US Department of Justice on Thursday moved a motion to unseal&nbsp;portions of the search warrant that was used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct a raid at former President Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida.&nbsp;

Reportedly,&nbsp;Attorney General Merrick Garland, addressing a press briefing for the first time since the&nbsp;raid revealed that he had 'personally approved' of the action and that his lawyers were filing the motion to make the warrant public after observing public's 'clear' and 'powerful' interest in the case.&nbsp;

“The Department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president’s public confirmation with the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter,” said&nbsp;Garland.&nbsp;

Read More:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trumps-mar-a-lago-home-raided-by-fbi-505000">Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago home raided by FBI, in first such action on an ex-US president</a>

According to DoJ, the warrant was confirmed by a court in Florida upon finding a 'probable cause'. Moreover, the information about the raid was communicated to Trump's counsel directly and that the department did not make any public announcement while the raid took place.

However, later on the same day, Trump issued a public statement and since then, the matter had become a significant public issue, generating interest from media organisations and other entities.&nbsp;

When questioned about the motive behind the raid and what it attempted to find,&nbsp;Garland did not give much as the issue pertained to classified documents:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>“Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations."</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=“Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

As reported by WION, after the raid, Trump issued a public statement where he&nbsp;complained that the FBI officers had broken into his safe. He also added that the raid by FBI on his house was a&nbsp;weaponisation of the Justice System.

"It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponisation of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024, especially based on recent polls, and who will likewise do anything to stop Republicans and Conservatives in the upcoming Midterm Elections." said Trump.&nbsp;

Read More:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/armed-man-attempts-to-breach-fbi-office-in-cincinnati-fires-shots-at-troops-in-pursuit-506043">Armed man attempts to breach FBI office in Cincinnati; fires shots at troops in pursuit</a>

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US Department of Justice on Thursday moved a motion to unseal portions of the search warrant that was used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct a raid at former President Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida.

US Department of Justice on Thursday moved a motion to unseal portions of the search warrant that was used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct a raid at former President Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida. Reportedly, Attorney General Merrick Garland, addressing a press briefing for the first time since the raid revealed that he had 'personally approved' of the action and that his lawyers were filing the motion to make the warrant public after observing public's 'clear' and 'powerful' interest in the case. “The Department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president’s public confirmation with the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter,” said Garland. Read More: Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago home raided by FBI, in first such action on an ex-US president According to DoJ, the warrant was confirmed by a court in Florida upon finding a 'probable cause'. Moreover, the information about the raid was communicated to Trump's counsel directly and that the department did not make any public announcement while the raid took place. However, later on the same day, Trump issued a public statement and since then, the matter had become a significant public issue, generating interest from media organisations and other entities. When questioned about the motive behind the raid and what it attempted to find, Garland did not give much as the issue pertained to classified documents: “Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations." × As reported by WION, after the raid, Trump issued a public statement where he complained that the FBI officers had broken into his safe. He also added that the raid by FBI on his house was a weaponisation of the Justice System. "It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponisation of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024, especially based on recent polls, and who will likewise do anything to stop Republicans and Conservatives in the upcoming Midterm Elections." said Trump. Read More: Armed man attempts to breach FBI office in Cincinnati; fires shots at troops in pursuit (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Department of Justice to unseal Trump's search warrant, says Attorney General Merrick Garland

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed the historic Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, which paves the way for healthcare facilities and coverage for millions of US military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits during their service.

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed the historic Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, which paves the way for healthcare facilities and coverage for millions of US military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits during their service. After signing the legislation, President Biden stated, “We owe you [veterans]. You’re the steel. You’re the sinew. You’re the very fiber that makes this country what it is.” The Democrat leader further added, “The PACT Act is the least we can do for the countless men and women, many of whom may be in this room, for all I know, who suffered toxic exposure while serving their country.” GOP had tanked the bill earlier As reported by WION, the bill was tanked last month by the GOP lawmakers which invited widespread criticism. At the time, Republican senators such as Ted Cruz, Steve Daines and several others were seen fist bumping each other after tanking the bill. The video of the same had gone viral on social media platforms. Most of the netizens were of the view that the GOP senators should have kept their political differences aside and voted for a bill that was for the benefit of the veterans who protected the country. Senate Republicans BLOCKED the #PACTAct, critical health care for veterans with illness caused by toxic burn pits. Even though many Republicans supported it just weeks ago. And they celebrated. pic.twitter.com/fAWIVrwB0A — Senate Democrats (@SenateDems) July 28, 2022 × WATCH: Republican senators fist-bump after tanking a healthcare bill for military veterans However, after the controversy snowballed, the Republicans regrouped and decided on a change in strategy. Reportedly, the legislation was brought back to the house last week and it, fortunately, passed with an 86-11 vote. What is the PACT Act? It is pertinent to note that the PACT Act came into being after the death of Ohio soldier Heath Robinson in 2020. The army veteran was deployed in Kosovo and Iraq during his military days. However, the excessive exposure to burn pits led Robison to develop a rare form of lung cancer, which ultimately became the cause of his death. The burn pits used in west Asian countries like Afghanistan and Iraq were used to dispose of human waste, tires, chemicals, plastic waste, medical equipment and myriad other items. However, when the veterans complained about suffering life-threatening diseases due to the exposure, they were denied the claims. The passing of the legislation makes sure that veterans can avail the benefits and treat the illness without any more bottlenecks. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Biden signs the healthcare bill for military veterans; Republicans finally come on board

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday claimed that the US economy had 'zero inflation' in the month of July, inviting seething criticism from Republicans across the board for trying to manipulate the numbers and present a rosy picture.&nbsp;

Prior to the signing of the historic Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, Biden said, "Before I begin today, I want to say a word about the news that came out today relative to the economy. Actually, I just want to say a number: Zero."

The President further added, “Here’s what that means: while the price of some things go up, went up last month, the price of other things went down by the same amount. The result? Zero inflation last month."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 President Joe Biden says "our economy had zero percent inflation in July." <a href="https://t.co/A4UBh4rFH4">pic.twitter.com/A4UBh4rFH4</a>
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) <a href="https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1557378804481507328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2022</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>

Biden's version was propounded further by&nbsp;White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre who tweeted, "We just received news that our economy had 0% inflation in July. While the price of some things went up, the price of others, like gas, clothing, and more, dropped."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We just received news that our economy had 0% inflation in July. While the price of some things went up, the price of others, like gas, clothing, and more, dropped.
— Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec) <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1557374758433525761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2022</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>

Read more:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-signs-the-healthcare-bill-for-military-veterans-republicans-finally-come-on-board-505726">&nbsp;Biden signs the healthcare bill for military veterans; Republicans finally come on board</a>

While Biden may have been technically right, the overall picture was quite different. The Consumer Price Index report released on the same day revealed that the rate of inflation was down&nbsp;0.6 per cent from June's 9.1 per cent but it certainly did not mean that inflation had reached the magical 'zero' per cent mark.

The inflation rate for the month of July stood at 8.5 per cent, majorly due to a drop in fuel prices. However, if compared to year-on-year numbers, the inflation rate was still touching a 40-year record high and consumers were bearing the brunt of it.&nbsp;

“The all items less food and energy index rose 5.9 per cent over the last 12 months.&nbsp;The energy index increased 32.9 per cent for the 12 months ending July, a smaller increase than the 41.6 per cent increase for the period ending June. The food index increased 10.9 per cent over the last year, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending May 1979.” the official Consumer Price Index report read.&nbsp;

Republicans have a field day&nbsp;

As soon as Biden's comments went viral, the Republican lawmakers started taking potshots at the President and his 'torturous' math.

Republican leader Virginia Foxx from North Carolina stated, “The Biden Administration has a tortured relationship with math."

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz took to Twitter to state, "Ridiculous BS from the White House. There’s 8.5% inflation and basically everything anyone ever buys went up in price. This is just cruel gaslighting from the Biden admin."

As reported by WION,&nbsp;US has been facing its worst bout of economic slowdown in recent times. The economy has contracted for two successive quarters which suggests that a recession has set in place.&nbsp;A recent Bloomberg survey stated that there was a 40 per cent chance that the country will slip&nbsp;into a recession by next year.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/zero-probability-of-recession-in-india-while-us-has-a-40-per-cent-chance-study-500793">Zero probability of recession in India while US has a 40 per cent chance: Study</a>

Meanwhile, to counter inflation, the Biden administration has brought the ambitious $740 billion&nbsp;Inflation Reduction Act. However, the bill is yet to be approved in the House.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday claimed that the US economy had 'zero inflation' in the month of July, inviting seething criticism from Republicans across the board for trying to manipulate the numbers and present a rosy picture.

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday claimed that the US economy had 'zero inflation' in the month of July, inviting seething criticism from Republicans across the board for trying to manipulate the numbers and present a rosy picture. Prior to the signing of the historic Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, Biden said, "Before I begin today, I want to say a word about the news that came out today relative to the economy. Actually, I just want to say a number: Zero." The President further added, “Here’s what that means: while the price of some things go up, went up last month, the price of other things went down by the same amount. The result? Zero inflation last month." JUST IN: 🇺🇸 President Joe Biden says "our economy had zero percent inflation in July." pic.twitter.com/A4UBh4rFH4 — Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) August 10, 2022 × Biden's version was propounded further by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre who tweeted, "We just received news that our economy had 0% inflation in July. While the price of some things went up, the price of others, like gas, clothing, and more, dropped." We just received news that our economy had 0% inflation in July. While the price of some things went up, the price of others, like gas, clothing, and more, dropped. — Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec) August 10, 2022 × Read more: Biden signs the healthcare bill for military veterans; Republicans finally come on board While Biden may have been technically right, the overall picture was quite different. The Consumer Price Index report released on the same day revealed that the rate of inflation was down 0.6 per cent from June's 9.1 per cent but it certainly did not mean that inflation had reached the magical 'zero' per cent mark. The inflation rate for the month of July stood at 8.5 per cent, majorly due to a drop in fuel prices. However, if compared to year-on-year numbers, the inflation rate was still touching a 40-year record high and consumers were bearing the brunt of it. “The all items less food and energy index rose 5.9 per cent over the last 12 months. The energy index increased 32.9 per cent for the 12 months ending July, a smaller increase than the 41.6 per cent increase for the period ending June. The food index increased 10.9 per cent over the last year, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending May 1979.” the official Consumer Price Index report read. Republicans have a field day As soon as Biden's comments went viral, the Republican lawmakers started taking potshots at the President and his 'torturous' math. Republican leader Virginia Foxx from North Carolina stated, “The Biden Administration has a tortured relationship with math." Meanwhile, Ted Cruz took to Twitter to state, "Ridiculous BS from the White House. There’s 8.5% inflation and basically everything anyone ever buys went up in price. This is just cruel gaslighting from the Biden admin." As reported by WION, US has been facing its worst bout of economic slowdown in recent times. The economy has contracted for two successive quarters which suggests that a recession has set in place. A recent Bloomberg survey stated that there was a 40 per cent chance that the country will slip into a recession by next year. Read more: Zero probability of recession in India while US has a 40 per cent chance: Study Meanwhile, to counter inflation, the Biden administration has brought the ambitious $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act. However, the bill is yet to be approved in the House. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

President Biden claims US had ‘zero per cent inflation’ in July; gets trolled by Republicans

The US Senate has passed Democrats-endorsed $750 billion health care, tax and climate bill, in a major victory for President Joe Biden ahead of crucial midterm elections in November.

After a 27-hour marathon discussion over the weekend where the Republicans tried to derail the package, the Senate on Sunday approved the legislation known as the Inflation Reduction Act by a 51-50 party line vote with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote.

The bill will be tabled next in the Democrat-controlled House, which is expected to take on Friday. After it gets passed, the bill will be sent to the White House for Biden’s signature. In a statement, Biden said he looked forward to signing the bill into law.

“Today, Senate Democrats sided with American families over special interests. I ran for President promising to make government work for working families again, and that is what this bill does — period,” Biden said in a statement from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

He urged the House to pass the bill as soon as possible. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her chamber would “move swiftly to send this bill to the president’s desk.”

The legislation, if signed into law, would allocate $369 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in renewable energy sources.

Further, it will lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and capping Medicare recipients’ out-of-pocket prescription drug prices at $2,000 a year.

Those who receive health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace are also expected to see lower premium costs.

The bill also proposes a new corporate minimum tax, a 1 per cent excise tax on stock buybacks and stricter enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The US Senate has passed Democrats-endorsed $750 billion health care, tax and climate bill, in a major victory for President Joe Biden ahead of crucial midterm elections in November.

The US Senate has passed Democrats-endorsed $750 billion health care, tax and climate bill, in a major victory for President Joe Biden ahead of crucial midterm elections in November. After a 27-hour marathon discussion over the weekend where the Republicans tried to derail the package, the Senate on Sunday approved the legislation known as the Inflation Reduction Act by a 51-50 party line vote with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. The bill will be tabled next in the Democrat-controlled House, which is expected to take on Friday. After it gets passed, the bill will be sent to the White House for Biden’s signature. In a statement, Biden said he looked forward to signing the bill into law. “Today, Senate Democrats sided with American families over special interests. I ran for President promising to make government work for working families again, and that is what this bill does — period,” Biden said in a statement from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. He urged the House to pass the bill as soon as possible. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her chamber would “move swiftly to send this bill to the president’s desk.” The legislation, if signed into law, would allocate $369 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in renewable energy sources. Further, it will lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and capping Medicare recipients’ out-of-pocket prescription drug prices at $2,000 a year. Those who receive health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace are also expected to see lower premium costs. The bill also proposes a new corporate minimum tax, a 1 per cent excise tax on stock buybacks and stricter enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

In a major victory for Biden, US Senate passes $750bn healthcare and climate bill 

Donald Trump has hinted at a rally that his decision to announce another run for the White House can wait until after this year's midterm polls, but a growing number of Republicans are openly cheering for a competitive primary field in 2024.

WION Fineprint: Donald Trump to announce 2024 White House bid soon?

Things Republicans believe are responsible for mass shootings. Here's a hint, it's not guns

On Thursday, the Oklahoma state legislature passed a bill that lays a ban on abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy.

The bill was passed in the Oklahoma House by a large majority, and even as it includes exceptions for medical emergencies, it has no provisions for cases involving rape and incest.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/even-as-us-introduces-gender-neutral-passports-these-states-still-have-archaic-anti-transgender-laws-470479">Even as US introduces gender-neutral passports, these states still have archaic anti-transgender laws</a>

It has already passed the Senate and is now on its way to Republican governor Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign it.

This bill is modelled on a similar bill by Oklahoma’s neighbouring state Texas, which unveiled the controversial law that triggered many protests last year.

Popularly known as the "Heartbeat Bill", the Texas law bans abortions after a foetal heartbeat can be detected, which is typically around 1.5 months or sex weeks of gestation period. It also allows members of the public to sue abortion providers and seekers, as a way of enforcing the law.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas Plus: Why are women being denied the Right to abortion?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-why-are-women-being-denied-the-right-to-abortion-388449/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Oklahoma bill is similar and it threatens to cause further problems for women from the neighbouring state of Texas.

Since the heartbeat law came into force in September last year, Texan neighbour states like Oklahoma have seen a flood of patients seeking abortions. This has led to long wait times and maxed out clinic capacities.

Now, with a similar law in Oklahoma, these patients would have to go farther and farther.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/texas-abortion-law-creates-a-kind-of-bounty-hunter-heres-how-it-works-412647">Texas abortion law creates a kind of bounty hunter. Here’s how it works</a>

"Oklahoma is a critical state for abortion access right now, with many Texans fleeing to Oklahoma for abortion care," the Center for Reproductive Rights' Nancy Northup said in a tweet announcing her organisation’s plan to legally challenge the law.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“Oklahoma is a critical state for abortion access right now, with many Texans fleeing to Oklahoma for abortion care. These bans would further decimate abortion access across the South.” —Nancy Northup, Center president and CEO
— Center for Reproductive Rights (@ReproRights) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReproRights/status/1519791901523726341?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 28, 2022</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>

What needs to be noted is that Oklahoma is only the latest Republican-controlled state to take this step. Earlier, not only Texas but also Mississippi and Florida passed laws restricting abortion. The question that poses itself: Why is America retreating into the past as the world moves toward equality?

Watch WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

(With inputs from agencies)

On Thursday, the Oklahoma state legislature passed a bill that lays a ban on abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy. The bill was passed in the Oklahoma House by a large majority, and even as it includes exceptions for medical emergencies, it has no provisions for cases involving rape and incest.

On Thursday, the Oklahoma state legislature passed a bill that lays a ban on abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy. The bill was passed in the Oklahoma House by a large majority, and even as it includes exceptions for medical emergencies, it has no provisions for cases involving rape and incest. Also read | Even as US introduces gender-neutral passports, these states still have archaic anti-transgender laws It has already passed the Senate and is now on its way to Republican governor Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign it. This bill is modelled on a similar bill by Oklahoma’s neighbouring state Texas, which unveiled the controversial law that triggered many protests last year. Popularly known as the "Heartbeat Bill", the Texas law bans abortions after a foetal heartbeat can be detected, which is typically around 1.5 months or sex weeks of gestation period. It also allows members of the public to sue abortion providers and seekers, as a way of enforcing the law. Watch | Gravitas Plus: Why are women being denied the Right to abortion? The Oklahoma bill is similar and it threatens to cause further problems for women from the neighbouring state of Texas. Since the heartbeat law came into force in September last year, Texan neighbour states like Oklahoma have seen a flood of patients seeking abortions. This has led to long wait times and maxed out clinic capacities. Now, with a similar law in Oklahoma, these patients would have to go farther and farther. Also read | Texas abortion law creates a kind of bounty hunter. Here’s how it works "Oklahoma is a critical state for abortion access right now, with many Texans fleeing to Oklahoma for abortion care," the Center for Reproductive Rights' Nancy Northup said in a tweet announcing her organisation’s plan to legally challenge the law. “Oklahoma is a critical state for abortion access right now, with many Texans fleeing to Oklahoma for abortion care. These bans would further decimate abortion access across the South.” —Nancy Northup, Center president and CEO — Center for Reproductive Rights (@ReproRights) April 28, 2022 × What needs to be noted is that Oklahoma is only the latest Republican-controlled state to take this step. Earlier, not only Texas but also Mississippi and Florida passed laws restricting abortion. The question that poses itself: Why is America retreating into the past as the world moves toward equality? Watch WION LIVE HERE: (With inputs from agencies)

First Texas, now Oklahoma: Republican-led state passes law banning abortion after 6 weeks

Incendiary US conservative and former vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin announced Friday she is running for&nbsp;Alaska's lone seat in the United States House of Representatives, eyeing a return to national politics during a period of deep political division.

The 58-year-old far-right former governor is seeking to succeed Republican Don Young who died unexpectedly last month after serving in the US House for 49 years.

Palin is a fierce supporter of Donald Trump, and has joined with the former president in making unfounded claims that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-former-president-donald-trump-may-answer-questions-in-court-thanks-to-grant-467662">Reggae singer Eddy Grant stumps Trump, former US president may face court</a>

"America is at a tipping point," she said in a statement on Facebook announcing her candidacy. "As I've watched the far left destroy the country, I knew I had to step up and join the fight."

The US midterm elections, in which all 435 House seats are up for grabs, is set for November 8.

While the largest US state by area,&nbsp;Alaska&nbsp;has only one representative in the House, due to its sparse population.

Palin was Republican nominee John McCain's running mate during his 2008 presidential election, in which the duo lost to Barack Obama and his vice presidential pick, then senator Joe Biden.

Palin served as&nbsp;Alaska's governor from 2006 until 2009, when she resigned and emerged as a darling of the conservative Tea Party movement.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/maple-syrup-heist-thief-needs-to-pay-victims-us-7-mn-or-serve-6-more-years-in-canadian-jail-467670">&nbsp;‘Maple syrup heist’ thief needs to pay victims US $7 mn&nbsp;or serve 6 more years in Canadian jail</a>

As an anti-establishment flamethrower capable of electrifying the Republican base, she is widely seen as the political precursor to Trump.

In the statement announcing her candidacy, Palin painted a nation in crisis under President Biden, decrying a surge in illegal immigration, "out-of-control inflation," high gas prices and "socialist" policies enacted by Democrats.

In February, a Manhattan judge tossed out a defamation case Palin had brought against The New York Times.

Watch |&nbsp;Pakistan PM Imran Khan sends demarche to US embassy amid political crisis

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-pm-imran-khan-sends-demarche-to-us-embassy-amid-political-crisis-467619/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

&nbsp;

Incendiary US conservative and former vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin announced Friday she is running for Alaska's lone seat in the United States House of Representatives, eyeing a return to national politics during a period of deep political division.

Incendiary US conservative and former vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin announced Friday she is running for Alaska's lone seat in the United States House of Representatives, eyeing a return to national politics during a period of deep political division. The 58-year-old far-right former governor is seeking to succeed Republican Don Young who died unexpectedly last month after serving in the US House for 49 years. Palin is a fierce supporter of Donald Trump, and has joined with the former president in making unfounded claims that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud. Also read | Reggae singer Eddy Grant stumps Trump, former US president may face court "America is at a tipping point," she said in a statement on Facebook announcing her candidacy. "As I've watched the far left destroy the country, I knew I had to step up and join the fight." The US midterm elections, in which all 435 House seats are up for grabs, is set for November 8. While the largest US state by area, Alaska has only one representative in the House, due to its sparse population. Palin was Republican nominee John McCain's running mate during his 2008 presidential election, in which the duo lost to Barack Obama and his vice presidential pick, then senator Joe Biden. Palin served as Alaska's governor from 2006 until 2009, when she resigned and emerged as a darling of the conservative Tea Party movement. Also read | ‘Maple syrup heist’ thief needs to pay victims US $7 mn or serve 6 more years in Canadian jail As an anti-establishment flamethrower capable of electrifying the Republican base, she is widely seen as the political precursor to Trump. In the statement announcing her candidacy, Palin painted a nation in crisis under President Biden, decrying a surge in illegal immigration, "out-of-control inflation," high gas prices and "socialist" policies enacted by Democrats. In February, a Manhattan judge tossed out a defamation case Palin had brought against The New York Times. Watch | Pakistan PM Imran Khan sends demarche to US embassy amid political crisis

Conservative firebrand Sarah Palin announces bid for US Congress

Early one morning in November 2019, Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., received a profanity-laden voice mail message at his office in which the caller identified himself as a trained sharpshooter and said he wanted to blow the congressman’s head off.

Two years earlier, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., received a similar voice mail message from an irate man who falsely accused her of threatening President Donald Trump’s life. “If you do it again, you’re dead,” he said, punctuating the statement with expletives and a racial epithet against Waters, who is Black.

The cases were part of a New York Times review of more than 75 indictments of people charged with threatening lawmakers since 2016. The flurry of cases shed light on a chilling trend: In recent years, and particularly since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, a growing number of Americans have taken ideological grievance and political outrage to a new level, lodging concrete threats of violence against members of Congress.

The threats have come in almost every conceivable combination: Republicans threatening Democrats, Democrats threatening Republicans, Republicans threatening Republicans. Many of them, the review showed, were fueled by forces that have long dominated politics, including deep partisan divisions and a media landscape that stokes resentment.

But they surged during Trump’s time in office and in its aftermath, as the former president’s own violent language fueled a mainstreaming of menacing political speech and lawmakers used charged words and imagery to describe the stakes of the political moment. Far-right members of Congress have hinted that their followers should be prepared to take up arms and fight to save the country.

Overall, threats against members of Congress reached a record high of 9,600 last year, according to data provided by the Capitol Police, double the previous year’s total. In the first three months of 2021 alone, the Capitol Police fielded more than 4,100 threats against lawmakers in the House and Senate.

“We’re barely keeping our head above water for those investigations,” J. Thomas Manger, the Capitol Police chief, testified last month. “We’re going to have to nearly double the number of agents who work those threat cases.”

Early one morning in November 2019, Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., received a profanity-laden voice mail message at his office in which the caller identified himself as a trained sharpshooter and said he wanted to blow the congressman’s head off.

Early one morning in November 2019, Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., received a profanity-laden voice mail message at his office in which the caller identified himself as a trained sharpshooter and said he wanted to blow the congressman’s head off. Two years earlier, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., received a similar voice mail message from an irate man who falsely accused her of threatening President Donald Trump’s life. “If you do it again, you’re dead,” he said, punctuating the statement with expletives and a racial epithet against Waters, who is Black. The cases were part of a New York Times review of more than 75 indictments of people charged with threatening lawmakers since 2016. The flurry of cases shed light on a chilling trend: In recent years, and particularly since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, a growing number of Americans have taken ideological grievance and political outrage to a new level, lodging concrete threats of violence against members of Congress. The threats have come in almost every conceivable combination: Republicans threatening Democrats, Democrats threatening Republicans, Republicans threatening Republicans. Many of them, the review showed, were fueled by forces that have long dominated politics, including deep partisan divisions and a media landscape that stokes resentment. But they surged during Trump’s time in office and in its aftermath, as the former president’s own violent language fueled a mainstreaming of menacing political speech and lawmakers used charged words and imagery to describe the stakes of the political moment. Far-right members of Congress have hinted that their followers should be prepared to take up arms and fight to save the country. Overall, threats against members of Congress reached a record high of 9,600 last year, according to data provided by the Capitol Police, double the previous year’s total. In the first three months of 2021 alone, the Capitol Police fielded more than 4,100 threats against lawmakers in the House and Senate. “We’re barely keeping our head above water for those investigations,” J. Thomas Manger, the Capitol Police chief, testified last month. “We’re going to have to nearly double the number of agents who work those threat cases.”

One menacing call after another: Threats against lawmakers surge

Reprising the rigged-election belief that has become a mantra among their supporters, Republican politicians in at least three states are proposing to establish police forces to hunt exclusively for voter fraud and other election crimes, a category of offenses that experts say is tiny at best.

The plans are part of a new wave of initiatives that Republicans say are directed at voter fraud. They are being condemned by voting rights advocates and even some local election supervisors, who call them costly and unnecessary appeasement of the Republican base that will select primary-election winners for this November’s midterms and the 2024 presidential race.

The next round of voting clashes comes after the apparent demise of Democratic voting rights legislation in Washington on Thursday. It is a reminder that although the Democratic agenda in Washington seems dead, Republican state-level efforts to make voting harder show no sign of slowing down.

Supporters say the added enforcement will root out instances of fraud and assure the public that everything possible is being done to make sure that American elections are accurate and legitimate. Critics say the efforts can easily be abused and used as political cudgels or efforts to intimidate people from registering and voting. And Democrats say the main reason Republican voters have lost faith in the electoral system is because of the incessant Republican focus on almost entirely imagined fraud.

The most concrete proposal is in Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis asked the state Legislature last week for $5.7 million to create a 52-person “election crimes and security” force in the secretary of state’s office. The plan, which DeSantis has been touting since fall, would include 20 sworn police officers and field offices statewide.

That was followed Thursday by a pledge by David Perdue, the former Georgia senator who is a Republican candidate for governor, to create his own force of election police “to make Georgia elections the safest and securest in the country.” Perdue, who lost his Senate seat in 2020, claimed that Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican seeking reelection, weakened election standards and refused to investigate claims of fraud after President Joe Biden’s narrow win in the state.

In Arizona, state Sen. Wendy Rogers, a vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump’s lies about a stolen election, has filed legislation to establish a $5 million “bureau of elections” in the governor’s office with the power to subpoena witnesses and impound election equipment.

Rogers' bill probably faces an uphill road in the Legislature, where Republicans are only narrowly in control and have been battered for their support of a widely ridiculed multimillion-dollar inquiry into 2020 election results. Prospects for the Florida and Georgia proposals are less clear.

The proposals are the latest twist in a decadeslong crusade by Republicans against election fraud that has grown rapidly since Trump’s election loss in 2020 and his false claim that victory was stolen from him.

DeSantis took a tough line in November when he unveiled his proposal, saying the new unit would chase crimes that local election officials shrug at. “There’ll be people, if you see someone ballot harvesting, you know, what do you do? If you call into the election office, a lot of times they don’t do anything,” he said at an appearance in West Palm Beach.

“I guarantee you this,” he added. “The first person that gets caught, no one is going to want to do it again after that.”

None of the three states — and for that matter, none of the other 47 and the District of Columbia — reported any more than a minuscule number of election fraud cases after the 2020 races. DeSantis said after the 2020 vote that his was “the state that did it right and that other states should emulate.” The only notable hint of irregularity in Florida was the recent arrest on fraud charges of four men in a retirement complex north of Orlando. At least two of them appeared to be winter Floridians accused of casting ballots both there and in more frigid states to the north.

But DeSantis and Perdue say their strike forces are still needed to root out other election irregularities and to bolster their constituents’ sagging faith in the honesty of the vote. The same rationale has powered so-called audits of election results and clampdowns on election rules by Republican-run legislatures across the country.

Sweeping election-law revisions enacted by Florida and Georgia legislators last spring sharply limit the use of popular drop boxes for submitting absentee ballots, require identification to obtain mail-in ballots, make it harder to conduct voter-registration drives, and restrict or ban interactions — such as handing out snacks or water — with voters waiting in line to cast ballots.

Trump comfortably won Florida by about 370,000 votes in 2020, and his narrow losses in Arizona and Georgia were confirmed by expert audits, recounts and even the notorious Cyber Ninjas inquiry into the vote in Maricopa County.

“We don’t need further investigations into elections that are freely and fairly conducted,” said Alex Gulotta, Arizona director of the advocacy group All Voting Is Local. “We’ve established that again and again and again. This is more pablum to the people who believe in fraud and conspiracy theories and lies that the last election was stolen.”

Neither the new laws nor election autopsies appear to have shaken the conviction of many Trump supporters that the election system is suspect. Some scholars say they see the police forces as the latest bid by politicians to scratch that itch.

Bids to curb so-called fraud are becoming standard for Republican candidates who want to win over voters, Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in an interview. “Whoever is the nominee in 2024, whether it’s Trump or anyone else, it will likely be part of their platform,” Burden said.

The idea of an election police force is not new, even in the states where they are being proposed. In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger already oversees 23 investigators whose purview includes election irregularities, and an assistant state attorney general exclusively prosecutes crimes in elections, the judiciary and local governments. The Arizona attorney general manages a relatively new “election integrity” investigative unit, and Florida election violations are prosecuted by both state and local authorities, as is true in most states.

Reprising the rigged-election belief that has become a mantra among their supporters, Republican politicians in at least three states are proposing to establish police forces to hunt exclusively for voter fraud and other election crimes, a category of offenses that experts say is tiny at best.

Reprising the rigged-election belief that has become a mantra among their supporters, Republican politicians in at least three states are proposing to establish police forces to hunt exclusively for voter fraud and other election crimes, a category of offenses that experts say is tiny at best. The plans are part of a new wave of initiatives that Republicans say are directed at voter fraud. They are being condemned by voting rights advocates and even some local election supervisors, who call them costly and unnecessary appeasement of the Republican base that will select primary-election winners for this November’s midterms and the 2024 presidential race. The next round of voting clashes comes after the apparent demise of Democratic voting rights legislation in Washington on Thursday. It is a reminder that although the Democratic agenda in Washington seems dead, Republican state-level efforts to make voting harder show no sign of slowing down. Supporters say the added enforcement will root out instances of fraud and assure the public that everything possible is being done to make sure that American elections are accurate and legitimate. Critics say the efforts can easily be abused and used as political cudgels or efforts to intimidate people from registering and voting. And Democrats say the main reason Republican voters have lost faith in the electoral system is because of the incessant Republican focus on almost entirely imagined fraud. The most concrete proposal is in Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis asked the state Legislature last week for $5.7 million to create a 52-person “election crimes and security” force in the secretary of state’s office. The plan, which DeSantis has been touting since fall, would include 20 sworn police officers and field offices statewide. That was followed Thursday by a pledge by David Perdue, the former Georgia senator who is a Republican candidate for governor, to create his own force of election police “to make Georgia elections the safest and securest in the country.” Perdue, who lost his Senate seat in 2020, claimed that Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican seeking reelection, weakened election standards and refused to investigate claims of fraud after President Joe Biden’s narrow win in the state. In Arizona, state Sen. Wendy Rogers, a vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump’s lies about a stolen election, has filed legislation to establish a $5 million “bureau of elections” in the governor’s office with the power to subpoena witnesses and impound election equipment. Rogers' bill probably faces an uphill road in the Legislature, where Republicans are only narrowly in control and have been battered for their support of a widely ridiculed multimillion-dollar inquiry into 2020 election results. Prospects for the Florida and Georgia proposals are less clear. The proposals are the latest twist in a decadeslong crusade by Republicans against election fraud that has grown rapidly since Trump’s election loss in 2020 and his false claim that victory was stolen from him. DeSantis took a tough line in November when he unveiled his proposal, saying the new unit would chase crimes that local election officials shrug at. “There’ll be people, if you see someone ballot harvesting, you know, what do you do? If you call into the election office, a lot of times they don’t do anything,” he said at an appearance in West Palm Beach. “I guarantee you this,” he added. “The first person that gets caught, no one is going to want to do it again after that.” None of the three states — and for that matter, none of the other 47 and the District of Columbia — reported any more than a minuscule number of election fraud cases after the 2020 races. DeSantis said after the 2020 vote that his was “the state that did it right and that other states should emulate.” The only notable hint of irregularity in Florida was the recent arrest on fraud charges of four men in a retirement complex north of Orlando. At least two of them appeared to be winter Floridians accused of casting ballots both there and in more frigid states to the north. But DeSantis and Perdue say their strike forces are still needed to root out other election irregularities and to bolster their constituents’ sagging faith in the honesty of the vote. The same rationale has powered so-called audits of election results and clampdowns on election rules by Republican-run legislatures across the country. Sweeping election-law revisions enacted by Florida and Georgia legislators last spring sharply limit the use of popular drop boxes for submitting absentee ballots, require identification to obtain mail-in ballots, make it harder to conduct voter-registration drives, and restrict or ban interactions — such as handing out snacks or water — with voters waiting in line to cast ballots. Trump comfortably won Florida by about 370,000 votes in 2020, and his narrow losses in Arizona and Georgia were confirmed by expert audits, recounts and even the notorious Cyber Ninjas inquiry into the vote in Maricopa County. “We don’t need further investigations into elections that are freely and fairly conducted,” said Alex Gulotta, Arizona director of the advocacy group All Voting Is Local. “We’ve established that again and again and again. This is more pablum to the people who believe in fraud and conspiracy theories and lies that the last election was stolen.” Neither the new laws nor election autopsies appear to have shaken the conviction of many Trump supporters that the election system is suspect. Some scholars say they see the police forces as the latest bid by politicians to scratch that itch. Bids to curb so-called fraud are becoming standard for Republican candidates who want to win over voters, Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in an interview. “Whoever is the nominee in 2024, whether it’s Trump or anyone else, it will likely be part of their platform,” Burden said. The idea of an election police force is not new, even in the states where they are being proposed. In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger already oversees 23 investigators whose purview includes election irregularities, and an assistant state attorney general exclusively prosecutes crimes in elections, the judiciary and local governments. The Arizona attorney general manages a relatively new “election integrity” investigative unit, and Florida election violations are prosecuted by both state and local authorities, as is true in most states.

Republicans want new tool in elusive search for voter fraud: Election police

RNC Chair McDaniel has written to the debate commission to change some of its rules. Now, Will Republicans skip debates?

US: Will the debate commission change its rules?

The protests of summer 2020 may have been not only some of the biggest in the country, but also some of the biggest in the world.

Millions took to streets to condemn the racism that pervades modern life, as well as decades of past injustice. Protesters called for accountability across the ages. The oppressive policies and practices of this era as well as those of yore were tied up together, a continuum, and all of them had to be brought down, their perpetrators brought to justice.

The lies America had told itself about the degree and severity of its oppression were put on trial. The American narrative was put on trial. And it didn’t fare well.

There was a great movement for many toward enlightenment, a mass removing of scales from eyes. Industries responded, schools responded, individual citizens responded.

Confederate monuments came down, and social justice monuments went up, sometimes with paint on streets and sometimes in ways that were more permanent.

The change was swift. But, predictably, so has been the backlash. The response has particularly taken hold and found a form in the campaign to ban the proper teaching of America’s racial history in schools.

The Republicans behind those bills can bang on about how they are banning the teaching of critical race theory, but what they are really banning is the teaching of the horrific history of white supremacy and how it spawned the oppression of nonwhite people.

The truth is that critical race theory is generally not taught in grade school, but that was never the point, in the same way that in the 2010s conservative lawmakers were never really concerned about what they called the threat of Shariah law in the United States when they introduced bills to ban it in American courts; what they wanted was to advance a racist, Islamophobic agenda.

As a 2019 report born of a partnership between USA Today, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity pointed out, conservative lawmakers had drawn on the same basic rubric for these bills, a model perfected and touted by a network of far-right activists and organizations like the Center for Security Policy, a think tank founded in the 1980s by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration official “who pushes conspiracy theories alleging radical Muslims have infiltrated the government.”

The report detailed how “at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.”

Critical race theory is the new Shariah law, a boogeyman the right can use to activate and harness the racist anti-otherness that is endemic to American conservatism.

Republican lawmakers learned long ago that a surefire way to activate their base was to stoke fears of cultural change and inclusion. They are constantly looking for new issues to hitch this wagon to, and they believe that they have found one this cycle in critical race theory.

Lawmakers have only just begun to push anti-CRT bills. Politico reported on Wednesday, “Legislators in at least a dozen Republican-controlled statehouses — including in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio — plan to push dozens of bills in upcoming legislative sessions that aim to halt teachings about race and society and give parents more say in what’s discussed in classrooms.”

Republicans believe that these bills could propel what one called a “huge red wave” in the midterms.

But the right’s opportunistic, politically motivated, repression-rooted culture war crusades are by no means new; they are enduring, central features of American politics.

You can see it in the recent rash of anti-trans bathroom bills, again largely focused on schools. One could argue that they are in part a backlash to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of gay marriage in 2015.

In 2006, there was a massive immigrant rights march. In 2007, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, with President George W. Bush’s support, pushed a comprehensive immigration bill. Although it failed, there was still backlash. Within a few years, scores of anti-immigrant bills would be passed.

As Mother Jones reported in 2012, between 2010 and 2011, state legislatures passed 164 of these measures, including so-called show-your-papers laws, which allowed the police to demand proof of immigration status from anyone they suspected of being in the country illegally.

You can see this same pattern in the wave of anti-gay marriage laws passed in the 1990s. In 1993, gay Hawaii couples won a procedural victory in their fight to marry in the state. The reaction was strong. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Soon after, states across the country passed their own anti-gay marriage laws. “Ultimately, 30 more states adopted constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage,” NBC News reported in 2020.

This list could go on and on, but there is only so much room on the internet. The point and pattern are clear: The right, and even some on the left, keep lashing out against cultural inclusion and liberation, and Republican politicians continue to exploit the panic.

Critical race theory isn’t really what’s being targeted right now, it is progress. And for Republican lawmakers, the issue is just the latest acid tablet they can place on the tongues of the members of their base to keep them raging and spastic.

The protests of summer 2020 may have been not only some of the biggest in the country, but also some of the biggest in the world. Millions took to streets to condemn the racism that pervades modern life, as well as decades of past injustice.

The protests of summer 2020 may have been not only some of the biggest in the country, but also some of the biggest in the world. Millions took to streets to condemn the racism that pervades modern life, as well as decades of past injustice. Protesters called for accountability across the ages. The oppressive policies and practices of this era as well as those of yore were tied up together, a continuum, and all of them had to be brought down, their perpetrators brought to justice. The lies America had told itself about the degree and severity of its oppression were put on trial. The American narrative was put on trial. And it didn’t fare well. There was a great movement for many toward enlightenment, a mass removing of scales from eyes. Industries responded, schools responded, individual citizens responded. Confederate monuments came down, and social justice monuments went up, sometimes with paint on streets and sometimes in ways that were more permanent. The change was swift. But, predictably, so has been the backlash. The response has particularly taken hold and found a form in the campaign to ban the proper teaching of America’s racial history in schools. The Republicans behind those bills can bang on about how they are banning the teaching of critical race theory, but what they are really banning is the teaching of the horrific history of white supremacy and how it spawned the oppression of nonwhite people. The truth is that critical race theory is generally not taught in grade school, but that was never the point, in the same way that in the 2010s conservative lawmakers were never really concerned about what they called the threat of Shariah law in the United States when they introduced bills to ban it in American courts; what they wanted was to advance a racist, Islamophobic agenda. As a 2019 report born of a partnership between USA Today, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity pointed out, conservative lawmakers had drawn on the same basic rubric for these bills, a model perfected and touted by a network of far-right activists and organizations like the Center for Security Policy, a think tank founded in the 1980s by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration official “who pushes conspiracy theories alleging radical Muslims have infiltrated the government.” The report detailed how “at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.” Critical race theory is the new Shariah law, a boogeyman the right can use to activate and harness the racist anti-otherness that is endemic to American conservatism. Republican lawmakers learned long ago that a surefire way to activate their base was to stoke fears of cultural change and inclusion. They are constantly looking for new issues to hitch this wagon to, and they believe that they have found one this cycle in critical race theory. Lawmakers have only just begun to push anti-CRT bills. Politico reported on Wednesday, “Legislators in at least a dozen Republican-controlled statehouses — including in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio — plan to push dozens of bills in upcoming legislative sessions that aim to halt teachings about race and society and give parents more say in what’s discussed in classrooms.” Republicans believe that these bills could propel what one called a “huge red wave” in the midterms. But the right’s opportunistic, politically motivated, repression-rooted culture war crusades are by no means new; they are enduring, central features of American politics. You can see it in the recent rash of anti-trans bathroom bills, again largely focused on schools. One could argue that they are in part a backlash to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of gay marriage in 2015. In 2006, there was a massive immigrant rights march. In 2007, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, with President George W. Bush’s support, pushed a comprehensive immigration bill. Although it failed, there was still backlash. Within a few years, scores of anti-immigrant bills would be passed. As Mother Jones reported in 2012, between 2010 and 2011, state legislatures passed 164 of these measures, including so-called show-your-papers laws, which allowed the police to demand proof of immigration status from anyone they suspected of being in the country illegally. You can see this same pattern in the wave of anti-gay marriage laws passed in the 1990s. In 1993, gay Hawaii couples won a procedural victory in their fight to marry in the state. The reaction was strong. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Soon after, states across the country passed their own anti-gay marriage laws. “Ultimately, 30 more states adopted constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage,” NBC News reported in 2020. This list could go on and on, but there is only so much room on the internet. The point and pattern are clear: The right, and even some on the left, keep lashing out against cultural inclusion and liberation, and Republican politicians continue to exploit the panic. Critical race theory isn’t really what’s being targeted right now, it is progress. And for Republican lawmakers, the issue is just the latest acid tablet they can place on the tongues of the members of their base to keep them raging and spastic.

The GOP is making 'critical race theory’ the new 'Shariah Law'

To left-leaning Democrats, Stacey Abrams, who is making her second run for Georgia governor, is a superstar: a nationally recognized voting-rights champion, a symbol of her state’s changing demographics, and a political visionary who registered and mobilized tens of thousands of new voters — the kind of grassroots organizing that progressives have long preached.

“I don’t think anyone could call Stacey Abrams a moderate,” said Aimee Allison, = founder of She the People, a progressive advocacy group for women of color.

Moderates would beg to differ. They see Abrams as an ally for rejecting left-wing policies that center-left Democrats have spurned, like “Medicare for All,” the Green New Deal to combat climate change and the defunding of law enforcement in response to police violence.

“I don’t know that anybody in the party can say, ‘She’s one of us,’ ” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, the center-left group. “We can’t pretend she’s a moderate,” he added. “But the progressives can’t say she’s a progressive and not a moderate. We’re both kind of right.”

The question of how to define Abrams, 48, the presumptive Democratic standard-bearer in one of the most high-profile races of 2022, takes on new urgency amid the current landscape of the party.

Moderates and progressives sparred in Washington throughout 2021, frustrating a White House struggling to achieve consensus on its priorities and continuing an ideological debate that has raged in the party for years. There is also thirst for new blood across the party, considering the advanced ages of President Joe Biden, congressional leaders, and leading progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

On a local level, whether Abrams maintains credibility with both Democratic wings may determine how well she can withstand Republican attacks. Those close to her campaign say they expect an extremely close race and that the key is holding the suburban moderates who supported her in 2018 while exciting enough of the new Georgia voters who have registered since that election.

Republicans in Georgia — who await Abrams in the general election — are eager to denounce her as a left-wing radical out of place in a state that was a GOP stronghold until it narrowly tipped into the Democratic column in 2020. Gov. Brian Kemp, who faces a fierce primary challenge in May from former Sen. David Perdue, who has the support of former President Donald Trump, has released five digital advertisements attacking Abrams since she announced her campaign Dec. 1.

“Stacey Abrams’ far-left agenda has no place in Georgia,” one warns ominously.

But a review of Abrams’ policy statements and television advertisements, and interviews with political figures who have known her for years, reveal a leader who has carefully calibrated her positions, making a point to avoid drifting into one Democratic lane or another.

Her allies say the fluidity is an asset and highlights how policy is only one way that voters choose which candidate to rally behind. Racial representation and the unique political context of the American South are also factors in whether a candidate can credibly claim progressive bona fides, they argue.

Steve Phillips, an early supporter and prominent progressive Democratic donor, said Abrams’ political strategy was progressive, even if her policy positions were more moderate.

“It’s hard for white progressives to be too critical of someone who is so strongly and fiercely unapologetically Black and female,” he said. “Her authenticity comes from the sectors that are the core parts of the progressive base.”

Abrams’ approach does carry risks. In the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, several candidates who sought to straddle the line between moderate and progressive policies lost the trust of significant numbers of voters in both camps, as activists pushed for firm commitments on issues like health care, climate change, expanding the Supreme Court and reparations for descendants of enslaved people.

At times, Abrams has used her perch to speak out against progressive causes and defend the Democratic establishment. She said attempts to defund police departments after the murder of George Floyd were creating a “false choice” and said departments should be reformed instead.

On health care, she has focused on expanding Medicaid rather than supporting a single-payer system. And in 2020, a think tank founded by Abrams released a climate plan focused on the South that embraced efforts to incentivize renewable energy but stopped short of the ambitious goals pushed by progressive activists and lawmakers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

But Ben Jealous, a former Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland who leads progressive group People for the American Way, said progressives should trust Abrams just the same. “The Green New Deal is designed for the industrialized unionized North,” he said. “And you’ve got to translate that into Southern.” He added, “She does that.”

Several of Abrams’ allies welcomed an examination of her policy record, arguing that characterizing her as a progressive only fueled Republican attacks.

Abrams declined to be interviewed for this article. Asked how she defined herself ideologically, a spokesperson, Seth Bringman, said she “defines herself by her values and her ability to deliver results for the common good by navigating disparate groups and ideologies.”

“She’s unwavering in her support for unions, and she worked with anti-union corporations to stop discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” he added. “She’s unapologetically pro-choice, and she coordinated with anti-choice legislators to pass criminal justice reform. She’s a capitalist who supports regulation and believes we can fight poverty while praising success.”

Such pragmatism has encouraged some moderates — including Georgians who served with Abrams in the state Capitol — to compare her to other center-left national figures who had credibility among the grassroots base, like Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Bennett said Abrams had demonstrated that she “wasn’t going to be pushed around by anybody in the party, from the center or from the left.”

He added, “That independence has made her a very viable candidate.”

Carolyn Hugley, a Georgia state representative who has known Abrams since 2011, said she had always sought to be seen as a “doer” and an organizer. As minority leader, Abrams, a budget wonk, aligned with Tea Party members and some religious groups to oppose a Republican tax reform bill.

“If you had asked me 10 years ago if voting rights was what she was going to be known for, I would probably say no,” Hugley said.

In Georgia, Abrams became known for her willingness to work with anyone, even if it led to a backlash. In 2011, she lent bipartisan credibility to an effort by Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican, to restructure the state’s scholarship program for low-income students. Several Democrats criticized her decision to stand with him at a news conference, saying it gave a gift to an incumbent who had sought to shrink the program and was an example of Abrams putting her own ambitions above the party’s long-term interests.

“It got misinterpreted,” said DuBose Porter, a former chair of the Georgia Democratic Party. “But the real Stacey Abrams will always come through. And that real Stacey Abrams is somebody that cares about the issues.”

Jealous, of People for the American Way, said he recalled Abrams encouraging him to reach out to Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican and former House speaker, to build cross-aisle support for reforming the state’s prisons.

This campaign cycle, even Abrams’ supporters concede that the intensifying spotlight could test her political talent anew. The prospect that she could become the first Black woman in the country to be elected governor has already renewed whispers about her possible presidential ambitions.

Unlike in 2018, when Abrams was not yet a national figure, or during Biden’s vice-presidential search, in which she was considered a long shot, she enters the 2022 race as a marquee name on the Democratic roster — and a prime target for Republicans.

The Virginia governor’s race offered a preview of what Abrams could face, with Democrats on the defensive and Republicans pummeling them over Biden’s vaccine mandates, how schools teach about racism and the removal of Confederate statues.

Abrams rallied Virginia Democrats behind the Democratic candidate, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, in the days before the election — a testament to her standing in the party. By contrast, Ocasio-Cortez said she and other progressives were told to stay away.

When announcing her candidacy in December, Abrams stuck to local themes, highlighting her work during the pandemic and her efforts to expand Medicaid access in Georgia. In the 2018 governor’s race, she did not run an ad about race or voting rights, according to a list her aides provided.

Last month, during an online campaign event with more than 350 supporters on the theme of “One Georgia,” Abrams steered clear of policy specifics and hot-button cultural conversations, focusing instead on issues like the coronavirus and education — and on her Republican opponents.

“When people ask what’s the biggest difference between me and the current governor, it’s that I like Georgians,” Abrams said. “I like all of them. The ones who agree with me and the ones who do not.”

As much as Democrats may want to label her, Jealous advised against it, citing two lessons he learned about Abrams when they first met as 19-year-old college activists. The first: She would not be pushed to go anywhere she was not comfortable. The second: “Never speak after her,” he said.

Phillips, the Democratic donor, said he was confident that the war between moderates and progressives would not affect Abrams in 2022.

When, then, would it matter?

“If and when she runs for president,” he said.

To left-leaning Democrats, Stacey Abrams, who is making her second run for Georgia governor, is a superstar: a nationally recognized voting-rights champion, a symbol of her state’s changing demographics, and a political visionary who registered and mobilized tens of thousands of new voters — the kind of grassroots organizing that progressives have long preached.

To left-leaning Democrats, Stacey Abrams, who is making her second run for Georgia governor, is a superstar: a nationally recognized voting-rights champion, a symbol of her state’s changing demographics, and a political visionary who registered and mobilized tens of thousands of new voters — the kind of grassroots organizing that progressives have long preached. “I don’t think anyone could call Stacey Abrams a moderate,” said Aimee Allison, = founder of She the People, a progressive advocacy group for women of color. Moderates would beg to differ. They see Abrams as an ally for rejecting left-wing policies that center-left Democrats have spurned, like “Medicare for All,” the Green New Deal to combat climate change and the defunding of law enforcement in response to police violence. “I don’t know that anybody in the party can say, ‘She’s one of us,’ ” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, the center-left group. “We can’t pretend she’s a moderate,” he added. “But the progressives can’t say she’s a progressive and not a moderate. We’re both kind of right.” The question of how to define Abrams, 48, the presumptive Democratic standard-bearer in one of the most high-profile races of 2022, takes on new urgency amid the current landscape of the party. Moderates and progressives sparred in Washington throughout 2021, frustrating a White House struggling to achieve consensus on its priorities and continuing an ideological debate that has raged in the party for years. There is also thirst for new blood across the party, considering the advanced ages of President Joe Biden, congressional leaders, and leading progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. On a local level, whether Abrams maintains credibility with both Democratic wings may determine how well she can withstand Republican attacks. Those close to her campaign say they expect an extremely close race and that the key is holding the suburban moderates who supported her in 2018 while exciting enough of the new Georgia voters who have registered since that election. Republicans in Georgia — who await Abrams in the general election — are eager to denounce her as a left-wing radical out of place in a state that was a GOP stronghold until it narrowly tipped into the Democratic column in 2020. Gov. Brian Kemp, who faces a fierce primary challenge in May from former Sen. David Perdue, who has the support of former President Donald Trump, has released five digital advertisements attacking Abrams since she announced her campaign Dec. 1. “Stacey Abrams’ far-left agenda has no place in Georgia,” one warns ominously. But a review of Abrams’ policy statements and television advertisements, and interviews with political figures who have known her for years, reveal a leader who has carefully calibrated her positions, making a point to avoid drifting into one Democratic lane or another. Her allies say the fluidity is an asset and highlights how policy is only one way that voters choose which candidate to rally behind. Racial representation and the unique political context of the American South are also factors in whether a candidate can credibly claim progressive bona fides, they argue. Steve Phillips, an early supporter and prominent progressive Democratic donor, said Abrams’ political strategy was progressive, even if her policy positions were more moderate. “It’s hard for white progressives to be too critical of someone who is so strongly and fiercely unapologetically Black and female,” he said. “Her authenticity comes from the sectors that are the core parts of the progressive base.” Abrams’ approach does carry risks. In the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, several candidates who sought to straddle the line between moderate and progressive policies lost the trust of significant numbers of voters in both camps, as activists pushed for firm commitments on issues like health care, climate change, expanding the Supreme Court and reparations for descendants of enslaved people. At times, Abrams has used her perch to speak out against progressive causes and defend the Democratic establishment. She said attempts to defund police departments after the murder of George Floyd were creating a “false choice” and said departments should be reformed instead. On health care, she has focused on expanding Medicaid rather than supporting a single-payer system. And in 2020, a think tank founded by Abrams released a climate plan focused on the South that embraced efforts to incentivize renewable energy but stopped short of the ambitious goals pushed by progressive activists and lawmakers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. But Ben Jealous, a former Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland who leads progressive group People for the American Way, said progressives should trust Abrams just the same. “The Green New Deal is designed for the industrialized unionized North,” he said. “And you’ve got to translate that into Southern.” He added, “She does that.” Several of Abrams’ allies welcomed an examination of her policy record, arguing that characterizing her as a progressive only fueled Republican attacks. Abrams declined to be interviewed for this article. Asked how she defined herself ideologically, a spokesperson, Seth Bringman, said she “defines herself by her values and her ability to deliver results for the common good by navigating disparate groups and ideologies.” “She’s unwavering in her support for unions, and she worked with anti-union corporations to stop discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” he added. “She’s unapologetically pro-choice, and she coordinated with anti-choice legislators to pass criminal justice reform. She’s a capitalist who supports regulation and believes we can fight poverty while praising success.” Such pragmatism has encouraged some moderates — including Georgians who served with Abrams in the state Capitol — to compare her to other center-left national figures who had credibility among the grassroots base, like Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Bennett said Abrams had demonstrated that she “wasn’t going to be pushed around by anybody in the party, from the center or from the left.” He added, “That independence has made her a very viable candidate.” Carolyn Hugley, a Georgia state representative who has known Abrams since 2011, said she had always sought to be seen as a “doer” and an organizer. As minority leader, Abrams, a budget wonk, aligned with Tea Party members and some religious groups to oppose a Republican tax reform bill. “If you had asked me 10 years ago if voting rights was what she was going to be known for, I would probably say no,” Hugley said. In Georgia, Abrams became known for her willingness to work with anyone, even if it led to a backlash. In 2011, she lent bipartisan credibility to an effort by Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican, to restructure the state’s scholarship program for low-income students. Several Democrats criticized her decision to stand with him at a news conference, saying it gave a gift to an incumbent who had sought to shrink the program and was an example of Abrams putting her own ambitions above the party’s long-term interests. “It got misinterpreted,” said DuBose Porter, a former chair of the Georgia Democratic Party. “But the real Stacey Abrams will always come through. And that real Stacey Abrams is somebody that cares about the issues.” Jealous, of People for the American Way, said he recalled Abrams encouraging him to reach out to Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican and former House speaker, to build cross-aisle support for reforming the state’s prisons. This campaign cycle, even Abrams’ supporters concede that the intensifying spotlight could test her political talent anew. The prospect that she could become the first Black woman in the country to be elected governor has already renewed whispers about her possible presidential ambitions. Unlike in 2018, when Abrams was not yet a national figure, or during Biden’s vice-presidential search, in which she was considered a long shot, she enters the 2022 race as a marquee name on the Democratic roster — and a prime target for Republicans. The Virginia governor’s race offered a preview of what Abrams could face, with Democrats on the defensive and Republicans pummeling them over Biden’s vaccine mandates, how schools teach about racism and the removal of Confederate statues. Abrams rallied Virginia Democrats behind the Democratic candidate, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, in the days before the election — a testament to her standing in the party. By contrast, Ocasio-Cortez said she and other progressives were told to stay away. When announcing her candidacy in December, Abrams stuck to local themes, highlighting her work during the pandemic and her efforts to expand Medicaid access in Georgia. In the 2018 governor’s race, she did not run an ad about race or voting rights, according to a list her aides provided. Last month, during an online campaign event with more than 350 supporters on the theme of “One Georgia,” Abrams steered clear of policy specifics and hot-button cultural conversations, focusing instead on issues like the coronavirus and education — and on her Republican opponents. “When people ask what’s the biggest difference between me and the current governor, it’s that I like Georgians,” Abrams said. “I like all of them. The ones who agree with me and the ones who do not.” As much as Democrats may want to label her, Jealous advised against it, citing two lessons he learned about Abrams when they first met as 19-year-old college activists. The first: She would not be pushed to go anywhere she was not comfortable. The second: “Never speak after her,” he said. Phillips, the Democratic donor, said he was confident that the war between moderates and progressives would not affect Abrams in 2022. When, then, would it matter? “If and when she runs for president,” he said.

Left and center-left both claim Stacey Abrams. Who’s right?

Stymied by Republicans on voting rights legislation, Sen. Chuck Schumer on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that he would try to force a fundamental change in Senate rules if needed to enact federal laws to offset voting restrictions being imposed by Republican-led legislatures around the country.

In a letter to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, said that the Senate would take up stalled voting rights legislation as early as the first week of January and that if Republicans continued to filibuster, the Senate would “consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation.”

But it is not clear how far Democrats will be willing or able to go in working around the 60-vote requirement for most legislation and finding a way to pass voting rights legislation with a simple majority. While several formerly reluctant senators have in recent weeks endorsed rules change for voting issues, at least two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have resisted.

Alarmed by state laws being enacted in the aftermath of the 2020 election that seem aimed at making it more difficult for people, particularly minorities, to vote, Democrats have tried repeatedly this year to set federal standards for early and mail-in voting and curb partisan gerrymandering, among other provisions. But they have been consistently thwarted by a Republican blockade.

To this point, Democrats have not pressed the issue. But Schumer’s new stance shows that he is ready to take the next step and start a rules fight on the Senate floor though he has so far lacked the 50 Democratic votes needed to force through a change over Republican opposition.

Schumer’s move seems intended to change the dynamic of the debate and put new pressure on his colleagues to back a change. Schumer’s frustration boiled over in his letter, saying it was unfair to let states set new rules through partisan majority votes while Republicans were preventing the Senate from doing the same.

“I would ask you to consider this question,” he wrote. “If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?”

Schumer has in the past said mainly that “all options are on the table” when it comes to pressing voting rights legislation, refraining from a direct threat on Senate rules.

A group of more moderate Senate Democrats have been engaged in negotiations on rules changes with Manchin and Sinema and have reported some progress but no breakthrough. While Manchin on Sunday shattered Democratic plans to push forward on a sweeping social policy and climate change bill, he opened the door a crack to potential changes in Senate rules.

“If you can make the Senate work better, the rules are something we’ve changed over the years; 232 years, there’s been rule changes,” Manchin said Sunday on Fox News. But he also suggested that he might be interested in more modest changes than Schumer and others are contemplating, saying he would continue to support the 60-vote, supermajority threshold to overcome a filibuster.

Sinema has also drawn a line against partisan changes in the rules, but Democrats say they believe she would not want to be the lone holdout if Manchin were persuaded to relent on the legislative filibuster.

Democrats knowledgeable about the internal deliberations say that many possible changes are under consideration, including weakening the filibuster against the preliminary “motion to proceed” to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. But in a more significant move, Democrats say they are also discussing a change that would clear the way for final action on a bill through a simple majority vote after guaranteeing opponents the opportunity to alter the legislation through a significant number of amendments.

Instituting such a change would require the support of all 50 Democrats and the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris presiding to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate.

Democrats say such a filibuster “carve out” would apply only to issues grounded in constitutional rights such as voting, but Republicans and others say it would inevitably be extended to other legislation, diminishing the overall power of the filibuster.

The Democratic voting rights and rules change push would meet universal resistance from Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, last week accused Democrats of “rattling swords about changing the structure of the Senate” and commended Manchin for opposing it.

“Changing the structure of the Senate in order to achieve a partisan advantage is a mistake for the Senate and a mistake for our country,” he said.

Once used rarely, the filibuster has become a routine aspect of the Senate in recent decades and virtually all legislation now has to clear a 60-vote hurdle just to be debated on the floor, severely limiting what business can be taken up.

Outraged over Republicans blocking President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through regular filibusters, Democrats in 2013 took the procedural steps to allow most nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Republicans countered in 2017 by extending that rule to Supreme Court nominees, enabling President Donald Trump to install three high court justices.

In a statement in the letter directed at Manchin, Schumer noted that Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a Senate stalwart whose seat Manchin occupies, said in 1979 that sometimes Senate rules that seemed appropriate “must be changed to reflect changed circumstance.”

“I believe our constituents deserve to know which senators choose to hide behind ill-conceived and abused rules and which senators prefer to restore Senate floor procedures to better align with the founders’ intentions,” Schumer wrote.

Stymied by Republicans on voting rights legislation, Sen. Chuck Schumer on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that he would try to force a fundamental change in Senate rules if needed to enact federal laws to offset voting restrictions being imposed by Republican-led legislatures around the country.

Stymied by Republicans on voting rights legislation, Sen. Chuck Schumer on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that he would try to force a fundamental change in Senate rules if needed to enact federal laws to offset voting restrictions being imposed by Republican-led legislatures around the country. In a letter to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, said that the Senate would take up stalled voting rights legislation as early as the first week of January and that if Republicans continued to filibuster, the Senate would “consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation.” But it is not clear how far Democrats will be willing or able to go in working around the 60-vote requirement for most legislation and finding a way to pass voting rights legislation with a simple majority. While several formerly reluctant senators have in recent weeks endorsed rules change for voting issues, at least two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have resisted. Alarmed by state laws being enacted in the aftermath of the 2020 election that seem aimed at making it more difficult for people, particularly minorities, to vote, Democrats have tried repeatedly this year to set federal standards for early and mail-in voting and curb partisan gerrymandering, among other provisions. But they have been consistently thwarted by a Republican blockade. To this point, Democrats have not pressed the issue. But Schumer’s new stance shows that he is ready to take the next step and start a rules fight on the Senate floor though he has so far lacked the 50 Democratic votes needed to force through a change over Republican opposition. Schumer’s move seems intended to change the dynamic of the debate and put new pressure on his colleagues to back a change. Schumer’s frustration boiled over in his letter, saying it was unfair to let states set new rules through partisan majority votes while Republicans were preventing the Senate from doing the same. “I would ask you to consider this question,” he wrote. “If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?” Schumer has in the past said mainly that “all options are on the table” when it comes to pressing voting rights legislation, refraining from a direct threat on Senate rules. A group of more moderate Senate Democrats have been engaged in negotiations on rules changes with Manchin and Sinema and have reported some progress but no breakthrough. While Manchin on Sunday shattered Democratic plans to push forward on a sweeping social policy and climate change bill, he opened the door a crack to potential changes in Senate rules. “If you can make the Senate work better, the rules are something we’ve changed over the years; 232 years, there’s been rule changes,” Manchin said Sunday on Fox News. But he also suggested that he might be interested in more modest changes than Schumer and others are contemplating, saying he would continue to support the 60-vote, supermajority threshold to overcome a filibuster. Sinema has also drawn a line against partisan changes in the rules, but Democrats say they believe she would not want to be the lone holdout if Manchin were persuaded to relent on the legislative filibuster. Democrats knowledgeable about the internal deliberations say that many possible changes are under consideration, including weakening the filibuster against the preliminary “motion to proceed” to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. But in a more significant move, Democrats say they are also discussing a change that would clear the way for final action on a bill through a simple majority vote after guaranteeing opponents the opportunity to alter the legislation through a significant number of amendments. Instituting such a change would require the support of all 50 Democrats and the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris presiding to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate. Democrats say such a filibuster “carve out” would apply only to issues grounded in constitutional rights such as voting, but Republicans and others say it would inevitably be extended to other legislation, diminishing the overall power of the filibuster. The Democratic voting rights and rules change push would meet universal resistance from Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, last week accused Democrats of “rattling swords about changing the structure of the Senate” and commended Manchin for opposing it. “Changing the structure of the Senate in order to achieve a partisan advantage is a mistake for the Senate and a mistake for our country,” he said. Once used rarely, the filibuster has become a routine aspect of the Senate in recent decades and virtually all legislation now has to clear a 60-vote hurdle just to be debated on the floor, severely limiting what business can be taken up. Outraged over Republicans blocking President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through regular filibusters, Democrats in 2013 took the procedural steps to allow most nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Republicans countered in 2017 by extending that rule to Supreme Court nominees, enabling President Donald Trump to install three high court justices. In a statement in the letter directed at Manchin, Schumer noted that Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a Senate stalwart whose seat Manchin occupies, said in 1979 that sometimes Senate rules that seemed appropriate “must be changed to reflect changed circumstance.” “I believe our constituents deserve to know which senators choose to hide behind ill-conceived and abused rules and which senators prefer to restore Senate floor procedures to better align with the founders’ intentions,” Schumer wrote.

Schumer will try to change Senate rules if GOP stalls voting bill

Republicans and Democrats have united to punish China. They've passed a bill to ban all goods that are made through the forced labour of Uighur Muslims. Which brands could this bill spell trouble for? Palki Sharma has a report.

Gravitas: Republicans and Democrats unite, pass law to 'punish china'

The House on Thursday passed a package of constraints on presidential power, which Democrats framed as a response to Donald Trump’s norm-busting presidency and Republicans unanimously opposed for the same reason.

By a nearly party-line vote of 220-208, the House approved the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which would impose new curbs on executive power. Proponents of tighter government ethics have long sought many of the measures, and Republicans have supported them, but they have been recast as partisan issues because of their association with Trump.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/unicef-expresses-concern-over-reimplementation-of-trump-era-remain-in-mexico-policy-435815" hreflang="en">UNICEF expresses concern over reimplementation of Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy</a>

“Disturbingly, the last administration saw our democracy in crisis with a rogue president who trampled over the guardrails protecting our Republic,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “Now, Congress has the solemn responsibility and opportunity to safeguard our democracy, ensuring that past abuses can never be perpetrated by any president of any party.”

The legislation would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, which Trump refused to do.

The act would also strengthen the Constitution’s previously obscure ban on presidents taking emoluments, or payments, by extending the anti-corruption prohibition to commercial transactions. Trump’s refusal to divest from his hotels raised the question of whether lobbyists and other governments that began paying for numerous rooms at Trump resorts — and sometimes not using them — were trying to purchase his favour.

The bill would also require campaigns to report any offers of foreign assistance to the FBI — a proposal that resonates with episodes unearthed in the Russia investigation, such as when Donald Trump Jr. and other senior campaign officials met at Trump Tower with Russians they were told had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-wins-appeal-over-extradition-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-435800" hreflang="en">United States wins appeal over extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange</a>

The package now moves to the Senate, where the 60-vote threshold for passing legislation means that Republicans can block it. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., who managed his party’s side of the House debate, said there was “no apparent path for the bill in the Senate.”

But supporters of the bill envision breaking it up and attaching different components to other legislation in the Senate in a bid to regain bipartisan backing for elements that Republicans have supported in the past.

Among many other things, the bill would make it harder for presidents to bestow pardons in bribery like contexts. It would create new protections against firing inspectors general without a good reason or retaliating against whistleblowers. And it would constrain a president’s ability to spend or secretly freeze funds contrary to congressional appropriations.

It would also speed up lawsuits over congressional subpoenas so that stonewalling by the executive branch cannot run out the clock on oversight efforts; require the Justice Department to give Congress logs of contacts with White House officials; and strengthen the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in campaign politics at work.

The legislation’s path has also been slowed by uncertainty among Senate Democrats about the Biden administration’s support. The White House on Thursday morning issued a statement of administration policy that supported the bill, citing “the formidable, but essential, challenge of reinforcing the norms and safeguards that prevent our democracy from eroding.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/kamala-harris-never-uses-bluetooth-headphones-heres-why-435718" hreflang="en">Kamala Harris never uses bluetooth headphones. Here's why</a>

Ian Bassin a founder and the executive director of Protect Democracy, which supports the bill and worked with House Democrats on developing some of its provisions, praised the White House for supporting the legislation even though it would curb executive authority.

“The Biden administration deserves major credit here for doing something executives rarely do: agreeing to support legislative curbs on their own power,” Bassin said, adding: “Now that the White House has announced its support, it needs to work with the Senate promptly to enact these provisions.”

Still, the White House statement was not unqualified. It included a vague caveat that the administration would continue to work with Congress to ensure the bill would uphold “the long-standing interests of the executive branch that are essential to effective governance and efficient use of taxpayer resources and consistent with our constitutional structure” without specifying any particular provisions it had concerns about.

The White House had spent months negotiating with House Democrats, who dropped some of their original ideas in response to its constitutional or policy objections before introducing the package in September. But Democratic lawmakers insisted on keeping some provisions with which the administration had expressed concerns, according to people familiar with the matter, including making it harder for presidents to fire inspectors general.

Watch |&nbsp;President Joe Biden signs executive order to make US government carbon-neutral by 2050

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/president-joe-biden-signs-executive-order-to-make-us-government-carbon-neutral-by-2050-435816/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Throughout a nearly four-hour debate on the bill and amendments, House Democrats portrayed its provisions as necessary to fix weaknesses in the American system of separation of powers that the Trump administration had exposed.

“Our system was founded upon a respect for the rule of law and a carefully constructed balance of powers among the three branches,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the bill’s chief sponsor. “That system has throughout history been tested. And just as after Watergate, Congress worked to enact reforms, so we must now examine the cracks in the democratic foundation and address them. That’s what this bill does.”

Republicans portrayed it as a partisan attack on Trump while oscillating between denouncing Trump-related investigations and raising other matters such as inflation, violent crime, illegal immigration, gas prices and voter fraud fears.

“This bill is nothing but a continuation of the Democrats’ obsession with President Trump,” said Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill.

Democrats offered a muddled message about whether they wanted the bill to be seen as concerning Trump. They insisted at times that it was about the future, emphasizing that he was no longer president and that many elements of the bill had Republican support in other contexts.

“Joe Biden is our president now,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who managed her party’s side of the debate. She added: “And these bold, good government reforms will impact his administration, as well as future presidents of both parties. It is not about the past; it is about the future and the strengthening of our democracy.”

But Democrats also kept emphasising abuses of the Trump era — and lawmakers on both sides raised the possibility that he might run for president again. Interpreting the bill partly as a referendum on Trump’s actions proved to be an inescapable political reality.

“Setting aside the Democrats’ neurotic obsession with all things Donald Trump, this measure has many provisions that would receive bipartisan support if the bill’s author were so inclined,” said Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif.

The House on Thursday passed a package of constraints on presidential power, which Democrats framed as a response to Donald Trump’s norm-busting presidency and Republicans unanimously opposed for the same reason.

The House on Thursday passed a package of constraints on presidential power, which Democrats framed as a response to Donald Trump’s norm-busting presidency and Republicans unanimously opposed for the same reason. By a nearly party-line vote of 220-208, the House approved the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which would impose new curbs on executive power. Proponents of tighter government ethics have long sought many of the measures, and Republicans have supported them, but they have been recast as partisan issues because of their association with Trump. Also read | UNICEF expresses concern over reimplementation of Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy “Disturbingly, the last administration saw our democracy in crisis with a rogue president who trampled over the guardrails protecting our Republic,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “Now, Congress has the solemn responsibility and opportunity to safeguard our democracy, ensuring that past abuses can never be perpetrated by any president of any party.” The legislation would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, which Trump refused to do. The act would also strengthen the Constitution’s previously obscure ban on presidents taking emoluments, or payments, by extending the anti-corruption prohibition to commercial transactions. Trump’s refusal to divest from his hotels raised the question of whether lobbyists and other governments that began paying for numerous rooms at Trump resorts — and sometimes not using them — were trying to purchase his favour. The bill would also require campaigns to report any offers of foreign assistance to the FBI — a proposal that resonates with episodes unearthed in the Russia investigation, such as when Donald Trump Jr. and other senior campaign officials met at Trump Tower with Russians they were told had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Also read | United States wins appeal over extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange The package now moves to the Senate, where the 60-vote threshold for passing legislation means that Republicans can block it. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., who managed his party’s side of the House debate, said there was “no apparent path for the bill in the Senate.” But supporters of the bill envision breaking it up and attaching different components to other legislation in the Senate in a bid to regain bipartisan backing for elements that Republicans have supported in the past. Among many other things, the bill would make it harder for presidents to bestow pardons in bribery like contexts. It would create new protections against firing inspectors general without a good reason or retaliating against whistleblowers. And it would constrain a president’s ability to spend or secretly freeze funds contrary to congressional appropriations. It would also speed up lawsuits over congressional subpoenas so that stonewalling by the executive branch cannot run out the clock on oversight efforts; require the Justice Department to give Congress logs of contacts with White House officials; and strengthen the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in campaign politics at work. The legislation’s path has also been slowed by uncertainty among Senate Democrats about the Biden administration’s support. The White House on Thursday morning issued a statement of administration policy that supported the bill, citing “the formidable, but essential, challenge of reinforcing the norms and safeguards that prevent our democracy from eroding.” Also read | Kamala Harris never uses bluetooth headphones. Here's why Ian Bassin a founder and the executive director of Protect Democracy, which supports the bill and worked with House Democrats on developing some of its provisions, praised the White House for supporting the legislation even though it would curb executive authority. “The Biden administration deserves major credit here for doing something executives rarely do: agreeing to support legislative curbs on their own power,” Bassin said, adding: “Now that the White House has announced its support, it needs to work with the Senate promptly to enact these provisions.” Still, the White House statement was not unqualified. It included a vague caveat that the administration would continue to work with Congress to ensure the bill would uphold “the long-standing interests of the executive branch that are essential to effective governance and efficient use of taxpayer resources and consistent with our constitutional structure” without specifying any particular provisions it had concerns about. The White House had spent months negotiating with House Democrats, who dropped some of their original ideas in response to its constitutional or policy objections before introducing the package in September. But Democratic lawmakers insisted on keeping some provisions with which the administration had expressed concerns, according to people familiar with the matter, including making it harder for presidents to fire inspectors general. Watch | President Joe Biden signs executive order to make US government carbon-neutral by 2050 Throughout a nearly four-hour debate on the bill and amendments, House Democrats portrayed its provisions as necessary to fix weaknesses in the American system of separation of powers that the Trump administration had exposed. “Our system was founded upon a respect for the rule of law and a carefully constructed balance of powers among the three branches,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the bill’s chief sponsor. “That system has throughout history been tested. And just as after Watergate, Congress worked to enact reforms, so we must now examine the cracks in the democratic foundation and address them. That’s what this bill does.” Republicans portrayed it as a partisan attack on Trump while oscillating between denouncing Trump-related investigations and raising other matters such as inflation, violent crime, illegal immigration, gas prices and voter fraud fears. “This bill is nothing but a continuation of the Democrats’ obsession with President Trump,” said Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill. Democrats offered a muddled message about whether they wanted the bill to be seen as concerning Trump. They insisted at times that it was about the future, emphasizing that he was no longer president and that many elements of the bill had Republican support in other contexts. “Joe Biden is our president now,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who managed her party’s side of the debate. She added: “And these bold, good government reforms will impact his administration, as well as future presidents of both parties. It is not about the past; it is about the future and the strengthening of our democracy.” But Democrats also kept emphasising abuses of the Trump era — and lawmakers on both sides raised the possibility that he might run for president again. Interpreting the bill partly as a referendum on Trump’s actions proved to be an inescapable political reality. “Setting aside the Democrats’ neurotic obsession with all things Donald Trump, this measure has many provisions that would receive bipartisan support if the bill’s author were so inclined,” said Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif.

House approves post-Trump curbs on presidential power

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House.

$1.2 trillion of infrastructure improvements includes fixing bridges and roads, replacing lead water pipes, building a charging network for electric vehicles, and the expansion of broadband internet access.

A government investment of this magnitude hasn't been seen since the national highway system was built in the 1950s.

Also read&nbsp; |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-virtual-summit-biden-urges-for-guardrails-against-conflict-xi-calls-for-better-communication-429645">US-China virtual summit: Biden urges for 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication</a>

"We've heard countless speeches… but today we're finally getting this done," Biden told hundreds of invitees on the White House South Lawn.

"So my message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better."

The bill is "proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together to deliver results," Biden said. "Let's believe in one another and let's believe in America."

Spending on infrastructure is popular, but Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump was unsuccessful at achieving the goal for four years, making promises of an upcoming "infrastructure week" a running joke.

Even now, Biden had to rack up months of negotiating with his fractious Democratic Party to get them to vote, running the risk of a humiliating defeat.

In a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats control only a narrow majority, but in a rare moment of cooperation, a substantial number of Republicans in the Senate joined them along with a symbolic handful in the House.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insisting-china-play-by-the-rules-of-the-road-biden-xi-virtual-summit-seeks-to-settle-tense-relationship-429637">Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship</a>

"We agreed this would be a truly bipartisan process," Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, told the White House gathering. "This should be the beginning of a renewed effort to work together on big issues facing our country." 
 
However, there is a possibility that this&nbsp;feel-good moment will not last.

Biden's approval ratings are on the decline, with the latest Washington Post-ABC poll showing just 41 per cent approval. It is most concerning for the White House that support is ebbing away not only among independent voters but also within the Democratic Party itself.

In spite of the outreach by some Republicans, the majority of the opposition party has little interest in declaring a truce.

In a scathing attack against the 13 Republicans in the House who voted alongside the Democrats, Trump said Republicans who crossed the aisle should be "ashamed" and are not real Republicans.

The hard-right Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, particularly vocal in her support for Trump, called the 13 fellow Republicans "traitors." She tweeted out the office phone numbers of the fellow Republicans, some of whom reported receiving torrents of violent abuse.

"These are the 13 ‘Republicans’ who handed over their voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America via so-called infrastructure" she had&nbsp;said in the since-deleted tweet.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-trade-taiwan-warnings-ahead-of-biden-xi-summit-429229">US, China trade Taiwan warnings ahead of Biden-Xi summit</a>

Republicans will almost certainly increase their numbers in midterm congressional elections in just under a year, further straining Biden's already tenuous hold on Washington.

However, the White House hopes the bill signing will give a boost to Biden, who holds a video link meeting with Xi Jinping today.

Watch |&nbsp;Biden-Xi summit: Presidents of world's two largest economies to meet, Chinese aggression in focus

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-xi-summit-presidents-of-worlds-two-largest-economies-to-meet-chinese-aggression-in-focus-429595/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The $1.75 trillion package for childcare, education, and other social spending that Biden describes as a historic effort to eliminate social inequalities is still pending.

The proposal is being held up by internal party disagreements and has zero Republican support. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, told the White House gathering that she hopes the bill will be passed this week.

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House.

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House. $1.2 trillion of infrastructure improvements includes fixing bridges and roads, replacing lead water pipes, building a charging network for electric vehicles, and the expansion of broadband internet access. A government investment of this magnitude hasn't been seen since the national highway system was built in the 1950s. Also read | US-China virtual summit: Biden urges for 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication "We've heard countless speeches… but today we're finally getting this done," Biden told hundreds of invitees on the White House South Lawn. "So my message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better." The bill is "proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together to deliver results," Biden said. "Let's believe in one another and let's believe in America." Spending on infrastructure is popular, but Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump was unsuccessful at achieving the goal for four years, making promises of an upcoming "infrastructure week" a running joke. Even now, Biden had to rack up months of negotiating with his fractious Democratic Party to get them to vote, running the risk of a humiliating defeat. In a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats control only a narrow majority, but in a rare moment of cooperation, a substantial number of Republicans in the Senate joined them along with a symbolic handful in the House. Also read | Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship "We agreed this would be a truly bipartisan process," Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, told the White House gathering. "This should be the beginning of a renewed effort to work together on big issues facing our country." However, there is a possibility that this feel-good moment will not last. Biden's approval ratings are on the decline, with the latest Washington Post-ABC poll showing just 41 per cent approval. It is most concerning for the White House that support is ebbing away not only among independent voters but also within the Democratic Party itself. In spite of the outreach by some Republicans, the majority of the opposition party has little interest in declaring a truce. In a scathing attack against the 13 Republicans in the House who voted alongside the Democrats, Trump said Republicans who crossed the aisle should be "ashamed" and are not real Republicans. The hard-right Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, particularly vocal in her support for Trump, called the 13 fellow Republicans "traitors." She tweeted out the office phone numbers of the fellow Republicans, some of whom reported receiving torrents of violent abuse. "These are the 13 ‘Republicans’ who handed over their voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America via so-called infrastructure" she had said in the since-deleted tweet. Also read | US, China trade Taiwan warnings ahead of Biden-Xi summit Republicans will almost certainly increase their numbers in midterm congressional elections in just under a year, further straining Biden's already tenuous hold on Washington. However, the White House hopes the bill signing will give a boost to Biden, who holds a video link meeting with Xi Jinping today. Watch | Biden-Xi summit: Presidents of world's two largest economies to meet, Chinese aggression in focus The $1.75 trillion package for childcare, education, and other social spending that Biden describes as a historic effort to eliminate social inequalities is still pending. The proposal is being held up by internal party disagreements and has zero Republican support. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, told the White House gathering that she hopes the bill will be passed this week.

Achieving what Trump couldn't, Biden celebrates rare win with US infrastructure bill signing

US president Joe Biden has seen his approval ratings take a toll, people across the globe have criticised the manner in the pace of the US army pullouts from Afghanistan and now democrats have lost Virginia governor's race. What are the national implications of the same? On this special broadcast, we will analyse this story.

Republicans win Virginia polls, a warning sign for Democrats?

Republican Party's Glenn Youngkin won election to become next governor of Virginia staging an upset against the Democratic Party. The race for governor was being seen as an early verdict on US President Joe Biden's first year in presidency.

Republican Glenn Youngkin becomes Virginia governor, Democrats lose for first time since 2009

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

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.

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 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

President Joe Biden urged congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling Monday, excoriating Republicans for what he said was “reckless” and “disgraceful” obstruction ahead of a default deadline later this month that he warned would amount to “a self-inflicted wound that takes our economy over a cliff.”

Biden, trying to convey the risks to everyday Americans, warned that they could see the effects as early as this week if Senate Democrats were not able to vote to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling controls the amount of money the government can borrow to fulfill its financial obligations, including Social Security checks, salaries for military personnel and other bills.

“It starts with a simple truth: The United States is a nation that pays its bills and always has,” Biden said. “If we’re going to make good on what has already been approved by previous Congresses, and previous presidents and parties, we have to pay for it.”

The remarks presaged increased public engagement by Biden on an issue that risks economic crisis.

Biden pointed out that Republicans had voted several times to increase the debt limit under President Donald Trump but are using a filibuster to block any attempt by Democrats to raise it this time around. He said that he would not be expecting Republicans to “do their part,” but he warned them “not to use procedural tricks to block us from doing the job.”

Technically, the United States hit its debt limit at the end of July, following a two-year extension that Congress agreed to in 2019. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been using “extraordinary measures” since then to delay a default. Those are essentially fiscal accounting tools that curb certain government investments so that the bills can continue to be paid.

Yellen warned Congress last week of “catastrophic” consequences should lawmakers fail to suspend or raise the statutory debt limit before Oct. 18, which the Treasury believes is the date the United States will run out of enough money to pay all its bills.

Congress raises the debt limit to cover spending it has already approved, and the Treasury has warned that failure to do so would tank financial markets and have wide-ranging effects on Americans: Defaulting could pause Social Security checks, delay the pay of military troops and interfere with child tax credit payments.

But Republicans — who had voted to raise the debt cap by trillions when their party controlled Washington — have moved to block a spending bill needed to avoid default. Instead, Republicans including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have sought to place political responsibility on Democrats, who are at the same time seeking to advance a sprawling social policy bill that could cost as much as $3.5 trillion.

“Bipartisanship is not a light switch that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer may flip on to borrow money and flip off to spend it,” McConnell wrote in a letter to Biden on Monday, referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. “For two and a half months, we have simply warned that since your party wishes to govern alone, it must handle the debt limit alone as well.”

The president said he planned on talking to McConnell about the letter: “He and I have been down this road once before,” Biden said.

Democrats have so far refused to try to raise the debt ceiling through a fast-track process known as reconciliation. On Monday, Schumer told Democrats that a spending bill needed to reach Biden’s desk within days, not weeks.

“Let me be clear about the task ahead of us: We must get a bill to the President’s desk dealing with the debt limit by the end of the week. Period. We do not have the luxury of waiting until Oct. 18,” he wrote in a “dear colleague” letter dated Monday.

Asked if he supported reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling, Biden said the process would be “fraught with all kinds of potential danger or miscalculation” and said the way to proceed would be a vote on a bill to raise the limit.

Administration officials say Biden will continue to pressure Republicans to step aside — by breaking their filibuster — and allow Democrats to vote on their own this week to raise the limit.

“Let us vote,” Biden said, “and end the mess.”

As he urges congressional leaders to find a way forward on raising the debt limit, Biden still must drum up support for a bipartisan infrastructure deal and an expansive social spending plan.

“I’ve been able to close the deal on 99% of my party,” Biden said, before adding that “two people” remain opposed to the second piece, a reference to Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

“It’s not a smart thing to negotiate with yourself in public,” Biden said, when asked if he would support a lower figure on the reconciliation package.

President Joe Biden urged congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling Monday, excoriating Republicans for what he said was “reckless” and “disgraceful” obstruction ahead of a default deadline later this month that he warned would amount to “a self-inflicted wound that takes our economy over a cliff.

President Joe Biden urged congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling Monday, excoriating Republicans for what he said was “reckless” and “disgraceful” obstruction ahead of a default deadline later this month that he warned would amount to “a self-inflicted wound that takes our economy over a cliff.” Biden, trying to convey the risks to everyday Americans, warned that they could see the effects as early as this week if Senate Democrats were not able to vote to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling controls the amount of money the government can borrow to fulfill its financial obligations, including Social Security checks, salaries for military personnel and other bills. “It starts with a simple truth: The United States is a nation that pays its bills and always has,” Biden said. “If we’re going to make good on what has already been approved by previous Congresses, and previous presidents and parties, we have to pay for it.” The remarks presaged increased public engagement by Biden on an issue that risks economic crisis. Biden pointed out that Republicans had voted several times to increase the debt limit under President Donald Trump but are using a filibuster to block any attempt by Democrats to raise it this time around. He said that he would not be expecting Republicans to “do their part,” but he warned them “not to use procedural tricks to block us from doing the job.” Technically, the United States hit its debt limit at the end of July, following a two-year extension that Congress agreed to in 2019. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been using “extraordinary measures” since then to delay a default. Those are essentially fiscal accounting tools that curb certain government investments so that the bills can continue to be paid. Yellen warned Congress last week of “catastrophic” consequences should lawmakers fail to suspend or raise the statutory debt limit before Oct. 18, which the Treasury believes is the date the United States will run out of enough money to pay all its bills. Congress raises the debt limit to cover spending it has already approved, and the Treasury has warned that failure to do so would tank financial markets and have wide-ranging effects on Americans: Defaulting could pause Social Security checks, delay the pay of military troops and interfere with child tax credit payments. But Republicans — who had voted to raise the debt cap by trillions when their party controlled Washington — have moved to block a spending bill needed to avoid default. Instead, Republicans including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have sought to place political responsibility on Democrats, who are at the same time seeking to advance a sprawling social policy bill that could cost as much as $3.5 trillion. “Bipartisanship is not a light switch that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer may flip on to borrow money and flip off to spend it,” McConnell wrote in a letter to Biden on Monday, referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. “For two and a half months, we have simply warned that since your party wishes to govern alone, it must handle the debt limit alone as well.” The president said he planned on talking to McConnell about the letter: “He and I have been down this road once before,” Biden said. Democrats have so far refused to try to raise the debt ceiling through a fast-track process known as reconciliation. On Monday, Schumer told Democrats that a spending bill needed to reach Biden’s desk within days, not weeks. “Let me be clear about the task ahead of us: We must get a bill to the President’s desk dealing with the debt limit by the end of the week. Period. We do not have the luxury of waiting until Oct. 18,” he wrote in a “dear colleague” letter dated Monday. Asked if he supported reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling, Biden said the process would be “fraught with all kinds of potential danger or miscalculation” and said the way to proceed would be a vote on a bill to raise the limit. Administration officials say Biden will continue to pressure Republicans to step aside — by breaking their filibuster — and allow Democrats to vote on their own this week to raise the limit. “Let us vote,” Biden said, “and end the mess.” As he urges congressional leaders to find a way forward on raising the debt limit, Biden still must drum up support for a bipartisan infrastructure deal and an expansive social spending plan. “I’ve been able to close the deal on 99% of my party,” Biden said, before adding that “two people” remain opposed to the second piece, a reference to Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. “It’s not a smart thing to negotiate with yourself in public,” Biden said, when asked if he would support a lower figure on the reconciliation package.

Biden says Republicans being ‘reckless’ over debt limit increase

United States President Joe Biden’s latest aggressive push to inoculate more people, including those showing resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine, has sparked a backlash from the Republicans, who have threatened to approach the court against the move.

“Have at it,” a defiant Biden told reporters on Friday when asked about legal challenges to the strict vaccination rules that would affect tens of millions of American workers.

The US is in the midst of the Delta variant outbreak with cases surging across various states. As per reports, around 80 million eligible Americans have not yet gotten the shot against a disease that has left around 650,000 people dead in the United States.

Asserting that he was fed with rising Delta cases, the 78-year-old president said, “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us. So, please, do the right thing.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-recorded-highest-new-covid-19-cases-worldwide-in-past-week-who-401286">US recorded highest new COVID-19 cases worldwide in past week: WHO</a>

Biden’s plan mandates vaccinations for all federal employees and contractors and businesses with more than 100 employees. Companies could face fines if they do not adhere to the directive.

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said that while he supports the vaccine, people have the right of personal choice.

Watch&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-covid-19-cases-reach-6-months-high-404086/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"The federal government has no authority to force businesses in Texas and across the country to mandate their employees get vaccinated," Cruz was quoted by news agency AFP as saying.

"It is cruel and burdensome to impose this authoritarian mandate. While I support the vaccine and have received it, Americans have the right to exercise personal choice when it comes to their health,” he added.

The Republican National Committee, governors of a number of Republican-ruled states and conservative private legal groups, announced plans to mount legal challenges to the vaccination mandates.

"See you in court," said Kristi Noem, the Republican governor of South Dakota. "South Dakota will stand up to defend freedom."

The Texas Department of State Health Services on Thursday reported 23,700 new confirmed cases of the virus as well as 5,907 new probable cases. The state additionally reported 408 more fatalities attributed to the Delta variant-fuelled disease.

(With inputs from agencies)

United States President Joe Biden’s latest aggressive push to inoculate more people, including those showing resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine, has sparked a backlash from the Republicans, who have threatened to approach the court against the move.

United States President Joe Biden’s latest aggressive push to inoculate more people, including those showing resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine, has sparked a backlash from the Republicans, who have threatened to approach the court against the move. “Have at it,” a defiant Biden told reporters on Friday when asked about legal challenges to the strict vaccination rules that would affect tens of millions of American workers. The US is in the midst of the Delta variant outbreak with cases surging across various states. As per reports, around 80 million eligible Americans have not yet gotten the shot against a disease that has left around 650,000 people dead in the United States. Asserting that he was fed with rising Delta cases, the 78-year-old president said, “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us. So, please, do the right thing.” Also read | US recorded highest new COVID-19 cases worldwide in past week: WHO Biden’s plan mandates vaccinations for all federal employees and contractors and businesses with more than 100 employees. Companies could face fines if they do not adhere to the directive. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said that while he supports the vaccine, people have the right of personal choice. Watch "The federal government has no authority to force businesses in Texas and across the country to mandate their employees get vaccinated," Cruz was quoted by news agency AFP as saying. "It is cruel and burdensome to impose this authoritarian mandate. While I support the vaccine and have received it, Americans have the right to exercise personal choice when it comes to their health,” he added. The Republican National Committee, governors of a number of Republican-ruled states and conservative private legal groups, announced plans to mount legal challenges to the vaccination mandates. "See you in court," said Kristi Noem, the Republican governor of South Dakota. "South Dakota will stand up to defend freedom." The Texas Department of State Health Services on Thursday reported 23,700 new confirmed cases of the virus as well as 5,907 new probable cases. The state additionally reported 408 more fatalities attributed to the Delta variant-fuelled disease. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden’s aggressive vaccine mandate sparks backlash from Republicans

US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans said on Monday they opposed Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, meaning the panel will likely advance the bill this week with only Democratic support. 
 
A spokesperson for Representative Michael McCaul, the top committee Republican, said he opposed the 'Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement Act',&nbsp;or Eagle Act, which the committee will consider on Wednesday. 
 
The desire for a hard line in dealings with China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the deeply divided US&nbsp;Congress, which is narrowly controlled by President Joe Biden's fellow Democrats. 
 
However, the two parties disagree on how best to deal with China. For example, Republicans object to provisions in the Eagle Act that would authorise funding for climate initiatives. 
 
But Republicans also said they felt the Eagle Act calls for too many studies and would be a missed opportunity to take meaningful action like tightening control of technology exports and regulating access to some types of sensitive personal data, such as Americans' health information. 
 
"It's largely just a messaging bill," a Republican aide said. 
 
The Eagle Act was introduced in May by Democratic Foreign Affairs Chairman Gregory Meeks. 
 
The Senate on June 8 passed by a strong bipartisan 68-32 majority its own sweeping China bill, the "US&nbsp;Innovation and Competition Act," or USICA, which authorises about $190 billion for provisions to strengthen US&nbsp;technology and research, and approved $54 billion to increase US&nbsp;production and research into semiconductors and telecommunications equipment. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans said on Monday they opposed Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, meaning the panel will likely advance the bill this week with only Democratic support.

US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans said on Monday they opposed Democratic-led legislation intended to boost competitiveness with China and push Beijing on human rights, meaning the panel will likely advance the bill this week with only Democratic support. A spokesperson for Representative Michael McCaul, the top committee Republican, said he opposed the 'Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement Act', or Eagle Act, which the committee will consider on Wednesday. The desire for a hard line in dealings with China is one of the few truly bipartisan sentiments in the deeply divided US Congress, which is narrowly controlled by President Joe Biden's fellow Democrats. However, the two parties disagree on how best to deal with China. For example, Republicans object to provisions in the Eagle Act that would authorise funding for climate initiatives. But Republicans also said they felt the Eagle Act calls for too many studies and would be a missed opportunity to take meaningful action like tightening control of technology exports and regulating access to some types of sensitive personal data, such as Americans' health information. "It's largely just a messaging bill," a Republican aide said. The Eagle Act was introduced in May by Democratic Foreign Affairs Chairman Gregory Meeks. The Senate on June 8 passed by a strong bipartisan 68-32 majority its own sweeping China bill, the "US Innovation and Competition Act," or USICA, which authorises about $190 billion for provisions to strengthen US technology and research, and approved $54 billion to increase US production and research into semiconductors and telecommunications equipment. (With inputs from agencies)

US House Republicans oppose Democratic-led China bill

When Rep. John Curtis quietly approached fellow Republicans to invite them to discuss climate change at a clandestine meeting in his home state of Utah, he hoped a half-dozen members might attend.

Soon the guest list blew past expectations as lawmakers heard about the gathering and asked to be included. For two days in February, 24 Republicans gathered in a ballroom of the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City where they brainstormed ways to get their party to engage on a planetary problem it has ignored for decades.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/our-response-to-climate-change-is-missing-something-big-scientists-say-390706">Our response to climate change is missing something big, scientists say</a>

“Some came with the promise of being anonymous. It’s terrible that Republicans can’t even go talk about it without being embarrassed,” Curtis said in an interview.

For four years under President Donald Trump, even uttering the phrase “climate change” was verboten for many Republicans. His administration scrubbed the words from federal websites, tried to censor testimony to Congress and mocked the science linking rising fossil fuel emissions to a warming planet.

Now, many in the Republican Party are coming to terms with what polls have been saying for years: Independents, suburban voters and especially young Republicans are worried about climate change and want the government to take action.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-trump-gone-nato-wages-war-on-climate-threat-391185">With Trump gone, NATO wages war on climate threat</a>

“There is a recognition within the GOP that if the party is going to be competitive in national elections, in purple states and purple districts, there needs to be some type of credible position on climate change,” said George David Banks, a former adviser to Trump and now a senior fellow at the nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center, a centrist Washington think tank. Republicans realize it is now “a political liability” to dismiss or even avoid discussing climate change, he said.

In Utah, where the furtive climate meeting occurred, a group of state Republican lawmakers this month called for polluters to pay a price for emitting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas.

The same week in Miami, a group of young Republicans carrying signs that read “This Is What an Environmentalist Looks Like,” held what was billed as the first rally for “conservative” climate action.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, plans to start a Republican task force on climate change, his staff confirmed. McCarthy declined a request for an interview.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/we-could-lose-these-species-if-climate-change-heats-earth-by-over-15deg-celsius-388984">We could lose these species if climate change heats Earth by over 1.5° Celsius</a>

And on Wednesday Curtis plans to announce the formation of the Conservative Climate Caucus, aimed at educating his party about global warming and developing policies to counter what the caucus terms “radical progressive climate proposals.” So far 38 Republican House members have joined, his staff said.

“It’s my hope that any Republican that belongs to this caucus, if asked about climate in a town-hall meeting, will feel very comfortable talking about it,” Curtis said, adding, “I fear that too often Republicans have simply said what they don’t like without adding on ‘but here’s our ideas.’”

Those ideas include limited government, free-market policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions, as formulated by new conservative think tanks. One is C3 Solutions, which is co-led by a former aide to the late Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who called global warming “crap.” The organization also recently attracted an energy policy expert from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group that until recently promoted vociferous critics of climate change.

A package of bills McCarthy introduced on Earth Day championed carbon capture, a nascent and expensive technology that catches carbon emissions generated by power plants or factories and stores them before they escape into the atmosphere. It also promoted tree planting and expansion of nuclear energy, a carbon-free power source that many Republicans prefer over wind or solar energy.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-lawmakers-idea-to-reverse-climate-change-alter-the-orbit-of-the-moon-390689">US lawmaker's idea to reverse climate change: Alter the orbit of the Moon</a>

Those policies would do little to reduce the fossil fuel emissions that are driving up average global temperatures and causing more extreme heat, drought and wildfires; more intense storms; and rapid extinction of plant and wildlife species. Republicans have not offered any specific targets for cutting emissions.

Meanwhile, McCarthy and other Republicans remain opposed to President Joe Biden’s climate proposals, which include a clean electricity standard, which would require utilities to gradually increase the amount of electricity they produce from wind, solar and other renewable sources until they are no longer burning fossil fuels. And leading Republicans continue to spread a lie that Biden wants to force Americans to stop eating hamburgers, because of the environmental harm caused by beef production.

Still, the fact that a growing number of Republicans are crafting a climate strategy is significant.

“For two decades there were virtually no Republicans responsibly engaged on climate change. What you’re seeing today is the construction of the policymaking apparatus on the right in the climate space,” said Alex Flint, director of Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative nonprofit group that promotes a tax on carbon emissions.

Benji Backer, the founder of the American Conservative Coalition who organized the Miami rally and also helped to put together the Utah meeting, said it is time for Republicans to embrace a climate change agenda.

“The conservative movement has to lean into this and it can’t be behind closed doors anymore,” he said. He described the Utah meeting as “almost like a ‘come to Jesus’ moment, where people started to realize we could take the offensive on these issues and become leaders, and we don’t have to keep being defensive.”

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund welcomed the Republican shift. “It’s good that we’re no longer arguing over a problem, but discussing solutions,” he said. But he also noted that the Republican policies make only marginal reductions in emissions and propose investment in technologies not readily available.

“We need bold policies now to drive the emissions reductions that science requires,” Krupp said.

Critics question whether the recent moves by Republicans amount to little more than a rebranding campaign, lacking in substance.

Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, who has long attacked the science of climate change, called the Republican moves “a way to win some suburban voters. I don’t take it very seriously.”

The proof is in behaviour, not rhetoric, said Rep. Kathy Castor, the Democratic chairwoman of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

“All of this is just greenwashing until they start to align their votes,” Castor said. “You can talk until the cows come home, but you have to follow it up with real action.”

But Curtis, holding a framed 1979 Jerusalem Post front page that he keeps in his office showing the famous “triple handshake” between President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin — a souvenir from his time on a Brigham Young University study program in Israel — said he keeps the photo as a reminder that even the most bitter of enemies can find common ground.

“If we’re not successful working with Democrats then we’ll fail,” Curtis said. “If this is only about getting Republicans talking about climate and it just increases the partisan nature of climate, that’s a failure for me. We have to learn how to engage our Democratic colleagues to move forward legislation.”

When Rep. John Curtis quietly approached fellow Republicans to invite them to discuss climate change at a clandestine meeting in his home state of Utah, he hoped a half-dozen members might attend.

When Rep. John Curtis quietly approached fellow Republicans to invite them to discuss climate change at a clandestine meeting in his home state of Utah, he hoped a half-dozen members might attend. Soon the guest list blew past expectations as lawmakers heard about the gathering and asked to be included. For two days in February, 24 Republicans gathered in a ballroom of the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City where they brainstormed ways to get their party to engage on a planetary problem it has ignored for decades. Also read | Our response to climate change is missing something big, scientists say “Some came with the promise of being anonymous. It’s terrible that Republicans can’t even go talk about it without being embarrassed,” Curtis said in an interview. For four years under President Donald Trump, even uttering the phrase “climate change” was verboten for many Republicans. His administration scrubbed the words from federal websites, tried to censor testimony to Congress and mocked the science linking rising fossil fuel emissions to a warming planet. Now, many in the Republican Party are coming to terms with what polls have been saying for years: Independents, suburban voters and especially young Republicans are worried about climate change and want the government to take action. Also read | With Trump gone, NATO wages war on climate threat “There is a recognition within the GOP that if the party is going to be competitive in national elections, in purple states and purple districts, there needs to be some type of credible position on climate change,” said George David Banks, a former adviser to Trump and now a senior fellow at the nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center, a centrist Washington think tank. Republicans realize it is now “a political liability” to dismiss or even avoid discussing climate change, he said. In Utah, where the furtive climate meeting occurred, a group of state Republican lawmakers this month called for polluters to pay a price for emitting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas. The same week in Miami, a group of young Republicans carrying signs that read “This Is What an Environmentalist Looks Like,” held what was billed as the first rally for “conservative” climate action. On Capitol Hill, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, plans to start a Republican task force on climate change, his staff confirmed. McCarthy declined a request for an interview. Also read | We could lose these species if climate change heats Earth by over 1.5° Celsius And on Wednesday Curtis plans to announce the formation of the Conservative Climate Caucus, aimed at educating his party about global warming and developing policies to counter what the caucus terms “radical progressive climate proposals.” So far 38 Republican House members have joined, his staff said. “It’s my hope that any Republican that belongs to this caucus, if asked about climate in a town-hall meeting, will feel very comfortable talking about it,” Curtis said, adding, “I fear that too often Republicans have simply said what they don’t like without adding on ‘but here’s our ideas.’” Those ideas include limited government, free-market policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions, as formulated by new conservative think tanks. One is C3 Solutions, which is co-led by a former aide to the late Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who called global warming “crap.” The organization also recently attracted an energy policy expert from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group that until recently promoted vociferous critics of climate change. A package of bills McCarthy introduced on Earth Day championed carbon capture, a nascent and expensive technology that catches carbon emissions generated by power plants or factories and stores them before they escape into the atmosphere. It also promoted tree planting and expansion of nuclear energy, a carbon-free power source that many Republicans prefer over wind or solar energy. Also read | US lawmaker's idea to reverse climate change: Alter the orbit of the Moon Those policies would do little to reduce the fossil fuel emissions that are driving up average global temperatures and causing more extreme heat, drought and wildfires; more intense storms; and rapid extinction of plant and wildlife species. Republicans have not offered any specific targets for cutting emissions. Meanwhile, McCarthy and other Republicans remain opposed to President Joe Biden’s climate proposals, which include a clean electricity standard, which would require utilities to gradually increase the amount of electricity they produce from wind, solar and other renewable sources until they are no longer burning fossil fuels. And leading Republicans continue to spread a lie that Biden wants to force Americans to stop eating hamburgers, because of the environmental harm caused by beef production. Still, the fact that a growing number of Republicans are crafting a climate strategy is significant. “For two decades there were virtually no Republicans responsibly engaged on climate change. What you’re seeing today is the construction of the policymaking apparatus on the right in the climate space,” said Alex Flint, director of Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative nonprofit group that promotes a tax on carbon emissions. Benji Backer, the founder of the American Conservative Coalition who organized the Miami rally and also helped to put together the Utah meeting, said it is time for Republicans to embrace a climate change agenda. “The conservative movement has to lean into this and it can’t be behind closed doors anymore,” he said. He described the Utah meeting as “almost like a ‘come to Jesus’ moment, where people started to realize we could take the offensive on these issues and become leaders, and we don’t have to keep being defensive.” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund welcomed the Republican shift. “It’s good that we’re no longer arguing over a problem, but discussing solutions,” he said. But he also noted that the Republican policies make only marginal reductions in emissions and propose investment in technologies not readily available. “We need bold policies now to drive the emissions reductions that science requires,” Krupp said. Critics question whether the recent moves by Republicans amount to little more than a rebranding campaign, lacking in substance. Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, who has long attacked the science of climate change, called the Republican moves “a way to win some suburban voters. I don’t take it very seriously.” The proof is in behaviour, not rhetoric, said Rep. Kathy Castor, the Democratic chairwoman of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. “All of this is just greenwashing until they start to align their votes,” Castor said. “You can talk until the cows come home, but you have to follow it up with real action.” But Curtis, holding a framed 1979 Jerusalem Post front page that he keeps in his office showing the famous “triple handshake” between President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin — a souvenir from his time on a Brigham Young University study program in Israel — said he keeps the photo as a reminder that even the most bitter of enemies can find common ground. “If we’re not successful working with Democrats then we’ll fail,” Curtis said. “If this is only about getting Republicans talking about climate and it just increases the partisan nature of climate, that’s a failure for me. We have to learn how to engage our Democratic colleagues to move forward legislation.”

Some Republicans find failure to grapple with climate change a ‘political liability’

In a major setback for the Democrats, the Voting Rights Bill which is touted to be the most expansive federal election reform in the United States has been obstructed by a wall of Republican opposition.

US: GOP filibuster obstructs Big Voting Rights Bill

The US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, rejecting the Republican challenge to the medicare programme.

The top court came to a decision with a 7-2 margin ruling out the challenge by&nbsp;Republican ruled states. Former President Donald Trump had vowed to do away with the healthcare initiative. However, it was stalled by the court.

Two judges appointed by Trump - Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -&nbsp; voted against it. However, conservative justices including two appointed by Trump including Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the initiative.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, also voted in favour of the act.

Obamacare was passed by Congress in 2010. The health insurance policy has withstood challenges earlier in 2012 and 2015.&nbsp;

The act proposed access to Medicare programme for poor adults which was normally open for retired people over 65 years of age and included young people under 26 to be covered by their parents.

However, the Republican-led states had challenged the programme arguing that it was unconstitutional since it originally required Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a financial penalty under the "individual mandate".

Biden after taking office had requested the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare. The Trump administration had failed to produce an alternative to the policy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi while hailing the verdict said: "Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a landmark victory for Democrats’ work to defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions against Republicans’ relentless efforts to dismantle them."&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and the work of Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1405530332925890569?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 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>

"On this anniversary, we should remember just how close we have come to losing that act we fought so hard for," US President Biden said, adding, "just 50 days into my administration, we've delivered on that promise with the American Rescue Plan."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
A big win for the American people. 
 
There’s no better day than today to sign up for quality, affordable health care at <a href="https://t.co/gRX1fGFEzj">https://t.co/gRX1fGFEzj</a>. 
 
With millions of people relying on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, it remains, as ever, a BFD. And it’s here to stay. <a href="https://t.co/5GPl9aR8uB">https://t.co/5GPl9aR8uB</a>
— President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1405551328877744129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 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 US president said the act ensures healthcare will be more affordable and Americans will pay lower premiums.

(With inputs from Agencies)

The US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, rejecting the Republican challenge to the medicare programme. The top court came to a decision with a 7-2 margin ruling out the challenge by Republican ruled states.

The US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, rejecting the Republican challenge to the medicare programme. The top court came to a decision with a 7-2 margin ruling out the challenge by Republican ruled states. Former President Donald Trump had vowed to do away with the healthcare initiative. However, it was stalled by the court. Two judges appointed by Trump - Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - voted against it. However, conservative justices including two appointed by Trump including Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the initiative. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, also voted in favour of the act. Obamacare was passed by Congress in 2010. The health insurance policy has withstood challenges earlier in 2012 and 2015. The act proposed access to Medicare programme for poor adults which was normally open for retired people over 65 years of age and included young people under 26 to be covered by their parents. However, the Republican-led states had challenged the programme arguing that it was unconstitutional since it originally required Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a financial penalty under the "individual mandate". Biden after taking office had requested the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare. The Trump administration had failed to produce an alternative to the policy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi while hailing the verdict said: "Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a landmark victory for Democrats’ work to defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions against Republicans’ relentless efforts to dismantle them." Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and the work of Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 17, 2021 × "On this anniversary, we should remember just how close we have come to losing that act we fought so hard for," US President Biden said, adding, "just 50 days into my administration, we've delivered on that promise with the American Rescue Plan." A big win for the American people. There’s no better day than today to sign up for quality, affordable health care at https://t.co/gRX1fGFEzj. With millions of people relying on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, it remains, as ever, a BFD. And it’s here to stay. https://t.co/5GPl9aR8uB — President Biden (@POTUS) June 17, 2021 × The US president said the act ensures healthcare will be more affordable and Americans will pay lower premiums. (With inputs from Agencies)

'There’s no better day than today: US Supreme Court upholds Obamacare law, rejects Republican challenge

Several Republican lawmakers, eager to blame a US government official for the&nbsp;response&nbsp;to the coronavirus pandemic, introduced a&nbsp;bill&nbsp;Tuesday to&nbsp;fire&nbsp;Anthony&nbsp;Fauci, the&nbsp;face&nbsp;of American efforts to combat&nbsp;Covid-19.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene led a handful of colleagues in announcing the so-called&nbsp;Fire&nbsp;Fauci&nbsp;Act, which would reduce the famed infectious disease expert's government salary to zero and require the Senate to confirm someone to fill his position.

Fauci, who has advised seven US presidents, had become a trusted figure in the government's&nbsp;Covid-19&nbsp;response, beginning with his work during Donald Trump's administration.

Also Watch |&nbsp;'US must vaccinate more people before Delta variant becomes dominant', says Anthony Fauci

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-must-vaccinate-more-people-before-delta-varient-becomes-dominant-says-anthony-fauci-390835/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/im-always-ready-biden-arrives-in-geneva-ahead-of-summit-with-putin-391741">Also Read |&nbsp;'I'm always ready': Biden arrives in Geneva ahead of summit with Putin</a>

But conservatives have taken aim at his performance, accusing him of misleading Americans and providing contradictory advice on masks and social distancing.

"Dr. Fauci&nbsp;was not elected by the American people. He was not chosen to guide our economy. He was not chosen to rule over parents and their children's education," Greene told reporters.

"But yet Dr. Fauci&nbsp;very much controlled our lives for the past year."

The&nbsp;bill&nbsp;is not expected to receive a floor vote in the Democratically-controlled House.

Greene, whose extremist statements have made her a controversial figure in Congress, pointed to a series of&nbsp;Fauci&nbsp;emails that&nbsp;Republicans&nbsp;seized on to argue that he misled Americans and initially dismissed the idea that&nbsp;Covid-19 may have originated in a Chinese laboratory.&nbsp;

"It's time to&nbsp;fire&nbsp;Dr.&nbsp;Anthony&nbsp;Fauci&nbsp;and give answers to the American people," she said.

The White House defended&nbsp;Fauci&nbsp;this month after the emails surfaced, calling him "an undeniable asset" in the pandemic&nbsp;response.

Greene also aimed a fiery accusation at China, voicing suspicion that a Wuhan laboratory was seeking to weaponize the virus.

"Why would there ever be viruses created, taken out of nature, that can be shared and passed among bats or other creatures, and then harnessed and changed into some sort of virus that can be spread among people? There's a word for that: it's called bioweapon," she said.

"Were we all victims of a bioweapon? We demand answers."

China also must be held accountable, she said, noting the Wuhan Institute of Virology's "gain-of-function" research, in which scientists increase the strength of a virus to better study its effects on hosts.

This week the Chinese scientist at the center of theories that the pandemic originated with a leak from her specialised Wuhan lab denied her institution was to blame for the health disaster.

"How on earth can I offer up evidence for something where there is no evidence?" Dr Shi Zhengli told The New York Times.

Another&nbsp;fire&nbsp;Fauci&nbsp;sponsor, congressman Mo Brooks, expressed support for Greene's bioweapons theory, saying a country would only make a virus more contagious for "militarisation purposes."

Several Republican lawmakers, eager to blame a US government official for the response to the coronavirus pandemic, introduced a bill Tuesday to fire Anthony Fauci, the face of American efforts to combat Covid-19.

Several Republican lawmakers, eager to blame a US government official for the response to the coronavirus pandemic, introduced a bill Tuesday to fire Anthony Fauci, the face of American efforts to combat Covid-19. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene led a handful of colleagues in announcing the so-called Fire Fauci Act, which would reduce the famed infectious disease expert's government salary to zero and require the Senate to confirm someone to fill his position. Fauci, who has advised seven US presidents, had become a trusted figure in the government's Covid-19 response, beginning with his work during Donald Trump's administration. Also Watch | 'US must vaccinate more people before Delta variant becomes dominant', says Anthony Fauci Also Read | 'I'm always ready': Biden arrives in Geneva ahead of summit with Putin But conservatives have taken aim at his performance, accusing him of misleading Americans and providing contradictory advice on masks and social distancing. "Dr. Fauci was not elected by the American people. He was not chosen to guide our economy. He was not chosen to rule over parents and their children's education," Greene told reporters. "But yet Dr. Fauci very much controlled our lives for the past year." The bill is not expected to receive a floor vote in the Democratically-controlled House. Greene, whose extremist statements have made her a controversial figure in Congress, pointed to a series of Fauci emails that Republicans seized on to argue that he misled Americans and initially dismissed the idea that Covid-19 may have originated in a Chinese laboratory. "It's time to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci and give answers to the American people," she said. The White House defended Fauci this month after the emails surfaced, calling him "an undeniable asset" in the pandemic response. Greene also aimed a fiery accusation at China, voicing suspicion that a Wuhan laboratory was seeking to weaponize the virus. "Why would there ever be viruses created, taken out of nature, that can be shared and passed among bats or other creatures, and then harnessed and changed into some sort of virus that can be spread among people? There's a word for that: it's called bioweapon," she said. "Were we all victims of a bioweapon? We demand answers." China also must be held accountable, she said, noting the Wuhan Institute of Virology's "gain-of-function" research, in which scientists increase the strength of a virus to better study its effects on hosts. This week the Chinese scientist at the center of theories that the pandemic originated with a leak from her specialised Wuhan lab denied her institution was to blame for the health disaster. "How on earth can I offer up evidence for something where there is no evidence?" Dr Shi Zhengli told The New York Times. Another fire Fauci sponsor, congressman Mo Brooks, expressed support for Greene's bioweapons theory, saying a country would only make a virus more contagious for "militarisation purposes."

Republicans introduce bill to fire Fauci, face of US Covid response

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy concedes that political rhetoric in the nation’s capital can sometimes stray into hysteria, but when it comes to the precarious state of American democracy, he insisted he was not exaggerating the nation’s tilt toward authoritarianism.

“Democrats are always at risk of being hyperbolic,” said Murphy, D-Conn. “I don’t think there’s a risk when it comes to the current state of democratic norms.”

After the norm-shattering presidency of Donald Trump, the violence-inducing bombast over a stolen election, the pressuring of state vote counters, the Capitol riot and the flood of voter curtailment laws rapidly being enacted in Republican-run states, Washington has found itself in an anguished state.

Almost daily, Democrats warn that Republicans are pursuing racist, Jim Crow-inspired voter suppression efforts to disenfranchise tens of millions of citizens, mainly people of colour, in a cynical effort to grab power. Metal detectors sit outside the House chamber to prevent lawmakers — particularly Republicans who have boasted of their intention to carry guns everywhere — from bringing weaponry to the floor. Democrats regard their Republican colleagues with suspicion, believing that some of them collaborated with the rioters on Jan. 6.

Republican lawmakers have systematically downplayed or dismissed the dangers, with some breezing over the attack on the Capitol as a largely peaceful protest, and many saying the state voting law changes are to restore “integrity” to the process, even as they give credence to Trump’s false claims of rampant fraud in the 2020 election.

They shrug off Democrats’ warnings of grave danger as the overheated language of politics as usual.

“I haven’t understood for four or five years why we are so quick to spin into a place where part of the country is sure that we no longer have the strength to move forward, as we always have in the past,” said Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of Republican leadership, noting that the passions of Republican voters today match those of Democratic voters after Trump’s triumph. “Four years ago, there were people in the so-called resistance showing up in all of my offices every week, some of whom were chaining themselves to the door.”

For Democrats, the evidence of looming catastrophe mounts daily. Fourteen states, including politically competitive ones like Florida and Georgia, have enacted 22 laws to curtail early and mail-in ballots, limit polling places and empower partisans to police polling, then oversee the vote tally. Others are likely to follow, including Texas, with its huge share of House seats and electoral votes.

Because Republicans control the legislatures of many states where the 2020 census will force redistricting, the party is already in a strong position to erase the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the House. Even moderate voting-law changes could bolster Republicans’ chances for the net gain of one vote they need to take back the Senate.

And in the nightmare outcome promulgated by some academics, Republicans have put themselves in a position to dictate the outcome of the 2024 presidential election if the voting is close in swing states.

“Statutory changes in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration, with Republican-controlled legislatures giving themselves the power to override electoral outcomes on unproven allegations,” 188 scholars said in a statement expressing concern about the erosion of democracy.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who lectured on American politics at Bowdoin College before going to the Senate, put the moment in historical context. He called American democracy “a 240-year experiment that runs against the tide of human history,” and that tide usually leads from and back to authoritarianism.

He said he feared the empowerment of state legislatures to decide election results more than the troubling curtailments of the franchise.

“This is an incredibly dangerous moment, and I don’t think it’s being sufficiently realized as such,” he said.

Republicans contend that much of this is overblown, though some concede the charges sting. Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., said Democrats were playing a hateful race card to promote voting-rights legislation that is so extreme it would cement Democratic control of Congress for decades.

“I hope that damage isn’t being done,” he added, “but it is always very dangerous to falsely play the race card and let’s face it, that’s what’s being done here.”

Toomey, who voted to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial, said he understood why, in the middle of a deadly pandemic, states sharply liberalized voting rules in 2020, extending mail-in voting, allowing mailed ballots to be counted days after Election Day and setting up ballot drop boxes, curbside polls and weeks of early voting.

But he added that Democrats should understand why state election officials wanted to course correct now that the coronavirus was ebbing.

“Every state needs to strike a balance between two competing values: making it as easy as possible to cast legitimate votes, but also the other, which is equally important: having everybody confident about the authenticity of the votes,” Toomey said.

Trump’s lies about a stolen election, he added, “were more likely to resonate because you had this system that went so far the other way.”

Some other Republicans embrace the notion that they are trying to use their prerogatives as a minority party to safeguard their own power. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said the endeavour was the essence of America’s system of representative democracy, distinguishing it from direct democracy, where the majority rules and is free to trample the rights of the minority unimpeded.

“The idea of democracy and majority rule really is what goes against our history and what the country stands for,” Paul said. “The Jim Crow laws came out of democracy. That’s what you get when a majority ignores the rights of others.”

Democrats and their allies push back hard on those arguments. King said the only reason voters lacked confidence in the voting system was that Republicans — especially Trump — told them for months that it was rigged, despite all evidence to the contrary, and now continued to insist that there were abuses in the process that must be fixed.

“That’s like pleading for mercy as an orphan after you killed both your parents,” he said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in no way could some of the new state voting laws be seen as a necessary course correction. “Not being able to serve somebody water who’s waiting in line? I mean, come on,” he said. “There are elements that are in most of these proposals where you look at it and you say, ‘That violates the common-sense test.’”

Missteps by Democrats have fortified Republicans’ attempts to downplay the dangers. Some of them, including President Joe Biden, have mischaracterized Georgia’s voting law, handing Republicans ammunition to say that Democrats were willfully distorting what was happening at the state level.

The state’s 98-page voting law, passed after the narrow victories for Biden and two Democratic candidates for Senate, would make absentee voting harder and create restrictions and complications for millions of voters, many of them people of colour.

But Biden falsely claimed that the law — which he labelled “un-American” and “sick” — had slapped new restrictions on early voting to bar people from voting after 5 p.m. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said the Georgia law had ended early voting on Sunday. It didn’t.

And the sweep — critics say overreach — of the Democrats’ answer to Republican voter laws, the For the People Act, has undermined Democratic claims that the fate of the republic relies on its passage. Even some Democrats are uncomfortable with the act’s breadth, including the advancement of statehood for the District of Columbia with its assurance of two more senators, almost certainly Democratic; it's public financing of elections; its nullification of most voter identification laws; and its mandatory prescriptions for early and mail-in voting.

“They want to put a thumb on the scale of future elections,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Wednesday. “They want to take power away from the voters and the states, and give themselves every partisan advantage that they can.”

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who could conceivably be a partner in Democratic efforts to expand voting rights, called the legislation a “fundamentally unserious” bill.

Republican leaders have sought to take the current argument from the lofty heights of history to the nitty-gritty of legislation. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, pointed to the success of bipartisan efforts such as passage of a bill to combat hate crimes against Asian Americans, approval of a broad China competition measure and current talks to forge compromises on infrastructure and criminal justice as proof that Democratic catastrophizing over the state of American governance was overblown.

But Democrats are not assuaged.

“Not to diminish the importance of the work we’ve done here, but democracy itself is what we’re talking about,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii. “And to point at other bills that don’t have to do with the fair administration of elections is just an attempt to distract while all these state legislatures move systematically toward disenfranchising voters who have historically leaned Democrat.”

King said he had had serious conversations with Republican colleagues about the precarious state of American democracy. Authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban and Adolf Hitler have come to power by-election, and stayed in power by warping or obliterating democratic norms.

But, he acknowledged, he has yet to get serious engagement, largely because his colleagues fear the wrath of Trump and his supporters.

“I get the feeling they hope this whole thing will go away,” he said. “They make arguments, but you have the feeling their hearts aren’t in it.”

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy concedes that political rhetoric in the nation’s capital can sometimes stray into hysteria, but when it comes to the precarious state of American democracy, he insisted he was not exaggerating the nation’s tilt toward authoritarianism.

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy concedes that political rhetoric in the nation’s capital can sometimes stray into hysteria, but when it comes to the precarious state of American democracy, he insisted he was not exaggerating the nation’s tilt toward authoritarianism. “Democrats are always at risk of being hyperbolic,” said Murphy, D-Conn. “I don’t think there’s a risk when it comes to the current state of democratic norms.” After the norm-shattering presidency of Donald Trump, the violence-inducing bombast over a stolen election, the pressuring of state vote counters, the Capitol riot and the flood of voter curtailment laws rapidly being enacted in Republican-run states, Washington has found itself in an anguished state. Almost daily, Democrats warn that Republicans are pursuing racist, Jim Crow-inspired voter suppression efforts to disenfranchise tens of millions of citizens, mainly people of colour, in a cynical effort to grab power. Metal detectors sit outside the House chamber to prevent lawmakers — particularly Republicans who have boasted of their intention to carry guns everywhere — from bringing weaponry to the floor. Democrats regard their Republican colleagues with suspicion, believing that some of them collaborated with the rioters on Jan. 6. Republican lawmakers have systematically downplayed or dismissed the dangers, with some breezing over the attack on the Capitol as a largely peaceful protest, and many saying the state voting law changes are to restore “integrity” to the process, even as they give credence to Trump’s false claims of rampant fraud in the 2020 election. They shrug off Democrats’ warnings of grave danger as the overheated language of politics as usual. “I haven’t understood for four or five years why we are so quick to spin into a place where part of the country is sure that we no longer have the strength to move forward, as we always have in the past,” said Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of Republican leadership, noting that the passions of Republican voters today match those of Democratic voters after Trump’s triumph. “Four years ago, there were people in the so-called resistance showing up in all of my offices every week, some of whom were chaining themselves to the door.” For Democrats, the evidence of looming catastrophe mounts daily. Fourteen states, including politically competitive ones like Florida and Georgia, have enacted 22 laws to curtail early and mail-in ballots, limit polling places and empower partisans to police polling, then oversee the vote tally. Others are likely to follow, including Texas, with its huge share of House seats and electoral votes. Because Republicans control the legislatures of many states where the 2020 census will force redistricting, the party is already in a strong position to erase the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the House. Even moderate voting-law changes could bolster Republicans’ chances for the net gain of one vote they need to take back the Senate. And in the nightmare outcome promulgated by some academics, Republicans have put themselves in a position to dictate the outcome of the 2024 presidential election if the voting is close in swing states. “Statutory changes in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration, with Republican-controlled legislatures giving themselves the power to override electoral outcomes on unproven allegations,” 188 scholars said in a statement expressing concern about the erosion of democracy. Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who lectured on American politics at Bowdoin College before going to the Senate, put the moment in historical context. He called American democracy “a 240-year experiment that runs against the tide of human history,” and that tide usually leads from and back to authoritarianism. He said he feared the empowerment of state legislatures to decide election results more than the troubling curtailments of the franchise. “This is an incredibly dangerous moment, and I don’t think it’s being sufficiently realized as such,” he said. Republicans contend that much of this is overblown, though some concede the charges sting. Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., said Democrats were playing a hateful race card to promote voting-rights legislation that is so extreme it would cement Democratic control of Congress for decades. “I hope that damage isn’t being done,” he added, “but it is always very dangerous to falsely play the race card and let’s face it, that’s what’s being done here.” Toomey, who voted to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial, said he understood why, in the middle of a deadly pandemic, states sharply liberalized voting rules in 2020, extending mail-in voting, allowing mailed ballots to be counted days after Election Day and setting up ballot drop boxes, curbside polls and weeks of early voting. But he added that Democrats should understand why state election officials wanted to course correct now that the coronavirus was ebbing. “Every state needs to strike a balance between two competing values: making it as easy as possible to cast legitimate votes, but also the other, which is equally important: having everybody confident about the authenticity of the votes,” Toomey said. Trump’s lies about a stolen election, he added, “were more likely to resonate because you had this system that went so far the other way.” Some other Republicans embrace the notion that they are trying to use their prerogatives as a minority party to safeguard their own power. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said the endeavour was the essence of America’s system of representative democracy, distinguishing it from direct democracy, where the majority rules and is free to trample the rights of the minority unimpeded. “The idea of democracy and majority rule really is what goes against our history and what the country stands for,” Paul said. “The Jim Crow laws came out of democracy. That’s what you get when a majority ignores the rights of others.” Democrats and their allies push back hard on those arguments. King said the only reason voters lacked confidence in the voting system was that Republicans — especially Trump — told them for months that it was rigged, despite all evidence to the contrary, and now continued to insist that there were abuses in the process that must be fixed. “That’s like pleading for mercy as an orphan after you killed both your parents,” he said. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in no way could some of the new state voting laws be seen as a necessary course correction. “Not being able to serve somebody water who’s waiting in line? I mean, come on,” he said. “There are elements that are in most of these proposals where you look at it and you say, ‘That violates the common-sense test.’” Missteps by Democrats have fortified Republicans’ attempts to downplay the dangers. Some of them, including President Joe Biden, have mischaracterized Georgia’s voting law, handing Republicans ammunition to say that Democrats were willfully distorting what was happening at the state level. The state’s 98-page voting law, passed after the narrow victories for Biden and two Democratic candidates for Senate, would make absentee voting harder and create restrictions and complications for millions of voters, many of them people of colour. But Biden falsely claimed that the law — which he labelled “un-American” and “sick” — had slapped new restrictions on early voting to bar people from voting after 5 p.m. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said the Georgia law had ended early voting on Sunday. It didn’t. And the sweep — critics say overreach — of the Democrats’ answer to Republican voter laws, the For the People Act, has undermined Democratic claims that the fate of the republic relies on its passage. Even some Democrats are uncomfortable with the act’s breadth, including the advancement of statehood for the District of Columbia with its assurance of two more senators, almost certainly Democratic; it's public financing of elections; its nullification of most voter identification laws; and its mandatory prescriptions for early and mail-in voting. “They want to put a thumb on the scale of future elections,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Wednesday. “They want to take power away from the voters and the states, and give themselves every partisan advantage that they can.” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who could conceivably be a partner in Democratic efforts to expand voting rights, called the legislation a “fundamentally unserious” bill. Republican leaders have sought to take the current argument from the lofty heights of history to the nitty-gritty of legislation. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, pointed to the success of bipartisan efforts such as passage of a bill to combat hate crimes against Asian Americans, approval of a broad China competition measure and current talks to forge compromises on infrastructure and criminal justice as proof that Democratic catastrophizing over the state of American governance was overblown. But Democrats are not assuaged. “Not to diminish the importance of the work we’ve done here, but democracy itself is what we’re talking about,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii. “And to point at other bills that don’t have to do with the fair administration of elections is just an attempt to distract while all these state legislatures move systematically toward disenfranchising voters who have historically leaned Democrat.” King said he had had serious conversations with Republican colleagues about the precarious state of American democracy. Authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban and Adolf Hitler have come to power by-election, and stayed in power by warping or obliterating democratic norms. But, he acknowledged, he has yet to get serious engagement, largely because his colleagues fear the wrath of Trump and his supporters. “I get the feeling they hope this whole thing will go away,” he said. “They make arguments, but you have the feeling their hearts aren’t in it.”

In Congress, Republicans shrug at warnings of Democracy in peril

republicans

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