Former President Donald Trump’s power to keep information from his White House secret became a central issue this week in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, raising untested legal issues about executive privilege.

On Monday, Trump sued the chairman of the House’s Jan. 6 committee and the head of the National Archives, in an attempt to block Congress from accessing White House papers that could reveal his actions and communications leading up to and during the riot. The select committee voted Tuesday to recommend holding Steve Bannon, an outside adviser to Trump, in contempt for defying a subpoena.

Here is a breakdown of the issues.

What is executive privilege?

It is a power claimed by presidents under the Constitution to prevent the other two branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/capitol-riot-us-committee-votes-to-hold-criminal-contempt-charge-against-trumps-ex-aide-steve-bannon-422167">US committee votes to hold criminal contempt charge against Steve Bannon</a>

While the Constitution does not mention this secrecy power, the Supreme Court has recognized it as implicit in the founding charter. The idea is that fear of future disclosure could impair presidents’ ability to perform their constitutional duties by chilling the candor of deliberations and the advice they receive.

A valid assertion of executive privilege can provide a lawful basis to defy a subpoena from Congress to provide documents or testimony.

Is Trump’s privilege claim valid?

We probably won’t know for a long time, if ever.

The constitutional line between a president’s secrecy powers and Congress’ investigative authority is hazy, with few Supreme Court guideposts. Historically, such disputes have usually been resolved through compromise, not judicial rulings.

But Trump has pursued a strategy of stonewalling and using the slow pace of litigation and appeals to run out the clock. If there is no Supreme Court ruling before the 2022 midterm and Republicans retake the House in that election, that new Republican majority would most likely drop any civil lawsuits before there is any definitive answer.

Even in that case, any criminal prosecutions brought by the Biden Justice Department would presumably continue. Separately, House Democrats have introduced legislation in response to the Trump presidency that would, among many other things, speed up lawsuits to enforce congressional subpoenas for executive branch information.

Is executive privilege an absolute power?

No. Even a legitimate claim of executive privilege may not always prevail in court if there are countervailing constitutional considerations.

For example, during the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring President Richard Nixon to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations and rejected his claim to an “absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” In that case, the justices ruled, the judicial need for the tapes for use as evidence in a criminal trial outweighed Nixon’s general interest in confidentiality, especially since the matter did not involve military or diplomatic secrets.

May ex-presidents invoke executive privilege?

Yes, but courts may view their claims with less deference than those of current presidents.

In a 1977 case challenging a law related to the control of White House files from the then-former Nixon administration, the Supreme Court said Nixon could make a claim of executive privilege even though he was out of office.

“We reject the argument that only an incumbent president may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former president, may also be heard to assert them,” the court wrote.

What if the current president disagrees?

Judges will take that disagreement into account in assessing the strength of the ex-president’s claim.

In the 1977 case challenging the law about control of Nixon-era White House files, the Supreme Court noted that his successors — Gerald Ford at an earlier stage in the case, and Jimmy Carter by the end — did not support his claim. And despite saying Nixon was permitted to assert executive privilege as an ex-president, the court ruled against him.

Still, the court also suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of some of his papers in the future. Nixon never sought to do so, however, and there has not been a Supreme Court case over access to specific information that involves an executive privilege disagreement between a current president and a predecessor.

Does Biden support Trump’s invocation of the privilege?

No. President Joe Biden has declined to assert executive privilege to protect his predecessor’s Jan. 6-related materials from disclosure, instead instructing the National Archives to provide them to Congress 30 days after notifying Trump, absent any court order to the contrary.

Biden determined that under the circumstances — the need for a “full accounting” of an “unprecedented effort to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power” to “ensure nothing similar ever happens again” — keeping such documents secret from Congress and the public was not in the public interest, his White House counsel, Dana Remus, also told the head of the National Archives in a letter this month.

“The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself,” she wrote.

Is Steve Bannon covered by executive privilege?

This is unclear. If any contempt finding against Bannon evolves into legal action, it would raise the novel legal question of whether or how far a claim of executive privilege may extend to communications between a president and an informal adviser outside of the government.

While Trump told former aides that they should not cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee because the information the lawmakers want was privileged, Bannon had resigned, or was ousted, from his former White House position in August 2017. Since Bannon was not part of the executive branch at the time of the interactions with Trump that Congress wants information about, his case raises a twist for which there is scant definitive precedent.

What is contempt of Congress or court?

It is a sanction imposed on people who defy congressional subpoenas or court orders to provide documents or testimony, and it can lead to their imprisonment.

When Congress subpoenas witnesses, lawmakers can enforce those demands by holding recipients who balk in contempt. To do so, the investigating committee that issued the subpoena must first vote to recommend holding such people in contempt of Congress, and the full chamber then votes on whether to do so.

Congress could also file its own lawsuits against people who defy its subpoenas, asking judges to order them to comply with subpoenas. If the witnesses defy court orders, judges can hold them in contempt of court.

How can a person held in contempt be punished?

Being held in contempt of Congress does not by itself carry penalties beyond reputational harm, but Congress can then refer such findings to the Justice Department and ask for criminal contempt charges. If the executive branch agrees to pursue a case and prosecutors win a conviction, the act of defying a congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor crime, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a term of one to 12 months in jail.

(In theory, lawmakers could also direct the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest recalcitrant witnesses and detain them until the end of its session, but that “inherent contempt” authority is viewed as obsolete; the Capitol has no prison cell and lawmakers have not tried to use this power since 1935.)

And if Congress brings a lawsuit and persuades a judge to order a witness to obey its subpoena — and the witness fails to get that order overturned on appeal — a judicial holding of contempt of court could also lead to a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Can executive privilege protect someone from contempt?

Yes, it can relieve a recalcitrant witness of legal liability for declining to obey a subpoena.

If the courts were to uphold an assertion of executive privilege over the information Congress is seeking, that finding would negate the subpoena and any consequences for disobeying it. 
&nbsp;

Former President Donald Trump’s power to keep information from his White House secret became a central issue this week in the congressional investigation into the Jan.

Former President Donald Trump’s power to keep information from his White House secret became a central issue this week in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, raising untested legal issues about executive privilege. On Monday, Trump sued the chairman of the House’s Jan. 6 committee and the head of the National Archives, in an attempt to block Congress from accessing White House papers that could reveal his actions and communications leading up to and during the riot. The select committee voted Tuesday to recommend holding Steve Bannon, an outside adviser to Trump, in contempt for defying a subpoena. Here is a breakdown of the issues. What is executive privilege? It is a power claimed by presidents under the Constitution to prevent the other two branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides. Also read | US committee votes to hold criminal contempt charge against Steve Bannon While the Constitution does not mention this secrecy power, the Supreme Court has recognized it as implicit in the founding charter. The idea is that fear of future disclosure could impair presidents’ ability to perform their constitutional duties by chilling the candor of deliberations and the advice they receive. A valid assertion of executive privilege can provide a lawful basis to defy a subpoena from Congress to provide documents or testimony. Is Trump’s privilege claim valid? We probably won’t know for a long time, if ever. The constitutional line between a president’s secrecy powers and Congress’ investigative authority is hazy, with few Supreme Court guideposts. Historically, such disputes have usually been resolved through compromise, not judicial rulings. But Trump has pursued a strategy of stonewalling and using the slow pace of litigation and appeals to run out the clock. If there is no Supreme Court ruling before the 2022 midterm and Republicans retake the House in that election, that new Republican majority would most likely drop any civil lawsuits before there is any definitive answer. Even in that case, any criminal prosecutions brought by the Biden Justice Department would presumably continue. Separately, House Democrats have introduced legislation in response to the Trump presidency that would, among many other things, speed up lawsuits to enforce congressional subpoenas for executive branch information. Is executive privilege an absolute power? No. Even a legitimate claim of executive privilege may not always prevail in court if there are countervailing constitutional considerations. For example, during the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring President Richard Nixon to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations and rejected his claim to an “absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” In that case, the justices ruled, the judicial need for the tapes for use as evidence in a criminal trial outweighed Nixon’s general interest in confidentiality, especially since the matter did not involve military or diplomatic secrets. May ex-presidents invoke executive privilege? Yes, but courts may view their claims with less deference than those of current presidents. In a 1977 case challenging a law related to the control of White House files from the then-former Nixon administration, the Supreme Court said Nixon could make a claim of executive privilege even though he was out of office. “We reject the argument that only an incumbent president may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former president, may also be heard to assert them,” the court wrote. What if the current president disagrees? Judges will take that disagreement into account in assessing the strength of the ex-president’s claim. In the 1977 case challenging the law about control of Nixon-era White House files, the Supreme Court noted that his successors — Gerald Ford at an earlier stage in the case, and Jimmy Carter by the end — did not support his claim. And despite saying Nixon was permitted to assert executive privilege as an ex-president, the court ruled against him. Still, the court also suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of some of his papers in the future. Nixon never sought to do so, however, and there has not been a Supreme Court case over access to specific information that involves an executive privilege disagreement between a current president and a predecessor. Does Biden support Trump’s invocation of the privilege? No. President Joe Biden has declined to assert executive privilege to protect his predecessor’s Jan. 6-related materials from disclosure, instead instructing the National Archives to provide them to Congress 30 days after notifying Trump, absent any court order to the contrary. Biden determined that under the circumstances — the need for a “full accounting” of an “unprecedented effort to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power” to “ensure nothing similar ever happens again” — keeping such documents secret from Congress and the public was not in the public interest, his White House counsel, Dana Remus, also told the head of the National Archives in a letter this month. “The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself,” she wrote. Is Steve Bannon covered by executive privilege? This is unclear. If any contempt finding against Bannon evolves into legal action, it would raise the novel legal question of whether or how far a claim of executive privilege may extend to communications between a president and an informal adviser outside of the government. While Trump told former aides that they should not cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee because the information the lawmakers want was privileged, Bannon had resigned, or was ousted, from his former White House position in August 2017. Since Bannon was not part of the executive branch at the time of the interactions with Trump that Congress wants information about, his case raises a twist for which there is scant definitive precedent. What is contempt of Congress or court? It is a sanction imposed on people who defy congressional subpoenas or court orders to provide documents or testimony, and it can lead to their imprisonment. When Congress subpoenas witnesses, lawmakers can enforce those demands by holding recipients who balk in contempt. To do so, the investigating committee that issued the subpoena must first vote to recommend holding such people in contempt of Congress, and the full chamber then votes on whether to do so. Congress could also file its own lawsuits against people who defy its subpoenas, asking judges to order them to comply with subpoenas. If the witnesses defy court orders, judges can hold them in contempt of court. How can a person held in contempt be punished? Being held in contempt of Congress does not by itself carry penalties beyond reputational harm, but Congress can then refer such findings to the Justice Department and ask for criminal contempt charges. If the executive branch agrees to pursue a case and prosecutors win a conviction, the act of defying a congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor crime, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a term of one to 12 months in jail. (In theory, lawmakers could also direct the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest recalcitrant witnesses and detain them until the end of its session, but that “inherent contempt” authority is viewed as obsolete; the Capitol has no prison cell and lawmakers have not tried to use this power since 1935.) And if Congress brings a lawsuit and persuades a judge to order a witness to obey its subpoena — and the witness fails to get that order overturned on appeal — a judicial holding of contempt of court could also lead to a fine, imprisonment, or both. Can executive privilege protect someone from contempt? Yes, it can relieve a recalcitrant witness of legal liability for declining to obey a subpoena. If the courts were to uphold an assertion of executive privilege over the information Congress is seeking, that finding would negate the subpoena and any consequences for disobeying it.

Trump’s claim of executive privilege in the Jan. 6. inquiry, explained

Nearly 80 per cent of Republicans want former President Donald Trump to run in the US election 2024 as per a new poll.

The survey conducted by Quinnipiac University shows that Trump enjoys robust backing by the Republican Party or the GOP.

However, 94 per cent of Democrats believe running again in 2024 will be a waste of time for Trump. This opinion was also supported by 58 independents in the opinion poll.

Meanwhile, GOP Senator Bill Cassidy said in an interview that he will not vote for Trump if decides to run again in the next election.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2024-former-us-president-donald-trump-favourite-candidate-biden-lagging-behind-420648">Also read |&nbsp;US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind</a>

Earlier, a UK-based betting exchange company called Smarkets has predicted that Trump, for the first time, has edged ahead of his predecessor Joe Biden.

It had also been predicted that Trump has the highest chances of winning the 2024 election and returning to the White House.

Biden who is the second place with 19 per cent votes as per a poll conducted by the website, is followed by Vice-President Kamala Harris with 13 per cent votes.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hows-biden-doing-do-you-miss-me-yet-trump-pokes-fun-at-us-president-420630">Also read |&nbsp;'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President</a>

Poking fun at Biden, Trump's spokesperson, Liz Harrington had asked on Twitter, ''How’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?"&nbsp;

Trump has hinted at a possible presidential run in 2024, attacking Biden and repeating his fraudulent claims he won the 2020 election.

Trump's flirtation with another run could freeze the Republican field for 2024 as other potential candidates try to decide whether they will have to compete against him.

Meanwhile, a US congressional committee probing the deadly January 6 assault on the Capitol voted unanimously in favour of contempt-of-Congress charges against Steve Bannon, a longtime aide to Trump.

The seven Democratic and two Republican members of the House of Representatives Select Committee approved a report recommending the criminal charge by a unanimous 9-0 vote, calling it "shocking" that Bannon refused to comply with subpoenas seeking documents and testimony.

Nearly 80 per cent of Republicans want former President Donald Trump to run in the US election 2024 as per a new poll. The survey conducted by Quinnipiac University shows that Trump enjoys robust backing by the Republican Party or the GOP.

Nearly 80 per cent of Republicans want former President Donald Trump to run in the US election 2024 as per a new poll. The survey conducted by Quinnipiac University shows that Trump enjoys robust backing by the Republican Party or the GOP. However, 94 per cent of Democrats believe running again in 2024 will be a waste of time for Trump. This opinion was also supported by 58 independents in the opinion poll. Meanwhile, GOP Senator Bill Cassidy said in an interview that he will not vote for Trump if decides to run again in the next election. Also read | US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind Earlier, a UK-based betting exchange company called Smarkets has predicted that Trump, for the first time, has edged ahead of his predecessor Joe Biden. It had also been predicted that Trump has the highest chances of winning the 2024 election and returning to the White House. Biden who is the second place with 19 per cent votes as per a poll conducted by the website, is followed by Vice-President Kamala Harris with 13 per cent votes. Also read | 'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President Poking fun at Biden, Trump's spokesperson, Liz Harrington had asked on Twitter, ''How’s Biden doing? Do you miss me yet?" Trump has hinted at a possible presidential run in 2024, attacking Biden and repeating his fraudulent claims he won the 2020 election. Trump's flirtation with another run could freeze the Republican field for 2024 as other potential candidates try to decide whether they will have to compete against him. Meanwhile, a US congressional committee probing the deadly January 6 assault on the Capitol voted unanimously in favour of contempt-of-Congress charges against Steve Bannon, a longtime aide to Trump. The seven Democratic and two Republican members of the House of Representatives Select Committee approved a report recommending the criminal charge by a unanimous 9-0 vote, calling it "shocking" that Bannon refused to comply with subpoenas seeking documents and testimony.

US election 2024: Poll shows 80% Republicans want Donald Trump to run

Former US president Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the congressional committee investigating the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, claiming that the members made an illegal request for his White House records.

The suit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, accused&nbsp;the select committee of harassing Trump and senior members of his administration with&nbsp;“an illegal, unfounded, and overbroad records request to the Archivist of the United States.”

Trump has said that records sought by the House of Representatives committee are covered by a legal doctrine known as executive privilege, which protects the confidentiality of some White House communications.

The suit also accuses President Joe Biden of “a political ploy” by refusing to assert executive privilege over the records to keep them from going to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

“The Committee’s request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorses by Biden to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration,” the suit says.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/melania-trump-refused-to-condemn-capitol-hill-attack-despite-a-chance-413024">&nbsp;Melania Trump refused to condemn Capitol Hill attack despite a chance</a>

Committee members Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, said in a written statement issued in response to Trump's lawsuit that the former president was seeking to “delay and obstruct” their investigation.

“It’s hard to imagine a more compelling public interest than trying to get answers about an attack on our democracy and an attempt to overturn the results of an election,” Cheney and Thompson said in the statement.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/video-donald-trump-was-partying-just-hours-before-capitol-hill-violence-355417">Donald Trump was 'partying' just hours before Capitol Hill violence</a>

On January 6 this year, hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the seat of Congress in a failed bid to prevent lawmakers from certifying Democratic President Joe Biden's election victory. More than 600 people face criminal charges stemming from the event.

Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House on a charge of inciting the attack on the Capitol in a fiery speech at a rally earlier that day. He was acquitted by the Senate.

Biden earlier this month authorised the National Archives to turn over an initial batch of documents requested by the select committee. The Archives has said it would turn over the requested material next month, according to Trump's lawsuit, which seeks an injunction halting that process.

(With inputs from agencies)

Former US president Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the congressional committee investigating the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, claiming that the members made an illegal request for his White House records.

Former US president Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the congressional committee investigating the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, claiming that the members made an illegal request for his White House records. The suit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, accused the select committee of harassing Trump and senior members of his administration with “an illegal, unfounded, and overbroad records request to the Archivist of the United States.” Trump has said that records sought by the House of Representatives committee are covered by a legal doctrine known as executive privilege, which protects the confidentiality of some White House communications. The suit also accuses President Joe Biden of “a political ploy” by refusing to assert executive privilege over the records to keep them from going to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol. “The Committee’s request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorses by Biden to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration,” the suit says. Also read | Melania Trump refused to condemn Capitol Hill attack despite a chance Committee members Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, said in a written statement issued in response to Trump's lawsuit that the former president was seeking to “delay and obstruct” their investigation. “It’s hard to imagine a more compelling public interest than trying to get answers about an attack on our democracy and an attempt to overturn the results of an election,” Cheney and Thompson said in the statement. Also read | Donald Trump was 'partying' just hours before Capitol Hill violence On January 6 this year, hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the seat of Congress in a failed bid to prevent lawmakers from certifying Democratic President Joe Biden's election victory. More than 600 people face criminal charges stemming from the event. Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House on a charge of inciting the attack on the Capitol in a fiery speech at a rally earlier that day. He was acquitted by the Senate. Biden earlier this month authorised the National Archives to turn over an initial batch of documents requested by the select committee. The Archives has said it would turn over the requested material next month, according to Trump's lawsuit, which seeks an injunction halting that process. (With inputs from agencies)

Trump sues US committee investigating Jan 6 Capitol Hill riots to block release of White House records

Republicans believe they have a good shot at taking Congress next year. But there’s a catch.

The GOP’s ambitions of ending unified Democratic control in Washington in 2022 are colliding with a considerable force that has the ability to sway tens of millions of votes: former President Donald Trump’s increasingly vocal demands that members of his party remain in a permanent state of obedience, endorsing his false claims of a stolen election or risking his wrath.

In a series of public appearances and statements over the past week, Trump has signalled not only that he plans to work against Republicans he deems disloyal, but also that his meritless claims that widespread voter fraud cost him the White House in 2020 will be his litmus test, going so far as to threaten that his voters will sit out future elections.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2024-former-us-president-donald-trump-favourite-candidate-biden-lagging-behind-420648" hreflang="en">US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind</a>

“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump said in a statement last week, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24. It’s the single most important thing for Republicans to do.”

The former president’s fixation on disproved conspiracy theories is frustrating to many in his party who see it as needlessly divisive at a time when Republicans feel they are poised to take back the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections. They worry he could cost Republicans otherwise winnable seats in Congress and complicate the party’s more immediate goal of winning the governor’s race in Virginia next month.

The concern over Trump’s attempts to make all federal elections a referendum on him points to the larger debate among Republicans over what his role should be, as someone who remains singularly popular with the party’s base but is also a liability with swing voters and a motivator for Democrats to turn out.

Some rising stars in the Republican Party — like Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who ousted Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming from a House leadership post in a bitter intraparty fight over the Jan. 6 riots and Trump’s attempts to downplay them — have been clear: They want Trump to play a role in the 2022 midterms. Stefanik called him “an asset to Republicans on the ballot” at a fundraiser last week.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hows-biden-doing-do-you-miss-me-yet-trump-pokes-fun-at-us-president-420630" hreflang="en">'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President</a>

And top party strategists said they expected the former president to remain front and center&nbsp;in the Republicans’ campaign to retake control of the House. “He’s the leader of the party,” said Corry Bliss, a consultant to Republicans on congressional races. “The more energized and engaged he is, the better we’ll do.”

But party officials believe Trump’s threat about his supporters staying home en masse is real. And the potency of his false claims about 2020 caught even some of his staunchest allies in the party off guard.

The stakes are amplified by Trump’s increasingly pointed hints that he plans to be the party’s nominee in 2024.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has supported exhaustive audits of the 2020 results to look for evidence of voting irregularities that repeated reviews have failed to produce. Still, she has told colleagues that she was surprised by a recent survey of Republican voters in her district, according to one person who spoke with her about it.

The internal survey found that 5% of Republican voters said they would sit out the 2022 election if the state of Georgia did not conduct a forensic audit of the 2020 election — a demand that some of Trump’s hard-core supporters have made. Another 4% said they would consider sitting out the election absent an audit.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/56-in-us-feel-cheating-affected-2020-presidential-election-outcome-says-poll-420060" hreflang="en">56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll</a>

The possibility that nearly 10% of Republicans could sit out any election — even one in a solidly red district like the one held by Taylor Greene — was something Republican strategists said they found alarming.

Since Trump left office, polls have repeatedly shown that large majorities of Republican voters want him to run in 2024. And roughly 40% of Republicans say they consider themselves to be primarily his supporters rather than supporters of the party — about the same share who said so last November, according to the political research firm Echelon Insights.

Many Republicans don’t seem to want to hear anything critical about him. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center, for instance, highlighted the lack of an appetite for much dissent. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans, Pew found, said their party should not be accepting of elected officials who criticize Trump.

Trump’s recent interference in the Virginia contest — where polls show the Republican candidate, Glenn Youngkin, narrowly trailing his Democratic rival, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe — worried advisers to Youngkin’s campaign. They watched as their carefully scripted plan to keep the race focused on their candidate and on claims that Democrats have veered too far left became engulfed by news coverage of the former president praising Youngkin at a political rally last week.

Some Republicans said they feared they were watching a preview of the awkward and unpleasant dilemma their candidates would face for the foreseeable future, as Trump remains the most popular figure in their party, determining what candidates say and how voters think.

“Here is where Trump is so destructive,” said Barbara Comstock, a former Republican member of Congress who lost her seat in suburban Virginia in 2018. That year, voters in swing districts across the country turned against centrist incumbents like her in a repudiation of Trump.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-tiger-and-cheetah-furs-a-mess-of-trump-gift-exchanges-419921" hreflang="en">White tiger and cheetah furs: A mess of Trump gift exchanges</a>

“He doesn’t want other people to win without groveling to him. That’s the threat,” Comstock added. “It’s not about winning. It’s all about him. And that’s what’s so stupid about Republicans even trying to deal with him, because you never know when he’ll drive the car off the cliff.”

One of the most concerned is Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader.

McConnell has told colleagues that he is concerned Trump’s campaign to relitigate the 2020 election could depress confidence among Republican voters and hurt the party’s chances at winning back the majority it lost this year after Democrats captured Georgia’s two Senate seats. Republican leaders warned Trump at the time that by blaming fraud for his loss, he would convince many of his supporters in Georgia that their votes in the Senate runoff election on Jan. 5 wouldn’t count, deterring them from participating.

Republican critics of Trump said that history was repeating itself. “Republicans should have learned this lesson after the Georgia debacle,” said Scott Reed, a veteran party strategist who has worked to elect Republicans to the Senate for three decades.

Reed said that the former president’s comments about Republicans not voting “should warrant a sanction from the Republican National Committee.” He warned, “It will impact the 2022 midterms severely.”

The tension between McConnell and Trump has escalated lately, as the former president has ratcheted up his attacks on the minority leader, accusing McConnell of “folding” to Democrats in a recent agreement to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. He called for the leader’s ouster in a recent interview with Fox News, saying, “Mitch is not the guy.”

Trump’s allies did not deny that he was content to see Republicans pay the ultimate political price for what he and a significant portion of his voters saw as disloyalty.

“President Trump is saying: ‘Hey, I’m putting you guys on notice. My people aren’t coming out,’” said Steve Bannon, the former chief White House strategist, who has been using his podcast to further amplify Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election. “There could not be a bigger shot across the establishment bow.”

But the harder Trump’s allies push their election fraud claims, the harder it becomes to satisfy their most hard-core followers. Even Taylor Greene, who is as far-right and pro-Trump as they come in the Republican Party, cannot seem to always please the fringe. Lately, she has been feuding online with L. Lin Wood, an Atlanta attorney who helped Trump sow doubts over his loss in Georgia, over which of them truly represents the Trump movement. Wood has accused her of not doing enough to uncover instances of voter fraud. She has said that Wood is “not one of us.”

Such radicalization comes at a cost, said David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida who is critical of the former president. At a time when the larger political trends are pointing toward trouble for the Democratic Party in 2022, he said, Trump’s actions risk interfering with what should be a good environment for Republicans.

“This should be a 100%, straight-up referendum on Biden,” Jolly said. “Instead, you have Trump the narcissist trying to inject himself into what should be a glide path for Republicans to an incredibly successful election, by making it all about him.”

Republicans believe they have a good shot at taking Congress next year. But there’s a catch. The GOP’s ambitions of ending unified Democratic control in Washington in 2022 are colliding with a considerable force that has the ability to sway tens of millions of votes: former President Donald Trump’s increasingly vocal demands that members of his party remain in a permanent state of obedience, endorsing his false claims of a stolen election or risking his wrath.

Republicans believe they have a good shot at taking Congress next year. But there’s a catch. The GOP’s ambitions of ending unified Democratic control in Washington in 2022 are colliding with a considerable force that has the ability to sway tens of millions of votes: former President Donald Trump’s increasingly vocal demands that members of his party remain in a permanent state of obedience, endorsing his false claims of a stolen election or risking his wrath. In a series of public appearances and statements over the past week, Trump has signalled not only that he plans to work against Republicans he deems disloyal, but also that his meritless claims that widespread voter fraud cost him the White House in 2020 will be his litmus test, going so far as to threaten that his voters will sit out future elections. Also read | US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind “If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump said in a statement last week, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24. It’s the single most important thing for Republicans to do.” The former president’s fixation on disproved conspiracy theories is frustrating to many in his party who see it as needlessly divisive at a time when Republicans feel they are poised to take back the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections. They worry he could cost Republicans otherwise winnable seats in Congress and complicate the party’s more immediate goal of winning the governor’s race in Virginia next month. The concern over Trump’s attempts to make all federal elections a referendum on him points to the larger debate among Republicans over what his role should be, as someone who remains singularly popular with the party’s base but is also a liability with swing voters and a motivator for Democrats to turn out. Some rising stars in the Republican Party — like Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who ousted Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming from a House leadership post in a bitter intraparty fight over the Jan. 6 riots and Trump’s attempts to downplay them — have been clear: They want Trump to play a role in the 2022 midterms. Stefanik called him “an asset to Republicans on the ballot” at a fundraiser last week. Also read | 'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President And top party strategists said they expected the former president to remain front and center in the Republicans’ campaign to retake control of the House. “He’s the leader of the party,” said Corry Bliss, a consultant to Republicans on congressional races. “The more energized and engaged he is, the better we’ll do.” But party officials believe Trump’s threat about his supporters staying home en masse is real. And the potency of his false claims about 2020 caught even some of his staunchest allies in the party off guard. The stakes are amplified by Trump’s increasingly pointed hints that he plans to be the party’s nominee in 2024. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has supported exhaustive audits of the 2020 results to look for evidence of voting irregularities that repeated reviews have failed to produce. Still, she has told colleagues that she was surprised by a recent survey of Republican voters in her district, according to one person who spoke with her about it. The internal survey found that 5% of Republican voters said they would sit out the 2022 election if the state of Georgia did not conduct a forensic audit of the 2020 election — a demand that some of Trump’s hard-core supporters have made. Another 4% said they would consider sitting out the election absent an audit. Also read | 56% in US feel cheating affected 2020 presidential election outcome, says poll The possibility that nearly 10% of Republicans could sit out any election — even one in a solidly red district like the one held by Taylor Greene — was something Republican strategists said they found alarming. Since Trump left office, polls have repeatedly shown that large majorities of Republican voters want him to run in 2024. And roughly 40% of Republicans say they consider themselves to be primarily his supporters rather than supporters of the party — about the same share who said so last November, according to the political research firm Echelon Insights. Many Republicans don’t seem to want to hear anything critical about him. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center, for instance, highlighted the lack of an appetite for much dissent. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans, Pew found, said their party should not be accepting of elected officials who criticize Trump. Trump’s recent interference in the Virginia contest — where polls show the Republican candidate, Glenn Youngkin, narrowly trailing his Democratic rival, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe — worried advisers to Youngkin’s campaign. They watched as their carefully scripted plan to keep the race focused on their candidate and on claims that Democrats have veered too far left became engulfed by news coverage of the former president praising Youngkin at a political rally last week. Some Republicans said they feared they were watching a preview of the awkward and unpleasant dilemma their candidates would face for the foreseeable future, as Trump remains the most popular figure in their party, determining what candidates say and how voters think. “Here is where Trump is so destructive,” said Barbara Comstock, a former Republican member of Congress who lost her seat in suburban Virginia in 2018. That year, voters in swing districts across the country turned against centrist incumbents like her in a repudiation of Trump. Also read | White tiger and cheetah furs: A mess of Trump gift exchanges “He doesn’t want other people to win without groveling to him. That’s the threat,” Comstock added. “It’s not about winning. It’s all about him. And that’s what’s so stupid about Republicans even trying to deal with him, because you never know when he’ll drive the car off the cliff.” One of the most concerned is Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader. McConnell has told colleagues that he is concerned Trump’s campaign to relitigate the 2020 election could depress confidence among Republican voters and hurt the party’s chances at winning back the majority it lost this year after Democrats captured Georgia’s two Senate seats. Republican leaders warned Trump at the time that by blaming fraud for his loss, he would convince many of his supporters in Georgia that their votes in the Senate runoff election on Jan. 5 wouldn’t count, deterring them from participating. Republican critics of Trump said that history was repeating itself. “Republicans should have learned this lesson after the Georgia debacle,” said Scott Reed, a veteran party strategist who has worked to elect Republicans to the Senate for three decades. Reed said that the former president’s comments about Republicans not voting “should warrant a sanction from the Republican National Committee.” He warned, “It will impact the 2022 midterms severely.” The tension between McConnell and Trump has escalated lately, as the former president has ratcheted up his attacks on the minority leader, accusing McConnell of “folding” to Democrats in a recent agreement to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. He called for the leader’s ouster in a recent interview with Fox News, saying, “Mitch is not the guy.” Trump’s allies did not deny that he was content to see Republicans pay the ultimate political price for what he and a significant portion of his voters saw as disloyalty. “President Trump is saying: ‘Hey, I’m putting you guys on notice. My people aren’t coming out,’” said Steve Bannon, the former chief White House strategist, who has been using his podcast to further amplify Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election. “There could not be a bigger shot across the establishment bow.” But the harder Trump’s allies push their election fraud claims, the harder it becomes to satisfy their most hard-core followers. Even Taylor Greene, who is as far-right and pro-Trump as they come in the Republican Party, cannot seem to always please the fringe. Lately, she has been feuding online with L. Lin Wood, an Atlanta attorney who helped Trump sow doubts over his loss in Georgia, over which of them truly represents the Trump movement. Wood has accused her of not doing enough to uncover instances of voter fraud. She has said that Wood is “not one of us.” Such radicalization comes at a cost, said David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida who is critical of the former president. At a time when the larger political trends are pointing toward trouble for the Democratic Party in 2022, he said, Trump’s actions risk interfering with what should be a good environment for Republicans. “This should be a 100%, straight-up referendum on Biden,” Jolly said. “Instead, you have Trump the narcissist trying to inject himself into what should be a glide path for Republicans to an incredibly successful election, by making it all about him.”

As Trump thunders about last election, Republicans worry about the next one

President Joe Biden credited law enforcement agencies for upholding the US political system during the January 6th riot at the capitol, called for more resources to be allocated to law enforcement officers.

US: President Joe Biden speaks to hundreds of uniformed officers

The most powerful part of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda — a program to rapidly replace the nation’s coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy — will likely be dropped from the massive budget bill pending in Congress, according to congressional staffers and lobbyists familiar with the matter.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia whose vote is crucial to passage of the bill, has told the White House that he strongly opposes the clean electricity program, according to three of those people. As a result, White House staffers are now rewriting the legislation without that climate provision and are trying to cobble together a mix of other policies that could also cut emissions.

A White House spokesperson, Vedant Patel, declined to comment on the specifics of the bill, saying, “The White House is laser focused on advancing the president’s climate goals and positioning the United States to meet its emission targets in a way that grows domestic industries and good jobs.”

A spokesperson for Manchin, Sam Runyon, wrote in an email, “Sen. Manchin has clearly expressed his concerns about using taxpayer dollars to pay private companies to do things they’re already doing. He continues to support efforts to combat climate change while protecting American energy independence and ensuring our energy reliability.”

West Virginia’s other senator, Republican Shelley Moore Capito, said she was “vehemently opposed” to the clean electricity program because it is “designed to ultimately eliminate coal and natural gas from our electricity mix, and would be absolutely devastating for my state.”

The $150 billion clean electricity program was the muscle behind Biden’s ambitious climate agenda. It would reward utilities that switched from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and penalize those that did not.

Experts have said that over the next decade the policy would dramatically reduce the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet and that it would be the strongest climate change policy ever enacted by the United States.

“This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package,” said Leah Stokes, an expert on climate policy, who has been advising Senate Democrats on how to craft the program. “We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals. That’s just the reality. And now we can’t. So this is pretty sad.”

The setback also means President Joe Biden will have a weakened hand when he travels to Glasgow, Scotland, in two weeks for a major United Nations climate change summit. He had hoped to point to the clean electricity program as evidence that the United States, which is historically the largest emitter of planet-warming pollution, was serious about changing course and leading a global effort to fight climate change. Biden has vowed that the United States will cut its emissions 50% from 2005 levels by 2030.

The rest of the world remains deeply wary of the United States’ commitment to tackling global warming after four years in which former President Donald Trump openly mocked the science of climate change and enacted policies that encouraged more drilling and burning of fossil fuels.

“This will create a huge problem for the White House in Glasgow,” said David G. Victor, co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the University of California, San Diego.“ If you see the president coming in and saying all the right things with all the right aspirations and then one of the earliest tests of whether he can deliver falls apart, it creates the question of whether you can believe him.”

Democrats had hoped to include the clean electricity program in their sweeping budget bill that would also expand the social safety net, which they plan to muscle through using a fast-track process known as reconciliation that would allow them to pass it without any Republican votes. The party is still trying to figure out how to pass the budget bill along with a bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

For weeks, Democratic leaders have vowed that the clean electricity program was a nonnegotiable part of the legislation. Progressive Democrats held rallies chanting “No climate, no deal!”

Biden had hoped enactment of the legislation would clean up the electricity sector, which produces about one-quarter of the country’s greenhouse gases. He wanted a program with impacts that would last well after he leaves office, regardless of who occupies the White House.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at an event in San Francisco on Friday morning that she was still pushing for the strongest possible climate change provisions in the bill.

“What we’re here today about is specifically about the climate piece," Pelosi said. "This is our moment. We cannot – we don’t have any more time to wait."

Democratic presidents have tried but failed to enact climate change legislation since the Clinton administration. During a year of record and deadly droughts, wildfires, storms and floods that scientists say are worsened by climate change, Democrats had hoped to finally garner enough political support to enact a strong climate law, even as scientific reports say that the window is rapidly closing to avoid the most devastating impacts of a warming planet.

A major scientific report released in August concluded that countries must immediately shift away from burning fossil fuels in order to avoid a future of severe drought, intense heat waves, water shortages, devastating storms, rising seas and ecosystem collapse. To avert catastrophe, scientists say nations must keep the average global temperature from increasing 1.5 Celsius above preindustrial levels. But as countries continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the average global temperature has already risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius.

Even as Pelosi vowed in San Francisco to protect those climate provisions, at least four people in Washington close to the negotiations called the clean electricity program “dead.”

Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., the chief author of the program, said that while dropping it might win Manchin’s vote on the budget bill, it could cost hers — and those of other Democrats focused on the environment.

“We must have strong climate action in the Build Back Better budget," she said. "I’m open to all approaches, but as I’ve said, I will not support a budget deal that does not get us where we need to go on climate action. There are 50 Democratic senators, and it’s going to take every one of our votes to get this budget passed.”

Manchin, who has personal financial ties to the coal industry, had initially intended to write the details of the program as the chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Manchin was considering a clean electricity program that would reward utilities for switching from coal to natural gas, which is less polluting but still emits carbon dioxide and can leak methane, another greenhouse gas. Manchin’s home state, West Virginia, is one of the nation’s top producers of coal and gas.

But in recent days, Manchin indicated to the administration that he was now completely opposed to a clean energy program, people familiar with the discussions said.

As a result, White House staffers are scrambling to calculate the impact on emissions from other climate measures in the bill, including tax incentives for renewable energy producers and tax credits for consumers who purchase electric vehicles. Unlike a clean energy program, tax incentives tend to expire after a set period of time, and do not have the market-shifting power of a more durable strategy.

Those other programs include about $300 billion to extend existing tax credits for utilities, commercial businesses and homeowners that use or generate electricity from zero-carbon sources such as wind and solar and $32 billion in tax credits for individuals who purchase electric vehicles. It could also include $13.5 billion for electric car charging stations and $9 billion to update the electric grid, making it more conducive to transmitting wind and solar power, and $17.5 billion to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from federal buildings and vehicles.

But, analysts say, while those spending programs will help make it easier and cheaper for the U.S. economy to transition to a lower-emissions future, they are unlikely to lead to the same kind of rapid reduction in emissions that the clean electricity program would have.

“To clean up the electricity system as rapidly as possible, you need an incentive to add clean energy and a penalty that is a disincentive for dirty sources of energy,” Victor said. “A carrot and stick. These tax incentives are carrots. But there’s no more stick.”

It is also possible that Democrats may try to push through the clean electricity program as a stand-alone bill — but the timeline for doing so is narrowing, with the 2022 midterm elections approaching.

The most powerful part of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda — a program to rapidly replace the nation’s coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy — will likely be dropped from the massive budget bill pending in Congress, according to congressional staffers and lobbyists familiar with the matter.

The most powerful part of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda — a program to rapidly replace the nation’s coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy — will likely be dropped from the massive budget bill pending in Congress, according to congressional staffers and lobbyists familiar with the matter. Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia whose vote is crucial to passage of the bill, has told the White House that he strongly opposes the clean electricity program, according to three of those people. As a result, White House staffers are now rewriting the legislation without that climate provision and are trying to cobble together a mix of other policies that could also cut emissions. A White House spokesperson, Vedant Patel, declined to comment on the specifics of the bill, saying, “The White House is laser focused on advancing the president’s climate goals and positioning the United States to meet its emission targets in a way that grows domestic industries and good jobs.” A spokesperson for Manchin, Sam Runyon, wrote in an email, “Sen. Manchin has clearly expressed his concerns about using taxpayer dollars to pay private companies to do things they’re already doing. He continues to support efforts to combat climate change while protecting American energy independence and ensuring our energy reliability.” West Virginia’s other senator, Republican Shelley Moore Capito, said she was “vehemently opposed” to the clean electricity program because it is “designed to ultimately eliminate coal and natural gas from our electricity mix, and would be absolutely devastating for my state.” The $150 billion clean electricity program was the muscle behind Biden’s ambitious climate agenda. It would reward utilities that switched from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and penalize those that did not. Experts have said that over the next decade the policy would dramatically reduce the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet and that it would be the strongest climate change policy ever enacted by the United States. “This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package,” said Leah Stokes, an expert on climate policy, who has been advising Senate Democrats on how to craft the program. “We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals. That’s just the reality. And now we can’t. So this is pretty sad.” The setback also means President Joe Biden will have a weakened hand when he travels to Glasgow, Scotland, in two weeks for a major United Nations climate change summit. He had hoped to point to the clean electricity program as evidence that the United States, which is historically the largest emitter of planet-warming pollution, was serious about changing course and leading a global effort to fight climate change. Biden has vowed that the United States will cut its emissions 50% from 2005 levels by 2030. The rest of the world remains deeply wary of the United States’ commitment to tackling global warming after four years in which former President Donald Trump openly mocked the science of climate change and enacted policies that encouraged more drilling and burning of fossil fuels. “This will create a huge problem for the White House in Glasgow,” said David G. Victor, co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the University of California, San Diego.“ If you see the president coming in and saying all the right things with all the right aspirations and then one of the earliest tests of whether he can deliver falls apart, it creates the question of whether you can believe him.” Democrats had hoped to include the clean electricity program in their sweeping budget bill that would also expand the social safety net, which they plan to muscle through using a fast-track process known as reconciliation that would allow them to pass it without any Republican votes. The party is still trying to figure out how to pass the budget bill along with a bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill. For weeks, Democratic leaders have vowed that the clean electricity program was a nonnegotiable part of the legislation. Progressive Democrats held rallies chanting “No climate, no deal!” Biden had hoped enactment of the legislation would clean up the electricity sector, which produces about one-quarter of the country’s greenhouse gases. He wanted a program with impacts that would last well after he leaves office, regardless of who occupies the White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at an event in San Francisco on Friday morning that she was still pushing for the strongest possible climate change provisions in the bill. “What we’re here today about is specifically about the climate piece," Pelosi said. "This is our moment. We cannot – we don’t have any more time to wait." Democratic presidents have tried but failed to enact climate change legislation since the Clinton administration. During a year of record and deadly droughts, wildfires, storms and floods that scientists say are worsened by climate change, Democrats had hoped to finally garner enough political support to enact a strong climate law, even as scientific reports say that the window is rapidly closing to avoid the most devastating impacts of a warming planet. A major scientific report released in August concluded that countries must immediately shift away from burning fossil fuels in order to avoid a future of severe drought, intense heat waves, water shortages, devastating storms, rising seas and ecosystem collapse. To avert catastrophe, scientists say nations must keep the average global temperature from increasing 1.5 Celsius above preindustrial levels. But as countries continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the average global temperature has already risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius. Even as Pelosi vowed in San Francisco to protect those climate provisions, at least four people in Washington close to the negotiations called the clean electricity program “dead.” Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., the chief author of the program, said that while dropping it might win Manchin’s vote on the budget bill, it could cost hers — and those of other Democrats focused on the environment. “We must have strong climate action in the Build Back Better budget," she said. "I’m open to all approaches, but as I’ve said, I will not support a budget deal that does not get us where we need to go on climate action. There are 50 Democratic senators, and it’s going to take every one of our votes to get this budget passed.” Manchin, who has personal financial ties to the coal industry, had initially intended to write the details of the program as the chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Manchin was considering a clean electricity program that would reward utilities for switching from coal to natural gas, which is less polluting but still emits carbon dioxide and can leak methane, another greenhouse gas. Manchin’s home state, West Virginia, is one of the nation’s top producers of coal and gas. But in recent days, Manchin indicated to the administration that he was now completely opposed to a clean energy program, people familiar with the discussions said. As a result, White House staffers are scrambling to calculate the impact on emissions from other climate measures in the bill, including tax incentives for renewable energy producers and tax credits for consumers who purchase electric vehicles. Unlike a clean energy program, tax incentives tend to expire after a set period of time, and do not have the market-shifting power of a more durable strategy. Those other programs include about $300 billion to extend existing tax credits for utilities, commercial businesses and homeowners that use or generate electricity from zero-carbon sources such as wind and solar and $32 billion in tax credits for individuals who purchase electric vehicles. It could also include $13.5 billion for electric car charging stations and $9 billion to update the electric grid, making it more conducive to transmitting wind and solar power, and $17.5 billion to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from federal buildings and vehicles. But, analysts say, while those spending programs will help make it easier and cheaper for the U.S. economy to transition to a lower-emissions future, they are unlikely to lead to the same kind of rapid reduction in emissions that the clean electricity program would have. “To clean up the electricity system as rapidly as possible, you need an incentive to add clean energy and a penalty that is a disincentive for dirty sources of energy,” Victor said. “A carrot and stick. These tax incentives are carrots. But there’s no more stick.” It is also possible that Democrats may try to push through the clean electricity program as a stand-alone bill — but the timeline for doing so is narrowing, with the 2022 midterm elections approaching.

Key to Biden’s climate agenda likely to be cut because of Manchin opposition

US President Joe Biden has been criticised by the Republican National Committee (RNC) for equating former Connecticut Democrat&nbsp;Senator Chris Dodd with someone, who would not “disrespect a waitress”. &nbsp;

Although the US president did not directly use the phrase to describe former colleague, Biden talked about the mistreatment of servers as an example of people, who do not “do simple, decent things for ordinary people” in a way that is revealing of their character. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/justice-dept-to-ask-supreme-court-to-block-texas-near-total-abortion-ban-421139" hreflang="en">Justice dept to ask Supreme Court to block Texas’ near-total abortion ban</a>

“I’ve never seen Chris, figuratively speaking, walk by anybody,” the president said. &nbsp;

The Republican panel cited reports that Dodd and then-Democrat&nbsp;Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had together manhandled a waitress at La Brasserie. Brasserie is a high-end Washington, DC, restaurant. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-allow-fully-vaccinated-travellers-from-november-8-white-house-421033" hreflang="en">US to allow fully vaccinated travellers from November 8: White House</a>

In the 1990 incident, “the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabbed the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair,” reported GQ. &nbsp;

The infamous incident has been characterised as Kennedy-Dodd “waitress sandwich”. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden has been criticised by the Republican National Committee (RNC) for equating former Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Dodd with someone, who would not “disrespect a waitress”.

US President Joe Biden has been criticised by the Republican National Committee (RNC) for equating former Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Dodd with someone, who would not “disrespect a waitress”. Although the US president did not directly use the phrase to describe former colleague, Biden talked about the mistreatment of servers as an example of people, who do not “do simple, decent things for ordinary people” in a way that is revealing of their character. Also Read: Justice dept to ask Supreme Court to block Texas’ near-total abortion ban “I’ve never seen Chris, figuratively speaking, walk by anybody,” the president said. The Republican panel cited reports that Dodd and then-Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had together manhandled a waitress at La Brasserie. Brasserie is a high-end Washington, DC, restaurant. Also Read | US to allow fully vaccinated travellers from November 8: White House In the 1990 incident, “the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabbed the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair,” reported GQ. The infamous incident has been characterised as Kennedy-Dodd “waitress sandwich”. (With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden slammed for likening former Senator Dodd with one who would not 'disrespect a waitress'

US president Joe Biden has announced a major new COVID vaccine donation for Africa after he met with his Kenyan counterpart Uhuru Kenyatta at the white house on Thursday.

US president Joe Biden announces COVID vaccine donation for Africa

Donald Trump could win the 2024 Presidential Race. Bookies are placing their bets on Trump to defeat President Joe Biden. What are the odds? Palki Sharma decodes.

Gravitas: Here's why Donald Trump could win the 2024 Presidential Race

The Biden administration has decided to reopen land borders with Canada & Mexico from next month for fully vaccinated people. This ends a 19-month freeze on non-essential travel caused by the covid-19 pandemic.

Biden administration decides to reopen land borders

Former US President Donald Trump has the highest chances of winning the 2024 election and returning to the White House.

A UK-based betting exchange company called Smarkets has predicted that Trump, for the first time, has edged ahead of his predecessor Joe Biden.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hows-biden-doing-do-you-miss-me-yet-trump-pokes-fun-at-us-president-420630">Also read |&nbsp;'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President</a>

Biden who is the second place with 19 per cent votes as per a poll conducted by the website, is followed by Vice-President Kamala Harris with 13 per cent votes.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: Donald Trump has just gone favourite for the first time in our 2024 presidential election winner market. 
 
The former president's win chance just hit a new high of 20% with Joe Biden's dipping to 19.6%. Trade 👉 <a href="https://t.co/rpWB459REB">https://t.co/rpWB459REB</a> <a href="https://t.co/yU9VV3u6xH">pic.twitter.com/yU9VV3u6xH</a>
— Smarkets (@smarkets) <a href="https://twitter.com/smarkets/status/1448307743895560195?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 13, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The poll shows Trump has a 45 per cent chance of winning the GOP primary. He is the most likely candidate to become the Republican nominee for the 2024 election.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/report-dc-hotel-concealed-payments-420316/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The other possible candidates include Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley with 14 per cent and 11 per cent votes respectively.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-ends-workplace-immigration-raids-reversing-trump-policy-420524">Also read |&nbsp;Biden ends workplace immigration raids, reversing Trump policy</a>

The company's head of political market Matthew Shaddick said, "It's a pretty staggering development to find a defeated one-term president taking over as favourite from the incumbent who beat him, but we know by now that Donald Trump is no ordinary politician."

"Many forecasters had predicted that health or legal issues might stop Trump from re-election, but the latest Smarkets prices imply that there is a two-in-three chance he'll run for the White House again in three years' time, he added.

Trump has hinted at a possible presidential run in 2024, attacking Biden and repeating his fraudulent claims he won the 2020 election.

Trump's flirtation with another run could freeze the Republican field for 2024 as other potential candidates try to decide whether they will have to compete against him.

Former US President Donald Trump has the highest chances of winning the 2024 election and returning to the White House. A UK-based betting exchange company called Smarkets has predicted that Trump, for the first time, has edged ahead of his predecessor Joe Biden.

Former US President Donald Trump has the highest chances of winning the 2024 election and returning to the White House. A UK-based betting exchange company called Smarkets has predicted that Trump, for the first time, has edged ahead of his predecessor Joe Biden. Also read | 'How's Biden doing? 'Do you miss me yet?': Trump pokes fun at US President Biden who is the second place with 19 per cent votes as per a poll conducted by the website, is followed by Vice-President Kamala Harris with 13 per cent votes. BREAKING: Donald Trump has just gone favourite for the first time in our 2024 presidential election winner market. The former president's win chance just hit a new high of 20% with Joe Biden's dipping to 19.6%. Trade 👉 https://t.co/rpWB459REB pic.twitter.com/yU9VV3u6xH — Smarkets (@smarkets) October 13, 2021 × The poll shows Trump has a 45 per cent chance of winning the GOP primary. He is the most likely candidate to become the Republican nominee for the 2024 election. The other possible candidates include Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley with 14 per cent and 11 per cent votes respectively. Also read | Biden ends workplace immigration raids, reversing Trump policy The company's head of political market Matthew Shaddick said, "It's a pretty staggering development to find a defeated one-term president taking over as favourite from the incumbent who beat him, but we know by now that Donald Trump is no ordinary politician." "Many forecasters had predicted that health or legal issues might stop Trump from re-election, but the latest Smarkets prices imply that there is a two-in-three chance he'll run for the White House again in three years' time, he added. Trump has hinted at a possible presidential run in 2024, attacking Biden and repeating his fraudulent claims he won the 2020 election. Trump's flirtation with another run could freeze the Republican field for 2024 as other potential candidates try to decide whether they will have to compete against him.

US election 2024: Former US President Donald Trump favourite candidate, Biden lagging behind

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.S. businesses, a reversal from Trump administration policies and the latest signal to millions of immigrants that they were not priorities for deportation.

Known as work-site raids, such arrests have long been criticized by immigration advocates for spreading fear and dissuading workers from reporting labor violations out of concern that they would be arrested. So far, these raids have not been a fixture during the Biden administration.

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement that enforcement efforts at work sites would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers, conduct illegal activities or impose unsafe working conditions.” He also asked for recommendations from the department’s immigration agencies over the next 60 days to identify policies and agreements that affected the enforcement of labor laws and how to “alleviate or mitigate” concerns and fear that workers without legal status had about exploitative employers.

The new policy comes during a critical labor shortage in the United States, precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic, and offers reassurances that workers in the U.S. illegally are not at risk of being deported en masse. The new strategy also reflects promises that President Joe Biden has made about taking a softer approach to immigration policy than his predecessor did.

Some companies that rely on such workers pay them below the market rate for jobs, exploiting immigrants and undercutting competitors.

“Refocusing resources to counter exploitative employers is a necessary step in protecting the American labor market and workers,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans criticized the new policy. “This makes our country LESS SAFE and LESS SECURE,” the Republican National Committee’s research arm wrote on Twitter.

Workplace raids, which Mayorkas described as “resource-intensive,” were a priority during the Trump administration, which targeted employers as well as immigrant workers. The goal was to dissuade immigrants from illegally crossing the border to work in the United States. The George W. Bush administration started high-profile work-site raids in a bid to push Congress to pass an immigration overhaul, but lawmakers failed to reach a consensus.

The Obama administration sought to focus work-site enforcement efforts on employers who hired workers who entered illegally rather than on the workers themselves, prioritizing audits of employee files. Still, the policy led to the firing of thousands of immigrant workers.

Employers are required by law to check whether the people they hire are legally permitted to work in the United States. Several administrations have pushed for a nationwide requirement to use a program known as E-Verify to confirm that employees have permission to work in the country. But it currently remains a voluntary program for most employers.

Immigration advocates commended the new work-site enforcement strategy, but they said it was not a substitute for creating a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the U.S. without permission.

“While we applaud today’s announcement by the administration to end workplace raids, we need more commitment from this administration to protect all 11 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, not just in their workplaces,” Nicole Melaku, the executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We need permanent protections now.”

Democrats tried to include a measure in a multitrillion-dollar spending package that would allow a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants without legal status, but their efforts have failed.

The work-site enforcement policy also echoes new guidance for immigration enforcement priorities that were partly devised to end the indiscriminate arrests that became commonplace during the Trump administration.

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it would not conduct mass arrests of workers living in the country illegally during enforcement operations at U.S. businesses, a reversal from Trump administration policies and the latest signal to millions of immigrants that they were not priorities for deportation. Known as work-site raids, such arrests have long been criticized by immigration advocates for spreading fear and dissuading workers from reporting labor violations out of concern that they would be arrested. So far, these raids have not been a fixture during the Biden administration. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement that enforcement efforts at work sites would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers, conduct illegal activities or impose unsafe working conditions.” He also asked for recommendations from the department’s immigration agencies over the next 60 days to identify policies and agreements that affected the enforcement of labor laws and how to “alleviate or mitigate” concerns and fear that workers without legal status had about exploitative employers. The new policy comes during a critical labor shortage in the United States, precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic, and offers reassurances that workers in the U.S. illegally are not at risk of being deported en masse. The new strategy also reflects promises that President Joe Biden has made about taking a softer approach to immigration policy than his predecessor did. Some companies that rely on such workers pay them below the market rate for jobs, exploiting immigrants and undercutting competitors. “Refocusing resources to counter exploitative employers is a necessary step in protecting the American labor market and workers,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Republicans criticized the new policy. “This makes our country LESS SAFE and LESS SECURE,” the Republican National Committee’s research arm wrote on Twitter. Workplace raids, which Mayorkas described as “resource-intensive,” were a priority during the Trump administration, which targeted employers as well as immigrant workers. The goal was to dissuade immigrants from illegally crossing the border to work in the United States. The George W. Bush administration started high-profile work-site raids in a bid to push Congress to pass an immigration overhaul, but lawmakers failed to reach a consensus. The Obama administration sought to focus work-site enforcement efforts on employers who hired workers who entered illegally rather than on the workers themselves, prioritizing audits of employee files. Still, the policy led to the firing of thousands of immigrant workers. Employers are required by law to check whether the people they hire are legally permitted to work in the United States. Several administrations have pushed for a nationwide requirement to use a program known as E-Verify to confirm that employees have permission to work in the country. But it currently remains a voluntary program for most employers. Immigration advocates commended the new work-site enforcement strategy, but they said it was not a substitute for creating a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the U.S. without permission. “While we applaud today’s announcement by the administration to end workplace raids, we need more commitment from this administration to protect all 11 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, not just in their workplaces,” Nicole Melaku, the executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We need permanent protections now.” Democrats tried to include a measure in a multitrillion-dollar spending package that would allow a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants without legal status, but their efforts have failed. The work-site enforcement policy also echoes new guidance for immigration enforcement priorities that were partly devised to end the indiscriminate arrests that became commonplace during the Trump administration.

Biden ends workplace immigration raids, reversing Trump policy

In a further blow to the country's freedom of expression, the Chinese government is proposing new regulations that would prohibit news reporting by sources that are not directly financed by the Communist Party.After years of being restricted to only civilian roles in the military, women will now be allowed to join the combat roles for the first time, said Kuwaiti army on Tuesday. &nbsp;After accepting an award in Lisbon, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she thinks a lot about what she would be doing if she "ruled the world". &nbsp; 
 
Click on headlines to read more 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-plans-to-ban-non-communist-media-outlets-in-a-further-blow-to-free-speech-420272">China plans to ban non-Communist media outlets in a further blow to free speech</a> 
 
<img src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2020/08/04/152906-chinese-media.jpg" />

China may prohibit all private investment in the media, implying that the Communist Party would finance it entirely.A submission to a senior decision-making committee would halt spending in news collecting and broadcasting.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-a-first-kuwaiti-women-can-now-serve-military-in-combat-roles-420270">In a first, Kuwaiti women can now serve military in combat roles</a> 
 
<img src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2021/10/13/215912-women-in-army.jpg" />

Women will now be allowed to join the combat roles in Kuwaiti army. Earlier, they were restricted to only civilian roles for years.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-thinks-a-lot-about-what-to-do-if-she-ruled-the-world-420276">US commitment to Taiwan is 'rock solid': Pentagon</a> 
 
<img src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2020/08/20/155564-0001wm3fa.jpg" />

The US with bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam, has a large military presence in the region and has been pursuing a "pivot" in focus toward the Indo-Pacific to counter China's increasingly assertive posture.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-commitment-to-taiwan-is-rock-solid-pentagon-420278">US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks ‘a lot’ about what to do if she 'ruled the world'</a> 
 
<img src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2021/08/13/206480-untitled-design-27.jpg" />

After accepting an award in Lisbon, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she thinks a lot about what she would be doing if she "ruled the world". &nbsp; 
 
Watch | Gravitas: Nigerian School flogs girl for consuming alcohol

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-nigerian-school-flogs-girl-for-consuming-alcohol-420267/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Watch | Gravitas: G20 says 'laser-focused' on terror in Afghanistan

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-g20-says-laser-focused-on-terror-in-afghanistan-420264/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In a further blow to the country's freedom of expression, the Chinese government is proposing new regulations that would prohibit news reporting by sources that are not directly financed by the Communist Party.

In a further blow to the country's freedom of expression, the Chinese government is proposing new regulations that would prohibit news reporting by sources that are not directly financed by the Communist Party.After years of being restricted to only civilian roles in the military, women will now be allowed to join the combat roles for the first time, said Kuwaiti army on Tuesday. After accepting an award in Lisbon, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she thinks a lot about what she would be doing if she "ruled the world". Click on headlines to read more China plans to ban non-Communist media outlets in a further blow to free speech China may prohibit all private investment in the media, implying that the Communist Party would finance it entirely.A submission to a senior decision-making committee would halt spending in news collecting and broadcasting. In a first, Kuwaiti women can now serve military in combat roles Women will now be allowed to join the combat roles in Kuwaiti army. Earlier, they were restricted to only civilian roles for years. US commitment to Taiwan is 'rock solid': Pentagon The US with bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam, has a large military presence in the region and has been pursuing a "pivot" in focus toward the Indo-Pacific to counter China's increasingly assertive posture. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks ‘a lot’ about what to do if she 'ruled the world' After accepting an award in Lisbon, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she thinks a lot about what she would be doing if she "ruled the world". Watch | Gravitas: Nigerian School flogs girl for consuming alcohol Watch | Gravitas: G20 says 'laser-focused' on terror in Afghanistan

Morning news brief: China to outlaw news outlets, China-Taiwan tensions and more

One grew to a size larger than Rhode Island and levelled a Gold Rush-era town. Another swelled to a quarter of a million acres as it came within a few miles of Lake Tahoe. Another burned down 900 buildings and was the first-ever to reach 1 million acres.

In the past two years, California has found itself under siege from more large-scale fires burning with greater intensity than at any time on record. Giant blazes are tearing across the state with greater speed and frequency, destroying towns and sending smoke hurtling hundreds of miles away. Nine of California’s 20 largest fires have occurred since 2020, according to Cal Fire, the state’s firefighting agency. Four of them are still burning. The fires have forced state and federal officials to marshal armies of people and resources at all costs.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-firefighters-try-and-protect-giant-sequoias-amid-california-fires-415158">In Pics | Firefighters try and protect giant sequoias amid California fires</a>

In late August, New York Times journalists shadowed emergency crews in a remote forested area of Northern California as they battled the Dixie fire, which at nearly 1 million acres is the second-largest fire in state history. Over several weeks, the operation grew to a scale rarely seen before: Thousands of personnel were deployed, as well as hundreds of bulldozers, aircraft and other equipment, along with millions of gallons of water and flame retardant. Officials spent more than $610 million over three months to bring the fire under control — by far the most expensive suppression campaign in California history, according to the head of Cal Fire.

The Dixie fire shows that as wildfires have grown in size, so has the magnitude of the effort to combat them. But as government budgets become strained and extreme drought and the effects of climate change, alter the landscape, battling megafires — massive blazes that spread quickly and burn at high intensity — is increasingly costly, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of the firefight.

At the height of the operation, 6,579 people worked around the clock to battle the Dixie fire.

The command centre at the Lassen County Fairgrounds appeared like a small town that sprung up overnight. It was filled with offices in trailers, catering stations, fueling areas, laundry services, sleeping tents and parking spots for many of the 569 fire engines and 194 water trucks working Aug. 16, when the operation was at its peak.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/the-secret-war-over-pentagon-aid-in-fighting-wildfires-416479">The secret war over Pentagon aid in fighting wildfires</a>

Each morning at 7 a.m., hundreds of firefighters, bulldozer operators and pilots gathered under a poplar grove for a daily briefing. Some crew members wore sweatshirts bearing the names of past big fires like badges of honour: Creek fire, Campfire, Lightning Complex. Dixie already had one, too.

In one area of the command centre, a resupply warehouse roughly the size of a Home Depot store serviced engine crews returning to the fire line. In another, volunteers with the California Conservation Corps rewound heaps of used 100-foot lengths of the yellow fire hose. In all, more than 1,174 miles of hose were used — enough to stretch from San Diego to Vancouver.

At the time, the Dixie fire, one of a growing number of wildfires that had broken out across the American West, spanned five counties, threatening nearby communities and spewing smoke into the atmosphere. Kristen Allison, a 25-year veteran firefighter who was stationed 70 miles away, struggled to comprehend the scale.

“Fifteen years ago, a 100,000-acre fire would be the largest fire of your career. Now, we have 1-million-acre fires,” Allison said. “We’re the size of Rhode Island, working toward Delaware.”

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas US Edition: Wildfire in Northern California destroys nearly 6,000 acres of land

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-edition-wildfire-in-northern-california-destroys-nearly-6000-acres-of-land-415956/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

“Meanwhile, there are five other 100,000-acre fires burning right now in Northern California,” Allison added. “Even if we had all the resources we wanted, we would not be able to contain these fires.”

At the fire’s peak, 198 bulldozers worked to contain it, helping cut 1,792 miles of fire breaks.

Much of the fight against the Dixie fire was a gruelling and dirty effort to head off future burn: As many as 89 hand crews on a single day burned ground cover and carved so-called line breaks — barriers to slow or stop the progress — through the forest. Bulldozers, many of which were operated by contractors for upward of $7,000 a day, cleared wide swaths of trees and flammable vegetation. Strike crews laid those dozer lines with fire hose and stood guard, often through the night, to prevent the fire from jumping over.

Fueled by a combination of high winds, mountainous terrain and dry conditions, Dixie shows how the scale of wildfires has dramatically increased. In 2010, 72,000 fires in the United States burned 3.4 million acres; last year, 59,000 fires burned 10.1 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Trying to put out Dixie sometimes felt like an exercise in futility. It routinely leapt over breaks, and a team led by Sarah Collemer, a Cal Fire equipment boss from Santa Cruz, worked to clear them.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-california-even-fire-resistant-trees-need-to-be-protected-from-flames-414740">In California, even fire-resistant trees need to be protected from flames</a>

“We’ve been trying to hold the line, but the wind keeps coming up, and most of the embers start a new fire,” Collemer, who was overseeing a team of 30 bulldozers, said. “It’s just hard to start over every day on the line.”

Like other recent megafires, the Dixie blaze has burned at a severe pace, sometimes scorching 50,000 acres in a sustained run over 8 miles in one day.

Crews used enough fire retardant to fill 31 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Air attack — deploying planes and helicopters to drop water and retardant — is often the costliest part of any large wildfire operation.

Aircraft have dropped about 21 million gallons of flame retardant mixture on the Dixie fire, at a cost of $4.62 per gallon. The aircraft themselves cost more than $1 million a day in the initial weeks of the fire.

“They call me the most expensive man on the fire,” said Matt Stanford, the air operation branch director at Cal Fire base camp. “Every day, costs come in, and I’m on the top of the heap.”

Some critics argue that retardant, a mixture of water and phosphate salts often used as a fertilizer, does more damage than good. The U.S. Forest Service restricts use around waterways to avoid fish kills and algae blooms.

Despite the trade-offs, air attacks are the most visible show of force and can cover lots of ground quickly. The candy-colored liquid retardant lingers long after water has evaporated and is more effective at lowering a fire’s intensity so that crews can engage on the ground.

When the smoke thickens, planes are grounded, forcing aviation chiefs to use large helicopters that can fly under the smoke — though they hold smaller quantities of water or retardant. Under heavy smoke conditions, helicopters, too, are grounded.

Crews were diverted even as the fire still raged.

Even before the Dixie fire was close to contained, Cal Fire began diverting resources from it. While crews were using drip torches to burn off dry ground cover that could feed oncoming flames, some personnel were reassigned to the Caldor fire, which was racing up the Sierra Nevada mountains toward South Lake Tahoe, one of California’s premier tourist destinations.

The Caldor fire stopped within just a few hundred meters of South Lake Tahoe, and the town was spared.

California pays for large wildfire responses through an emergency fund with no set limit on spending. In recent decades, the percentage of the U.S. Forest Service budget spent on wildfires increased to 50% from 20%, and in 2021 the Forest Service received a $2 billion budget for wildfires. State and federal officials threw every resource possible at both megafires.

Thom Porter, who leads Cal Fire, said he supports more wildfire prevention strategies but that the reality during this high fire season doesn’t allow for it.

“The efforts that we put in are absolutely necessary,” Porter said. “There is no choice but to fight a fire when the fire is going. We’re seeing entire centers of towns burn up, historic centers of towns, like Greenville,” he added, referring to the city that burned.

Since July, California has spent $1.1 billion trying to put out fires.

President Joe Biden, who has called wildfires “a blinking code red for our nation,” has made fire suppression a priority of his infrastructure bill, pledging to increase federal funding and military assistance. During a joint conference with Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, the president said the bipartisan bill would include $8 billion for wildfire resilience and promised to provide California with “every resource available to keep families safe.”

“It’s a great starting point,” Porter said, adding that he welcomed more investment by the federal government while acknowledging that it’s impossible to put out megafires under certain weather conditions, no matter the amount of firefighters and flame retardant.

As of Sunday, fires had burned more than 2.8 million acres across the state. The end of fire season is still weeks away.

One grew to a size larger than Rhode Island and levelled a Gold Rush-era town. Another swelled to a quarter of a million acres as it came within a few miles of Lake Tahoe.

One grew to a size larger than Rhode Island and levelled a Gold Rush-era town. Another swelled to a quarter of a million acres as it came within a few miles of Lake Tahoe. Another burned down 900 buildings and was the first-ever to reach 1 million acres. In the past two years, California has found itself under siege from more large-scale fires burning with greater intensity than at any time on record. Giant blazes are tearing across the state with greater speed and frequency, destroying towns and sending smoke hurtling hundreds of miles away. Nine of California’s 20 largest fires have occurred since 2020, according to Cal Fire, the state’s firefighting agency. Four of them are still burning. The fires have forced state and federal officials to marshal armies of people and resources at all costs. Also read | In Pics | Firefighters try and protect giant sequoias amid California fires In late August, New York Times journalists shadowed emergency crews in a remote forested area of Northern California as they battled the Dixie fire, which at nearly 1 million acres is the second-largest fire in state history. Over several weeks, the operation grew to a scale rarely seen before: Thousands of personnel were deployed, as well as hundreds of bulldozers, aircraft and other equipment, along with millions of gallons of water and flame retardant. Officials spent more than $610 million over three months to bring the fire under control — by far the most expensive suppression campaign in California history, according to the head of Cal Fire. The Dixie fire shows that as wildfires have grown in size, so has the magnitude of the effort to combat them. But as government budgets become strained and extreme drought and the effects of climate change, alter the landscape, battling megafires — massive blazes that spread quickly and burn at high intensity — is increasingly costly, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of the firefight. At the height of the operation, 6,579 people worked around the clock to battle the Dixie fire. The command centre at the Lassen County Fairgrounds appeared like a small town that sprung up overnight. It was filled with offices in trailers, catering stations, fueling areas, laundry services, sleeping tents and parking spots for many of the 569 fire engines and 194 water trucks working Aug. 16, when the operation was at its peak. Also read | The secret war over Pentagon aid in fighting wildfires Each morning at 7 a.m., hundreds of firefighters, bulldozer operators and pilots gathered under a poplar grove for a daily briefing. Some crew members wore sweatshirts bearing the names of past big fires like badges of honour: Creek fire, Campfire, Lightning Complex. Dixie already had one, too. In one area of the command centre, a resupply warehouse roughly the size of a Home Depot store serviced engine crews returning to the fire line. In another, volunteers with the California Conservation Corps rewound heaps of used 100-foot lengths of the yellow fire hose. In all, more than 1,174 miles of hose were used — enough to stretch from San Diego to Vancouver. At the time, the Dixie fire, one of a growing number of wildfires that had broken out across the American West, spanned five counties, threatening nearby communities and spewing smoke into the atmosphere. Kristen Allison, a 25-year veteran firefighter who was stationed 70 miles away, struggled to comprehend the scale. “Fifteen years ago, a 100,000-acre fire would be the largest fire of your career. Now, we have 1-million-acre fires,” Allison said. “We’re the size of Rhode Island, working toward Delaware.” Watch | Gravitas US Edition: Wildfire in Northern California destroys nearly 6,000 acres of land “Meanwhile, there are five other 100,000-acre fires burning right now in Northern California,” Allison added. “Even if we had all the resources we wanted, we would not be able to contain these fires.” At the fire’s peak, 198 bulldozers worked to contain it, helping cut 1,792 miles of fire breaks. Much of the fight against the Dixie fire was a gruelling and dirty effort to head off future burn: As many as 89 hand crews on a single day burned ground cover and carved so-called line breaks — barriers to slow or stop the progress — through the forest. Bulldozers, many of which were operated by contractors for upward of $7,000 a day, cleared wide swaths of trees and flammable vegetation. Strike crews laid those dozer lines with fire hose and stood guard, often through the night, to prevent the fire from jumping over. Fueled by a combination of high winds, mountainous terrain and dry conditions, Dixie shows how the scale of wildfires has dramatically increased. In 2010, 72,000 fires in the United States burned 3.4 million acres; last year, 59,000 fires burned 10.1 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Trying to put out Dixie sometimes felt like an exercise in futility. It routinely leapt over breaks, and a team led by Sarah Collemer, a Cal Fire equipment boss from Santa Cruz, worked to clear them. Also read | In California, even fire-resistant trees need to be protected from flames “We’ve been trying to hold the line, but the wind keeps coming up, and most of the embers start a new fire,” Collemer, who was overseeing a team of 30 bulldozers, said. “It’s just hard to start over every day on the line.” Like other recent megafires, the Dixie blaze has burned at a severe pace, sometimes scorching 50,000 acres in a sustained run over 8 miles in one day. Crews used enough fire retardant to fill 31 Olympic-size swimming pools. Air attack — deploying planes and helicopters to drop water and retardant — is often the costliest part of any large wildfire operation. Aircraft have dropped about 21 million gallons of flame retardant mixture on the Dixie fire, at a cost of $4.62 per gallon. The aircraft themselves cost more than $1 million a day in the initial weeks of the fire. “They call me the most expensive man on the fire,” said Matt Stanford, the air operation branch director at Cal Fire base camp. “Every day, costs come in, and I’m on the top of the heap.” Some critics argue that retardant, a mixture of water and phosphate salts often used as a fertilizer, does more damage than good. The U.S. Forest Service restricts use around waterways to avoid fish kills and algae blooms. Despite the trade-offs, air attacks are the most visible show of force and can cover lots of ground quickly. The candy-colored liquid retardant lingers long after water has evaporated and is more effective at lowering a fire’s intensity so that crews can engage on the ground. When the smoke thickens, planes are grounded, forcing aviation chiefs to use large helicopters that can fly under the smoke — though they hold smaller quantities of water or retardant. Under heavy smoke conditions, helicopters, too, are grounded. Crews were diverted even as the fire still raged. Even before the Dixie fire was close to contained, Cal Fire began diverting resources from it. While crews were using drip torches to burn off dry ground cover that could feed oncoming flames, some personnel were reassigned to the Caldor fire, which was racing up the Sierra Nevada mountains toward South Lake Tahoe, one of California’s premier tourist destinations. The Caldor fire stopped within just a few hundred meters of South Lake Tahoe, and the town was spared. California pays for large wildfire responses through an emergency fund with no set limit on spending. In recent decades, the percentage of the U.S. Forest Service budget spent on wildfires increased to 50% from 20%, and in 2021 the Forest Service received a $2 billion budget for wildfires. State and federal officials threw every resource possible at both megafires. Thom Porter, who leads Cal Fire, said he supports more wildfire prevention strategies but that the reality during this high fire season doesn’t allow for it. “The efforts that we put in are absolutely necessary,” Porter said. “There is no choice but to fight a fire when the fire is going. We’re seeing entire centers of towns burn up, historic centers of towns, like Greenville,” he added, referring to the city that burned. Since July, California has spent $1.1 billion trying to put out fires. President Joe Biden, who has called wildfires “a blinking code red for our nation,” has made fire suppression a priority of his infrastructure bill, pledging to increase federal funding and military assistance. During a joint conference with Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, the president said the bipartisan bill would include $8 billion for wildfire resilience and promised to provide California with “every resource available to keep families safe.” “It’s a great starting point,” Porter said, adding that he welcomed more investment by the federal government while acknowledging that it’s impossible to put out megafires under certain weather conditions, no matter the amount of firefighters and flame retardant. As of Sunday, fires had burned more than 2.8 million acres across the state. The end of fire season is still weeks away.

Inside the massive and costly fight to contain a megafire

He may have been a supporter of the Democratic party, but filmmaker-actor George Clooney doesn't see himself ever joining active politics.&nbsp; 
 
The 60-year-old star recently spoke to BBC's Andre Marr and note that while he's engaged in politics, he is hoping to reduce his workload rather than increase it with a foray into running for office.&nbsp;

The actor, who has been a long time supporter of President Biden, stated that America as a country was still recovering from the damages caused by former President of United States Donald Trump.

Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-george-clooney-admits-he-failed-as-batman-calls-1997-batman--robin-stinker-350597">George Clooney admits he failed as Batman, calls 1997 Batman &amp; Robin 'stinker'</a> 
 
When he was asked if he had plans to run for the office, Clooney dismissed the idea.&nbsp; 
 
"No, because I would actually like to have a nice life," he explained. 
 
The actor was on the show to promote his new film 'The Tender Bar' and said that he was now more keen to focus on enjoying the fruits of his labour and take on fewer projects while he is healthy.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-george-clooney-did-gift-1-million-each-to-his-14-closest-friends-343967">It's true! George Clooney did gift $1 million each to 14 of his closest friends</a> 
 
"I turned 60 this year and I had a conversation with my wife and we were working a lot, as we both do, and I said we have to think of these as the halcyon years," he said. "In 20 years, I will be 80 and that’s a real number. Doesn’t matter how much you work out, what you eat, you’re 80, and so I said we have to make sure we enjoy and live these years in the best possible way." 
 
Clooney also said that Joe Biden was struggling with Trump's legacy.&nbsp; 
 
"It’s like taking a battered child and thinking everything’s going to be OK his first day in school," Clooney said. 
 
"There’s a lot of things that have to be repaired, there’s a lot of healing that has to happen, and its going to take time." 
 
Clooney said that Trump still remained an integral part of US politics, adding that he hopes Americans have "a little better sense" than to return him to the White House. 
 
"It’s so funny because he was just this knucklehead,’’ Clooney said. "I knew him before he was a president. He was just a guy who was chasing girls. Every time you went out he’d be like, ‘What’s the name of that girl?’ That’s all he was."

He may have been a supporter of the Democratic party, but filmmaker-actor George Clooney doesn't see himself ever joining active politics. The 60-year-old star recently spoke to BBC's Andre Marr and note that while he's engaged in politics, he is hoping to reduce his workload rather than increase it with a foray into running for office.

He may have been a supporter of the Democratic party, but filmmaker-actor George Clooney doesn't see himself ever joining active politics. The 60-year-old star recently spoke to BBC's Andre Marr and note that while he's engaged in politics, he is hoping to reduce his workload rather than increase it with a foray into running for office. The actor, who has been a long time supporter of President Biden, stated that America as a country was still recovering from the damages caused by former President of United States Donald Trump. Read: George Clooney admits he failed as Batman, calls 1997 Batman & Robin 'stinker' When he was asked if he had plans to run for the office, Clooney dismissed the idea. "No, because I would actually like to have a nice life," he explained. The actor was on the show to promote his new film 'The Tender Bar' and said that he was now more keen to focus on enjoying the fruits of his labour and take on fewer projects while he is healthy. It's true! George Clooney did gift $1 million each to 14 of his closest friends "I turned 60 this year and I had a conversation with my wife and we were working a lot, as we both do, and I said we have to think of these as the halcyon years," he said. "In 20 years, I will be 80 and that’s a real number. Doesn’t matter how much you work out, what you eat, you’re 80, and so I said we have to make sure we enjoy and live these years in the best possible way." Clooney also said that Joe Biden was struggling with Trump's legacy. "It’s like taking a battered child and thinking everything’s going to be OK his first day in school," Clooney said. "There’s a lot of things that have to be repaired, there’s a lot of healing that has to happen, and its going to take time." Clooney said that Trump still remained an integral part of US politics, adding that he hopes Americans have "a little better sense" than to return him to the White House. "It’s so funny because he was just this knucklehead,’’ Clooney said. "I knew him before he was a president. He was just a guy who was chasing girls. Every time you went out he’d be like, ‘What’s the name of that girl?’ That’s all he was."

George Clooney has no plans of joining politics: I would actually like to have a nice life

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the US is the "root cause" of instability on the Korean Peninsula. He said Pyongyang is only increasing its military capabilities as a deterrent.The first instalment of US Vice President Kamala Harris’ YouTube Originals space series has gone viral. It has been widely mocked on several platforms too.An Afghan interpreter who assisted in the rescue of then-Senator Joe Biden from the harsh Afghan countryside has managed to flee the country with his family. 
 
Click on headlines to read more

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-blames-us-for-regional-tensions-defends-weapons-buildup-420039">North Korea's Kim Jong Un blames US for regional tensions, defends weapons buildup</a> 
 
<img src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2021/10/12/215574-untitled-design-2.jpg" /> 
On Tuesday, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un criticised the US for hostile actions and stated that his country is beefing up its military capabilities to preserve national sovereignty.

<a href="wionews.com/world/watch-us-vice-president-harris-nasa-video-with-child-actors-gets-mocked-goes-viral-420041">Watch: US Vice President Harris' NASA video with child actors gets mocked, goes viral</a> 
 
<img src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2021/04/27/192886-untitled-design-6.jpg" />The first installment of US Vice President Kamala Harris’ YouTube Originals space series has gone viral. It has been widely mocked on several platforms by many netizens too.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/afghan-interpreter-who-helped-rescue-biden-in-2008-escapes-taliban-regime-420043">Afghan interpreter who helped rescue Biden in 2008 escapes Taliban regime</a> 
 
<img src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2021/10/12/215576-untitled-design-3.jpg" /> 
The Afghan translator who assisted in the retrieval of then-Senator Joe Biden from the Afghan highlands in 2008 but was left behind by the Kabul airlift has been flown to Pakistan. 
 
Watch | Gravitas: India's game plan to win the global space race

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-indias-game-plan-to-win-the-global-space-race-420034/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Watch | Gravitas: India-China military talks break down: What next?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-india-china-military-talks-break-down-what-next-420031/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the US is the "root cause" of instability on the Korean Peninsula. He said Pyongyang is only increasing its military capabilities as a deterrent.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the US is the "root cause" of instability on the Korean Peninsula. He said Pyongyang is only increasing its military capabilities as a deterrent.The first instalment of US Vice President Kamala Harris’ YouTube Originals space series has gone viral. It has been widely mocked on several platforms too.An Afghan interpreter who assisted in the rescue of then-Senator Joe Biden from the harsh Afghan countryside has managed to flee the country with his family. Click on headlines to read more North Korea's Kim Jong Un blames US for regional tensions, defends weapons buildup On Tuesday, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un criticised the US for hostile actions and stated that his country is beefing up its military capabilities to preserve national sovereignty. Watch: US Vice President Harris' NASA video with child actors gets mocked, goes viral The first installment of US Vice President Kamala Harris’ YouTube Originals space series has gone viral. It has been widely mocked on several platforms by many netizens too. Afghan interpreter who helped rescue Biden in 2008 escapes Taliban regime The Afghan translator who assisted in the retrieval of then-Senator Joe Biden from the Afghan highlands in 2008 but was left behind by the Kabul airlift has been flown to Pakistan. Watch | Gravitas: India's game plan to win the global space race Watch | Gravitas: India-China military talks break down: What next?

Morning news brief: Kim criticizes US, Kamala Harris' NASA video, and more

The Afghan translator who assisted in the retrieval of then-Senator Joe Biden from the Afghan highlands in 2008 but was left behind by the Kabul airlift has been flown to Pakistan.

The US State Department is expediting his visa.

After the US-led airlift from Kabul concluded on August 30, leaving Aman Khalili and his family behind, US veterans worked with various private groups to leverage their relationships in Afghanistan and Pakistan and remove Aman Khalili and his family.

According to the Wall Street Journal, they were successful last week, transporting Khalili, his wife, and their five children 600 kilometres across Afghanistan and across the Pakistani border.

Watch | Gravitas: Did Biden lie about Afghanistan military advice?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-did-biden-lie-about-afghanistan-military-advice-416953/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Watch | WION-USA Direct: Joe Biden says US not seeking 'new Cold War' with China

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-usa-direct-joe-biden-says-us-not-seeking-new-cold-war-with-china-414764/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In 2008, a blizzard forced the military chopper carrying Mr. Biden and other US senators to land in a snowy valley, exposing them to attack.

Aman Khalili was one of the Afghan government personnel that drove the party to safety.

He attempted to apply for a special immigrant visa (SIV) to bring his family to the United States in 2016, but was refused because the contractor he worked for allegedly destroyed their documents.

When they arrived at Kabul International Airport, Khalili was told that he could fly in, but that his family would have to wait behind.

He flatly refused.

The Journal covered his situation a day after the Kabul airlift ceased, including his personal plea to Biden.&nbsp;

The SIV was particularly developed for Afghans and Iraqis who fought with American forces in both battles.

It is unknown if Khalili has received this visa or if he is travelling to the United States.

Approximately 70,000 Afghans have been resettled in the United States on SIVs since 2008.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Afghan translator who assisted in the retrieval of then-Senator Joe Biden from the Afghan highlands in 2008 but was left behind by the Kabul airlift has been flown to Pakistan.

The Afghan translator who assisted in the retrieval of then-Senator Joe Biden from the Afghan highlands in 2008 but was left behind by the Kabul airlift has been flown to Pakistan. The US State Department is expediting his visa. After the US-led airlift from Kabul concluded on August 30, leaving Aman Khalili and his family behind, US veterans worked with various private groups to leverage their relationships in Afghanistan and Pakistan and remove Aman Khalili and his family. According to the Wall Street Journal, they were successful last week, transporting Khalili, his wife, and their five children 600 kilometres across Afghanistan and across the Pakistani border. Watch | Gravitas: Did Biden lie about Afghanistan military advice? Watch | WION-USA Direct: Joe Biden says US not seeking 'new Cold War' with China In 2008, a blizzard forced the military chopper carrying Mr. Biden and other US senators to land in a snowy valley, exposing them to attack. Aman Khalili was one of the Afghan government personnel that drove the party to safety. He attempted to apply for a special immigrant visa (SIV) to bring his family to the United States in 2016, but was refused because the contractor he worked for allegedly destroyed their documents. When they arrived at Kabul International Airport, Khalili was told that he could fly in, but that his family would have to wait behind. He flatly refused. The Journal covered his situation a day after the Kabul airlift ceased, including his personal plea to Biden. The SIV was particularly developed for Afghans and Iraqis who fought with American forces in both battles. It is unknown if Khalili has received this visa or if he is travelling to the United States. Approximately 70,000 Afghans have been resettled in the United States on SIVs since 2008. (With inputs from agencies)

Afghan interpreter who helped rescue Biden in 2008 escapes Taliban regime

Congress disposed of a looming global economic catastrophe this week by doing what it does best: not much.

After weeks of a market-threatening partisan stare-down, Senate leaders struck a not-so-grand bargain that raised the debt ceiling into early December, just two short months away. If history is any guide, lawmakers will then engage in the exact same fight all over again — and may even end up with yet another Band-Aid solution.

That kick-the-can-ever-so-slightly-down-the-road debt deal followed the House’s nonconsideration last week of a bipartisan infrastructure bill after a promised vote. The delay meant blowing through a Sept. 30 deadline to keep federal highway programs funded, but not to worry: Congress bought itself a whole month with a temporary 30-day patch that will give Democrats more time to resolve deep differences among them over a huge social safety net measure that may or may not come together by Oct. 31.

It all unfolded just as Congress narrowly averted a governmentwide shutdown by just hours last week, passing a temporary bill to fund federal agencies through Dec. 2 to give itself more time to haggle over the 12 annual spending bills. That fight will inevitably collide with the battle over the debt limit, the big social policy bill and the infrastructure legislation.

Congress is headed toward more cliffs than Wile E. Coyote.

The House and Senate have a long history of putting off pressing matters until the very last minute, making difficult decisions and casting tough votes only when it is finally and completely unavoidable.

But this current Congress seems particularly paralyzed, given ideological differences among Democrats holding the barest of majorities and entrenched opposition from Republicans who are fixated on next year’s elections and see a little legislative chaos as their return ticket to the majority.

“Washington Democrats are proving they cannot deliver,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the minority leader, declared Thursday on the Senate floor, omitting the fact that he was doing everything in his power to make sure that they did not.

The result is that, rather than strike compromises on pressing issues, lawmakers have grown accustomed to agreeing to disagree, skirting politically difficult decisions and choosing a date in the future when they will be forced to try again, often with the same outcome. No household or business could operate that way, but for Congress, lurching from crisis to crisis is a way of life.

On the plus side for senators, the debt ceiling agreement preserved the Columbus Day recess, which includes a Republican retreat scheduled for next week in Florida and other travel planned by senators. But Christmas is in real trouble.

The debt deal surfaced because McConnell began to fear that he might have taken his debt-limit intransigence too far, straying a bit too close to the edge of a particularly daunting cliff.

He feared that the two Democratic holdouts in favor of the filibuster — Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — would finally cave to pressure from the rest of their party to approve an exception to the filibuster rules for raising the legal cap on federal borrowing if confronted with an imminent fiscal disaster.

And everyone on Capitol Hill knows that a carve-out for one kind of legislation will ultimately become an avenue for every kind of legislation. McConnell, who is also very enamored of the filibuster, knew he had to head off that possibility at all costs.

“His No. 1 priority is to protect his instrument of obstruction,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

Things are so bad that even the bare-bones debt agreement barely came together. Top lawmakers and their aides spent hours haggling over it, and Republicans struggled to gain commitments from their members to clear the way for a vote.

Most Republicans did not want to be anywhere near the debt-ceiling increase that has come under attack from former President Donald Trump, making it politically radioactive in their eyes. For a time, Republicans were not sure they could produce the minimum 10 votes from their side to move it along procedurally.

Take Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. Approached by reporters, Cramer launched into extended praise of the short-term debt limit increase proffered by McConnell. He called it elegant, lauding the Senate leader’s craftiness in preserving the filibuster and depriving Democrats of a potent political argument against his party. It also averted a potential calamitous default. But Cramer still would not vote to allow it to move forward.

“I don’t think I will,” he said.

In the end, 11 Republicans, including retiring members with nothing to lose and members of the leadership, bit the bullet and sent the bill forward. It ultimately passed with only Democratic votes and still must be approved by the House before it hits President Joe Biden’s desk. The action is expected next week, mere days before a projected default.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is retiring and was one of the 11, spoke for many when he muttered in the hallway, “Can’t explain anything in this place.”

The dysfunction was evidently contagious. Even the subway that ferries lawmakers, staff, media and visitors between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings broke down Thursday, trapping a couple of luckless riders for a brief period. It, too, had reached its limit.

The underlying debt fight is over whether Democrats will raise the debt ceiling through regular procedures or via a more convoluted budget process, a technical distinction so fine that it is surely indistinguishable to virtually every American not intimately familiar with the Budget Control Act.

“I don't think they understand it a bit,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, of members of the public. “It is confusing for people who work here.”

“The debt ceiling debate is absurd with a capital A,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who leads the Finance Committee.

But it does have political implications for both parties, hence the inability of Congress to collect itself and perform a function that used to be routine and bipartisan and that all members of Congress understand needs to happen.

But Republicans want Democrats to own the debt and then hammer them on it in next year’s midterms; Democrats want Republicans to take responsibility for spending during the Trump era, when Republicans controlled Congress, and to avoid the hammering they are certain to get.

“I have no words to describe how ridiculous it is that the debt ceiling has become a political tool,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. “I just hope we don’t get to the point where Republicans actually push us over the limit and people’s retirements disappear in order for them to sober up.”

Congress disposed of a looming global economic catastrophe this week by doing what it does best: not much. After weeks of a market-threatening partisan stare-down, Senate leaders struck a not-so-grand bargain that raised the debt ceiling into early December, just two short months away.

Congress disposed of a looming global economic catastrophe this week by doing what it does best: not much. After weeks of a market-threatening partisan stare-down, Senate leaders struck a not-so-grand bargain that raised the debt ceiling into early December, just two short months away. If history is any guide, lawmakers will then engage in the exact same fight all over again — and may even end up with yet another Band-Aid solution. That kick-the-can-ever-so-slightly-down-the-road debt deal followed the House’s nonconsideration last week of a bipartisan infrastructure bill after a promised vote. The delay meant blowing through a Sept. 30 deadline to keep federal highway programs funded, but not to worry: Congress bought itself a whole month with a temporary 30-day patch that will give Democrats more time to resolve deep differences among them over a huge social safety net measure that may or may not come together by Oct. 31. It all unfolded just as Congress narrowly averted a governmentwide shutdown by just hours last week, passing a temporary bill to fund federal agencies through Dec. 2 to give itself more time to haggle over the 12 annual spending bills. That fight will inevitably collide with the battle over the debt limit, the big social policy bill and the infrastructure legislation. Congress is headed toward more cliffs than Wile E. Coyote. The House and Senate have a long history of putting off pressing matters until the very last minute, making difficult decisions and casting tough votes only when it is finally and completely unavoidable. But this current Congress seems particularly paralyzed, given ideological differences among Democrats holding the barest of majorities and entrenched opposition from Republicans who are fixated on next year’s elections and see a little legislative chaos as their return ticket to the majority. “Washington Democrats are proving they cannot deliver,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the minority leader, declared Thursday on the Senate floor, omitting the fact that he was doing everything in his power to make sure that they did not. The result is that, rather than strike compromises on pressing issues, lawmakers have grown accustomed to agreeing to disagree, skirting politically difficult decisions and choosing a date in the future when they will be forced to try again, often with the same outcome. No household or business could operate that way, but for Congress, lurching from crisis to crisis is a way of life. On the plus side for senators, the debt ceiling agreement preserved the Columbus Day recess, which includes a Republican retreat scheduled for next week in Florida and other travel planned by senators. But Christmas is in real trouble. The debt deal surfaced because McConnell began to fear that he might have taken his debt-limit intransigence too far, straying a bit too close to the edge of a particularly daunting cliff. He feared that the two Democratic holdouts in favor of the filibuster — Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — would finally cave to pressure from the rest of their party to approve an exception to the filibuster rules for raising the legal cap on federal borrowing if confronted with an imminent fiscal disaster. And everyone on Capitol Hill knows that a carve-out for one kind of legislation will ultimately become an avenue for every kind of legislation. McConnell, who is also very enamored of the filibuster, knew he had to head off that possibility at all costs. “His No. 1 priority is to protect his instrument of obstruction,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. Things are so bad that even the bare-bones debt agreement barely came together. Top lawmakers and their aides spent hours haggling over it, and Republicans struggled to gain commitments from their members to clear the way for a vote. Most Republicans did not want to be anywhere near the debt-ceiling increase that has come under attack from former President Donald Trump, making it politically radioactive in their eyes. For a time, Republicans were not sure they could produce the minimum 10 votes from their side to move it along procedurally. Take Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. Approached by reporters, Cramer launched into extended praise of the short-term debt limit increase proffered by McConnell. He called it elegant, lauding the Senate leader’s craftiness in preserving the filibuster and depriving Democrats of a potent political argument against his party. It also averted a potential calamitous default. But Cramer still would not vote to allow it to move forward. “I don’t think I will,” he said. In the end, 11 Republicans, including retiring members with nothing to lose and members of the leadership, bit the bullet and sent the bill forward. It ultimately passed with only Democratic votes and still must be approved by the House before it hits President Joe Biden’s desk. The action is expected next week, mere days before a projected default. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is retiring and was one of the 11, spoke for many when he muttered in the hallway, “Can’t explain anything in this place.” The dysfunction was evidently contagious. Even the subway that ferries lawmakers, staff, media and visitors between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings broke down Thursday, trapping a couple of luckless riders for a brief period. It, too, had reached its limit. The underlying debt fight is over whether Democrats will raise the debt ceiling through regular procedures or via a more convoluted budget process, a technical distinction so fine that it is surely indistinguishable to virtually every American not intimately familiar with the Budget Control Act. “I don't think they understand it a bit,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, of members of the public. “It is confusing for people who work here.” “The debt ceiling debate is absurd with a capital A,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who leads the Finance Committee. But it does have political implications for both parties, hence the inability of Congress to collect itself and perform a function that used to be routine and bipartisan and that all members of Congress understand needs to happen. But Republicans want Democrats to own the debt and then hammer them on it in next year’s midterms; Democrats want Republicans to take responsibility for spending during the Trump era, when Republicans controlled Congress, and to avoid the hammering they are certain to get. “I have no words to describe how ridiculous it is that the debt ceiling has become a political tool,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. “I just hope we don’t get to the point where Republicans actually push us over the limit and people’s retirements disappear in order for them to sober up.”

Lurching from crisis to crisis, Congress is addicted to cliffs

With all the subtlety of a bullhorn, former President Donald Trump has been hinting that he plans to run for office again in 2024.

And Republicans are so far treating him with the deference they displayed while he was in the White House as they wait to see if he makes his move.

On Saturday afternoon, Trump heads to Iowa for a rally at the state fairgrounds, a perennial stop on the presidential campaign circuit. Joining him will be several of the state’s top Republicans, including Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Charles E. Grassley and the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann — a testament to the former president’s enduring dominance.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-tells-former-aides-to-defy-subpoenas-from-jan-6-panel-419184">Trump tells former aides to defy subpoenas from Jan. 6 panel</a>

Trump’s unwillingness to cede the spotlight has cast doubt on the political futures of an entire group of Republican politicians who have suggested that they might someday want to run for president. And while they — like the rest of the country — can’t be sure what the notoriously fickle former president might do, some of them are trying to stake their claims as leaders in the party.

That requires a good deal of delicacy on their part. And it got a little awkward this week for two of them.

First there was former Vice President Mike Pence, whose refusal to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 deeply angered <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Trump</a> and helped precipitate the deadly assault on the Capitol that day. Pence gave an interview this week to Sean Hannity of Fox News and sounded at times an awful lot like someone who wants to be president.

Also read |&nbsp;​​​​​​​<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/despite-disagreements-over-january-6-pence-still-close-to-trump-418444">Despite disagreements over January 6, Pence still 'close to' Trump</a>

He attacked President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> for withdrawing US&nbsp;forces from Afghanistan. He also criticized the president’s approach to domestic affairs — for “lecturing the American people about vaccine mandates” and promoting what Pence called a “massive, big-government, socialist bill” before Congress that would widen the social safety net and address problems like climate change.

But when Hannity broached the subject of Pence’s reportedly frayed relationship with Trump, the former vice president tried to deflect by accusing the news media of blowing the events of Jan. 6 out of proportion, referring to it obliquely at one point as “one day in January.”

“They want to use that one day to try and demean the character and intentions of 74 million Americans who believe we could be strong again and prosperous again and supported our administration,” Pence said.

He did not address the fact that numerous rioters at the Capitol called for his execution during the attack, demanding that he be hanged for not carrying out Trump’s wishes. And Hannity didn’t bring it up.

Then there was a speech by Nikki Haley, another former Trump administration official whose relationship with Trump was damaged because she had declared herself “disgusted” with him after Jan. 6 and predicted that he’d “lost any sort of political viability.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/now-trump-drops-off-forbes-list-amid-pandemic-downturn-418624">Now, Trump drops off Forbes list amid pandemic downturn</a>

But Haley, who served as governor of South Carolina and ambassador to the United Nations, praised Trump in an appearance at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. She criticized Trump’s political opponents for accusing him of being compromised by the Russians, and said that Biden’s posture toward Russia was weaker by comparison.

Separately, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, she lauded Trump’s ability to “get strong people elected” and insisted, “I don’t want us to go back to the days before Trump.”

At the moment, that doesn’t seem like an option for Haley or anyone else who wants to have a bright future in the Republican Party. Trump continues to attack Republicans who broke with him after Jan. 6 and supported his impeachment, such as Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.

His first rally since the day of the Capitol riot was in June outside Cleveland. He endorsed a local Republican who was challenging Rep. Anthony Gonzalez in next year’s primary election. Gonzalez, one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the riot, announced last month that he was leaving Congress rather than staying to face his Trump-approved challenger.

Also read |&nbsp;​​​​​​​<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-airs-old-election-grievances-at-campaign-style-rally-394254">Trump airs old election grievances at campaign-style rally</a>

Polls taken over the course of the year have shown that Trump remains the overwhelming favorite for Republican voters, suggesting that he would be difficult to beat in a primary if he did indeed run. Though his popularity suffered somewhat in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, most Republicans seem to have moved on. A Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday found that two-thirds of Republicans say Trump should continue to be a major national figure, an increase of 10 percentage points from January. Forty-four percent of Republicans or Republican-leaning voters want him to run again.

The Pew poll also found little tolerance for dissent. Asked whether their party should accept politicians who openly criticize Trump, 63 per cent&nbsp;said no.

With all the subtlety of a bullhorn, former President Donald Trump has been hinting that he plans to run for office again in 2024. And Republicans are so far treating him with the deference they displayed while he was in the White House as they wait to see if he makes his move.

With all the subtlety of a bullhorn, former President Donald Trump has been hinting that he plans to run for office again in 2024. And Republicans are so far treating him with the deference they displayed while he was in the White House as they wait to see if he makes his move. On Saturday afternoon, Trump heads to Iowa for a rally at the state fairgrounds, a perennial stop on the presidential campaign circuit. Joining him will be several of the state’s top Republicans, including Gov. Kim Reynolds, Sen. Charles E. Grassley and the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann — a testament to the former president’s enduring dominance. Also read | Trump tells former aides to defy subpoenas from Jan. 6 panel Trump’s unwillingness to cede the spotlight has cast doubt on the political futures of an entire group of Republican politicians who have suggested that they might someday want to run for president. And while they — like the rest of the country — can’t be sure what the notoriously fickle former president might do, some of them are trying to stake their claims as leaders in the party. That requires a good deal of delicacy on their part. And it got a little awkward this week for two of them. First there was former Vice President Mike Pence, whose refusal to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 deeply angered Trump and helped precipitate the deadly assault on the Capitol that day. Pence gave an interview this week to Sean Hannity of Fox News and sounded at times an awful lot like someone who wants to be president. Also read | Despite disagreements over January 6, Pence still 'close to' Trump He attacked President Joe Biden for withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan. He also criticized the president’s approach to domestic affairs — for “lecturing the American people about vaccine mandates” and promoting what Pence called a “massive, big-government, socialist bill” before Congress that would widen the social safety net and address problems like climate change. But when Hannity broached the subject of Pence’s reportedly frayed relationship with Trump, the former vice president tried to deflect by accusing the news media of blowing the events of Jan. 6 out of proportion, referring to it obliquely at one point as “one day in January.” “They want to use that one day to try and demean the character and intentions of 74 million Americans who believe we could be strong again and prosperous again and supported our administration,” Pence said. He did not address the fact that numerous rioters at the Capitol called for his execution during the attack, demanding that he be hanged for not carrying out Trump’s wishes. And Hannity didn’t bring it up. Then there was a speech by Nikki Haley, another former Trump administration official whose relationship with Trump was damaged because she had declared herself “disgusted” with him after Jan. 6 and predicted that he’d “lost any sort of political viability.” Also read | Now, Trump drops off Forbes list amid pandemic downturn But Haley, who served as governor of South Carolina and ambassador to the United Nations, praised Trump in an appearance at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. She criticized Trump’s political opponents for accusing him of being compromised by the Russians, and said that Biden’s posture toward Russia was weaker by comparison. Separately, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, she lauded Trump’s ability to “get strong people elected” and insisted, “I don’t want us to go back to the days before Trump.” At the moment, that doesn’t seem like an option for Haley or anyone else who wants to have a bright future in the Republican Party. Trump continues to attack Republicans who broke with him after Jan. 6 and supported his impeachment, such as Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. His first rally since the day of the Capitol riot was in June outside Cleveland. He endorsed a local Republican who was challenging Rep. Anthony Gonzalez in next year’s primary election. Gonzalez, one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the riot, announced last month that he was leaving Congress rather than staying to face his Trump-approved challenger. Also read | Trump airs old election grievances at campaign-style rally Polls taken over the course of the year have shown that Trump remains the overwhelming favorite for Republican voters, suggesting that he would be difficult to beat in a primary if he did indeed run. Though his popularity suffered somewhat in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, most Republicans seem to have moved on. A Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday found that two-thirds of Republicans say Trump should continue to be a major national figure, an increase of 10 percentage points from January. Forty-four percent of Republicans or Republican-leaning voters want him to run again. The Pew poll also found little tolerance for dissent. Asked whether their party should accept politicians who openly criticize Trump, 63 per cent said no.

Trump may run in 2024. So might they. It’s getting awkward.

US President Joe Biden's global reputation may have got a hit after Afghanistan and those overjoyed at the time of him trouncing Trump may be in two minds now, but there was one thing he was always famous for.

Making silly mistakes while speaking publicly.

The gaffe-prone Biden has added one more to his list as he misgendered Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a woman, by addressing her 'Mr mayor'

Biden was in the state to call on private employers to make Covid vaccines mandatory for their employees. Throughout his televised appearance, he was seen stumbling his lines. But the most prominent of his mistakes came when his addressed Lori Lightfoot 'Mr Mayor'.

"Mr Mayor, thanks for the passport into town," he was quoted as saying by UK news outlest Express.

He blunders did not stop there. During the same speech he struggled while recalling President of Illinois' State Senate Don Harmon's name.

The list of gaffes for one day was yet to finish and Biden confused the words 'television' and 'telephone' and said that he was on television instead of saying he was on phone.

This is not the first time Joe Biden has made mistakes when speaking publicly.

He forgot Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's name recently and regarded him as "that fellow down under".

The occassion was announcement of the AUKUS alliance which forges deep security ties between the US, Australia and the UK.&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden's global reputation may have got a hit after Afghanistan and those overjoyed at the time of him trouncing Trump may be in two minds now, but there was one thing he was always famous for.

US President Joe Biden's global reputation may have got a hit after Afghanistan and those overjoyed at the time of him trouncing Trump may be in two minds now, but there was one thing he was always famous for. Making silly mistakes while speaking publicly. The gaffe-prone Biden has added one more to his list as he misgendered Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a woman, by addressing her 'Mr mayor' Biden was in the state to call on private employers to make Covid vaccines mandatory for their employees. Throughout his televised appearance, he was seen stumbling his lines. But the most prominent of his mistakes came when his addressed Lori Lightfoot 'Mr Mayor'. "Mr Mayor, thanks for the passport into town," he was quoted as saying by UK news outlest Express. He blunders did not stop there. During the same speech he struggled while recalling President of Illinois' State Senate Don Harmon's name. The list of gaffes for one day was yet to finish and Biden confused the words 'television' and 'telephone' and said that he was on television instead of saying he was on phone. This is not the first time Joe Biden has made mistakes when speaking publicly. He forgot Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's name recently and regarded him as "that fellow down under". The occassion was announcement of the AUKUS alliance which forges deep security ties between the US, Australia and the UK.

Biden at it again, addresses woman mayor of Chicago as 'Mr Mayor'

UN wants to declare access to a safe environment a human right, but US, UK are opposing the move. Joe Biden had made tall promises on climate, Boris Johnson wanted to help countries at the forefront of the climate crisis. What happened? Palki Sharma tells you.

Gravitas: UN proposes to make safe environment a human right

U.S. President Joe Biden has said that he has spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about Taiwan and they agreed to abide by the Taiwan agreement, as tensions have ratcheted up between Taipei and Beijing.

U.S. President Joe Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping abide by the Taiwan agreement

In two weeks, America could default on its debt for the first time in history. President Joe Biden has called it a 'meteor headed for the US economy'. Are Republicans using the recession as leverage? Is Biden's bipartisanship claim a sham? Palki Sharma tells you.

Gravitas: Biden blames Republicans for looming credit default

US President Joe Biden said he spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss China's military activity near Taiwan and both sides agreed to abide by the Taiwan agreement.

US President Biden says Xi Jinping agreed to abide by the Taiwan agreement

US president Joe Biden has accused the republican lawmakers of blocking his government' s efforts to increase his borrowing authority by committing to the filibuster measure ahead of a two-week deadline.

United States: Joe Biden slams Republicans on debt limits

The Biden administration on Monday reversed a contentious policy set under President Donald Trump that barred organisations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money.

The new rule, set to take effect Nov. 8, deals with what is known as the Title X family planning program, which was created in 1970 and subsidizes birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings and related preventive care for millions of predominantly low-income patients.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-set-to-scrap-ban-on-us-funds-for-abortion-counseling-359954">Biden set to scrap ban on US funds for abortion counseling</a>

“Our nation’s family planning clinics play a critical role in delivering health care, and today more than ever, we are making clear that access to quality family planning care includes accurate information and referrals — based on a patient’s needs and direction,” Xavier Becerra, the Health and Human Services secretary, said in a statement.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">President Joe Biden</a> signalled shortly after taking office that he intended to rescind the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-reinstates-rule-restricting-abortions-around-the-world-11626">Trump-era rule</a>, writing in a memorandum calling for action on women’s health issues that it put “women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information."

The 2019 rule aggressively targeted organizations that offer abortions, including Planned Parenthood, and was a top priority of social conservatives during Trump’s term as president. Regulations surrounding the 1970 Title X law already banned direct funding of abortion, but organizations such as Planned Parenthood have relied on Title X money to subsidize other women’s health services, such as dispensing birth control and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The rule allowed clinics that received federal funds to offer lists of primary care providers, including those that provide prenatal care, but they could not identify which performed abortions. It also required “physical and financial separation” between family planning and abortion services at places that offered both.

Watch |&nbsp;Rallies held across the US against abortion ban

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rallies-held-across-the-us-against-abortion-ban-417809/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo">As a result of the Trump rule, Planned Parenthood, which had received roughly $60 million every year through the Title X program, withdrew from it rather than comply. Before 2019, Planned Parenthood health centres each year served roughly 40 per cent&nbsp;of the 4 million people who used the Title X program, the organisation said Monday.</div>

Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called the new rule&nbsp;“a major victory for patients, access to sexual and reproductive health care, and health equity.”

“Title X is a critical piece of our social safety net that can, and should, ensure that people with low incomes can access essential health care without forcing providers to withhold referrals for all of the options available to them,” she said in a statement Monday.

Still, McGill Johnson criticized a feature of the Biden administration’s rule, which would allow “objecting individuals and grantees” to not be required to counsel or refer for abortions in the program.

But Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement Monday that the Trump rule had respected “the plain statutory language of Title X.”

“Democrats push this agenda at their own political peril,” she said.

More than 20 states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration in hopes of overturning the rule, including California, whose suit was led by Becerra, then the state’s attorney general.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/abortion-wombs-the-political-battleground-417992">Wombs: The political battleground</a>

In the spring of 2019, the Trump administration announced that it would give millions in Title X funds to an anti-abortion nonprofit organization funded by allies of the Catholic Church, the Obria Group. Critics cast the move as a way to defund medical clinics that provide abortions.

Announcing the policy reversal Monday, the Biden administration cited last year’s Family Planning Annual Report, which showed a precipitous drop in the number of clients served by the Title X program. The report estimated that roughly two-thirds of the decrease in family planning patients between 2018 and 2020 could be attributed to the Trump rule.

Six states currently have no Title X services, and seven others have “limited Title X capacity,” the Health and Human Services department said.

Dr Rachel L. Levine, the assistant secretary for health, said the new rule would “allow for the Title X service network to expand in size and capacity to provide quality family planning services to more clients.” Title X grants typically go to clinics run by state and local health departments, as well as to federally qualified health centres, hospital-based sites, and other private nonprofit and community-based health clinics.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-bidens-administration-urges-judge-to-block-texas-anti-abortion-law-417517">Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law</a>

Monday’s reversal comes as the debate over abortion rights has flared up again on Capitol Hill after the Supreme Court refused last month allowed a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy to take effect. With other states seeking to enact similar restrictions, and the court, now dominated by conservatives, preparing to take up a case that could overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, Democrats are making the issue a centrepiece of their campaign strategy for next year’s midterm elections.

The Biden administration on Monday reversed a contentious policy set under President Donald Trump that barred organisations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money.

The Biden administration on Monday reversed a contentious policy set under President Donald Trump that barred organisations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money. The new rule, set to take effect Nov. 8, deals with what is known as the Title X family planning program, which was created in 1970 and subsidizes birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings and related preventive care for millions of predominantly low-income patients. Also read | Biden set to scrap ban on US funds for abortion counseling “Our nation’s family planning clinics play a critical role in delivering health care, and today more than ever, we are making clear that access to quality family planning care includes accurate information and referrals — based on a patient’s needs and direction,” Xavier Becerra, the Health and Human Services secretary, said in a statement. President Joe Biden signalled shortly after taking office that he intended to rescind the Trump-era rule, writing in a memorandum calling for action on women’s health issues that it put “women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information." The 2019 rule aggressively targeted organizations that offer abortions, including Planned Parenthood, and was a top priority of social conservatives during Trump’s term as president. Regulations surrounding the 1970 Title X law already banned direct funding of abortion, but organizations such as Planned Parenthood have relied on Title X money to subsidize other women’s health services, such as dispensing birth control and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The rule allowed clinics that received federal funds to offer lists of primary care providers, including those that provide prenatal care, but they could not identify which performed abortions. It also required “physical and financial separation” between family planning and abortion services at places that offered both. Watch | Rallies held across the US against abortion ban As a result of the Trump rule, Planned Parenthood, which had received roughly $60 million every year through the Title X program, withdrew from it rather than comply. Before 2019, Planned Parenthood health centres each year served roughly 40 per cent of the 4 million people who used the Title X program, the organisation said Monday. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called the new rule “a major victory for patients, access to sexual and reproductive health care, and health equity.” “Title X is a critical piece of our social safety net that can, and should, ensure that people with low incomes can access essential health care without forcing providers to withhold referrals for all of the options available to them,” she said in a statement Monday. Still, McGill Johnson criticized a feature of the Biden administration’s rule, which would allow “objecting individuals and grantees” to not be required to counsel or refer for abortions in the program. But Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement Monday that the Trump rule had respected “the plain statutory language of Title X.” “Democrats push this agenda at their own political peril,” she said. More than 20 states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration in hopes of overturning the rule, including California, whose suit was led by Becerra, then the state’s attorney general. Also read | Wombs: The political battleground In the spring of 2019, the Trump administration announced that it would give millions in Title X funds to an anti-abortion nonprofit organization funded by allies of the Catholic Church, the Obria Group. Critics cast the move as a way to defund medical clinics that provide abortions. Announcing the policy reversal Monday, the Biden administration cited last year’s Family Planning Annual Report, which showed a precipitous drop in the number of clients served by the Title X program. The report estimated that roughly two-thirds of the decrease in family planning patients between 2018 and 2020 could be attributed to the Trump rule. Six states currently have no Title X services, and seven others have “limited Title X capacity,” the Health and Human Services department said. Dr Rachel L. Levine, the assistant secretary for health, said the new rule would “allow for the Title X service network to expand in size and capacity to provide quality family planning services to more clients.” Title X grants typically go to clinics run by state and local health departments, as well as to federally qualified health centres, hospital-based sites, and other private nonprofit and community-based health clinics. Also read | Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law Monday’s reversal comes as the debate over abortion rights has flared up again on Capitol Hill after the Supreme Court refused last month allowed a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy to take effect. With other states seeking to enact similar restrictions, and the court, now dominated by conservatives, preparing to take up a case that could overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, Democrats are making the issue a centrepiece of their campaign strategy for next year’s midterm elections.

Biden officials end ban on abortion referrals at federally funded clinics

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific. After the call, Kishida said that he received "strong" message from President Joe Biden about the United States' commitment to defending the disputed East China Sea islets known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan The phone call lasted for about 20 minutes.

Kishida was voted in by Japanese lawmakers on Monday as Japan's new prime minister.

Kishida's conversation with Biden came a day after he called parliamentary elections for October 31 and vowed to bolster the country's response to Covid&nbsp;pandemic. He was voted in by lawmakers on Monday as the nation's new prime minister.

"We confirmed that we would work together toward the strengthening of the Japan-US alliance and free and open Indo-Pacific," Kishida said. "We also confirmed we would work closely on issues related to China and North Korea."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-sends-56-warplanes-into-taiwans-defence-zone-in-largest-ever-air-incursion-418264">China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone in largest-ever air incursion</a>

"Especially, the president made a strong comment on the US&nbsp;commitment to defend Japan, including the Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan security treaty," Kishida added, referring to US&nbsp;defence obligations to Japan, which cover the uninhabited island.

Japan has become increasingly concerned about Chinese activity in the East China Sea, including incursions into waters around the disputed islands, known as the Diaoyus in China.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific.

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific. After the call, Kishida said that he received "strong" message from President Joe Biden about the United States' commitment to defending the disputed East China Sea islets known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan The phone call lasted for about 20 minutes. Kishida was voted in by Japanese lawmakers on Monday as Japan's new prime minister. Kishida's conversation with Biden came a day after he called parliamentary elections for October 31 and vowed to bolster the country's response to Covid pandemic. He was voted in by lawmakers on Monday as the nation's new prime minister. "We confirmed that we would work together toward the strengthening of the Japan-US alliance and free and open Indo-Pacific," Kishida said. "We also confirmed we would work closely on issues related to China and North Korea." Also Read | China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone in largest-ever air incursion "Especially, the president made a strong comment on the US commitment to defend Japan, including the Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan security treaty," Kishida added, referring to US defence obligations to Japan, which cover the uninhabited island. Japan has become increasingly concerned about Chinese activity in the East China Sea, including incursions into waters around the disputed islands, known as the Diaoyus in China. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden congratulates Japan's new PM Kishida on phone call, both confirm strong alliance

US President Joe Biden vowed to get his domestic agenda over the line as he visited the US Congress to energize Democrats negotiating over twin make-or-break spending bills.

Joe Biden visits US Congress, vows to reach an agreement on twin make-or-break spending bills

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution."

Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided.

Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/activists-say-texas-anti-abortion-law-shows-terrifying-fragility-of-womens-rights-414113">Also read |&nbsp;Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights</a>

However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?"

Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights.

"The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest."

Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades.

As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care. Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution." Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided. Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent. Also read | Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?" Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights. "The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest." Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades. As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law

US President Joe Biden, on Thursday night, signed Congress stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown and extend government funding through December 3 according to the White House.

United States: Government shutdown averted

Within 10 months into his presidency, Joe Biden already seems to be taking a massive hit in the approval ratings. According to an opinion poll, the public opinion of Biden has further declined compared to August. Susan Tehrani brings you more information.

United States: Poll shows declining approval for Joe Biden

joe-biden

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

joe biden