;this week urging him to follow through on his campaign pledge and "right decades of wrongs."

US President Joe Biden is expected to formally recognise the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War One as an act of genocide, sources said on Wednesday, a move likely to infuriate Turkey and further strain already frayed ties between the two NATO allies.

US President Joe Biden is expected to formally recognise the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War One as an act of genocide, sources said on Wednesday, a move likely to infuriate Turkey and further strain already frayed ties between the two NATO allies. The move would be largely symbolic but would mean breaking away from decades of carefully calibrated language from the White House and come at a time when Ankara and Washington are already at loggerheads over a string of issues. Biden is likely going to use the word "genocide" as part of a statement on April 24 when annual commemorations for the victims are held around the world, three sources familiar with the matter said. "My understanding is that he took the decision and will use the word genocide in his statement on Saturday," said a source familiar with the matter. Sources cautioned that given the importance of bilateral ties with Turkey, Biden may still choose not to use the term at the last minute. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday told reporters the White House would likely have "more to say" about the issue on Saturday, but declined to elaborate. The State Department referred queries on the issue to the White House and National Security Council had no comment beyond what Psaki said. A year ago, while still a presidential candidate, Biden commemorated the 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children who lost their lives in the final years of the Ottoman Empire and said he would back efforts to recognize those killings as a genocide. "Today, we remember the atrocities faced by the Armenian people in the Metz Yeghern — the Armenian Genocide. If elected, I pledge to support a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide and will make universal human rights a top priority," he said on Twitter at the time. Today, we remember the atrocities faced by the Armenian people in the Metz Yeghern — the Armenian Genocide. If elected, I pledge to support a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide and will make universal human rights a top priority. https://t.co/Afl5lMLPR3 — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) April 24, 2020 × Turkey accepts that many Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire were killed in clashes with Ottoman forces during World War One, but contests the figures and denies the killings were systematically orchestrated and constitute a genocide. For decades, measures recognizing the Armenian genocide stalled in the US Congress and US presidents have refrained from calling it that, stymied by concerns about relations with Turkey and intense lobbying by Ankara. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan had established a close bond with former US President Donald Trump, but he has yet to speak to Biden since he became president on Jan. 20. While Turkish and American officials have held talks since then, the Biden administration has stepped up pressure on Turkey by frequently expressing its discontent over Ankara's human rights track record, and the gap between the two sides over a host of issues including Turkey's purchase of Russian weapons systems and policy differences in Syria remains. Any move by Biden to recognize the mass killings as a genocide will further harm already strained ties between the NATO allies, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday. Ian Bremmer, founder of the Eurasia Group research and consulting firm, said Biden's expected move reflected the deteriorating relationship between the NATO allies, but Erdogan's response would be likely limited. "Erdogan is ... unlikely to provoke the US with actions that could further undermine Turkey’s weak economy," he said. In 2019, the US Senate passed a non-binding resolution recognizing the killings as a genocide, in a historic move that deeply angered Turkey. Representative Adam Schiff and a group of 100 bipartisan lawmakers sent a letter to Biden this week urging him to follow through on his campaign pledge and "right decades of wrongs."

Biden expected to recognise massacre of Armenians as genocide: Sources

The governors of a dozen US states including California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina called on President Joe Biden on Wednesday to back ending sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels.&nbsp;

Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan calls for $174 billion in spending and tax credits to boost electric vehicles (EVs) and charging networks but does not call for phasing out gasoline-powered passenger vehicles.&nbsp;

In a letter that was seen by Reuters, the governors, which also include those of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington State and Rhode Island, urged Biden to set standards 'to ensure that all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold are zero-emission no later than 2035 with significant milestones along the way to monitor progress’.&nbsp;

They argued that “by establishing a clear regulatory path to ensuring that all vehicles sold in the United States are zero-emission, we can finally clear the air and create high-road jobs.” &nbsp;

The governors also want Biden to set standards and adopt incentives aimed at ensuring 100% zero-emission sales of medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045.&nbsp;

The White House did not immediately comment on the governors’ letter.&nbsp;

States and some lawmakers hope that Biden’s endorsement of a phase-out date will speed the transition to EVs by users and automakers. EVs currently make up just 2% of US vehicle sales.&nbsp;

A number of US lawmakers have urged Biden follow California’s lead, which in September said it planned to end sales of new gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035. Biden’s campaign said last fall he did not support California’s phase-out plan.&nbsp;

In March, a group of 71 House Democrats urged Biden to set tough emissions rules to ensure 60% of new passenger cars and trucks sold are zero-emission by 2030, while 10 US senators urged Biden “to set a date by which new sales of fossil fuel vehicles will end entirely.”&nbsp;

The governors of a dozen US states including California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina called on President Joe Biden on Wednesday to back ending sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels.

The governors of a dozen US states including California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina called on President Joe Biden on Wednesday to back ending sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels. Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan calls for $174 billion in spending and tax credits to boost electric vehicles (EVs) and charging networks but does not call for phasing out gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. In a letter that was seen by Reuters, the governors, which also include those of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington State and Rhode Island, urged Biden to set standards 'to ensure that all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold are zero-emission no later than 2035 with significant milestones along the way to monitor progress’. They argued that “by establishing a clear regulatory path to ensuring that all vehicles sold in the United States are zero-emission, we can finally clear the air and create high-road jobs.” The governors also want Biden to set standards and adopt incentives aimed at ensuring 100% zero-emission sales of medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045. The White House did not immediately comment on the governors’ letter. States and some lawmakers hope that Biden’s endorsement of a phase-out date will speed the transition to EVs by users and automakers. EVs currently make up just 2% of US vehicle sales. A number of US lawmakers have urged Biden follow California’s lead, which in September said it planned to end sales of new gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035. Biden’s campaign said last fall he did not support California’s phase-out plan. In March, a group of 71 House Democrats urged Biden to set tough emissions rules to ensure 60% of new passenger cars and trucks sold are zero-emission by 2030, while 10 US senators urged Biden “to set a date by which new sales of fossil fuel vehicles will end entirely.”

12 US states urge Biden to back phasing out gas-powered vehicle sales by 2035 

US President Joe Biden has said that he has nominated eminently qualified and highly respected Indian-origin lawyer Vanita Gupta to the Justice Department as she has spent her entire career fighting to advance racial equity and justice.&nbsp;

If confirmed, 46-year-old Gupta would be the first woman of colour to serve as Associate Attorney General, which is the third-ranking official at the powerful Department of Justice.&nbsp;

President Biden, in his remarks on Tuesday on the verdict in the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd, said that the State and local government and law enforcement needs to step up, but so does the federal government.&nbsp;

"That's why I have appointed the leadership at the Justice Department that I have, that is fully committed to restoring trust between law enforcement and the community they are sworn to serve and protect," he said.&nbsp;

Biden said that he has complete confidence in the leadership and commitment of Attorney General Merrick Brian Garland.&nbsp;

"I have also nominated two key Justice Department nominees, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, who are eminently qualified, highly respected lawyers, who have spent their entire careers fighting to advance racial equity and justice.&nbsp;

"Vanita and Kristen have the experience and the skill necessary to advance our administration's priorities to root out unconstitutional policing and reform our criminal justice system, and they deserve to be confirmed," Biden said.&nbsp;

Last week, the US Senate postponed a scheduled floor vote on the nomination of Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney General, the third-highest position in the Department of Justice, after hours of debate on her candidature.&nbsp;

Opposition Republicans have vocally opposed Gupta's nomination. They pressed her over previous tweets critical of Republicans and accused her of being an 'extreme partisan advocate' at a contentious confirmation hearing last month. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden has said that he has nominated eminently qualified and highly respected Indian-origin lawyer Vanita Gupta to the Justice Department as she has spent her entire career fighting to advance racial equity and justice.

US President Joe Biden has said that he has nominated eminently qualified and highly respected Indian-origin lawyer Vanita Gupta to the Justice Department as she has spent her entire career fighting to advance racial equity and justice. If confirmed, 46-year-old Gupta would be the first woman of colour to serve as Associate Attorney General, which is the third-ranking official at the powerful Department of Justice. President Biden, in his remarks on Tuesday on the verdict in the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd, said that the State and local government and law enforcement needs to step up, but so does the federal government. "That's why I have appointed the leadership at the Justice Department that I have, that is fully committed to restoring trust between law enforcement and the community they are sworn to serve and protect," he said. Biden said that he has complete confidence in the leadership and commitment of Attorney General Merrick Brian Garland. "I have also nominated two key Justice Department nominees, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, who are eminently qualified, highly respected lawyers, who have spent their entire careers fighting to advance racial equity and justice. "Vanita and Kristen have the experience and the skill necessary to advance our administration's priorities to root out unconstitutional policing and reform our criminal justice system, and they deserve to be confirmed," Biden said. Last week, the US Senate postponed a scheduled floor vote on the nomination of Gupta to serve as Associate Attorney General, the third-highest position in the Department of Justice, after hours of debate on her candidature. Opposition Republicans have vocally opposed Gupta's nomination. They pressed her over previous tweets critical of Republicans and accused her of being an 'extreme partisan advocate' at a contentious confirmation hearing last month. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden says Justice Dept nominee Vanita Gupta spent entire career fighting to advance racial equity, justice 

Former US president Donald Trump has urged his successor Joe Biden to reinstate the travel ban on certain Muslim countries in order to keep the country safe from radical Islamic terrorism. &nbsp;

"If Joe Biden wants to keep our country safe from radical Islamic terrorism, he should reinstitute the foreign country travel ban and all of the vetting requirements on those seeking admission that go with it, along with the refugee restrictions I successfully put in place," Trump said in a statement on Monday. &nbsp;

"Terrorists operate all over the world and recruit online. To keep terrorism and extremism out of our country, we need to have smart, commonsense rules in place so we don't repeat the many immigration mistakes made by Europe and the USA prior to ‘Trump'," said the former US president. &nbsp;

Trump had imposed a ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. However, Biden lifted the ban after assuming office. &nbsp; &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Former US president Donald Trump has urged his successor Joe Biden to reinstate the travel ban on certain Muslim countries in order to keep the country safe from radical Islamic terrorism.

Former US president Donald Trump has urged his successor Joe Biden to reinstate the travel ban on certain Muslim countries in order to keep the country safe from radical Islamic terrorism. "If Joe Biden wants to keep our country safe from radical Islamic terrorism, he should reinstitute the foreign country travel ban and all of the vetting requirements on those seeking admission that go with it, along with the refugee restrictions I successfully put in place," Trump said in a statement on Monday. "Terrorists operate all over the world and recruit online. To keep terrorism and extremism out of our country, we need to have smart, commonsense rules in place so we don't repeat the many immigration mistakes made by Europe and the USA prior to ‘Trump'," said the former US president. Trump had imposed a ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. However, Biden lifted the ban after assuming office. (With inputs from agencies)

Trump asks Biden to reinstate travel ban, to keep US safe from radical Islamic terrorism

Russian President Vladimir Putin will deliver a speech on Thursday at an online climate change summit hosted by US President Joe Biden, the Kremlin said, despite a deep crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington.&nbsp;

Putin's attendance signals he is still open to dialogue with the United States even though the two countries have imposed new sanctions on each other in the past few days. He has yet to accept or decline a separate invitation from Biden to a bilateral summit.&nbsp;

Biden has invited 40 world leaders to the climate summit, part of his effort to make the fight against global warming a top priority.&nbsp;

Putin, in his speech, will "outline Russia's approaches in the context of forging broad international cooperation aimed at overcoming the negative effects of global climate change," the Kremlin said.&nbsp;

Washington imposed new sanctions on Russia on last Thursday for alleged malign activity including interfering in last year's US election, cyber hacking and bullying neighbouring Ukraine.&nbsp;

Russia denied the accusations and retaliated with sanctions of its own the following day.&nbsp;

The United States has warned Russia, there will be further consequences if Alexei Navalny, an opposition politician, who has been on hunger strike in prison for nearly three weeks, were to die. Russia has said it is ready to impose more 'painful' measures against Washington if tensions escalate further.&nbsp;

Relations slumped to a new post-Cold War low last month after Biden said he thought Putin was a 'killer' and Moscow recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations.&nbsp;

Russian President Vladimir Putin will deliver a speech on Thursday at an online climate change summit hosted by US President Joe Biden, the Kremlin said, despite a deep crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington.

Russian President Vladimir Putin will deliver a speech on Thursday at an online climate change summit hosted by US President Joe Biden, the Kremlin said, despite a deep crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington. Putin's attendance signals he is still open to dialogue with the United States even though the two countries have imposed new sanctions on each other in the past few days. He has yet to accept or decline a separate invitation from Biden to a bilateral summit. Biden has invited 40 world leaders to the climate summit, part of his effort to make the fight against global warming a top priority. Putin, in his speech, will "outline Russia's approaches in the context of forging broad international cooperation aimed at overcoming the negative effects of global climate change," the Kremlin said. Washington imposed new sanctions on Russia on last Thursday for alleged malign activity including interfering in last year's US election, cyber hacking and bullying neighbouring Ukraine. Russia denied the accusations and retaliated with sanctions of its own the following day. The United States has warned Russia, there will be further consequences if Alexei Navalny, an opposition politician, who has been on hunger strike in prison for nearly three weeks, were to die. Russia has said it is ready to impose more 'painful' measures against Washington if tensions escalate further. Relations slumped to a new post-Cold War low last month after Biden said he thought Putin was a 'killer' and Moscow recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations.

Putin to address Biden's climate summit despite crisis in US-Russia ties 

President Joe Biden pledged to “do more” to address gun violence and implored Congress to act after a mass shooting in Indianapolis left eight people dead. But his administration, scrambling to respond to a new cycle of violence, rejected calls to appoint a gun czar to more forcefully confront the crisis.

At a news conference Friday with the Japanese prime minister, Biden called gun violence across the country “a national embarrassment” and urged Senate Republicans to allow a vote on a gun control bill that has already passed the House.

“This has to end,” he said. “Who in God’s name needs a weapon that can hold 100 rounds or 40 rounds or 20 rounds? It’s just wrong.”

In an earlier statement, Biden said he had been briefed on the attack in Indianapolis on Thursday, in which “a lone gunman murdered eight people and wounded several more in the dark of night.” He ordered flags lowered to half-staff just two weeks after he had given a similar directive in response to massacres in Atlanta and Boulder, Colorado.

“Gun violence is an epidemic in America,” he said. “But we should not accept it. We must act. We can, and must, do more to act and to save lives. God bless the eight fellow Americans we lost in Indianapolis and their loved ones, and we pray for the wounded for their recovery.”

His press secretary, Jen Psaki, rejected suggestions that Biden appoint a gun czar, similar to the position he created to address the climate crisis. The White House argued that the main impediment to addressing the crisis was congressional Republicans, not a lack of will in the West Wing.

“I would say that advocates should pressure Republicans in the Senate, that all of you should pressure Republicans in the Senate and ask them why they are opposing universal background checks,” Psaki said after a reporter suggested that Biden was “passing the buck” by blaming Republicans.

Despite the apparent gridlock, there are signs that things might be changing.

Biden is moving ahead with several narrow executive actions, and there are new negotiations on Capitol Hill for an expansion of background checks — aided by the financial collapse of the National Rifle Association.

Among the most consequential actions so far is a personnel move: Biden has chosen David Chipman, a former federal law enforcement official, to be the new head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a battered agency tasked with enforcing existing federal gun laws and executive actions.

Over the years, NRA-allied lawmakers have handcuffed the ATF with the tightest restrictions imposed on any federal law enforcement agency, even banning the bureau from making gun tracing records searchable by computer.

The agency has been without a full-time director for much of the past 25 years because NRA-allied senators have quashed nominations by both Republican and Democratic administrations, arguing that a strong agency leader threatens the Second Amendment.

Chipman is an unapologetic proponent of expanding background checks, banning assault weapons again and unshackling ATF inspectors.

White House officials are hopeful he can garner as many as 52 votes for confirmation given the disgust over the recent shootings. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most conservative Democrat on guns, has expressed tentative support, and two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania, are open to the pick, according to Senate Republican aides with knowledge of their thinking.

On a parallel track, a dozen senators in both parties have quietly begun to negotiate a deal to expand background checks for gun purchases — a proposal that enjoys nearly 90% approval nationally in recent polls.

Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, both D-Conn., have been reaching out to Republicans in hopes of passing a narrower background check bill than the universal-checks measure passed by House Democrats earlier this year.

Biden, adopting a tone of disgust and frustration, unveiled two relatively modest executive actions last week: a 60-day review of homemade, unregistered “ghost guns” that is likely to lead to a ban, and a measure eliminating arm braces used to turn pistols into short-barreled rifles, a proposal rejected by the Trump administration.

Gun violence in America, he said at the time, was “an international embarrassment.”

President Joe Biden pledged to “do more” to address gun violence and implored Congress to act after a mass shooting in Indianapolis left eight people dead. But his administration, scrambling to respond to a new cycle of violence, rejected calls to appoint a gun czar to more forcefully confront the crisis.

President Joe Biden pledged to “do more” to address gun violence and implored Congress to act after a mass shooting in Indianapolis left eight people dead. But his administration, scrambling to respond to a new cycle of violence, rejected calls to appoint a gun czar to more forcefully confront the crisis. At a news conference Friday with the Japanese prime minister, Biden called gun violence across the country “a national embarrassment” and urged Senate Republicans to allow a vote on a gun control bill that has already passed the House. “This has to end,” he said. “Who in God’s name needs a weapon that can hold 100 rounds or 40 rounds or 20 rounds? It’s just wrong.” In an earlier statement, Biden said he had been briefed on the attack in Indianapolis on Thursday, in which “a lone gunman murdered eight people and wounded several more in the dark of night.” He ordered flags lowered to half-staff just two weeks after he had given a similar directive in response to massacres in Atlanta and Boulder, Colorado. “Gun violence is an epidemic in America,” he said. “But we should not accept it. We must act. We can, and must, do more to act and to save lives. God bless the eight fellow Americans we lost in Indianapolis and their loved ones, and we pray for the wounded for their recovery.” His press secretary, Jen Psaki, rejected suggestions that Biden appoint a gun czar, similar to the position he created to address the climate crisis. The White House argued that the main impediment to addressing the crisis was congressional Republicans, not a lack of will in the West Wing. “I would say that advocates should pressure Republicans in the Senate, that all of you should pressure Republicans in the Senate and ask them why they are opposing universal background checks,” Psaki said after a reporter suggested that Biden was “passing the buck” by blaming Republicans. Despite the apparent gridlock, there are signs that things might be changing. Biden is moving ahead with several narrow executive actions, and there are new negotiations on Capitol Hill for an expansion of background checks — aided by the financial collapse of the National Rifle Association. Among the most consequential actions so far is a personnel move: Biden has chosen David Chipman, a former federal law enforcement official, to be the new head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a battered agency tasked with enforcing existing federal gun laws and executive actions. Over the years, NRA-allied lawmakers have handcuffed the ATF with the tightest restrictions imposed on any federal law enforcement agency, even banning the bureau from making gun tracing records searchable by computer. The agency has been without a full-time director for much of the past 25 years because NRA-allied senators have quashed nominations by both Republican and Democratic administrations, arguing that a strong agency leader threatens the Second Amendment. Chipman is an unapologetic proponent of expanding background checks, banning assault weapons again and unshackling ATF inspectors. White House officials are hopeful he can garner as many as 52 votes for confirmation given the disgust over the recent shootings. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most conservative Democrat on guns, has expressed tentative support, and two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania, are open to the pick, according to Senate Republican aides with knowledge of their thinking. On a parallel track, a dozen senators in both parties have quietly begun to negotiate a deal to expand background checks for gun purchases — a proposal that enjoys nearly 90% approval nationally in recent polls. Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, both D-Conn., have been reaching out to Republicans in hopes of passing a narrower background check bill than the universal-checks measure passed by House Democrats earlier this year. Biden, adopting a tone of disgust and frustration, unveiled two relatively modest executive actions last week: a 60-day review of homemade, unregistered “ghost guns” that is likely to lead to a ban, and a measure eliminating arm braces used to turn pistols into short-barreled rifles, a proposal rejected by the Trump administration. Gun violence in America, he said at the time, was “an international embarrassment.”

Biden vows to ‘do more’ to end gun violence but rejects calls to appoint a czar

Facing swift blowback from allies and aid groups, the White House said President Joe Biden plans to lift his predecessor's historically low cap on refugees by next month, after initially moving only to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements. 
 
In an emergency determination signed by Biden earlier Friday, he stated the admission of up to 15,000 refugees set by former President Donald Trump this year remains justified by humanitarian concerns and is otherwise in the national interest. But if the cap is reached before the end of the current budget year and the emergency refugee situation persists, then a presidential determination may be issued to raise the ceiling. 
 
That set off a deluge of criticism from top allies on Capitol Hill such as the second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, who called that initial limit unacceptable.&nbsp;White House press secretary Jen Psaki said later that Biden is expected to increase the refugee cap by May 15, though she didn't say by how much. 
 
Biden has been consulting with his advisers to determine what number of refugees could realistically be admitted to the United States between now and October 1, the end of the fiscal year, Psaki said. Given the decimated refugee admissions program we inherited,&nbsp;she said it's now unlikely&nbsp;Biden will be able to boost that number to 62,500, as he had proposed in his plan to Congress two months ago. 
 
But Biden, she said, was urged by advisers to "take immediate action to reverse the Trump policy that banned refugees from many key regions, to enable flights from those regions to begin within days; today's order did that." The new allocations provide more slots for refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Central America and lift Trump's restrictions on resettlements from Somalia, Syria and Yemen. 
 
Critics from both sides of the political spectrum had accused the president of bowing to political pressure that has been mounting over the record pace of unaccompanied migrants crossing the US-Mexico border. 
Stephen Miller, a key architect of Trump's immigration policies, tweeted that keeping Trump's cap "reflects Team Biden's awareness that the border flood will cause record midterm losses."&nbsp;The White House indicated the border situation was partly why Biden had not acted before now, even though migrants at the border do not go through the same vetting process as refugees. 
 
"It is a factor",&nbsp;said Psaki, noting that the Office of Refugee Resettlement ?has personnel working on both issues and so we have to ensure that there is capacity and ability to manage both.? Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he didn't buy that. 
 
"This cruel policy is no more acceptable now than it was during the Trump Administration,"&nbsp;Blumenthal said. "To be clear: the asylum process at the southern border and the refugee process are completely separate immigration systems. Conflating the two constitutes caving to the politics of fear".&nbsp;Since the fiscal year began last October 1, just over 2,000 refugees have been resettled in the US. 
 
Secretary of State Antony Blinken notified Congress on February 12 of a plan to raise the ceiling on admissions to 62,500, but no presidential determination followed. The law does not require congressional approval and past presidents have issued such presidential determinations that set the cap on refugee admissions shortly after the notification to Congress. 
 
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Biden in a letter Friday that his inaction "undermines your declared purpose to reverse your predecessor's refugee policies."&nbsp;Menendez said it also makes it unlikely that the program can hit its target next budget year of 125,000, which Biden has pledged to do. 
 
Refugee resettlement agencies said it was important that admissions go higher even if it's not possible to meet the target to send a message that America will be a leader again in offering safe haven to the world's oppressed. 
 
Some 35,000 refugees have been cleared to go to the United States, and 100,000 remain in the pipeline and their lives remain in limbo, said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. 
"This leadership is sorely needed,"&nbsp;he said. 
 
Under Biden's new allocation, 7,000 slots are reserved for refugees from Africa, 1,000 from East Asia, 1,500 from Europe and Central Asia, 3,000 from Latin America and the Caribbean and 1,500 from the Near East and South Asia. A reserve of about 1,000 slots can be used as needed. 
 
The State Department, which coordinates flights with resettlement agencies, booked 715 refugees to come to the United States with the anticipation that Biden would have acted by March, but those flights were canceled since the refugees were not eligible under Trump's rules, according to resettlement agencies. 
 
Most of the refugees are from Africa and fleeing armed conflict or political persecution. Trump limited most spots to people fleeing religious persecution, Iraqis who have assisted US forces there, and people from Central America's Northern Triangle.

Facing swift blowback from allies and aid groups, the White House said President Joe Biden plans to lift his predecessor's historically low cap on refugees by next month, after initially moving only to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements.

Facing swift blowback from allies and aid groups, the White House said President Joe Biden plans to lift his predecessor's historically low cap on refugees by next month, after initially moving only to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements. In an emergency determination signed by Biden earlier Friday, he stated the admission of up to 15,000 refugees set by former President Donald Trump this year remains justified by humanitarian concerns and is otherwise in the national interest. But if the cap is reached before the end of the current budget year and the emergency refugee situation persists, then a presidential determination may be issued to raise the ceiling. That set off a deluge of criticism from top allies on Capitol Hill such as the second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, who called that initial limit unacceptable. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said later that Biden is expected to increase the refugee cap by May 15, though she didn't say by how much. Biden has been consulting with his advisers to determine what number of refugees could realistically be admitted to the United States between now and October 1, the end of the fiscal year, Psaki said. Given the decimated refugee admissions program we inherited, she said it's now unlikely Biden will be able to boost that number to 62,500, as he had proposed in his plan to Congress two months ago. But Biden, she said, was urged by advisers to "take immediate action to reverse the Trump policy that banned refugees from many key regions, to enable flights from those regions to begin within days; today's order did that." The new allocations provide more slots for refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Central America and lift Trump's restrictions on resettlements from Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Critics from both sides of the political spectrum had accused the president of bowing to political pressure that has been mounting over the record pace of unaccompanied migrants crossing the US-Mexico border. Stephen Miller, a key architect of Trump's immigration policies, tweeted that keeping Trump's cap "reflects Team Biden's awareness that the border flood will cause record midterm losses." The White House indicated the border situation was partly why Biden had not acted before now, even though migrants at the border do not go through the same vetting process as refugees. "It is a factor", said Psaki, noting that the Office of Refugee Resettlement ?has personnel working on both issues and so we have to ensure that there is capacity and ability to manage both.? Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he didn't buy that. "This cruel policy is no more acceptable now than it was during the Trump Administration," Blumenthal said. "To be clear: the asylum process at the southern border and the refugee process are completely separate immigration systems. Conflating the two constitutes caving to the politics of fear". Since the fiscal year began last October 1, just over 2,000 refugees have been resettled in the US. Secretary of State Antony Blinken notified Congress on February 12 of a plan to raise the ceiling on admissions to 62,500, but no presidential determination followed. The law does not require congressional approval and past presidents have issued such presidential determinations that set the cap on refugee admissions shortly after the notification to Congress. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Biden in a letter Friday that his inaction "undermines your declared purpose to reverse your predecessor's refugee policies." Menendez said it also makes it unlikely that the program can hit its target next budget year of 125,000, which Biden has pledged to do. Refugee resettlement agencies said it was important that admissions go higher even if it's not possible to meet the target to send a message that America will be a leader again in offering safe haven to the world's oppressed. Some 35,000 refugees have been cleared to go to the United States, and 100,000 remain in the pipeline and their lives remain in limbo, said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. "This leadership is sorely needed," he said. Under Biden's new allocation, 7,000 slots are reserved for refugees from Africa, 1,000 from East Asia, 1,500 from Europe and Central Asia, 3,000 from Latin America and the Caribbean and 1,500 from the Near East and South Asia. A reserve of about 1,000 slots can be used as needed. The State Department, which coordinates flights with resettlement agencies, booked 715 refugees to come to the United States with the anticipation that Biden would have acted by March, but those flights were canceled since the refugees were not eligible under Trump's rules, according to resettlement agencies. Most of the refugees are from Africa and fleeing armed conflict or political persecution. Trump limited most spots to people fleeing religious persecution, Iraqis who have assisted US forces there, and people from Central America's Northern Triangle.

After outcry, White House says Biden will lift refugee cap in May

US President Joe Biden has named Radhika Fox and Meera Joshi, two Indian-American women already working in his administration, to be part of a 10 member team to lead on climate and transportation matters across key agencies, the media reported. 
 
According to a White House announcement on Wednesday, Fox would become Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmental Protection Agency, while Joshi is being named as Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, reports The American Bazaar media outlet. 
 
Appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 20, Fox currently serves as the Acting Assistant Administer for Water. 
 
Prior to joining the EPA, Fox served as Chief Executive Officer for the US Water Alliance and had also directed the policy and government affairs agenda for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 
 
Meanwhile, Joshi had previously served as the Chair and CEO of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. 
 
At the nation`s largest for-hire transportation regulator, she led the `Vision Zero` campaigns using data tools to keep high-risk drivers and unsafe vehicles off the road. 
 
She was also the Inspector General for New York City`s Department of Corrections.

US President Joe Biden has named Radhika Fox and Meera Joshi, two Indian-American women already working in his administration, to be part of a 10 member team to lead on climate and transportation matters across key agencies, the media reported.

US President Joe Biden has named Radhika Fox and Meera Joshi, two Indian-American women already working in his administration, to be part of a 10 member team to lead on climate and transportation matters across key agencies, the media reported. According to a White House announcement on Wednesday, Fox would become Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmental Protection Agency, while Joshi is being named as Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, reports The American Bazaar media outlet. Appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 20, Fox currently serves as the Acting Assistant Administer for Water. Prior to joining the EPA, Fox served as Chief Executive Officer for the US Water Alliance and had also directed the policy and government affairs agenda for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Meanwhile, Joshi had previously served as the Chair and CEO of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. At the nation`s largest for-hire transportation regulator, she led the `Vision Zero` campaigns using data tools to keep high-risk drivers and unsafe vehicles off the road. She was also the Inspector General for New York City`s Department of Corrections.

Biden names 2 Indian-Americans to key jobs

US President Joe Biden has announced that all American troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by September 11 this year, thus bringing to an end the country’s longest war, spanning across two decades.

“US troops, as well as forces deployed by our NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Allies and operational partners, will be out of Afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on September 11 (2001),” Biden said during a televised address to the nation from the White House Wednesday.

He said his administration would remain alert to the threat of terrorism.

“We’ll reorganise our counterterrorism capabilities and the substantial assets in the region to prevent re-emergence of terrorists, of the threat to our homeland from over the horizon. We’ll hold the Taliban accountable for its commitment not to allow any terrorists to threaten the United States or its allies from Afghan soil. The Afghan government has made that commitment to us as well. And we’ll focus our full attention on the threat we face today,” Biden said.

He said his team is refining national strategy to monitor and disrupt significant terrorist threats not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere they may arise — Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

It’s time for American troops to come home, Biden said.

“The United States will begin our final withdrawal — begin it on May 1 of this year. We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We’ll do it responsibly, deliberately, and safely. And we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners, who now have more forces in Afghanistan than we do,” he said.

“The Taliban should know that if they attack us as we drawdown, we will defend ourselves and our partners with all the tools at our disposal,” he said.

Before making the announcement, Biden had spoken with former US presidents Barack Obama and George Bush.

“President Biden has made the right decision in completing the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan,” Obama said in a statement later.

Concerns for India

In the aftermath of the US and NATO withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, however, India will have a tremendous concern about the resurgence of the Taliban and its territory being used as a haven for terrorist, experts said.

“Regional countries, especially India, will have tremendous concerns about the US pullout from Afghanistan and the likelihood of a Taliban resurgence in the country, Lisa Curtis, who was Deputy Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for South and Central Asia from 2017-2021 under the previous Donald Trump administration told PTI.

When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan in the late 1990s, they welcomed militants and terrorists of all stripes to train, recruit, and fundraise from Afghanistan. Many of those militants, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, trained for operations in India, such as the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, Curtis said.

An eminent foreign policy and national security expert with over 20 years of service in the US government, Curtis now is a senior fellow and director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think-tank.

Indian officials also remember the close cooperation between the Taliban and militants who in December 1999 hijacked an Indian airliner. India may seek to use its role in regional efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, like the recent UN effort, to press its goal of ensuring Afghan territory cannot be used by anti-India militants, Curtis said.

India will worry about Taliban controlled territory being a haven for terrorists again, former Pakistan Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, who is now Director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute think-tank told PTI.

The real question now is whether after withdrawing its troops, the US will continue to help the Kabul government and will the Afghan people be able to keep the Taliban at bay, Haqqani said.

The Taliban have shown no interest in peace and the Doha process only reinforced their belief that the US eagerness to leave Afghanistan outweighed its concerns about that country’s future.

India and Pakistan do not have the luxury of distance that the U.S. has and will remain involved in Afghanistan. Pakistan is too deeply tied to the Taliban to stop supporting them now though it should be concerned about the adverse impact Taliban ideology would further have on Pakistan, Haqqani said in response to a question.

The Washington Post in a lead editorial asserted that the plans of Biden to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan will lead to disaster in the region.

“Mr Biden has chosen the easy way out of Afghanistan, but the consequences are likely to be ugly, The Washington Post said.

The New York Times said that stopping terrorism groups over the long term could be harder, an opinion also echoed by The Wall Street Journal.

The symbolic but arbitrary date shows the decision is driven less by facts on the ground than a political desire that is also a strategic gamble. History suggests US interests will suffer, The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial.

The president’s exit means he will have to take responsibility for what happens next. We hope it doesn’t betray the great sacrifices so many have made, the daily said.

The US and the Taliban signed a landmark deal in Doha on February 29, 2020, to bring lasting peace in war-torn Afghanistan and allow US troops to return home from America’s longest war.

Under the US-Taliban pact signed in Doha, the US agreed to withdraw all its soldiers from Afghanistan in 14 months.

Since the US-led invasion that ousted the Taliban after the September 11, 2001 attacks, America has spent more than USD 1 trillion in fighting and rebuilding in Afghanistan.

About 2,400 US soldiers have been killed, along with tens of thousands of Afghan troops, Taliban insurgents and Afghan civilians.

US President Joe Biden has announced that all American troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by September 11 this year, thus bringing to an end the country’s longest war, spanning across two decades.

US President Joe Biden has announced that all American troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by September 11 this year, thus bringing to an end the country’s longest war, spanning across two decades. “US troops, as well as forces deployed by our NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Allies and operational partners, will be out of Afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on September 11 (2001),” Biden said during a televised address to the nation from the White House Wednesday. He said his administration would remain alert to the threat of terrorism. “We’ll reorganise our counterterrorism capabilities and the substantial assets in the region to prevent re-emergence of terrorists, of the threat to our homeland from over the horizon. We’ll hold the Taliban accountable for its commitment not to allow any terrorists to threaten the United States or its allies from Afghan soil. The Afghan government has made that commitment to us as well. And we’ll focus our full attention on the threat we face today,” Biden said. He said his team is refining national strategy to monitor and disrupt significant terrorist threats not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere they may arise — Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. It’s time for American troops to come home, Biden said. “The United States will begin our final withdrawal — begin it on May 1 of this year. We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We’ll do it responsibly, deliberately, and safely. And we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners, who now have more forces in Afghanistan than we do,” he said. “The Taliban should know that if they attack us as we drawdown, we will defend ourselves and our partners with all the tools at our disposal,” he said. Before making the announcement, Biden had spoken with former US presidents Barack Obama and George Bush. “President Biden has made the right decision in completing the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan,” Obama said in a statement later. Concerns for India In the aftermath of the US and NATO withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, however, India will have a tremendous concern about the resurgence of the Taliban and its territory being used as a haven for terrorist, experts said. “Regional countries, especially India, will have tremendous concerns about the US pullout from Afghanistan and the likelihood of a Taliban resurgence in the country, Lisa Curtis, who was Deputy Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for South and Central Asia from 2017-2021 under the previous Donald Trump administration told PTI. When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan in the late 1990s, they welcomed militants and terrorists of all stripes to train, recruit, and fundraise from Afghanistan. Many of those militants, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, trained for operations in India, such as the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, Curtis said. An eminent foreign policy and national security expert with over 20 years of service in the US government, Curtis now is a senior fellow and director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think-tank. Indian officials also remember the close cooperation between the Taliban and militants who in December 1999 hijacked an Indian airliner. India may seek to use its role in regional efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, like the recent UN effort, to press its goal of ensuring Afghan territory cannot be used by anti-India militants, Curtis said. India will worry about Taliban controlled territory being a haven for terrorists again, former Pakistan Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, who is now Director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute think-tank told PTI. The real question now is whether after withdrawing its troops, the US will continue to help the Kabul government and will the Afghan people be able to keep the Taliban at bay, Haqqani said. The Taliban have shown no interest in peace and the Doha process only reinforced their belief that the US eagerness to leave Afghanistan outweighed its concerns about that country’s future. India and Pakistan do not have the luxury of distance that the U.S. has and will remain involved in Afghanistan. Pakistan is too deeply tied to the Taliban to stop supporting them now though it should be concerned about the adverse impact Taliban ideology would further have on Pakistan, Haqqani said in response to a question. The Washington Post in a lead editorial asserted that the plans of Biden to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan will lead to disaster in the region. “Mr Biden has chosen the easy way out of Afghanistan, but the consequences are likely to be ugly, The Washington Post said. The New York Times said that stopping terrorism groups over the long term could be harder, an opinion also echoed by The Wall Street Journal. The symbolic but arbitrary date shows the decision is driven less by facts on the ground than a political desire that is also a strategic gamble. History suggests US interests will suffer, The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. The president’s exit means he will have to take responsibility for what happens next. We hope it doesn’t betray the great sacrifices so many have made, the daily said. The US and the Taliban signed a landmark deal in Doha on February 29, 2020, to bring lasting peace in war-torn Afghanistan and allow US troops to return home from America’s longest war. Under the US-Taliban pact signed in Doha, the US agreed to withdraw all its soldiers from Afghanistan in 14 months. Since the US-led invasion that ousted the Taliban after the September 11, 2001 attacks, America has spent more than USD 1 trillion in fighting and rebuilding in Afghanistan. About 2,400 US soldiers have been killed, along with tens of thousands of Afghan troops, Taliban insurgents and Afghan civilians.

Experts flag concerns for India as Biden announces the US, NATO troop pullout from Afghanistan

The United States on Thursday announced economic sanctions on Russia and expelled 10 diplomats. This has come in retaliation for what the US says is Kremlin's interference in US elections and other hostile activities including a massive cyber attack.

The White House said that US President Joe Biden's executive order on sanctions " "sends a signal that the United States will impose costs in a strategic and economically impactful manner on Russia if it continues or escalates its destabilising international action".

US found support from its NATO allies as it slapped sanctions on Russia. The bloc supported the move taken in response to Moscow's&nbsp;"destabilising activities", an alliance statement said.

"NATO Allies support and stand in solidarity with the United States, following its 15 April announcement of actions to respond to Russia's destabilising activities," the statement said.&nbsp;

Russia talks tough

Russian reaction on US sanctions has expectedly been tough. Russian foreign ministry on Thursday said that it was "unavoidable" that Moscow would respond to sanctions. It also said that it had called Washington`s ambassador in Moscow for 'tough talks'.

Russian foreign ministry also said that Biden's decision to slap sanctions on Russia contradicted his stated desire to normalise ties.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the United States` hostile steps had dangerously raised the temperature of a confrontation between Moscow and Washington and that it would have to pay for damaging bilateral ties.

Earlier, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-sanctions-on-russia-wont-help-biden-putin-summit-kremlin-377759">Kremlin expressed its displeasure</a> as news of potential US sanctions did rounds in US media. Russia said at that time that going ahead with sanctions&nbsp;would&nbsp;"not help" a possible summit between Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"What is currently being discussed -- likely sanctions -- will in no way help such a meeting. That is unambiguous," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists, as reported by news agency AFP.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-sanctions-on-russia-wont-help-biden-putin-summit-kremlin-377759">US sanctions on Russia won't 'help' Biden-Putin summit: Kremlin</a>

Tensions between Russia and the West have been rising in recent weeks amid Russia's troop buildup near Russia-Ukraine border. The separatists in Ukraine's Donbass region have caused violence. Ukraine alleges that the separatists enjoy support from Moscow, a claim Russian denies. The US has assured Ukraine of help in the the current situation.

(With inputs from agencies)

The United States on Thursday announced economic sanctions on Russia and expelled 10 diplomats. This has come in retaliation for what the US says is Kremlin's interference in US elections and other hostile activities including a massive cyber attack.

The United States on Thursday announced economic sanctions on Russia and expelled 10 diplomats. This has come in retaliation for what the US says is Kremlin's interference in US elections and other hostile activities including a massive cyber attack. The White House said that US President Joe Biden's executive order on sanctions " "sends a signal that the United States will impose costs in a strategic and economically impactful manner on Russia if it continues or escalates its destabilising international action". US found support from its NATO allies as it slapped sanctions on Russia. The bloc supported the move taken in response to Moscow's "destabilising activities", an alliance statement said. "NATO Allies support and stand in solidarity with the United States, following its 15 April announcement of actions to respond to Russia's destabilising activities," the statement said. Russia talks tough Russian reaction on US sanctions has expectedly been tough. Russian foreign ministry on Thursday said that it was "unavoidable" that Moscow would respond to sanctions. It also said that it had called Washington`s ambassador in Moscow for 'tough talks'. Russian foreign ministry also said that Biden's decision to slap sanctions on Russia contradicted his stated desire to normalise ties. Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the United States` hostile steps had dangerously raised the temperature of a confrontation between Moscow and Washington and that it would have to pay for damaging bilateral ties. Earlier, Kremlin expressed its displeasure as news of potential US sanctions did rounds in US media. Russia said at that time that going ahead with sanctions would "not help" a possible summit between Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin. "What is currently being discussed -- likely sanctions -- will in no way help such a meeting. That is unambiguous," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists, as reported by news agency AFP. Also Read | US sanctions on Russia won't 'help' Biden-Putin summit: Kremlin Tensions between Russia and the West have been rising in recent weeks amid Russia's troop buildup near Russia-Ukraine border. The separatists in Ukraine's Donbass region have caused violence. Ukraine alleges that the separatists enjoy support from Moscow, a claim Russian denies. The US has assured Ukraine of help in the the current situation. (With inputs from agencies)

US slaps sanctions on Russia, expels 10 diplomats over poll meddlling, cyber attack

US&nbsp;President Joe Biden's administration has told Congress it is proceeding with more than $23 billion in weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates, including advanced F-35 aircraft, armed drones and other equipment, congressional aides said on Tuesday.

A State Department spokesperson said the administration would move forward with the proposed sales to the&nbsp;UAE, "even as we continue reviewing details and consulting with Emirati officials" related to the use of the weapons.

The Democratic president's administration had paused the deals agreed to by former Republican President Donald Trump in order to review them. The sales to the Gulf nation were finalised right before Trump left office.

The Trump administration told Congress in November it had approved the U.S. sale to the&nbsp;UAE&nbsp;as a side deal to the Abraham Accords, a US-brokered agreement in September in which the&nbsp;UAE&nbsp;agreed to normalise relations with Israel.

In the last months of the Trump administration, Israel reached deals with the&nbsp;UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco as part of the accords.

The $23.37 billion package contained products from General Atomics, Lockheed Martin Corp and Raytheon Technologies Corp, including 50 F-35 Lighting II aircraft, up to 18 MQ-9B Unmanned Aerial Systems and a package of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions.

YEMEN CONFLICT

Some US&nbsp;lawmakers have criticised the&nbsp;UAE&nbsp;for its involvement in the war in Yemen, a conflict considered one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters, and worried that the weapons transfers might violate US&nbsp;guarantees that Israel will retain a military advantage in the region.

Israel said it did not object to the sales.

A legislative effort to stop the sales failed in December, as Trump's fellow Republicans in Congress backed his plans.

The Trump administration then finalised the massive sale to the&nbsp;UAE&nbsp;on Jan. 20, about an hour before Biden was sworn in as president.

The Biden administration announced the review in late January and the&nbsp;UAE&nbsp;said then it had anticipated the review and welcomed joint efforts to de-escalate tensions and for renewed regional dialogue.

The State Department spokesperson said on Tuesday the estimated delivery dates on the&nbsp;UAE&nbsp;sales, if implemented, were for after 2025 or later.

The government anticipated "a robust and sustained dialogue with the&nbsp;UAE" to ensure a stronger security partnership, the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

"We will also continue to reinforce with the&nbsp;UAE&nbsp;and all recipients of US&nbsp;defence articles and services that US-origin defence equipment must be adequately secured and used in a manner that respects human rights and fully complies with the laws of armed conflict," the statement said.

US President Joe Biden's administration has told Congress it is proceeding with more than $23 billion in weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates, including advanced F-35 aircraft, armed drones and other equipment, congressional aides said on Tuesday.

US President Joe Biden's administration has told Congress it is proceeding with more than $23 billion in weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates, including advanced F-35 aircraft, armed drones and other equipment, congressional aides said on Tuesday. A State Department spokesperson said the administration would move forward with the proposed sales to the UAE, "even as we continue reviewing details and consulting with Emirati officials" related to the use of the weapons. The Democratic president's administration had paused the deals agreed to by former Republican President Donald Trump in order to review them. The sales to the Gulf nation were finalised right before Trump left office. The Trump administration told Congress in November it had approved the U.S. sale to the UAE as a side deal to the Abraham Accords, a US-brokered agreement in September in which the UAE agreed to normalise relations with Israel. In the last months of the Trump administration, Israel reached deals with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco as part of the accords. The $23.37 billion package contained products from General Atomics, Lockheed Martin Corp and Raytheon Technologies Corp, including 50 F-35 Lighting II aircraft, up to 18 MQ-9B Unmanned Aerial Systems and a package of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions. YEMEN CONFLICT Some US lawmakers have criticised the UAE for its involvement in the war in Yemen, a conflict considered one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters, and worried that the weapons transfers might violate US guarantees that Israel will retain a military advantage in the region. Israel said it did not object to the sales. A legislative effort to stop the sales failed in December, as Trump's fellow Republicans in Congress backed his plans. The Trump administration then finalised the massive sale to the UAE on Jan. 20, about an hour before Biden was sworn in as president. The Biden administration announced the review in late January and the UAE said then it had anticipated the review and welcomed joint efforts to de-escalate tensions and for renewed regional dialogue. The State Department spokesperson said on Tuesday the estimated delivery dates on the UAE sales, if implemented, were for after 2025 or later. The government anticipated "a robust and sustained dialogue with the UAE" to ensure a stronger security partnership, the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. "We will also continue to reinforce with the UAE and all recipients of US defence articles and services that US-origin defence equipment must be adequately secured and used in a manner that respects human rights and fully complies with the laws of armed conflict," the statement said.

Biden administration to proceed with $23 billion weapon sales to UAE

The Chinese government has urged Japan to steer clear of "internal issues” including Hong Kong and Xinjiang as Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga prepares to meet US President Joe Biden later this month. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/aircraft-carrier-group-exercising-near-taiwan-drills-will-become-regular-china-375583">Also read | Aircraft carrier group exercising near Taiwan, drills will become regular: China</a> 
 
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Monday had 90-minute telephonic talks with Japanese counterpart Toshimitsu Motegi, reported South China Morning Post (SCMP). The exchange was taken place at the request of Beijing, according to the Japanese foreign ministry. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/taiwan-reports-new-incursion-by-chinas-air-force-into-defence-zone-375512">Also read: Taiwan reports new incursion by China’s Air Force into defence zone</a>

Motegi urged China to halt its illegal intrusions into its territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and address the human rights issues in Xinjiang and the ongoing political situation in Hong Kong.

In a rare move, the Chinese Foreign Ministry put out a two-part statement on the phone call between Wang and Motegi.

One statement criticised US President Biden's recent efforts to coordinate with allies on a joint strategy on China, warning Tokyo to avoid following the US in sanctioning China over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

"If under the guise of multilateralism, countries engage in bloc politics or big power confrontations, or even arbitrarily impose unilateral and illegal sanctions on other countries based on false information, the world will regress to the law of the jungle of right and wrong," said Wang.

"The will of certain superpower does not represent the international community; the small number of countries that follow this country do not have the right to monopolise the rules of multilateralism."

In another statement released on the same day by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang repeated his jab at the US, urging Japan to not get "carried away" by countries that were biased against China.

According to SCMP, China's warning comes as Japan has shown signs of taking an increasingly assertive role in the Indo-Pacific region. The tension between China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force (SDF) in the East China Sea has escalated in recent months following Tokyo repeatedly voicing concerns over China's new coastguard law.

Japan Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and Biden are expected to meet later this month to discuss human rights in China. Suga will be the first foreign leader to meet Biden after taking office as POTUS.

Motegi and Japan Defence Minister will reportedly have discussions with Germany while Suga is in Washington, a move observers have said shows Tokyo is trying to get more powerful nations to recognise Japan's sovereignty in the Diaoyu Islands.

Last month, Japan said China's coastguard had expanded its presence in the contested waters by entering twice a month and as frequently as twice a week near the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands, known by the Chinese as Diaoyu.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Chinese government has urged Japan to steer clear of "internal issues” including Hong Kong and Xinjiang as Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga prepares to meet US President Joe Biden later this month.

The Chinese government has urged Japan to steer clear of "internal issues” including Hong Kong and Xinjiang as Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga prepares to meet US President Joe Biden later this month. Also read | Aircraft carrier group exercising near Taiwan, drills will become regular: China Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Monday had 90-minute telephonic talks with Japanese counterpart Toshimitsu Motegi, reported South China Morning Post (SCMP). The exchange was taken place at the request of Beijing, according to the Japanese foreign ministry. Also read: Taiwan reports new incursion by China’s Air Force into defence zone Motegi urged China to halt its illegal intrusions into its territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and address the human rights issues in Xinjiang and the ongoing political situation in Hong Kong. In a rare move, the Chinese Foreign Ministry put out a two-part statement on the phone call between Wang and Motegi. One statement criticised US President Biden's recent efforts to coordinate with allies on a joint strategy on China, warning Tokyo to avoid following the US in sanctioning China over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. "If under the guise of multilateralism, countries engage in bloc politics or big power confrontations, or even arbitrarily impose unilateral and illegal sanctions on other countries based on false information, the world will regress to the law of the jungle of right and wrong," said Wang. "The will of certain superpower does not represent the international community; the small number of countries that follow this country do not have the right to monopolise the rules of multilateralism." In another statement released on the same day by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang repeated his jab at the US, urging Japan to not get "carried away" by countries that were biased against China. According to SCMP, China's warning comes as Japan has shown signs of taking an increasingly assertive role in the Indo-Pacific region. The tension between China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force (SDF) in the East China Sea has escalated in recent months following Tokyo repeatedly voicing concerns over China's new coastguard law. Japan Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and Biden are expected to meet later this month to discuss human rights in China. Suga will be the first foreign leader to meet Biden after taking office as POTUS. Motegi and Japan Defence Minister will reportedly have discussions with Germany while Suga is in Washington, a move observers have said shows Tokyo is trying to get more powerful nations to recognise Japan's sovereignty in the Diaoyu Islands. Last month, Japan said China's coastguard had expanded its presence in the contested waters by entering twice a month and as frequently as twice a week near the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands, known by the Chinese as Diaoyu. (With inputs from agencies)

Stay out of Hong Kong, Xinjiang issues: China cautions Japan 

American President Joe Biden says US sports teams are making a mistake if they ignore the science and allow fans back into stadiums at full capacity and without aggressive Covid-19 restrictions.&nbsp;

ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/nagano-bars-fans-from-parts-of-torch-relay-as-covid-precaution-374658" hreflang="en">Nagano bars fans from parts of torch relay as COVID precaution</a>

Biden said the Texas Rangers are not being "responsible" by allowing 100 per cent capacity at Globe Life Field on Major League Baseball's opening day. The National Football League said earlier this week it plans to play games beginning in early September at full capacity.

"Well, that's a decision they made. I think it's a mistake," Biden said of the Rangers filling their 40,300 seat stadium. "They should listen to Dr. [Anthony] Fauci, the scientists and the experts. But I think it's not responsible."

Biden made his comments as part of an interview with US sports broadcaster ESPN which aired Wednesday night.

He also emphasized the importance of wearing masks and continuing to follow safety and health restrictions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus which has killed over 550,000 Americans since the global pandemic started. Texas has seen almost 50,000 people die, which is more than Canada and Sweden combined.

"In terms of it being responsible [for stadiums to open at full capacity] -- you see what's happening in Europe now when they lifted the mandates. I don't know why we don't just follow the science and beat this," Biden said.&nbsp;

The Washington Nationals said this week that five players would miss Thursday's season opener against the New York Mets because of Covid-19 protocols, including one undisclosed player who tested positive. The Nationals plan to open their stadium to 5,000 fans, at 12 per cent capacity.

When asked what he would tell athletes who are reluctant to get the vaccine, Biden remarked, "I'm president of the United States and I got vaccinated. I don't have an unimportant job. Would I take the vaccine if I thought it was going to hurt me? We have done incredible research on the vaccines and they have shown that they work. We have to get to the point where enough people have taken the vaccine so we diminish the possibility for (the virus) to spread."&nbsp;

Tennis players Elina Svitolina and Aryna Sabalenka, who are in Florida this week competing in a WTA tournament, have said they are reluctant to get the vaccine because of various concerns, including how fast it was rolled out.&nbsp;

Biden also addressed the anti-mask contingent, saying "Some people think they are being tough guys by not wearing masks, but guess what, they are just hurting themselves and other people."

Biden also talked about the importance of pay equity between men and women and described First Lady Jill Biden as a die-hard Philadelphia sports fan.

American President Joe Biden says US sports teams are making a mistake if they ignore the science and allow fans back into stadiums at full capacity and without aggressive Covid-19 restrictions.

American President Joe Biden says US sports teams are making a mistake if they ignore the science and allow fans back into stadiums at full capacity and without aggressive Covid-19 restrictions. ALSO READ: Nagano bars fans from parts of torch relay as COVID precaution Biden said the Texas Rangers are not being "responsible" by allowing 100 per cent capacity at Globe Life Field on Major League Baseball's opening day. The National Football League said earlier this week it plans to play games beginning in early September at full capacity. "Well, that's a decision they made. I think it's a mistake," Biden said of the Rangers filling their 40,300 seat stadium. "They should listen to Dr. [Anthony] Fauci, the scientists and the experts. But I think it's not responsible." Biden made his comments as part of an interview with US sports broadcaster ESPN which aired Wednesday night. He also emphasized the importance of wearing masks and continuing to follow safety and health restrictions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus which has killed over 550,000 Americans since the global pandemic started. Texas has seen almost 50,000 people die, which is more than Canada and Sweden combined. "In terms of it being responsible [for stadiums to open at full capacity] -- you see what's happening in Europe now when they lifted the mandates. I don't know why we don't just follow the science and beat this," Biden said. The Washington Nationals said this week that five players would miss Thursday's season opener against the New York Mets because of Covid-19 protocols, including one undisclosed player who tested positive. The Nationals plan to open their stadium to 5,000 fans, at 12 per cent capacity. When asked what he would tell athletes who are reluctant to get the vaccine, Biden remarked, "I'm president of the United States and I got vaccinated. I don't have an unimportant job. Would I take the vaccine if I thought it was going to hurt me? We have done incredible research on the vaccines and they have shown that they work. We have to get to the point where enough people have taken the vaccine so we diminish the possibility for (the virus) to spread." Tennis players Elina Svitolina and Aryna Sabalenka, who are in Florida this week competing in a WTA tournament, have said they are reluctant to get the vaccine because of various concerns, including how fast it was rolled out. Biden also addressed the anti-mask contingent, saying "Some people think they are being tough guys by not wearing masks, but guess what, they are just hurting themselves and other people." Biden also talked about the importance of pay equity between men and women and described First Lady Jill Biden as a die-hard Philadelphia sports fan.

President Biden says sports teams need to follow the science and 'beat this' pandemic

The far-reaching voting rights measure that Democrats are pressing to enact, known as the For the People Act, was more a political statement than serious legislation when lawmakers first proposed it in 2019.

The bill, clocking in at 818 pages, includes a laundry list of Democratic priorities like expanded ballot access, tighter controls on political money and support for District of Columbia statehood. It had no chance of becoming law when Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House.

But with Democrats in power, the wish list has become a potentially historic law and the most pervasive overhaul of federal election rules in recent memory. Republicans have assailed it as a Democratic effort to rig the political system in their favor, even as some privately acknowledge that the bill’s broad aims are overwhelmingly popular, even among conservatives.

President Joe Biden and Democrats portray the bill as the civil rights imperative of modern times and call it essential to shoring up a shaky democracy. But many of them privately concede that some of its provisions, like restrictions on political money, have opponents in their own ranks.

Here is a summary of some of the central elements of the measure:

The bill would set a national floor for ballot access.

Should it become law, the legislation would effectively set a national floor on ballot access, requiring all federal elections to start with an identical set of rules. States and other federal jurisdictions could tweak them to provide more access, but not less. Some states like Colorado and Minnesota have rules that are more generous than what the bill mandates; others, like Texas and Tennessee, make it much harder to register and vote than the bill envisions.

Jurisdictions could ignore the rules for state and local elections, but as a practical matter, the new requirements would most likely apply to all voting.

Some Republicans charge that the bill would rig the voting rules in favor of Democrats. But Republican officials have been working for the past decade to restrict ballot access in ways that make it harder to vote for minority groups that traditionally favor Democrats.

Beyond the civic benefits of greater participation in elections, it is clear that expanding voting to more people would benefit both parties. Indeed, as Republicans have increasingly appealed to lower-income and less-educated voters, some experts say the restrictions that they have imposed may actually be cutting into turnout by the party’s loyalists.

Many Republican states have had one or more of the voting provisions for years with no indication that they disproportionately favor one party.

The measure would make it much easier to register to vote.

All voters would be able to register, designate party affiliations, change addresses and deregister online; 40 states and the District of Columbia offer some or all of those options. Voters would also be automatically registered when visiting state or federal agencies unless they explicitly decline, similar to what has been required of most states — but not always carried out — by the federal “motor-voter law” that passed in 1993. Voters could also register when they cast a ballot, either on Election Day or during early voting, as is already the case in 21 states.

Early voting would be expanded nationwide, with all jurisdictions offering it for 15 days, for 10 hours daily, at easily accessible polling places. All but a handful of states allow early voting; the average early-ballot period is 19 days, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bill would also require jurisdictions to provide at least one secure ballot drop box for every 20,000 voters.

Mail voting would be extended nationwide, and states would have to prepay postage and electronically track ballots so voters would know when their ballots arrived and whether they had mistakes that needed to be fixed.

It would defang many voting restrictions imposed by Republicans.

Republicans have won enactment of voter-ID laws in most states by arguing that they are needed to combat fraud, even though the sort of in-person fraud that such rules discourage is all but nonexistent. The bill would effectively nullify such laws, allowing voters to sign affidavits swearing to their identities rather than showing ID.

The measure would also require that voters be notified at least a week before an election if their polling places have changed and order steps to reduce long lines. Voting rights activists and specialists argue that turnout falls when polling locations are closed or changed.

The legislation also would try to beat back rules adopted by some states, including Texas and New Hampshire, that make it more difficult for college students to vote. It would designate universities as voter-registration agencies and offer nonpartisan assistance to students who cast absentee ballots.

Under the bill, states would be barred from taking voters off the rolls because they had not participated in recent elections, a practice that the Supreme Court upheld in 2018. Critics argue that the practice is aimed at reducing turnout.

It would also restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, cementing into law a practice that states have increasingly adopted but some, such as Florida, have resisted.

Partisan gerrymandering would end.

Among other redistricting changes, the bill would mandate that political maps be drawn by nonpartisan commissions, not by state legislatures. If a legislature refused to approve a map, a three-judge federal panel would take over drafting.

A number of states have established such commissions in recent years, including Ohio and Colorado, but removing politics from political maps has proved difficult. Critics say Arizona’s Republican governor has stacked the selection process for that state’s commission, and the composition of Colorado’s new commission also has come under fire. The legislation lays out detailed instructions for choosing panel members.

Political contributions would be reined in.

The legislation would try to stop the flow of money to campaigns from abroad by requiring political committees to report foreign contacts, outlawing the use of shell companies to launder foreign contributions and barring foreigners from advising PACs on contributions and other political efforts. These moves and other requirements are direct responses to Russian efforts to support Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The most contentious provisions would pull back the veil over so-called dark political money, whose donors are secret, and regulate independent political expenditures — mostly spending that is not expressly coordinated with a candidate — by corporations.

Those provisions would counter the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent expenditures are a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively allowed nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money — $750 million in 2020, according to the advocacy group OpenSecrets — to support or oppose candidates or causes while keeping donors anonymous.

Public corporations would require approval by boards of directors and shareholders for independent expenditures and some other political spending over $50,000.

The bill would also require nonprofit groups spending money on elections or judicial nominations to disclose the donor of any contribution over $10,000 and ban shifting money between groups to disguise a donor’s identity.

It would also address the growing use of political advertising on the internet, requiring for the first time that ads disclose their sponsors and that online companies keep a public list of political advertising buyers.

Finally, the measure would set up new funds to match small donations to Senate and presidential candidates. The money, raised through fines on corporate lawbreakers and tax cheats, would be available only to candidates who reject political donations of more than $1,000.

The far-reaching voting rights measure that Democrats are pressing to enact, known as the For the People Act, was more a political statement than serious legislation when lawmakers first proposed it in 2019.

The far-reaching voting rights measure that Democrats are pressing to enact, known as the For the People Act, was more a political statement than serious legislation when lawmakers first proposed it in 2019. The bill, clocking in at 818 pages, includes a laundry list of Democratic priorities like expanded ballot access, tighter controls on political money and support for District of Columbia statehood. It had no chance of becoming law when Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House. But with Democrats in power, the wish list has become a potentially historic law and the most pervasive overhaul of federal election rules in recent memory. Republicans have assailed it as a Democratic effort to rig the political system in their favor, even as some privately acknowledge that the bill’s broad aims are overwhelmingly popular, even among conservatives. President Joe Biden and Democrats portray the bill as the civil rights imperative of modern times and call it essential to shoring up a shaky democracy. But many of them privately concede that some of its provisions, like restrictions on political money, have opponents in their own ranks. Here is a summary of some of the central elements of the measure: The bill would set a national floor for ballot access. Should it become law, the legislation would effectively set a national floor on ballot access, requiring all federal elections to start with an identical set of rules. States and other federal jurisdictions could tweak them to provide more access, but not less. Some states like Colorado and Minnesota have rules that are more generous than what the bill mandates; others, like Texas and Tennessee, make it much harder to register and vote than the bill envisions. Jurisdictions could ignore the rules for state and local elections, but as a practical matter, the new requirements would most likely apply to all voting. Some Republicans charge that the bill would rig the voting rules in favor of Democrats. But Republican officials have been working for the past decade to restrict ballot access in ways that make it harder to vote for minority groups that traditionally favor Democrats. Beyond the civic benefits of greater participation in elections, it is clear that expanding voting to more people would benefit both parties. Indeed, as Republicans have increasingly appealed to lower-income and less-educated voters, some experts say the restrictions that they have imposed may actually be cutting into turnout by the party’s loyalists. Many Republican states have had one or more of the voting provisions for years with no indication that they disproportionately favor one party. The measure would make it much easier to register to vote. All voters would be able to register, designate party affiliations, change addresses and deregister online; 40 states and the District of Columbia offer some or all of those options. Voters would also be automatically registered when visiting state or federal agencies unless they explicitly decline, similar to what has been required of most states — but not always carried out — by the federal “motor-voter law” that passed in 1993. Voters could also register when they cast a ballot, either on Election Day or during early voting, as is already the case in 21 states. Early voting would be expanded nationwide, with all jurisdictions offering it for 15 days, for 10 hours daily, at easily accessible polling places. All but a handful of states allow early voting; the average early-ballot period is 19 days, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bill would also require jurisdictions to provide at least one secure ballot drop box for every 20,000 voters. Mail voting would be extended nationwide, and states would have to prepay postage and electronically track ballots so voters would know when their ballots arrived and whether they had mistakes that needed to be fixed. It would defang many voting restrictions imposed by Republicans. Republicans have won enactment of voter-ID laws in most states by arguing that they are needed to combat fraud, even though the sort of in-person fraud that such rules discourage is all but nonexistent. The bill would effectively nullify such laws, allowing voters to sign affidavits swearing to their identities rather than showing ID. The measure would also require that voters be notified at least a week before an election if their polling places have changed and order steps to reduce long lines. Voting rights activists and specialists argue that turnout falls when polling locations are closed or changed. The legislation also would try to beat back rules adopted by some states, including Texas and New Hampshire, that make it more difficult for college students to vote. It would designate universities as voter-registration agencies and offer nonpartisan assistance to students who cast absentee ballots. Under the bill, states would be barred from taking voters off the rolls because they had not participated in recent elections, a practice that the Supreme Court upheld in 2018. Critics argue that the practice is aimed at reducing turnout. It would also restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, cementing into law a practice that states have increasingly adopted but some, such as Florida, have resisted. Partisan gerrymandering would end. Among other redistricting changes, the bill would mandate that political maps be drawn by nonpartisan commissions, not by state legislatures. If a legislature refused to approve a map, a three-judge federal panel would take over drafting. A number of states have established such commissions in recent years, including Ohio and Colorado, but removing politics from political maps has proved difficult. Critics say Arizona’s Republican governor has stacked the selection process for that state’s commission, and the composition of Colorado’s new commission also has come under fire. The legislation lays out detailed instructions for choosing panel members. Political contributions would be reined in. The legislation would try to stop the flow of money to campaigns from abroad by requiring political committees to report foreign contacts, outlawing the use of shell companies to launder foreign contributions and barring foreigners from advising PACs on contributions and other political efforts. These moves and other requirements are direct responses to Russian efforts to support Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign. The most contentious provisions would pull back the veil over so-called dark political money, whose donors are secret, and regulate independent political expenditures — mostly spending that is not expressly coordinated with a candidate — by corporations. Those provisions would counter the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent expenditures are a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively allowed nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money — $750 million in 2020, according to the advocacy group OpenSecrets — to support or oppose candidates or causes while keeping donors anonymous. Public corporations would require approval by boards of directors and shareholders for independent expenditures and some other political spending over $50,000. The bill would also require nonprofit groups spending money on elections or judicial nominations to disclose the donor of any contribution over $10,000 and ban shifting money between groups to disguise a donor’s identity. It would also address the growing use of political advertising on the internet, requiring for the first time that ads disclose their sponsors and that online companies keep a public list of political advertising buyers. Finally, the measure would set up new funds to match small donations to Senate and presidential candidates. The money, raised through fines on corporate lawbreakers and tax cheats, would be available only to candidates who reject political donations of more than $1,000.

Here’s how Democrats’ sweeping voting rights law would work

At the end of a winding answer Thursday about competing with China and about his relationship with Xi Jinping, a man he said does not have a democratic “bone in his body,” President Joe Biden offered up a revealing assessment of one of America’s most pressing challenges.

“This is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies,” he told reporters at his first news conference as president. “We’ve got to prove democracy works.”

China’s president, Xi, Biden said bluntly, was “a smart, smart guy” who shared with President Vladimir Putin of Russia a belief that “autocracy is the wave of the future and democracy can’t function” in the complexities of the modern world.

Among the biggest tasks of his presidency, Biden seemed to be arguing, is to prove anew to a skeptical world that both American democracy and its model of democratic capitalism still works — and that it is superior to the very different system Xi is ruthlessly enforcing at home as he tries to extend China’s influence around the world.

For a president barely 10 weeks into office, casting the United States as confronting a global struggle with the Chinese model has some clear political benefits. One of the few issues that unites Democrats and Republicans is the need to compete head-on with Beijing. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said Monday that the Chinese have already taken notice.

“They recognize in many ways that we are now finally awakened to the challenge,” he said this week at the Atlantic Council. “And I would call it a bipartisan awakening.”

Biden’s aides say his view of the Chinese challenge is not solely one of foreign policy. He plans to make full use of the fear of Beijing’s ambitions as he introduces his infrastructure initiative next week.

There will be hundreds of billions of dollars for technologies and projects that the Chinese are also pouring cash into, including semiconductors, artificial intelligence and 5G networks, as well as big breakthroughs in electric cars and synthetic biotechnology.

On Friday, Biden said he suggested to Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain that the big Western democracies work together to counter China’s ambitious efforts to build better trade routes around the world, a project called the Belt and Road Initiative. The project is one of China’s main instruments for influencing nations in its economic orbit by investing in ports, rail lines, roads and other infrastructure in Asia, Africa and Europe.

“We talked about China and the competition they’re engaging in in the Belt and Road Initiative,” Biden said. “And I suggested we should have, essentially, a similar initiative coming from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world.”

There is a striking similarity between Biden’s list and Xi’s “Made in China 2025” initiative — which was first announced six years ago as an effort to make China largely independent of Western suppliers for critical technology.

At the core of Biden’s infrastructure and supply-chain initiatives is an effort — parts of which began in the Trump years — to ensure the West is not dependent on Chinese technology. It is a battle that blossomed over Huawei, the maker of next-generation communications networks, but has now spread to fears that Chinese apps like TikTok could be a pathway for attacks on American infrastructure.

“China is outinvesting us by a long shot,” Biden said, previewing his argument, “because their plan is to own that future.”

It is a time-tested approach: President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, to spur a military and civilian space race, and President John F. Kennedy picked up on the theme in setting the goal for landing a man on the moon.

A decade ago, President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to call for a “Sputnik moment” of public investment, also using China as a spur, but the effort fell flat.

Yet for all the unanimity around the China challenge, it is far from clear whether Biden’s political strategy will work.

Republicans object to both the huge government spending in the Biden plan and to the overhang of debt it would create. And there seems bound to be a rerun of the arguments, dating to the 1980s, over whether a federal “industrial policy” — where taxpayer dollars are poured directly into technologies in which the United States judges it must stay ahead — that creates a competitive advantage for America makes sense or just squelches the innovations of Silicon Valley.

No matter how that plays out, Biden is casting the United States’ current competition in very different terms than his predecessors did. “Look, I predict to you,” he said, “your children or grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy? Because that is what is at stake, not just China.”

Most notable was what was missing. There was no talk of American “exceptionalism,” just a shorter-term assurance that “on my watch,” China would not reach its overall goal “to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world.”

Biden was also careful not to make Cold War analogies; in fact, he noted that what was missing now was much of an ideological contest. (“You don’t have Russia talking about communism anymore,” he noted.) He has always said he would cooperate with adversaries, and on Friday he invited Xi and Putin to a virtual climate summit meeting he is hosting in April. He speaks of competition, not containment.

“I see stiff competition with China,” Biden said, over everything from chips to national values, which he added was the key to his two-hour conversation with Xi. And that, he said, meant pushing back on China’s stripping of rights in Hong Kong or on its harsh repression of Muslim minorities.

“The moment a president walks away from that, as the last one did,” he said, taking a dig at former President Donald Trump, “is the moment we begin to lose our legitimacy around the world.”

Still, Biden’s discussion of an open contest between two similarly sized superpowers was a significant change for U.S. presidents.

A quarter-century ago, President Bill Clinton would make the case — oftentimes, during visits to Beijing — that the arrival of the internet would force China to embrace an more American-style democracy. Clearly, that did not work out.

President George W. Bush stressed areas where Chinese and American interests overlapped — counterterrorism and North Korea were the two he mentioned the most — but never cast China as a technological equal. Obama would always say the United States “welcomes the rise of China” and recognized that it could not contain the country if it wanted to, so it would be foolish to try.

And Trump spent three years imposing tariffs and insisting he would cut the deal of the century with China, and one year castigating it as the exporter of the coronavirus, while his secretary of state at the time, Mike Pompeo, insisted that over time, the Communist Party would collapse.

Now, Biden’s team says it is assembling a strategy built more around competition than containment.

“I don’t think China is on a mission to export its model abroad and undermine democracy abroad,” said Thomas J. Christensen, a Columbia professor and former State Department official dealing with China during the Bush administration. “But I do think they are on a mission to defend their model from criticism and defend single-party authoritarian rule.”

Christensen published an essay this week in Foreign Affairs titled, “There Will Not Be a New Cold War,” arguing that American allies were “too economically dependent on China to adopt entirely hostile policies,” and that the United States’ advantage was that it had allies and partners who ranked among the greatest technological powers in the world.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken seemed to acknowledge that this week when, on a visit to Brussels, he assured the Europeans that he would not force them to make an “us or them choice.”

The Biden camp’s calculation seems to be that it is more important to hold allies together than to ensure that each one cuts off its dependency on Chinese technology or investment.

The problem will come, as Blinken notes, as China lashes out at those who criticize its actions at home, in the South China Sea, or against Taiwan. “When one of us is coerced,” he said, “we should respond as allies and work together to reduce our vulnerability by ensuring our economies are more integrated with each other.” Which sounds a lot like creating opposing camps.

At the end of a winding answer Thursday about competing with China and about his relationship with Xi Jinping, a man he said does not have a democratic “bone in his body,” President Joe Biden offered up a revealing assessment of one of America’s most pressing challenges.

At the end of a winding answer Thursday about competing with China and about his relationship with Xi Jinping, a man he said does not have a democratic “bone in his body,” President Joe Biden offered up a revealing assessment of one of America’s most pressing challenges. “This is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies,” he told reporters at his first news conference as president. “We’ve got to prove democracy works.” China’s president, Xi, Biden said bluntly, was “a smart, smart guy” who shared with President Vladimir Putin of Russia a belief that “autocracy is the wave of the future and democracy can’t function” in the complexities of the modern world. Among the biggest tasks of his presidency, Biden seemed to be arguing, is to prove anew to a skeptical world that both American democracy and its model of democratic capitalism still works — and that it is superior to the very different system Xi is ruthlessly enforcing at home as he tries to extend China’s influence around the world. For a president barely 10 weeks into office, casting the United States as confronting a global struggle with the Chinese model has some clear political benefits. One of the few issues that unites Democrats and Republicans is the need to compete head-on with Beijing. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said Monday that the Chinese have already taken notice. “They recognize in many ways that we are now finally awakened to the challenge,” he said this week at the Atlantic Council. “And I would call it a bipartisan awakening.” Biden’s aides say his view of the Chinese challenge is not solely one of foreign policy. He plans to make full use of the fear of Beijing’s ambitions as he introduces his infrastructure initiative next week. There will be hundreds of billions of dollars for technologies and projects that the Chinese are also pouring cash into, including semiconductors, artificial intelligence and 5G networks, as well as big breakthroughs in electric cars and synthetic biotechnology. On Friday, Biden said he suggested to Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain that the big Western democracies work together to counter China’s ambitious efforts to build better trade routes around the world, a project called the Belt and Road Initiative. The project is one of China’s main instruments for influencing nations in its economic orbit by investing in ports, rail lines, roads and other infrastructure in Asia, Africa and Europe. “We talked about China and the competition they’re engaging in in the Belt and Road Initiative,” Biden said. “And I suggested we should have, essentially, a similar initiative coming from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world.” There is a striking similarity between Biden’s list and Xi’s “Made in China 2025” initiative — which was first announced six years ago as an effort to make China largely independent of Western suppliers for critical technology. At the core of Biden’s infrastructure and supply-chain initiatives is an effort — parts of which began in the Trump years — to ensure the West is not dependent on Chinese technology. It is a battle that blossomed over Huawei, the maker of next-generation communications networks, but has now spread to fears that Chinese apps like TikTok could be a pathway for attacks on American infrastructure. “China is outinvesting us by a long shot,” Biden said, previewing his argument, “because their plan is to own that future.” It is a time-tested approach: President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, to spur a military and civilian space race, and President John F. Kennedy picked up on the theme in setting the goal for landing a man on the moon. A decade ago, President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to call for a “Sputnik moment” of public investment, also using China as a spur, but the effort fell flat. Yet for all the unanimity around the China challenge, it is far from clear whether Biden’s political strategy will work. Republicans object to both the huge government spending in the Biden plan and to the overhang of debt it would create. And there seems bound to be a rerun of the arguments, dating to the 1980s, over whether a federal “industrial policy” — where taxpayer dollars are poured directly into technologies in which the United States judges it must stay ahead — that creates a competitive advantage for America makes sense or just squelches the innovations of Silicon Valley. No matter how that plays out, Biden is casting the United States’ current competition in very different terms than his predecessors did. “Look, I predict to you,” he said, “your children or grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy? Because that is what is at stake, not just China.” Most notable was what was missing. There was no talk of American “exceptionalism,” just a shorter-term assurance that “on my watch,” China would not reach its overall goal “to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world.” Biden was also careful not to make Cold War analogies; in fact, he noted that what was missing now was much of an ideological contest. (“You don’t have Russia talking about communism anymore,” he noted.) He has always said he would cooperate with adversaries, and on Friday he invited Xi and Putin to a virtual climate summit meeting he is hosting in April. He speaks of competition, not containment. “I see stiff competition with China,” Biden said, over everything from chips to national values, which he added was the key to his two-hour conversation with Xi. And that, he said, meant pushing back on China’s stripping of rights in Hong Kong or on its harsh repression of Muslim minorities. “The moment a president walks away from that, as the last one did,” he said, taking a dig at former President Donald Trump, “is the moment we begin to lose our legitimacy around the world.” Still, Biden’s discussion of an open contest between two similarly sized superpowers was a significant change for U.S. presidents. A quarter-century ago, President Bill Clinton would make the case — oftentimes, during visits to Beijing — that the arrival of the internet would force China to embrace an more American-style democracy. Clearly, that did not work out. President George W. Bush stressed areas where Chinese and American interests overlapped — counterterrorism and North Korea were the two he mentioned the most — but never cast China as a technological equal. Obama would always say the United States “welcomes the rise of China” and recognized that it could not contain the country if it wanted to, so it would be foolish to try. And Trump spent three years imposing tariffs and insisting he would cut the deal of the century with China, and one year castigating it as the exporter of the coronavirus, while his secretary of state at the time, Mike Pompeo, insisted that over time, the Communist Party would collapse. Now, Biden’s team says it is assembling a strategy built more around competition than containment. “I don’t think China is on a mission to export its model abroad and undermine democracy abroad,” said Thomas J. Christensen, a Columbia professor and former State Department official dealing with China during the Bush administration. “But I do think they are on a mission to defend their model from criticism and defend single-party authoritarian rule.” Christensen published an essay this week in Foreign Affairs titled, “There Will Not Be a New Cold War,” arguing that American allies were “too economically dependent on China to adopt entirely hostile policies,” and that the United States’ advantage was that it had allies and partners who ranked among the greatest technological powers in the world. Secretary of State Antony Blinken seemed to acknowledge that this week when, on a visit to Brussels, he assured the Europeans that he would not force them to make an “us or them choice.” The Biden camp’s calculation seems to be that it is more important to hold allies together than to ensure that each one cuts off its dependency on Chinese technology or investment. The problem will come, as Blinken notes, as China lashes out at those who criticize its actions at home, in the South China Sea, or against Taiwan. “When one of us is coerced,” he said, “we should respond as allies and work together to reduce our vulnerability by ensuring our economies are more integrated with each other.” Which sounds a lot like creating opposing camps.

Biden defines his underlying challenge with China: ‘Prove democracy works’

WASHINGTON — As President Joe Biden signaled this week that he would let a May 1 deadline pass without withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, some officials are using an intelligence assessment to argue for prolonging the military mission there.

U.S. intelligence agencies have told the Biden administration that if U.S. troops leave before a power-sharing settlement is reached between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the country could fall largely under the control of the Taliban within two or three years after the withdrawal of international forces. That could potentially open the door for al-Qaida to rebuild its strength within the country, according to U.S. officials.

The classified assessment, first prepared last year for the Trump administration but not previously disclosed, is the latest in a series of grim predictions of Afghanistan’s future that intelligence analysts have delivered throughout the two-decade-long war.

But the intelligence has landed in a changed political environment. While former President Donald Trump pushed for a withdrawal of all forces even before the terms of the peace deal required it, Biden has been more cautious, saying Thursday that he does not view May 1 as a deadline he must meet, although he also said he “could not picture” troops being in the country next year.

The decision looms as one of the most critical of Biden’s young presidency. He long argued while vice president for a minimal presence in Afghanistan but has been said to have privately described as haunting the possibility of allowing the country to descend into collapse.

Some senior Biden administration officials have expressed skepticism of any intelligence prediction of a resurgence of a weakened al-Qaida or of the Islamic State group. Taliban commanders remain opposed to the Islamic State in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida, which has little current presence in the country, could regroup instead in any number of other lawless regions around the world.

Also left unanswered by the intelligence warning is the question of whether Afghanistan could really prosper if U.S. troops remain indefinitely. Their presence would most likely prevent a collapse of the nation’s own security forces and allow the government in Kabul, the Afghan capital, to retain control of its major cities, but the Taliban are still likely to gradually expand their power in other parts of the country, including curbing the rights of women.

A Taliban spokesperson said Friday that the group was committed to last year’s peace agreement “and wants the American side to also remain firmly committed.” If troops are not withdrawn by May 1, the spokesperson promised, the Taliban would “continue its jihad and armed struggle against foreign forces.”

Biden administration officials insisted no final decision had been made. Nevertheless, with the deadline looming, administration officials are jockeying to influence Biden and his top national security officials. While Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not signaled what course of action he prefers, some Pentagon officials who believe U.S. forces should stay longer have pointed to the intelligence assessment predicting a Taliban takeover of the country.

Some military commanders and administration officials have argued that any set date for withdrawing the approximately 3,500 U.S. troops who remain, whether it is May 1 or at the end of the year, will doom the mission. The only way to preserve hard-fought gains in Afghanistan, they said, is to keep the small U.S. presence there long enough to force a lasting deal between the Taliban and Afghan government.

These officials have used the intelligence assessment to make the point that a withdrawal this year will lead to a fall of the current government, a sharp erosion of women’s rights and the return of international terrorist groups. A rush to the exit, some officials said, will only drag the United States back into Afghanistan soon after leaving — much as was the case in Iraq in 2014, three years after the Obama administration pulled troops out of that conflict.

The White House has held a series of meetings on Afghanistan, and more are to come. On Thursday, the president said he was waiting for briefings from Austin, who met recently with Afghan officials, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who conferred this week with NATO allies, for their bottom-line advice on what he should do.

For many Biden administration officials, the issue that has resonated the most clearly is the threat that a Taliban takeover could pose to Afghan women. While some former intelligence officials predict the Taliban will initially take care not to roll back women’s rights altogether — at least in major cities — if they take over the entire country, it will be difficult to guarantee protections for women, such as education for girls and access to health care.

“Any agreement must preserve their gains if Afghanistan wants to ensure the international community’s continued political and financial support,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council this week. “We will not give an inch on this point.”

The Biden administration is making a final effort before May 1 to show progress in slow-moving negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Doha, Qatar. The Taliban, according to U.S. officials, are stalling.

The administration is pushing the two sides to participate in a peace conference in Turkey to demonstrate progress. Simultaneously, the American and Taliban negotiators continue to try to cement a 90-day reduction in violence, but so far, both sides have hesitated to agree.

The classified intelligence assessment of the Taliban largely taking control assumes that the Afghan government and the Taliban fail to reach a political agreement and that a civil war would erupt after the U.S. exit.

Administration officials warned that making any intelligence estimate is challenging, that predictions about the future are always imprecise and that various factors influence the analysis.

For example, intelligence estimates depend on whether international funding for the Afghan government remains in place. The more money the United States and its allies provide Afghanistan, the longer the government in Kabul should be able to retain control of some of the country. But some officials said that history shows that once U.S. troops are withdrawn, Congress moves quickly to cut financial support for partner forces.

There is also a debate in Washington about the seriousness of the threat of a return of terrorist groups. For now, the number of Qaida and Islamic State militants in Afghanistan is very small, a senior U.S. official said.

Some senior lawmakers with access to the classified assessments said that it was not certain that if the United States withdrew that al-Qaida could rebuild a base in Afghanistan from which to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States.

“What is that threat really going to be?” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said this week during a virtual conference on Afghanistan. “This isn’t the 1990s when al-Qaida set up camps, and they had the Taliban, and no one was paying attention to them.”

Smith said keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan actually increased the risk to Americans there, incurred greater financial costs and handed a propaganda victory and recruiting tool to the U.S.’ enemies.

Some counterterrorism officials believe that al-Qaida would prefer to reestablish its headquarters in Afghanistan, should U.S. troops withdraw. But other officials said al-Qaida’s leadership might be just as likely to look to Africa or the Middle East.

While U.S. intelligence officials have been mostly focused on the threat of al-Qaida, senior military officials have also raised the prospect of a growth in the power of the Afghanistan arm of the Islamic State.

But in recent years, the Taliban have been at odds with the Islamic State. The two groups have fought, and the Taliban have for the most part pushed back Islamic State forces.

“I can’t imagine a scenario where ISIS and the Taliban would strategically cooperate or collaborate in Afghanistan,” said Lisa Maddox, a former CIA analyst. “The Taliban is an ideological organization, and that ideology is Afghan-centric and not aligned with ISIS’ overarching goals.”

The intelligence estimate predicted that the Taliban would relatively swiftly expand their control over Afghanistan, suggesting that the Afghan security forces remain fragile despite years of training by the U.S. military and billions of dollars in U.S. funding.

Offensives last year in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, two areas in the country’s south where the Taliban have long held sway, demonstrated that police and local forces are unable to hold ground, prompting elite commando forces and regular army troops to take their place — a tactic that is likely unsustainable in the long run.

Afghan security forces still rely heavily on U.S. air support to hold territory, which U.S. military leaders acknowledged this week. It is unclear whether that U.S. air power would continue if U.S. forces left Afghanistan, perhaps launched from bases in the Persian Gulf, although the Pentagon has drawn up such options for the White House.

“The capabilities that the U.S. provides for the Afghans to be able to combat the Taliban and other threats that reside in Afghanistan are critical to their success,” Gen. Richard D. Clarke, head of Special Operations Command, told the Senate on Thursday.

WASHINGTON — As President Joe Biden signaled this week that he would let a May 1 deadline pass without withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, some officials are using an intelligence assessment to argue for prolonging the military mission there.

WASHINGTON — As President Joe Biden signaled this week that he would let a May 1 deadline pass without withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, some officials are using an intelligence assessment to argue for prolonging the military mission there. U.S. intelligence agencies have told the Biden administration that if U.S. troops leave before a power-sharing settlement is reached between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the country could fall largely under the control of the Taliban within two or three years after the withdrawal of international forces. That could potentially open the door for al-Qaida to rebuild its strength within the country, according to U.S. officials. The classified assessment, first prepared last year for the Trump administration but not previously disclosed, is the latest in a series of grim predictions of Afghanistan’s future that intelligence analysts have delivered throughout the two-decade-long war. But the intelligence has landed in a changed political environment. While former President Donald Trump pushed for a withdrawal of all forces even before the terms of the peace deal required it, Biden has been more cautious, saying Thursday that he does not view May 1 as a deadline he must meet, although he also said he “could not picture” troops being in the country next year. The decision looms as one of the most critical of Biden’s young presidency. He long argued while vice president for a minimal presence in Afghanistan but has been said to have privately described as haunting the possibility of allowing the country to descend into collapse. Some senior Biden administration officials have expressed skepticism of any intelligence prediction of a resurgence of a weakened al-Qaida or of the Islamic State group. Taliban commanders remain opposed to the Islamic State in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida, which has little current presence in the country, could regroup instead in any number of other lawless regions around the world. Also left unanswered by the intelligence warning is the question of whether Afghanistan could really prosper if U.S. troops remain indefinitely. Their presence would most likely prevent a collapse of the nation’s own security forces and allow the government in Kabul, the Afghan capital, to retain control of its major cities, but the Taliban are still likely to gradually expand their power in other parts of the country, including curbing the rights of women. A Taliban spokesperson said Friday that the group was committed to last year’s peace agreement “and wants the American side to also remain firmly committed.” If troops are not withdrawn by May 1, the spokesperson promised, the Taliban would “continue its jihad and armed struggle against foreign forces.” Biden administration officials insisted no final decision had been made. Nevertheless, with the deadline looming, administration officials are jockeying to influence Biden and his top national security officials. While Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not signaled what course of action he prefers, some Pentagon officials who believe U.S. forces should stay longer have pointed to the intelligence assessment predicting a Taliban takeover of the country. Some military commanders and administration officials have argued that any set date for withdrawing the approximately 3,500 U.S. troops who remain, whether it is May 1 or at the end of the year, will doom the mission. The only way to preserve hard-fought gains in Afghanistan, they said, is to keep the small U.S. presence there long enough to force a lasting deal between the Taliban and Afghan government. These officials have used the intelligence assessment to make the point that a withdrawal this year will lead to a fall of the current government, a sharp erosion of women’s rights and the return of international terrorist groups. A rush to the exit, some officials said, will only drag the United States back into Afghanistan soon after leaving — much as was the case in Iraq in 2014, three years after the Obama administration pulled troops out of that conflict. The White House has held a series of meetings on Afghanistan, and more are to come. On Thursday, the president said he was waiting for briefings from Austin, who met recently with Afghan officials, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who conferred this week with NATO allies, for their bottom-line advice on what he should do. For many Biden administration officials, the issue that has resonated the most clearly is the threat that a Taliban takeover could pose to Afghan women. While some former intelligence officials predict the Taliban will initially take care not to roll back women’s rights altogether — at least in major cities — if they take over the entire country, it will be difficult to guarantee protections for women, such as education for girls and access to health care. “Any agreement must preserve their gains if Afghanistan wants to ensure the international community’s continued political and financial support,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council this week. “We will not give an inch on this point.” The Biden administration is making a final effort before May 1 to show progress in slow-moving negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Doha, Qatar. The Taliban, according to U.S. officials, are stalling. The administration is pushing the two sides to participate in a peace conference in Turkey to demonstrate progress. Simultaneously, the American and Taliban negotiators continue to try to cement a 90-day reduction in violence, but so far, both sides have hesitated to agree. The classified intelligence assessment of the Taliban largely taking control assumes that the Afghan government and the Taliban fail to reach a political agreement and that a civil war would erupt after the U.S. exit. Administration officials warned that making any intelligence estimate is challenging, that predictions about the future are always imprecise and that various factors influence the analysis. For example, intelligence estimates depend on whether international funding for the Afghan government remains in place. The more money the United States and its allies provide Afghanistan, the longer the government in Kabul should be able to retain control of some of the country. But some officials said that history shows that once U.S. troops are withdrawn, Congress moves quickly to cut financial support for partner forces. There is also a debate in Washington about the seriousness of the threat of a return of terrorist groups. For now, the number of Qaida and Islamic State militants in Afghanistan is very small, a senior U.S. official said. Some senior lawmakers with access to the classified assessments said that it was not certain that if the United States withdrew that al-Qaida could rebuild a base in Afghanistan from which to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States. “What is that threat really going to be?” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said this week during a virtual conference on Afghanistan. “This isn’t the 1990s when al-Qaida set up camps, and they had the Taliban, and no one was paying attention to them.” Smith said keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan actually increased the risk to Americans there, incurred greater financial costs and handed a propaganda victory and recruiting tool to the U.S.’ enemies. Some counterterrorism officials believe that al-Qaida would prefer to reestablish its headquarters in Afghanistan, should U.S. troops withdraw. But other officials said al-Qaida’s leadership might be just as likely to look to Africa or the Middle East. While U.S. intelligence officials have been mostly focused on the threat of al-Qaida, senior military officials have also raised the prospect of a growth in the power of the Afghanistan arm of the Islamic State. But in recent years, the Taliban have been at odds with the Islamic State. The two groups have fought, and the Taliban have for the most part pushed back Islamic State forces. “I can’t imagine a scenario where ISIS and the Taliban would strategically cooperate or collaborate in Afghanistan,” said Lisa Maddox, a former CIA analyst. “The Taliban is an ideological organization, and that ideology is Afghan-centric and not aligned with ISIS’ overarching goals.” The intelligence estimate predicted that the Taliban would relatively swiftly expand their control over Afghanistan, suggesting that the Afghan security forces remain fragile despite years of training by the U.S. military and billions of dollars in U.S. funding. Offensives last year in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, two areas in the country’s south where the Taliban have long held sway, demonstrated that police and local forces are unable to hold ground, prompting elite commando forces and regular army troops to take their place — a tactic that is likely unsustainable in the long run. Afghan security forces still rely heavily on U.S. air support to hold territory, which U.S. military leaders acknowledged this week. It is unclear whether that U.S. air power would continue if U.S. forces left Afghanistan, perhaps launched from bases in the Persian Gulf, although the Pentagon has drawn up such options for the White House. “The capabilities that the U.S. provides for the Afghans to be able to combat the Taliban and other threats that reside in Afghanistan are critical to their success,” Gen. Richard D. Clarke, head of Special Operations Command, told the Senate on Thursday.

Officials try to sway Biden using intelligence on potential for Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

US President Joe Biden wants Congress to act on an immigration reform that it would allow Indian doctors and other professionals to expeditiously get their green cards, according to his spokesperson Jen Psaki. 
 
"He believes that there should be faster processing, that our immigration system is broken at many levels," she said at a briefing on Wednesday. 
 
"He is eager to for Congress to move forward with action there." 
 
She was replying to a question about a demonstration by Indian doctors in the US who had been in the frontlines of the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic asking for the elimination of country quotas for green cards that would enable them to get permanent residence status faster. 
 
Asked about the delays in processing work authorisation for spouses of those holding H1-B and L1 visas, Psaki said: "The reason we want to push for action on immigration (legislation) on the (Capitol) Hill is to move forward with expediting the processing and doing that on several levels, including a number of the visas.a 
 
"That`s part of the reason why we think that`s such an important piece to move forward on." 
 
Indian doctors held a demonstration outside Congress last week demanding the removal of the country quotas to expedite their green cards, 
 
Last month, Democrats introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress that would remove the country quotas for green cards. 
 
While spouses of citizens are not restricted by the quotas, all other countries except for Canada and Mexico are each allowed only 26,000 green cards each year and this has created a huge backlog for applicants from countries like India, while some nations do not use their full quota. 
 
According to the State Department, Indians with advanced degrees whose immigration applications were approved in 2009 and skilled workers and professionals whose applications were okayed in 2010 are still waiting for their green cards. 
 
Those wait times are only for those whose applications are already approved, and it could run to centuries for those in the immigration queue. 
 
The immigration reform bill faces an uphill battle because Republicans demand that it include stringent restrictions on illegal immigration and the backing of some members of that party would be required in the Senate. 
 
Earlier, legislative action to remove country caps failed in the last Congress because the Senate and House of Representatives versions of the bill had differences that were not reconciled in time and it lapsed. 
 
The Senate in December 2020 and the House in 2019 had passed the separate versions of the bill. 
 
H-1B visas are for professionals and L-1 visas are for those transferred by their companies to the US. 
 
Their spouses had been allowed to work in the US under a regulations introduced by former President Barack Obama, but his successor Donald Trump had tried to ban work authorisation for them. 
 
In its first week in office, the Biden administration killed Trump`s effort and continued to make the spouses, most of them Indian women, eligible to get work permits. 
 
The San Jose Mercury reported last month that the Citizenship and Immigration Service had attributed the work authorisation "delays to `Covid-19 restrictions, an increase in filings, current postal service volume and other external factors`". 
 
The newspaper added that the agency said that it had redistributed workloads and staff were working extra hours to reduce the delays.

US President Joe Biden wants Congress to act on an immigration reform that it would allow Indian doctors and other professionals to expeditiously get their green cards, according to his spokesperson Jen Psaki.

US President Joe Biden wants Congress to act on an immigration reform that it would allow Indian doctors and other professionals to expeditiously get their green cards, according to his spokesperson Jen Psaki. "He believes that there should be faster processing, that our immigration system is broken at many levels," she said at a briefing on Wednesday. "He is eager to for Congress to move forward with action there." She was replying to a question about a demonstration by Indian doctors in the US who had been in the frontlines of the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic asking for the elimination of country quotas for green cards that would enable them to get permanent residence status faster. Asked about the delays in processing work authorisation for spouses of those holding H1-B and L1 visas, Psaki said: "The reason we want to push for action on immigration (legislation) on the (Capitol) Hill is to move forward with expediting the processing and doing that on several levels, including a number of the visas.a "That`s part of the reason why we think that`s such an important piece to move forward on." Indian doctors held a demonstration outside Congress last week demanding the removal of the country quotas to expedite their green cards, Last month, Democrats introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress that would remove the country quotas for green cards. While spouses of citizens are not restricted by the quotas, all other countries except for Canada and Mexico are each allowed only 26,000 green cards each year and this has created a huge backlog for applicants from countries like India, while some nations do not use their full quota. According to the State Department, Indians with advanced degrees whose immigration applications were approved in 2009 and skilled workers and professionals whose applications were okayed in 2010 are still waiting for their green cards. Those wait times are only for those whose applications are already approved, and it could run to centuries for those in the immigration queue. The immigration reform bill faces an uphill battle because Republicans demand that it include stringent restrictions on illegal immigration and the backing of some members of that party would be required in the Senate. Earlier, legislative action to remove country caps failed in the last Congress because the Senate and House of Representatives versions of the bill had differences that were not reconciled in time and it lapsed. The Senate in December 2020 and the House in 2019 had passed the separate versions of the bill. H-1B visas are for professionals and L-1 visas are for those transferred by their companies to the US. Their spouses had been allowed to work in the US under a regulations introduced by former President Barack Obama, but his successor Donald Trump had tried to ban work authorisation for them. In its first week in office, the Biden administration killed Trump`s effort and continued to make the spouses, most of them Indian women, eligible to get work permits. The San Jose Mercury reported last month that the Citizenship and Immigration Service had attributed the work authorisation "delays to `Covid-19 restrictions, an increase in filings, current postal service volume and other external factors`". The newspaper added that the agency said that it had redistributed workloads and staff were working extra hours to reduce the delays.

Biden wants immigration reform to speed up green cards for Indians

US President Joe Biden will join a video conference of European Union leaders on Thursday, a top EU official said, as both sides try to repair ties after four difficult years with former president Donald Trump.&nbsp;

"Looking forward to welcome @POTUS at this week's European Council meeting," European Council President Charles Michel, who chairs summits, said on Twitter. "I have invited the President of the US to join our meeting for him to share his views on our future cooperation. Time to rebuild our transatlantic alliance."&nbsp;

EU leaders will meet via video conference on Thursday and Friday to discuss vaccines, Russia, Turkey and industrial policy. Biden is expected to join at 1945 GMT, an EU spokesman said.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday pledged to rebuild and revitalise the transatlantic military alliance after a bruising four years when Washington portrayed NATO as outdated, divided and in crisis. &nbsp;

The first top US official to visit NATO since President Joe Biden took office in January, Blinken said the alliance was at a pivotal moment but could emerge stronger after internal disputes over Turkey and Russian gas. &nbsp;

"I've come here to express the United States' steadfast commitment (to NATO)," Blinken told reporters as he met NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. "The United States wants to rebuild our partnerships, first and foremost with our NATO allies, we want to revitalise the alliance." &nbsp;

After four years of friction with Washington under the presidency of Donald Trump, who said the alliance was obsolete and harangued allies over defence spending targets, NATO's European members have welcomed the change in tone, saying they are once again being consulted on strategy.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden will join a video conference of European Union leaders on Thursday, a top EU official said, as both sides try to repair ties after four difficult years with former president Donald Trump.

US President Joe Biden will join a video conference of European Union leaders on Thursday, a top EU official said, as both sides try to repair ties after four difficult years with former president Donald Trump. "Looking forward to welcome @POTUS at this week's European Council meeting," European Council President Charles Michel, who chairs summits, said on Twitter. "I have invited the President of the US to join our meeting for him to share his views on our future cooperation. Time to rebuild our transatlantic alliance." EU leaders will meet via video conference on Thursday and Friday to discuss vaccines, Russia, Turkey and industrial policy. Biden is expected to join at 1945 GMT, an EU spokesman said. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday pledged to rebuild and revitalise the transatlantic military alliance after a bruising four years when Washington portrayed NATO as outdated, divided and in crisis. The first top US official to visit NATO since President Joe Biden took office in January, Blinken said the alliance was at a pivotal moment but could emerge stronger after internal disputes over Turkey and Russian gas. "I've come here to express the United States' steadfast commitment (to NATO)," Blinken told reporters as he met NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. "The United States wants to rebuild our partnerships, first and foremost with our NATO allies, we want to revitalise the alliance." After four years of friction with Washington under the presidency of Donald Trump, who said the alliance was obsolete and harangued allies over defence spending targets, NATO's European members have welcomed the change in tone, saying they are once again being consulted on strategy. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden to join EU leaders' video conference on Thursday

biden

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