In just a few weeks, lawsuits and legal threats from a pair of obscure election technology companies have achieved what years of advertising boycotts, public pressure campaigns and liberal outrage could not: curbing the flow of misinformation in right-wing media.

Fox Business canceled its highest-rated show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Friday after its host was sued as part of a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit. On Tuesday, the pro-Trump cable channel Newsmax cut off a guest’s rant about rigged voting machines. Fox News, which seldom bows to critics, has run fact-checking segments to debunk its own anchors’ false claims about electoral fraud.

This is not the typical playbook for right-wing media, which prides itself on pugilism and delights in ignoring the liberals who have long complained about its content. But conservative outlets have rarely faced this level of direct assault on their economic lifeblood.

Smartmatic, a voter technology firm swept up in conspiracies spread by former President Donald Trump and his allies, filed its defamation suit against Rupert Murdoch’s Fox empire Thursday, citing Dobbs and two other Fox anchors, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro, for harming its business and reputation.

Dominion Voting Systems, another company that Trump has accused of rigging votes, filed defamation suits last month against two of the former president’s lawyers, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, on similar grounds. Both firms have signaled that more lawsuits may be imminent.

Litigation represents a new front in the war against misinformation, a scourge that has reshaped U.S. politics, deprived citizens of common facts and paved the way for the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Fox News, for instance, paid millions last year to settle a claim from the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member falsely accused by Fox hosts of leaking emails to WikiLeaks.

But the use of defamation suits has also raised uneasy questions about how to police a news media that counts on First Amendment protections — even as some conservative outlets advanced Trump’s lies and eroded public faith in the democratic process.

“If you had asked me 15 years, five years ago, whether I would ever have gotten involved in a defamation case, I would have told you no,” said Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer who is representing Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, and writer E. Jean Carroll in defamation suits against the former president.

Like other prominent liberals in her profession, Kaplan had long considered defamation suits a way for the wealthy and powerful to try to silence their critics. Last year, Trump’s campaign sued multiple news organizations for coverage that the president deemed unfavorable or unfair. Technology billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan’s suit against gossip blog Gawker that ultimately bankrupted the business.

“What’s changed,” Kaplan said, “and we’ve all seen it happen before our eyes, is the fact that so many people out there, including people in positions of authority, are just willing to say anything, regardless of whether it has any relationship to the truth or not.”

Some First Amendment lawyers say that an axiom — the best antidote to bad speech is more speech — may no longer apply in a media landscape where misinformation can flood public discourse via countless channels, from cable news to the Facebook pages of family and friends.

“This shouldn’t be the way to govern speech in our country,” Kaplan said. “It’s not an efficient or productive way to promote truth-telling or quality journalistic standards through litigating in court. But I think it’s gotten to the point where the problem is so bad right now, there’s virtually no other way to do it.”

Trump’s rise is an inextricable part of this shift. His popularity boosted the profits and power of the right-wing commentators and media outlets that defended him. In November, when Trump cast doubt on the outcome of the presidential election despite no credible evidence, it made commercial and editorial sense for his media allies to follow his lead.

Newsmax anchor Greg Kelly refused to accept Joe Biden as president-elect and was rewarded with a surge in ratings. Fox News was more cautious — the network declared Biden the next president on Nov. 7 — but some Fox stars, including Dobbs, Bartiromo and Pirro, offered significant airtime to his lawyers, Giuliani and Powell, and others who pushed the outlandish election fraud narrative.

In one example cited in the 276-page complaint filed by Smartmatic, Dobbs’ program broadcast a false claim by Powell that Hugo Chávez, the former president of Venezuela, had been involved in creating the company’s technology and installed software so that votes could be switched undetected. (Chávez, who died in 2013, did not have anything to do with Smartmatic.)

Smartmatic also cited an episode of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” in which Giuliani falsely described the election as “stolen” and claimed that hundreds of thousands of “unlawful ballots” had been found. Dobbs described the election as the end to “a 4 1/2-year-long effort to overthrow the president of the United States” and raised the specter of outside interference.

“It has the feeling of a cover-up in certain places, you know — putting the servers in foreign countries, private companies,” Dobbs said.

Fox has promised to fight the litigation. “We are proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend this meritless lawsuit in court,” the network said in a statement the day before it canceled Dobbs’ show.

Executives in conservative media argue that the Smartmatic lawsuit raises uncomfortable questions about how news organizations should present public figures: Powell was a conspiracist, but she was also the president’s lawyer. Should a media outlet be allowed to broadcast her claims?

“There’s a new standard created out of this that is very dangerous for all the cable channels,” Christopher Ruddy, the owner of Newsmax and a Trump confidant, said in an interview Saturday. “You have to fact-check everything public figures say, and you could be held libelous for what they say.” Ruddy contends that Newsmax presented a fair view of the claims about election fraud and voting technology companies.

Newsmax personnel, though, were made aware of the potential damage stemming from claims that appeared on their shows. In an extraordinary on-air moment Tuesday, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder and a staunch Trump ally, began attacking Dominion — and was promptly cut off by a Newsmax anchor, Bob Sellers, who read a formal statement that Newsmax had accepted the election results “as legal and final.”

Fox executives revealed their own concerns in December after Smartmatic sent a letter signaling that litigation was imminent. Fox News and Fox Business ran an unusually stilted segment in which an election expert, Edward Perez, debunked conspiracy theories about voter fraud that had recently been aired on the networks. The segment ran on three programs — those hosted by Dobbs, Bartiromo and Pirro. (Newsmax, which also received a letter from Smartmatic, aired its own clarifications.)

This fear of liability has rippled into smaller corners of the right-wing media sphere. Giuliani, who hosts a show on New York radio station WABC, was caught by surprise Thursday when his employer aired a disclaimer during his show that distanced itself and its advertisers from Giuliani’s views.

“They got to warn you about me?” Giuliani asked his listeners, sounding incredulous. “Putting that on without telling me — not the right thing to do. Not the right thing to do at all.”

Yochai Benkler, a professor at Harvard Law School who studies disinformation and radicalization in U.S. politics, said that the president’s lies about the election had pushed pro-Trump outlets beyond the relatively lax standards applied to on-air commentators.

“The competitive dynamic in the right-wing outrage industry has forced them all over the rails,” Benkler said. “This is the first set of lawsuits that’s actually going to force them to internalize the cost of the damages they’re inflicting on democracy.”

Benkler called the Smartmatic suit “a useful corrective” — “it’s a tap on the brakes” — but he also urged restraint. “We have to be very cautious in our celebration of these lawsuits because the history of defamation is certainly one in which people in power try to slap down critics,” he said.

Martin Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, said he was personally repelled by the lies about the election propagated by Trump and his allies, but he also called the Smartmatic suit “very complicated.”

“Will lawsuits like this also be used in the future to attack groups whose politics I might be more sympathetic with?” he asked.

Garbus, who made his reputation in part by defending the speech rights of neo-Nazis and other hate groups, said that the growth of online sources for news and disinformation had made him question whether he might take on such cases today. He offered an example of a local neo-Nazi march.

Before social media, “it wouldn’t have made much of an echo,” Garbus said. “Now, if they say it, it’s all over the media, and somebody in Australia could blow up a mosque based on what somebody in New York says. It seems to me you have to reconsider the consequence of things.”

In just a few weeks, lawsuits and legal threats from a pair of obscure election technology companies have achieved what years of advertising boycotts, public pressure campaigns and liberal outrage could not: curbing the flow of misinformation in right-wing media.

In just a few weeks, lawsuits and legal threats from a pair of obscure election technology companies have achieved what years of advertising boycotts, public pressure campaigns and liberal outrage could not: curbing the flow of misinformation in right-wing media. Fox Business canceled its highest-rated show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Friday after its host was sued as part of a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit. On Tuesday, the pro-Trump cable channel Newsmax cut off a guest’s rant about rigged voting machines. Fox News, which seldom bows to critics, has run fact-checking segments to debunk its own anchors’ false claims about electoral fraud. This is not the typical playbook for right-wing media, which prides itself on pugilism and delights in ignoring the liberals who have long complained about its content. But conservative outlets have rarely faced this level of direct assault on their economic lifeblood. Smartmatic, a voter technology firm swept up in conspiracies spread by former President Donald Trump and his allies, filed its defamation suit against Rupert Murdoch’s Fox empire Thursday, citing Dobbs and two other Fox anchors, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro, for harming its business and reputation. Dominion Voting Systems, another company that Trump has accused of rigging votes, filed defamation suits last month against two of the former president’s lawyers, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, on similar grounds. Both firms have signaled that more lawsuits may be imminent. Litigation represents a new front in the war against misinformation, a scourge that has reshaped U.S. politics, deprived citizens of common facts and paved the way for the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Fox News, for instance, paid millions last year to settle a claim from the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member falsely accused by Fox hosts of leaking emails to WikiLeaks. But the use of defamation suits has also raised uneasy questions about how to police a news media that counts on First Amendment protections — even as some conservative outlets advanced Trump’s lies and eroded public faith in the democratic process. “If you had asked me 15 years, five years ago, whether I would ever have gotten involved in a defamation case, I would have told you no,” said Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer who is representing Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, and writer E. Jean Carroll in defamation suits against the former president. Like other prominent liberals in her profession, Kaplan had long considered defamation suits a way for the wealthy and powerful to try to silence their critics. Last year, Trump’s campaign sued multiple news organizations for coverage that the president deemed unfavorable or unfair. Technology billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan’s suit against gossip blog Gawker that ultimately bankrupted the business. “What’s changed,” Kaplan said, “and we’ve all seen it happen before our eyes, is the fact that so many people out there, including people in positions of authority, are just willing to say anything, regardless of whether it has any relationship to the truth or not.” Some First Amendment lawyers say that an axiom — the best antidote to bad speech is more speech — may no longer apply in a media landscape where misinformation can flood public discourse via countless channels, from cable news to the Facebook pages of family and friends. “This shouldn’t be the way to govern speech in our country,” Kaplan said. “It’s not an efficient or productive way to promote truth-telling or quality journalistic standards through litigating in court. But I think it’s gotten to the point where the problem is so bad right now, there’s virtually no other way to do it.” Trump’s rise is an inextricable part of this shift. His popularity boosted the profits and power of the right-wing commentators and media outlets that defended him. In November, when Trump cast doubt on the outcome of the presidential election despite no credible evidence, it made commercial and editorial sense for his media allies to follow his lead. Newsmax anchor Greg Kelly refused to accept Joe Biden as president-elect and was rewarded with a surge in ratings. Fox News was more cautious — the network declared Biden the next president on Nov. 7 — but some Fox stars, including Dobbs, Bartiromo and Pirro, offered significant airtime to his lawyers, Giuliani and Powell, and others who pushed the outlandish election fraud narrative. In one example cited in the 276-page complaint filed by Smartmatic, Dobbs’ program broadcast a false claim by Powell that Hugo Chávez, the former president of Venezuela, had been involved in creating the company’s technology and installed software so that votes could be switched undetected. (Chávez, who died in 2013, did not have anything to do with Smartmatic.) Smartmatic also cited an episode of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” in which Giuliani falsely described the election as “stolen” and claimed that hundreds of thousands of “unlawful ballots” had been found. Dobbs described the election as the end to “a 4 1/2-year-long effort to overthrow the president of the United States” and raised the specter of outside interference. “It has the feeling of a cover-up in certain places, you know — putting the servers in foreign countries, private companies,” Dobbs said. Fox has promised to fight the litigation. “We are proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend this meritless lawsuit in court,” the network said in a statement the day before it canceled Dobbs’ show. Executives in conservative media argue that the Smartmatic lawsuit raises uncomfortable questions about how news organizations should present public figures: Powell was a conspiracist, but she was also the president’s lawyer. Should a media outlet be allowed to broadcast her claims? “There’s a new standard created out of this that is very dangerous for all the cable channels,” Christopher Ruddy, the owner of Newsmax and a Trump confidant, said in an interview Saturday. “You have to fact-check everything public figures say, and you could be held libelous for what they say.” Ruddy contends that Newsmax presented a fair view of the claims about election fraud and voting technology companies. Newsmax personnel, though, were made aware of the potential damage stemming from claims that appeared on their shows. In an extraordinary on-air moment Tuesday, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder and a staunch Trump ally, began attacking Dominion — and was promptly cut off by a Newsmax anchor, Bob Sellers, who read a formal statement that Newsmax had accepted the election results “as legal and final.” Fox executives revealed their own concerns in December after Smartmatic sent a letter signaling that litigation was imminent. Fox News and Fox Business ran an unusually stilted segment in which an election expert, Edward Perez, debunked conspiracy theories about voter fraud that had recently been aired on the networks. The segment ran on three programs — those hosted by Dobbs, Bartiromo and Pirro. (Newsmax, which also received a letter from Smartmatic, aired its own clarifications.) This fear of liability has rippled into smaller corners of the right-wing media sphere. Giuliani, who hosts a show on New York radio station WABC, was caught by surprise Thursday when his employer aired a disclaimer during his show that distanced itself and its advertisers from Giuliani’s views. “They got to warn you about me?” Giuliani asked his listeners, sounding incredulous. “Putting that on without telling me — not the right thing to do. Not the right thing to do at all.” Yochai Benkler, a professor at Harvard Law School who studies disinformation and radicalization in U.S. politics, said that the president’s lies about the election had pushed pro-Trump outlets beyond the relatively lax standards applied to on-air commentators. “The competitive dynamic in the right-wing outrage industry has forced them all over the rails,” Benkler said. “This is the first set of lawsuits that’s actually going to force them to internalize the cost of the damages they’re inflicting on democracy.” Benkler called the Smartmatic suit “a useful corrective” — “it’s a tap on the brakes” — but he also urged restraint. “We have to be very cautious in our celebration of these lawsuits because the history of defamation is certainly one in which people in power try to slap down critics,” he said. Martin Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, said he was personally repelled by the lies about the election propagated by Trump and his allies, but he also called the Smartmatic suit “very complicated.” “Will lawsuits like this also be used in the future to attack groups whose politics I might be more sympathetic with?” he asked. Garbus, who made his reputation in part by defending the speech rights of neo-Nazis and other hate groups, said that the growth of online sources for news and disinformation had made him question whether he might take on such cases today. He offered an example of a local neo-Nazi march. Before social media, “it wouldn’t have made much of an echo,” Garbus said. “Now, if they say it, it’s all over the media, and somebody in Australia could blow up a mosque based on what somebody in New York says. It seems to me you have to reconsider the consequence of things.”

Lawsuits take the lead in fight against disinformation

The Kremlin has slammed US President Joe Biden's "very aggressive rhetoric" after he said Washington's relationship with Moscow would change and demanded opposition politician Alexei Navalny's release.&nbsp;

"This is very aggressive and unconstructive rhetoric," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. "We've already said that we will not heed patronising statements of this sort. We will not do it."

He said Russia would not tolerate any US ultimatums, adding the Kremlin hoped however that there could still be useful dialogue between the two countries when their interests coincided.

Biden on Thursday promised a new era of US foreign policy in his first diplomatic address as president and said he had told Russia President Vladimir Putin that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of what he called Moscow's aggressive actions were over.

In toughly worded remarks pivoting from his predecessor Donald Trump's muted approach to Moscow, Biden warned of "advancing authoritarianism" in China and Russia.

The speech at the State Department thrust Russia back onto the front burner of the US diplomatic agenda after four years during which Trump largely pushed the worsening relationship with Moscow to the side and consistently refused to criticise Putin.

Biden said that in his first phone call with the Russian leader since taking office on January 20 he "made it clear" to Putin that the relationship was changing.

"We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interest and our people," the Democrat said, highlighting a massive cyber attack and election interference blamed on Moscow.

"The days of the United States rolling over... are over," he said.

Biden also devoted part of his speech to unusually direct criticism of the authorities' treatment of Navalny.

"Mr Navalny, like all Russian citizens, is entitled to his rights under the Russian constitution. He's been targeted for exposing corruption. He should be released immediately and without condition," he said.

(with inputs from agencies)

The Kremlin has slammed US President Joe Biden's "very aggressive rhetoric" after he said Washington's relationship with Moscow would change and demanded opposition politician Alexei Navalny's release.

The Kremlin has slammed US President Joe Biden's "very aggressive rhetoric" after he said Washington's relationship with Moscow would change and demanded opposition politician Alexei Navalny's release. "This is very aggressive and unconstructive rhetoric," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. "We've already said that we will not heed patronising statements of this sort. We will not do it." He said Russia would not tolerate any US ultimatums, adding the Kremlin hoped however that there could still be useful dialogue between the two countries when their interests coincided. Biden on Thursday promised a new era of US foreign policy in his first diplomatic address as president and said he had told Russia President Vladimir Putin that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of what he called Moscow's aggressive actions were over. In toughly worded remarks pivoting from his predecessor Donald Trump's muted approach to Moscow, Biden warned of "advancing authoritarianism" in China and Russia. The speech at the State Department thrust Russia back onto the front burner of the US diplomatic agenda after four years during which Trump largely pushed the worsening relationship with Moscow to the side and consistently refused to criticise Putin. Biden said that in his first phone call with the Russian leader since taking office on January 20 he "made it clear" to Putin that the relationship was changing. "We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interest and our people," the Democrat said, highlighting a massive cyber attack and election interference blamed on Moscow. "The days of the United States rolling over... are over," he said. Biden also devoted part of his speech to unusually direct criticism of the authorities' treatment of Navalny. "Mr Navalny, like all Russian citizens, is entitled to his rights under the Russian constitution. He's been targeted for exposing corruption. He should be released immediately and without condition," he said. (with inputs from agencies)

Kremlin slams Biden's 'very aggressive rhetoric'

U.S. President Joe Biden made a late-night visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to pay his respects to Brian Sicknick, the Capitol police officer killed when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol last month.

In a solemn ceremony, the cremated remains of Sicknick, who died of his injuries the day after the Jan. 6 attack, arrived on Tuesday night to lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda until midday Wednesday.

Biden and his wife, Jill, stood before the remains with their hands over their hearts in silent tribute to Sicknick.

Democratic and Republican leaders of the U.S. Congress filed into the Rotunda for the ceremony. One by one, Sicknick`s fellow Capitol Police officers approached the receptacle containing the remains and saluted. U.S. lawmakers will take their turn on Wednesday morning.

Sicknick was a casualty of the storming of the Capitol by hundreds of Trump supporters after a fiery speech in which the then-president urged them to “fight” his election loss to Biden. Four others died in the violence.

The incident led to Trump’s second impeachment and next week he will face trial in the Senate on a charge of inciting insurrection. Trump’s lawyers argued on Tuesday that lawmakers cannot legally impeach a former president and he once again stoked claims of voter fraud.

Since the 19th century, the caskets of about three dozen distinguished Americans have been honored at the Capitol. Twelve have been former presidents, who along with other government officials, judges and military leaders are said to “lie in state.”

In the Jan. 6 violence, Sicknick was pepper-sprayed and hit in the head, according to his father. An ambulance crew resuscitated him twice as he was rushed to a nearby hospital. He died Jan. 7 and no charges have been brought in the case.

Sicknick, who had served in the New Jersey Air National Guard, joined the Capitol Police in 2008.

The category of “laying in honor” was created after two Capitol Police officers were fatally wounded in 1998 by a gunman who ran to the offices of then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay.

Sicknick, who died at 42, is the fifth American to lay in honor at the rotunda. The other two were civil rights leader Rosa parks in 2005 and the Reverend Billy Graham in 2018.

Members of Congress will be able to view Sicknick on Wednesday morning. There will be a congressional tribute on Wednesday before a ceremonial departure.

U.S. President Joe Biden made a late-night visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to pay his respects to Brian Sicknick, the Capitol police officer killed when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the U.

U.S. President Joe Biden made a late-night visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to pay his respects to Brian Sicknick, the Capitol police officer killed when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol last month. In a solemn ceremony, the cremated remains of Sicknick, who died of his injuries the day after the Jan. 6 attack, arrived on Tuesday night to lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda until midday Wednesday. Biden and his wife, Jill, stood before the remains with their hands over their hearts in silent tribute to Sicknick. Democratic and Republican leaders of the U.S. Congress filed into the Rotunda for the ceremony. One by one, Sicknick`s fellow Capitol Police officers approached the receptacle containing the remains and saluted. U.S. lawmakers will take their turn on Wednesday morning. Sicknick was a casualty of the storming of the Capitol by hundreds of Trump supporters after a fiery speech in which the then-president urged them to “fight” his election loss to Biden. Four others died in the violence. The incident led to Trump’s second impeachment and next week he will face trial in the Senate on a charge of inciting insurrection. Trump’s lawyers argued on Tuesday that lawmakers cannot legally impeach a former president and he once again stoked claims of voter fraud. Since the 19th century, the caskets of about three dozen distinguished Americans have been honored at the Capitol. Twelve have been former presidents, who along with other government officials, judges and military leaders are said to “lie in state.” In the Jan. 6 violence, Sicknick was pepper-sprayed and hit in the head, according to his father. An ambulance crew resuscitated him twice as he was rushed to a nearby hospital. He died Jan. 7 and no charges have been brought in the case. Sicknick, who had served in the New Jersey Air National Guard, joined the Capitol Police in 2008. The category of “laying in honor” was created after two Capitol Police officers were fatally wounded in 1998 by a gunman who ran to the offices of then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay. Sicknick, who died at 42, is the fifth American to lay in honor at the rotunda. The other two were civil rights leader Rosa parks in 2005 and the Reverend Billy Graham in 2018. Members of Congress will be able to view Sicknick on Wednesday morning. There will be a congressional tribute on Wednesday before a ceremonial departure.

In visit to Capitol, Biden honours police officer killed in Jan 6 assault

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and his so-called "remain in Mexico" asylum policy.

Democratic President Joe Biden`s administration, which is in the process of changing course on both issues, on Monday had asked the justices to postpone further legal filings in the two cases and to remove them from their oral argument calendar. Biden`s administration already has announced plans to discontinue wall construction and suspend the asylum program, potentially making the cases moot.

The court was scheduled to hear arguments in the wall case on Feb. 22 and the asylum police case on March 1.

The cases involve two contentious issues left over from Trump`s turbulent four years in office.

The border wall was one of Trump`s central 2016 campaign promises, with his supporters chanting at rallies "build the wall." At issue was the legality of Trump`s decision, after Congress refused to appropriate money he sought for the wall, to shift military funds already provided by lawmakers for other purposes to pay for the project.

Trump called the wall necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive. Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico refused.

Trump in 2019 redirected $2.5 billion from military counter-narcotics programs for border wall construction in California, New Mexico and Arizona. Biden issued a proclamation on Jan. 20, his first day in office, ordering a freeze on border wall projects and directing a review of the legality of its funding and contracting methods.

The "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in 2019, has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed.

Trump said the policy reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Migrants in the program, many of them children, faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults.

Biden`s Department of Homeland Security has said it will suspend new enrollments in the asylum program, pending further review. On Tuesday, Biden announced a formal review of the asylum program.

In both cases, lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the Trump administration`s appeals.

They are among several cases pending at the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, that Biden`s administration may seek to change course on after earlier action by Trump`s administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and his so-called "remain in Mexico" asylum policy. Democratic President Joe Biden`s administration, which is in the process of changing course on both issues, on Monday had asked the justices to postpone further legal filings in the two cases and to remove them from their oral argument calendar. Biden`s administration already has announced plans to discontinue wall construction and suspend the asylum program, potentially making the cases moot. The court was scheduled to hear arguments in the wall case on Feb. 22 and the asylum police case on March 1. The cases involve two contentious issues left over from Trump`s turbulent four years in office. The border wall was one of Trump`s central 2016 campaign promises, with his supporters chanting at rallies "build the wall." At issue was the legality of Trump`s decision, after Congress refused to appropriate money he sought for the wall, to shift military funds already provided by lawmakers for other purposes to pay for the project. Trump called the wall necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive. Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico refused. Trump in 2019 redirected $2.5 billion from military counter-narcotics programs for border wall construction in California, New Mexico and Arizona. Biden issued a proclamation on Jan. 20, his first day in office, ordering a freeze on border wall projects and directing a review of the legality of its funding and contracting methods. The "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in 2019, has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed. Trump said the policy reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Migrants in the program, many of them children, faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults. Biden`s Department of Homeland Security has said it will suspend new enrollments in the asylum program, pending further review. On Tuesday, Biden announced a formal review of the asylum program. In both cases, lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the Trump administration`s appeals. They are among several cases pending at the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, that Biden`s administration may seek to change course on after earlier action by Trump`s administration.

US Supreme Court scraps arguments in Trump-era immigration and wall cases

US lawmakers will question President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the nation’s top environmental regulator on Wednesday. Multiple reports have confirmed the interaction will be focussed on how he will execute the administration's goal of decarbonising the country's cars and power plants.

Michael Regan would be the first Black man to lead the Environmental Protection Agency if confirmed by the Senate, and would take the reins at a time the agency has been weakened by Trump-era budget and staff cuts and bitter partisan dispute over Biden's climate agenda.

As EPA chief, Biden would rely on him as a key leader in a government-wide approach to tackle global warming after four years during which his predecessor Donald Trump used the agency to dismantle regulation to boost drillers, electric generators, miners and manufacturers.

Senators said they would grill Regan about the administration’s climate change agenda.

Biden says the shift to clean energy will be a net-positive for jobs and the economy, while reducing pollution. He has already signed a slew of climate-focussed executive orders, including suspending federal drilling lease auctions and rejoining international efforts to fight climate change, and has also promised to zero-out power sector emissions by 2035 and accelerate electric car deployment.

Regan was formerly head of North Carolina’s environmental regulator, where he earned a reputation as a bipartisan consensus builder.

US lawmakers will question President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the nation’s top environmental regulator on Wednesday. Multiple reports have confirmed the interaction will be focussed on how he will execute the administration's goal of decarbonising the country's cars and power plants.

US lawmakers will question President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the nation’s top environmental regulator on Wednesday. Multiple reports have confirmed the interaction will be focussed on how he will execute the administration's goal of decarbonising the country's cars and power plants. Michael Regan would be the first Black man to lead the Environmental Protection Agency if confirmed by the Senate, and would take the reins at a time the agency has been weakened by Trump-era budget and staff cuts and bitter partisan dispute over Biden's climate agenda. As EPA chief, Biden would rely on him as a key leader in a government-wide approach to tackle global warming after four years during which his predecessor Donald Trump used the agency to dismantle regulation to boost drillers, electric generators, miners and manufacturers. Senators said they would grill Regan about the administration’s climate change agenda. Biden says the shift to clean energy will be a net-positive for jobs and the economy, while reducing pollution. He has already signed a slew of climate-focussed executive orders, including suspending federal drilling lease auctions and rejoining international efforts to fight climate change, and has also promised to zero-out power sector emissions by 2035 and accelerate electric car deployment. Regan was formerly head of North Carolina’s environmental regulator, where he earned a reputation as a bipartisan consensus builder.

US lawmakers to question Biden's EPA pick over climate agenda

The Democratic lawmakers who will prosecute former President Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial urged the Senate on Tuesday to convict him, saying he pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at the U.S. Capitol before a deadly Jan. 6 rampage.

In a brief filed a week before the Senate trial is set to begin, nine House of Representatives lawmakers known as impeachment managers also rejected Republican claims that it would be unconstitutional to try Trump since he became a private citizen after leaving office on Jan. 20. The Democrats urged the Senate to bar Trump from holding office again.

Trump also faced a Tuesday deadline to respond to the article of impeachment passed by the Democratic-led House on Jan. 13 charging him with inciting insurrection in his speech to supporters before rioters stormed the Capitol, leaving five people dead including a police officer.

"President Trump`s conduct offends everything that the Constitution stands for," the managers wrote in an 80-page brief that noted that Trump had begun voicing his intention to contest an election loss months before the Nov. 3 election was held.

"He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue.

As the Capitol was overrun, President Trump was reportedly `delighted,`" they said.

During his Jan. 6 speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the

Capitol, telling them to "stop the steal," "show strength" and "fight like hell." The rampage interrupted the formal congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden`s election victory and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety.

"The Senate must make clear to him and all who follow that a president who provokes armed violence against the government of the United States in an effort to overturn the results of an election will face trial and judgment," the Democratic managers added.

Trump is just the third president to have been impeached, the first to be impeached twice and the first to face trial after leaving office. Members of the 100-seat Senate will serve as jurors in his trial.

Convicting Trump would require a two-thirds majority, meaning 17 Republicans would need to join the Senate`s 50 Democrats in the vote. That presents a daunting hurdle. Last week, 45 of the 50 Republican senators voted in favor of a failed bid to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional because Trump has left office.

A conviction could lead to a second vote banning Trump from holding public office again.

TRUMP RESPONSE DUE

The Tuesday deadline for a response by Trump comes just days after he parted ways with his initial legal team amid a reported dispute over how to respond to the charge. Trump is still making his false claims of a stolen election.

One of Trump`s recently hired lawyers, David Schoen, called the impeachment process "completely unconstitutional" in an interview with Fox News on Monday but did not outline the former president`s legal strategy.

"I think it`s also the most ill-advised legislative action that I`ve seen in my lifetime," Schoen said. "It is tearing the country apart at a time when we don`t need anything like that."

In their brief, the Democratic impeachment managers said the Senate has jurisdiction to try Trump now because the House impeached him while in office for acts he committed as president.

"There is no `January Exception` to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution," the managers said.

The brief made no mention of any witnesses the managers planned to call during the trial, though it did cite a phone call Trump placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to "find" just enough votes to undo Biden`s victory in that state.

Trump`s first impeachment trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son Hunter, ended last year in acquittal by the then Republican-led Senate.

A group of Republican former officials rebutted the argument that the trial was unconstitutional in an open letter released on Tuesday.

It is "essential to focus the nation on the gravity of what Mr. Trump did," the group said in a statement.

The three dozen former officials signing the letter included former Governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts and Carter Phillips, a veteran Washington litigator and assistant solicitor general under former President Ronald Reagan.

"It will be a permanent stain on the history of the Republican Party and the legacy of its members in the U.S. Senate if they fail to find a way&nbsp;to hold a president of their party to account for this unprecedented mayhem at our nation`s Capitol," the group wrote.

The Democratic lawmakers who will prosecute former President Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial urged the Senate on Tuesday to convict him, saying he pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at the U.

The Democratic lawmakers who will prosecute former President Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial urged the Senate on Tuesday to convict him, saying he pointed a mob "like a loaded cannon" at the U.S. Capitol before a deadly Jan. 6 rampage. In a brief filed a week before the Senate trial is set to begin, nine House of Representatives lawmakers known as impeachment managers also rejected Republican claims that it would be unconstitutional to try Trump since he became a private citizen after leaving office on Jan. 20. The Democrats urged the Senate to bar Trump from holding office again. Trump also faced a Tuesday deadline to respond to the article of impeachment passed by the Democratic-led House on Jan. 13 charging him with inciting insurrection in his speech to supporters before rioters stormed the Capitol, leaving five people dead including a police officer. "President Trump`s conduct offends everything that the Constitution stands for," the managers wrote in an 80-page brief that noted that Trump had begun voicing his intention to contest an election loss months before the Nov. 3 election was held. "He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue. As the Capitol was overrun, President Trump was reportedly `delighted,`" they said. During his Jan. 6 speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the Capitol, telling them to "stop the steal," "show strength" and "fight like hell." The rampage interrupted the formal congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden`s election victory and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety. "The Senate must make clear to him and all who follow that a president who provokes armed violence against the government of the United States in an effort to overturn the results of an election will face trial and judgment," the Democratic managers added. Trump is just the third president to have been impeached, the first to be impeached twice and the first to face trial after leaving office. Members of the 100-seat Senate will serve as jurors in his trial. Convicting Trump would require a two-thirds majority, meaning 17 Republicans would need to join the Senate`s 50 Democrats in the vote. That presents a daunting hurdle. Last week, 45 of the 50 Republican senators voted in favor of a failed bid to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional because Trump has left office. A conviction could lead to a second vote banning Trump from holding public office again. TRUMP RESPONSE DUE The Tuesday deadline for a response by Trump comes just days after he parted ways with his initial legal team amid a reported dispute over how to respond to the charge. Trump is still making his false claims of a stolen election. One of Trump`s recently hired lawyers, David Schoen, called the impeachment process "completely unconstitutional" in an interview with Fox News on Monday but did not outline the former president`s legal strategy. "I think it`s also the most ill-advised legislative action that I`ve seen in my lifetime," Schoen said. "It is tearing the country apart at a time when we don`t need anything like that." In their brief, the Democratic impeachment managers said the Senate has jurisdiction to try Trump now because the House impeached him while in office for acts he committed as president. "There is no `January Exception` to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution," the managers said. The brief made no mention of any witnesses the managers planned to call during the trial, though it did cite a phone call Trump placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to "find" just enough votes to undo Biden`s victory in that state. Trump`s first impeachment trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son Hunter, ended last year in acquittal by the then Republican-led Senate. A group of Republican former officials rebutted the argument that the trial was unconstitutional in an open letter released on Tuesday. It is "essential to focus the nation on the gravity of what Mr. Trump did," the group said in a statement. The three dozen former officials signing the letter included former Governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts and Carter Phillips, a veteran Washington litigator and assistant solicitor general under former President Ronald Reagan. "It will be a permanent stain on the history of the Republican Party and the legacy of its members in the U.S. Senate if they fail to find a way to hold a president of their party to account for this unprecedented mayhem at our nation`s Capitol," the group wrote.

Trump aimed mob like a 'loaded cannon' before Capitol siege, House Democrats say

There he was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the Boss himself, the opening act on the night of the virtual inaugural ball. His song was “Land of Hope and Dreams.” “Leave behind your sorrows,” he sang. “Let this day be the last. Tomorrow there’ll be sunshine and all this darkness past.”

I got all weepy listening to Bruce Springsteen perform, especially with the Great Emancipator looking over his shoulder. Still, if you’re part of an L.G.B.T.Q. family in this country, it was hard not to wonder if a more on-the-nose song for him to sing that night might have been his “One Step Up and Two Steps Back.”

The “one step up” was self-evident. Before the sun had set on his first day, President Biden had signed an executive order extending federal nondiscrimination protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people.

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” the order stated. “Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.”

More good news followed five days later, when the ban on trans troops was lifted. “What I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve in uniform,” the president said. It hardly seems crazy, radical stuff.

And yet some see extending rights to all Americans as radical indeed. How else to explain that “two steps back” has been on full display, too, this January. As if in response to the prospect of things getting better for queer Americans at the federal level, Republicans in statehouses from Montana to New Hampshire have introduced a slew of anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills.

With the coronavirus raging, the economy shattered and white supremacy on the rise, Republican legislators have pushed to the top of their agenda young queer people trying to live their lives safely, and in peace.

Transgender youth — surely the most vulnerable of the already vulnerable L.G.B.T.Q. community — are the target. On the day after the election, Ryan T. Anderson, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, lamented to The Washington Post, “On the same day he called for healing and unity, President Joe Biden signed a radical divisive transgender executive order that threatens the privacy and safety of women in single-sex facilities, equality and fairness in single-sex sports, and good medicine based on the reality that males and females are biologically different.”

This would be the now-familiar conservative canard that granting equal rights to queer people somehow endangers the womenfolk. Is now a good moment to point out, once again, that more Republican congressmen have been busted for inappropriate behavior in public restrooms than trans women?

Bills restricting trans students from participating in athletics have now been introduced in Florida, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee. Other bills that would penalize or criminalize medical professionals who provide services to young trans and nonbinary people have been proposed in Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Texas and Utah.

You’d think that legislation affecting the lives of so many young people would be based on hard research and science. But then science has ceased to be a primary concern of social conservatives.

Science shows us that sex is not binary — that it is, like so much of creation, wild and holy in its remarkable variation. We know that trans youth who get access to needed care before the age of 15 face significantly lower risks for attempted suicide, depression, anxiety and eating disorders.

Are conservative parents truly so distressed by the prospect of young people coming out as trans or nonbinary that they would deny them treatment? Is having a nonbinary child so terrible, in their eyes, that it would be better to condemn them to years of depression rather than embrace them? Is having a trans daughter actually worse, in their eyes, than having a dead son?

The movement to deny trans students the opportunity to participate in school sports is likewise spurious. If the argument is that birth sex provides an automatic advantage in sports, this is clearly not borne out by the facts. Trans athletes have been allowed in Olympic competition since 2003, but no trans athlete has made it to the Olympics. Transgender athletes have been able to compete on college teams consistent with their gender identity for the past nine years, without any particular disruption to women’s collegiate sports.

In fact, trans women aren’t dominating the events in which we compete; it’s only with the rare gold medal that hackles rise. (The track cyclist Jen Wagner-Assali accused a trans competitor, Rachel McKinnon, of cheating when she won a 2018 world championship in which Wagner-Assali placed third. She failed to mention she had beaten McKinnon in seven of 12 previous races.)

It’s enough to make you wonder whether the Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the organizations driving these bills, is really out to defend, you know, freedom.

Given that the alliance has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, it seems to me that what it really wants to defend is not freedom, but its opposite: bigotry against people whose fundamental experience of being human is not identical to their own. What about my freedom? Who will defend me, and the people I love?

I believe that no one in this country is a bigger Bruce Springsteen fan than my wife, Deirdre. The Saturday after the inauguration, I found her drinking coffee in the living room, listening to “Land of Hopes and Dreams” on the radio. Tomorrow there’ll be sunshine, and all this darkness past.

In the wake of the president signing the executive orders, #BidenErasesWomen had trended on Twitter, the hashtag signaling the fear of conservatives and so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminists (“terfs”) that making room for someone like me has to come at the expense of cis women like Deirdre.

But Deirdre wasn’t erased at all. She was as visible as can be. She looked at me and smiled.

What she seemed, above all, was happy that the person she loves is once again considered an American with the same rights as everyone else: a woman free at last to pursue her dreams in peace.

There he was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the Boss himself, the opening act on the night of the virtual inaugural ball. His song was “Land of Hope and Dreams.

There he was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the Boss himself, the opening act on the night of the virtual inaugural ball. His song was “Land of Hope and Dreams.” “Leave behind your sorrows,” he sang. “Let this day be the last. Tomorrow there’ll be sunshine and all this darkness past.” I got all weepy listening to Bruce Springsteen perform, especially with the Great Emancipator looking over his shoulder. Still, if you’re part of an L.G.B.T.Q. family in this country, it was hard not to wonder if a more on-the-nose song for him to sing that night might have been his “One Step Up and Two Steps Back.” The “one step up” was self-evident. Before the sun had set on his first day, President Biden had signed an executive order extending federal nondiscrimination protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people. “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” the order stated. “Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.” More good news followed five days later, when the ban on trans troops was lifted. “What I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve in uniform,” the president said. It hardly seems crazy, radical stuff. And yet some see extending rights to all Americans as radical indeed. How else to explain that “two steps back” has been on full display, too, this January. As if in response to the prospect of things getting better for queer Americans at the federal level, Republicans in statehouses from Montana to New Hampshire have introduced a slew of anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills. With the coronavirus raging, the economy shattered and white supremacy on the rise, Republican legislators have pushed to the top of their agenda young queer people trying to live their lives safely, and in peace. Transgender youth — surely the most vulnerable of the already vulnerable L.G.B.T.Q. community — are the target. On the day after the election, Ryan T. Anderson, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, lamented to The Washington Post, “On the same day he called for healing and unity, President Joe Biden signed a radical divisive transgender executive order that threatens the privacy and safety of women in single-sex facilities, equality and fairness in single-sex sports, and good medicine based on the reality that males and females are biologically different.” This would be the now-familiar conservative canard that granting equal rights to queer people somehow endangers the womenfolk. Is now a good moment to point out, once again, that more Republican congressmen have been busted for inappropriate behavior in public restrooms than trans women? Bills restricting trans students from participating in athletics have now been introduced in Florida, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee. Other bills that would penalize or criminalize medical professionals who provide services to young trans and nonbinary people have been proposed in Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Texas and Utah. You’d think that legislation affecting the lives of so many young people would be based on hard research and science. But then science has ceased to be a primary concern of social conservatives. Science shows us that sex is not binary — that it is, like so much of creation, wild and holy in its remarkable variation. We know that trans youth who get access to needed care before the age of 15 face significantly lower risks for attempted suicide, depression, anxiety and eating disorders. Are conservative parents truly so distressed by the prospect of young people coming out as trans or nonbinary that they would deny them treatment? Is having a nonbinary child so terrible, in their eyes, that it would be better to condemn them to years of depression rather than embrace them? Is having a trans daughter actually worse, in their eyes, than having a dead son? The movement to deny trans students the opportunity to participate in school sports is likewise spurious. If the argument is that birth sex provides an automatic advantage in sports, this is clearly not borne out by the facts. Trans athletes have been allowed in Olympic competition since 2003, but no trans athlete has made it to the Olympics. Transgender athletes have been able to compete on college teams consistent with their gender identity for the past nine years, without any particular disruption to women’s collegiate sports. In fact, trans women aren’t dominating the events in which we compete; it’s only with the rare gold medal that hackles rise. (The track cyclist Jen Wagner-Assali accused a trans competitor, Rachel McKinnon, of cheating when she won a 2018 world championship in which Wagner-Assali placed third. She failed to mention she had beaten McKinnon in seven of 12 previous races.) It’s enough to make you wonder whether the Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the organizations driving these bills, is really out to defend, you know, freedom. Given that the alliance has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, it seems to me that what it really wants to defend is not freedom, but its opposite: bigotry against people whose fundamental experience of being human is not identical to their own. What about my freedom? Who will defend me, and the people I love? I believe that no one in this country is a bigger Bruce Springsteen fan than my wife, Deirdre. The Saturday after the inauguration, I found her drinking coffee in the living room, listening to “Land of Hopes and Dreams” on the radio. Tomorrow there’ll be sunshine, and all this darkness past. In the wake of the president signing the executive orders, #BidenErasesWomen had trended on Twitter, the hashtag signaling the fear of conservatives and so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminists (“terfs”) that making room for someone like me has to come at the expense of cis women like Deirdre. But Deirdre wasn’t erased at all. She was as visible as can be. She looked at me and smiled. What she seemed, above all, was happy that the person she loves is once again considered an American with the same rights as everyone else: a woman free at last to pursue her dreams in peace.

One step up and two steps back

Authorities in Florida's Palm Beach town are currently performing a legal review of former US president Donald Trump's residency at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

Trump had purchased the Mar-a-Lago resort, also a national historic landmark, in 1985.

The resort became the primary residence for Donald and Melania Trump in September, 2019. They moved backed to the place on the morning of January 20 ahead of Joe Biden's inauguration as the 46th president of the United States.

"Our town attorney is reviewing the agreement and the laws surrounding it," Palm Beach Town Manager Kirk Blouin told The Hill news website on Friday.

The decision to review comes a month after Blouin told a local media outlet that the town was not aware of the former president's intention to permanently move to the resort.

He, however, added that the authorities would "address the matter appropriately" when required.

While in office, Trump hosted meetings for international leaders, including former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping, at the club originally built between 1924 to 1927. 
&nbsp;

Authorities in Florida's Palm Beach town are currently performing a legal review of former US president Donald Trump's residency at his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump had purchased the Mar-a-Lago resort, also a national historic landmark, in 1985.

Authorities in Florida's Palm Beach town are currently performing a legal review of former US president Donald Trump's residency at his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump had purchased the Mar-a-Lago resort, also a national historic landmark, in 1985. The resort became the primary residence for Donald and Melania Trump in September, 2019. They moved backed to the place on the morning of January 20 ahead of Joe Biden's inauguration as the 46th president of the United States. "Our town attorney is reviewing the agreement and the laws surrounding it," Palm Beach Town Manager Kirk Blouin told The Hill news website on Friday. The decision to review comes a month after Blouin told a local media outlet that the town was not aware of the former president's intention to permanently move to the resort. He, however, added that the authorities would "address the matter appropriately" when required. While in office, Trump hosted meetings for international leaders, including former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping, at the club originally built between 1924 to 1927.

Trump's residency at Mar-a-Lago under review

US first lady Jill Biden will participate in efforts by her husband's administration to reunite families split apart by former president Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, the White House said Friday.

In line with his campaign promises, President Joe Biden plans to announce on Tuesday "his launch of a task force on reunifying families and children. Something that he is personally committed to, his wife Dr Biden is personally committed to and invested in," said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

The task force will be under the command of Alejandro Mayorkas, who is due to be confirmed by the Senate as head of the Department for Homeland Security on Monday, she added.

Jill Biden, 69, has a doctorate in education and plans to keep teaching at a university close to Washington while her husband serves as president.

In December, she visited a migrant camp in Mexico, close to the border with Texas. "We are a welcoming nation, but that's not the message that we're sending at the border," she said at the time.&nbsp;

Her tone was in marked contrast with her predecessor Melania Trump, who in 2018 visited children who had been locked up by her husband's policy of "zero tolerance" at the border and who wore a jacket with the logo, "I really don't care, do u?"

Trump's government separated hundreds of migrant families, with very young children being taken away from their parents, some of whom were then deported.&nbsp;

The plight of the children, &nbsp;taken from their parents and locked in detention centers, provoked such an outcry, even from some in the ranks of Trump's own Republican party, that he was forced to backpedal. A judge later ordered that the families be reunited.&nbsp;

Authorities identified more than 2,700 children who needed to be reunited with their parents.

But the parents of 611 children have yet to be located, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).&nbsp;

Most of the parents who were deported remain stuck in their country of origin, the ACLU has said, calling on the US government to allow them to legally return to the United States.

US first lady Jill Biden will participate in efforts by her husband's administration to reunite families split apart by former president Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, the White House said Friday.

US first lady Jill Biden will participate in efforts by her husband's administration to reunite families split apart by former president Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, the White House said Friday. In line with his campaign promises, President Joe Biden plans to announce on Tuesday "his launch of a task force on reunifying families and children. Something that he is personally committed to, his wife Dr Biden is personally committed to and invested in," said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki. The task force will be under the command of Alejandro Mayorkas, who is due to be confirmed by the Senate as head of the Department for Homeland Security on Monday, she added. Jill Biden, 69, has a doctorate in education and plans to keep teaching at a university close to Washington while her husband serves as president. In December, she visited a migrant camp in Mexico, close to the border with Texas. "We are a welcoming nation, but that's not the message that we're sending at the border," she said at the time. Her tone was in marked contrast with her predecessor Melania Trump, who in 2018 visited children who had been locked up by her husband's policy of "zero tolerance" at the border and who wore a jacket with the logo, "I really don't care, do u?" Trump's government separated hundreds of migrant families, with very young children being taken away from their parents, some of whom were then deported. The plight of the children, taken from their parents and locked in detention centers, provoked such an outcry, even from some in the ranks of Trump's own Republican party, that he was forced to backpedal. A judge later ordered that the families be reunited. Authorities identified more than 2,700 children who needed to be reunited with their parents. But the parents of 611 children have yet to be located, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Most of the parents who were deported remain stuck in their country of origin, the ACLU has said, calling on the US government to allow them to legally return to the United States.

US first lady to help reunite migrant kids with parents

As 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland lay dying on the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 6 after being crushed by a mob, fellow rioters were charging over her to attack police officers with crutches, a hockey stick and pepper spray, new police body camera footage shows.

Video obtained by The Times provides a previously unpublished view of the brutal fight between rioters and officers at a central entryway on the west side of the Capitol — the same one that President Joe Biden used to descend to his inauguration ceremony two weeks later.

The footage shows how rioters, in their effort to attack the police, trampled on Boyland even as her friend, Justin Winchell, shouted that she was dying and needed help.

Federal prosecutors in Detroit played the video at a Jan. 25 court hearing in the case of Michael Joseph Foy, a Michigan man accused of attacking the officers with a hockey stick. The U.S. attorney’s office in Detroit provided the 1-minute, 20-second clip to The Times.

The footage appears to come from the body camera worn by one of four Metropolitan Police officers dragged out of the doorway and beaten by rioters during the hourslong battle. It begins at 4:26 p.m., just as officers have managed to push the mob out of the doorway. Inside, rioters had packed together in a dangerous crush in their attempt to force their way through the police and into the Capitol.

Seconds into the video, as rioters tumble over one another, a voice can be heard shouting, “Save her!”

As rioters fall out of the doorway, Boyland is briefly visible in the video, and Winchell begins to scream, “She’s gonna die! She’s dead!”

“I need somebody!” Winchell shouts, turning to the crowd. Instead, a rioter behind him sprays a chemical irritant over his head toward the police.

A bearded rioter wearing a hat, brown jacket and University of Michigan sweatshirt then begins to move up the stairs toward the police.

“Knock their masks off!” another rioter in a cowboy hat tells him.

The bearded rioter charges over Boyland and begins to grapple with the officer, grabbing his baton. At the same time, another rioter jabs the officer with a crutch. The officer is driven to the ground as the crowd cheers the attack.

A man in a hooded winter jacket, whom prosecutors say is Foy, is seen on the body camera footage advancing with his hockey stick and repeatedly swinging it down at the officers. Prosecutors allege in court documents that Foy, a former Marine, struck officers at least 10 times in 16 seconds.

“No! No!” Winchell screams, as the rioters swing at the police over Boyland’s body.

“I’ll kill you,” a rioter says to an officer, using an expletive, before grabbing the officer by his helmet and dragging him out of the doorway.

Winchell can again be heard screaming “Rosanne! Rosanne!”

After the first officer is dragged away, another rioter can be seen grabbing onto the leg of the fallen officer wearing the body camera. Then the footage ends. Other videos reviewed by The Times showed that rioters dragged the officer down the steps seconds later.

At around the same time, rioters dragged Boyland from the door and attempted but failed to resuscitate her. They then carried her back to the police battling rioters at the doorway, who moved her into the Capitol Rotunda, where paramedics eventually reached her. She was pronounced dead at a local hospital at 6:09 p.m., about 90 minutes later.

Foy faces multiple federal charges, including assaulting a police officer, and has been transferred from Detroit to Washington to face prosecution.

The official cause and manner of Boyland’s death are still pending, according to Washington’s chief medical examiner.

As 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland lay dying on the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 6 after being crushed by a mob, fellow rioters were charging over her to attack police officers with crutches, a hockey stick and pepper spray, new police body camera footage shows.

As 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland lay dying on the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 6 after being crushed by a mob, fellow rioters were charging over her to attack police officers with crutches, a hockey stick and pepper spray, new police body camera footage shows. Video obtained by The Times provides a previously unpublished view of the brutal fight between rioters and officers at a central entryway on the west side of the Capitol — the same one that President Joe Biden used to descend to his inauguration ceremony two weeks later. The footage shows how rioters, in their effort to attack the police, trampled on Boyland even as her friend, Justin Winchell, shouted that she was dying and needed help. Federal prosecutors in Detroit played the video at a Jan. 25 court hearing in the case of Michael Joseph Foy, a Michigan man accused of attacking the officers with a hockey stick. The U.S. attorney’s office in Detroit provided the 1-minute, 20-second clip to The Times. The footage appears to come from the body camera worn by one of four Metropolitan Police officers dragged out of the doorway and beaten by rioters during the hourslong battle. It begins at 4:26 p.m., just as officers have managed to push the mob out of the doorway. Inside, rioters had packed together in a dangerous crush in their attempt to force their way through the police and into the Capitol. Seconds into the video, as rioters tumble over one another, a voice can be heard shouting, “Save her!” As rioters fall out of the doorway, Boyland is briefly visible in the video, and Winchell begins to scream, “She’s gonna die! She’s dead!” “I need somebody!” Winchell shouts, turning to the crowd. Instead, a rioter behind him sprays a chemical irritant over his head toward the police. A bearded rioter wearing a hat, brown jacket and University of Michigan sweatshirt then begins to move up the stairs toward the police. “Knock their masks off!” another rioter in a cowboy hat tells him. The bearded rioter charges over Boyland and begins to grapple with the officer, grabbing his baton. At the same time, another rioter jabs the officer with a crutch. The officer is driven to the ground as the crowd cheers the attack. A man in a hooded winter jacket, whom prosecutors say is Foy, is seen on the body camera footage advancing with his hockey stick and repeatedly swinging it down at the officers. Prosecutors allege in court documents that Foy, a former Marine, struck officers at least 10 times in 16 seconds. “No! No!” Winchell screams, as the rioters swing at the police over Boyland’s body. “I’ll kill you,” a rioter says to an officer, using an expletive, before grabbing the officer by his helmet and dragging him out of the doorway. Winchell can again be heard screaming “Rosanne! Rosanne!” After the first officer is dragged away, another rioter can be seen grabbing onto the leg of the fallen officer wearing the body camera. Then the footage ends. Other videos reviewed by The Times showed that rioters dragged the officer down the steps seconds later. At around the same time, rioters dragged Boyland from the door and attempted but failed to resuscitate her. They then carried her back to the police battling rioters at the doorway, who moved her into the Capitol Rotunda, where paramedics eventually reached her. She was pronounced dead at a local hospital at 6:09 p.m., about 90 minutes later. Foy faces multiple federal charges, including assaulting a police officer, and has been transferred from Detroit to Washington to face prosecution. The official cause and manner of Boyland’s death are still pending, according to Washington’s chief medical examiner.

Body camera footage shows Capitol rioters trampling over woman

US President Joe Biden has a higher approval rating after one week in office than Donald Trump did in his entire presidency, a new poll has found.

A Monmouth University poll Wednesday showed 54 per cent of Americans approving of Biden's performance and 30 per cent disapproving.&nbsp;

Trump spent most of his presidency with ratings in the low 40s, and left office on January 20 with a Gallup poll approval of just 34 per cent, a record low.

A&nbsp;Morning Consult tracking poll&nbsp;published Monday gave Biden 56 per cent approval and 34 per cent disapproval. Another poll released Monday, by Hill-HarrisX, showed Biden with 63 per cent approval.

In the Monmouth poll, Biden won 90 per cent approval from Democrats but only 47 per cent from independents and 15 per cent from Republicans.

According to data from the fivethirtyeight.com site, Trump was the first president in half a century not to enjoy a honeymoon period with substantially better polling in the first six months.

Barack Obama had an average of 60 per cent approval in his first half year and his predecessor George W Bush had 53.9 per cent.

Trump, by contrast, had an average approval rating of 41.4 per cent in his first six months.

US President Joe Biden has a higher approval rating after one week in office than Donald Trump did in his entire presidency, a new poll has found. A Monmouth University poll Wednesday showed 54 per cent of Americans approving of Biden's performance and 30 per cent disapproving.

US President Joe Biden has a higher approval rating after one week in office than Donald Trump did in his entire presidency, a new poll has found. A Monmouth University poll Wednesday showed 54 per cent of Americans approving of Biden's performance and 30 per cent disapproving. Trump spent most of his presidency with ratings in the low 40s, and left office on January 20 with a Gallup poll approval of just 34 per cent, a record low. A Morning Consult tracking poll published Monday gave Biden 56 per cent approval and 34 per cent disapproval. Another poll released Monday, by Hill-HarrisX, showed Biden with 63 per cent approval. In the Monmouth poll, Biden won 90 per cent approval from Democrats but only 47 per cent from independents and 15 per cent from Republicans. According to data from the fivethirtyeight.com site, Trump was the first president in half a century not to enjoy a honeymoon period with substantially better polling in the first six months. Barack Obama had an average of 60 per cent approval in his first half year and his predecessor George W Bush had 53.9 per cent. Trump, by contrast, had an average approval rating of 41.4 per cent in his first six months.

Biden polls higher in first week than Trump at any time

US President Joe Biden will reopen the nation's online health insurance marketplace for people who cannot obtain coverage through their employers, the White House said on Thursday.

Biden, who took office last week, to this end will restore access to healthcare.gov with an executive order on Thursday afternoon, the latest in a blizzard of moves by the Democratic president to quickly reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump.

The order will allow people to sign up for insurance through the government exchange from February 15 to May 15, the White House said in a policy fact sheet. The programme is normally accessible for just six weeks a year.

The action was expected. Biden has vowed to shore up the healthcare.gov, and other programmes created under former president Barack Obama's sweeping 2010 Affordable Care Act. He has argued that the changes are more urgent because of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 400,000 Americans.

Republicans have long opposed the healthcare restructuring law, criticising the cost and quality of care as well as extensive government involvement in healthcare markets.

Biden also plans to direct federal agencies to "re-examine" Trump-era policies like work requirements that made it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance programme for the poor.

US President Joe Biden will reopen the nation's online health insurance marketplace for people who cannot obtain coverage through their employers, the White House said on Thursday.

US President Joe Biden will reopen the nation's online health insurance marketplace for people who cannot obtain coverage through their employers, the White House said on Thursday. Biden, who took office last week, to this end will restore access to healthcare.gov with an executive order on Thursday afternoon, the latest in a blizzard of moves by the Democratic president to quickly reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump. The order will allow people to sign up for insurance through the government exchange from February 15 to May 15, the White House said in a policy fact sheet. The programme is normally accessible for just six weeks a year. The action was expected. Biden has vowed to shore up the healthcare.gov, and other programmes created under former president Barack Obama's sweeping 2010 Affordable Care Act. He has argued that the changes are more urgent because of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 400,000 Americans. Republicans have long opposed the healthcare restructuring law, criticising the cost and quality of care as well as extensive government involvement in healthcare markets. Biden also plans to direct federal agencies to "re-examine" Trump-era policies like work requirements that made it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance programme for the poor.

Biden to reopen healthcare.gov, ease Medicaid rules amid pandemic

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster.

“I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to reporters after a conference call with a bipartisan group of 16 senators led by her and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, another necessary vote, isn’t just skeptical of the cost, he’s skeptical that the country needs another relief bill so soon after the last one. “I think at this early stage, just having passed $900 billion in relief, we need to understand where is the money going,” Romney said in an interview with CNN on Sunday. “It is important we don’t borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese for things that may not be absolutely necessary.”

Without Republican support, Democrats have two options for passing Biden’s plan into law. They could use “reconciliation” — a limited-use parliamentary maneuver that lets any deficit-neutral budget-related bill pass with a simple majority — or they could end the legislative filibuster and rid themselves of the burden of a 60-vote threshold for action. Democrats could then pass the relief package and anything else they had the votes for.

The choice is simple. Change the rules and govern or leave them as is and struggle on the way to likely defeat in the next elections.

This isn’t the first Democratic majority to have to deal with this kind of problem. Sixty years ago this month, Sam Rayburn, the Democratic speaker of the house, faced a similar situation. The president-elect, John F. Kennedy, had promised to take America toward a “new frontier” of reform, including new civil rights legislation. But Howard Smith of Virginia, the 78-year-old Dixiecrat chairman of the House Rules Committee, was less than keen on making that journey.

The Rules Committee was where legislation went to live or die. It decided whether a bill moved to the floor for full consideration or if it was buried and forgotten. The 12-person committee was meant to act like a traffic cop, controlling the flow of legislation to the entire House. Under Smith, however, the committee used its broad powers to restrict the scope of activity altogether.

Smith’s main target was liberal legislation, which he blocked in partnership with William M. Colmer of Mississippi (the other Dixiecrat on the committee) as well as the four Republicans in the minority. What on paper was a committee controlled by eight Democrats was, in practice, a committee controlled by a bipartisan group of six conservatives, who only had to tie a vote to kill a bill.

For Rayburn, this was intolerable. He wanted Kennedy to succeed — or at least, to have a chance at success — and Smith’s control of the Rules Committee made that impossible. So Rayburn had to act. Liberal members had already conferred with him on how to break conservative control of the committee. He had three options. He could revive an old rule that would take all bills out of the committee after 21 days. He could purge Colmer and give his spot to a loyal soldier. Or, since committee size was set by majority vote of the House, he could move to make it bigger.

The first option would make the floor unmanageable. Rayburn still needed a traffic cop. And the second option would cause a schism as conservative Southern Democrats broke from the party to defend one of their own (and head off another civil rights bill — Rayburn had helped shepherd the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960). He chose the third. The Rules Committee could be as small as five members or as large as 15. Smith could keep his coalition. With three additional members, two Democrats and one Republican, liberals and moderates would have an 8-7 majority. They could block legislation as needed, but they could also let Kennedy’s bills through.

Rayburn chose door number three, but not before acting as if he might go through door number two. After his meeting with House liberals, Rayburn’s office told The New York Times of a plan to purge Colmer from the Rules Committee. Rayburn tried to effect some compromise with Smith, but the Dixiecrat wouldn’t budge. At this point, Rayburn endorsed the plan to enlarge the committee. Smith could have stopped it there — the bill to add members had to go through him — but he allowed it through, on the assumption that Republicans and Dixiecrats would kill it on the floor.

On the last day of the month, Jan. 31, with Kennedy now in office, the House took a vote. According to the Times, it was a “tense debate that produced cheers and applause” as well as “derisive ‘ahs’ and laughter from members.” Smith and his Republican allies accused Rayburn of “packing” the Rules Committee and making it a “rubber stamp for whatever the new administration proposes.” Rayburn, for his part, urged members to adopt the resolution since “This House should be allowed on great measures to work its will,” even “if the Committee on Rules is so constituted as not to allow the House to pass on those things.”

When the votes were finally counted, Rayburn had won, 217-212, with most of the Southern delegation in opposition.

“This triumph did not mean complete success for the New Frontier,” historian James Smallwood wrote in a 1973 journal article on the Rules Committee fight, “it only meant that the entire House could consider its proposals and that the majority would rule.”

Here in the present, Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones pumping the breaks on the president’s agenda. On Monday, Manchin announced his total support for the Senate filibuster in an interview with Politico. “If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote” to change the filibuster.

Likewise, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said that the senator is “against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about the filibuster.”

In 1961, the prospect of gridlock and the possibilities opened up by a new administration motivated a coalition of liberals and moderates to change the rules and clear a path that would, in just a few short years, allow Congress to pass some of the most important legislation in its history.

Today, liberals see the opportunity of the moment. But moderates don’t appear to be frustrated enough with gridlock and inaction to change the rules of the chamber. They seem to think they can negotiate Republicans out of their partisanship and win votes for policies — a $15 federal minimum wage, a new Voting Rights Act — that Republicans have already deemed unacceptable. And they seem to think that failure won’t matter, that Americans won’t notice how the Democratic Party campaigned on help and assistance but never delivered. Yes, without the filibuster to protect them, moderate members will have to take the occasional tough vote. But their constituents will probably care more about checks and vaccines than whether their senator voted with their more liberal colleagues.

At this point, American elections are almost completely nationalized. The broad, diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party will either rise or fall together. Even members with their own personal political appeal need the entire party to win if they are to wield any influence over government. If Manchin wants the government to spend $4 trillion on infrastructure, then he’ll need the Democratic Party to succeed in as many areas as it can.

The first step toward victory is a government that can act. So, sure, moderate Democrats can keep the filibuster if they want. But they should prepare for when the voting public decides it would rather have the party that promises nothing and does nothing than the one that promises quite a bit but won’t work to make any of it a reality.

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster. “I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen.

If President Joe Biden’s plan for COVID relief ever passes the Senate, it won’t be with the 10 Republican votes it needs to clear a filibuster. “I’m going to suggest that we get together and talk about what we think would be a reasonable package, and one that could garner bipartisan support,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to reporters after a conference call with a bipartisan group of 16 senators led by her and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, another necessary vote, isn’t just skeptical of the cost, he’s skeptical that the country needs another relief bill so soon after the last one. “I think at this early stage, just having passed $900 billion in relief, we need to understand where is the money going,” Romney said in an interview with CNN on Sunday. “It is important we don’t borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese for things that may not be absolutely necessary.” Without Republican support, Democrats have two options for passing Biden’s plan into law. They could use “reconciliation” — a limited-use parliamentary maneuver that lets any deficit-neutral budget-related bill pass with a simple majority — or they could end the legislative filibuster and rid themselves of the burden of a 60-vote threshold for action. Democrats could then pass the relief package and anything else they had the votes for. The choice is simple. Change the rules and govern or leave them as is and struggle on the way to likely defeat in the next elections. This isn’t the first Democratic majority to have to deal with this kind of problem. Sixty years ago this month, Sam Rayburn, the Democratic speaker of the house, faced a similar situation. The president-elect, John F. Kennedy, had promised to take America toward a “new frontier” of reform, including new civil rights legislation. But Howard Smith of Virginia, the 78-year-old Dixiecrat chairman of the House Rules Committee, was less than keen on making that journey. The Rules Committee was where legislation went to live or die. It decided whether a bill moved to the floor for full consideration or if it was buried and forgotten. The 12-person committee was meant to act like a traffic cop, controlling the flow of legislation to the entire House. Under Smith, however, the committee used its broad powers to restrict the scope of activity altogether. Smith’s main target was liberal legislation, which he blocked in partnership with William M. Colmer of Mississippi (the other Dixiecrat on the committee) as well as the four Republicans in the minority. What on paper was a committee controlled by eight Democrats was, in practice, a committee controlled by a bipartisan group of six conservatives, who only had to tie a vote to kill a bill. For Rayburn, this was intolerable. He wanted Kennedy to succeed — or at least, to have a chance at success — and Smith’s control of the Rules Committee made that impossible. So Rayburn had to act. Liberal members had already conferred with him on how to break conservative control of the committee. He had three options. He could revive an old rule that would take all bills out of the committee after 21 days. He could purge Colmer and give his spot to a loyal soldier. Or, since committee size was set by majority vote of the House, he could move to make it bigger. The first option would make the floor unmanageable. Rayburn still needed a traffic cop. And the second option would cause a schism as conservative Southern Democrats broke from the party to defend one of their own (and head off another civil rights bill — Rayburn had helped shepherd the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960). He chose the third. The Rules Committee could be as small as five members or as large as 15. Smith could keep his coalition. With three additional members, two Democrats and one Republican, liberals and moderates would have an 8-7 majority. They could block legislation as needed, but they could also let Kennedy’s bills through. Rayburn chose door number three, but not before acting as if he might go through door number two. After his meeting with House liberals, Rayburn’s office told The New York Times of a plan to purge Colmer from the Rules Committee. Rayburn tried to effect some compromise with Smith, but the Dixiecrat wouldn’t budge. At this point, Rayburn endorsed the plan to enlarge the committee. Smith could have stopped it there — the bill to add members had to go through him — but he allowed it through, on the assumption that Republicans and Dixiecrats would kill it on the floor. On the last day of the month, Jan. 31, with Kennedy now in office, the House took a vote. According to the Times, it was a “tense debate that produced cheers and applause” as well as “derisive ‘ahs’ and laughter from members.” Smith and his Republican allies accused Rayburn of “packing” the Rules Committee and making it a “rubber stamp for whatever the new administration proposes.” Rayburn, for his part, urged members to adopt the resolution since “This House should be allowed on great measures to work its will,” even “if the Committee on Rules is so constituted as not to allow the House to pass on those things.” When the votes were finally counted, Rayburn had won, 217-212, with most of the Southern delegation in opposition. “This triumph did not mean complete success for the New Frontier,” historian James Smallwood wrote in a 1973 journal article on the Rules Committee fight, “it only meant that the entire House could consider its proposals and that the majority would rule.” Here in the present, Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones pumping the breaks on the president’s agenda. On Monday, Manchin announced his total support for the Senate filibuster in an interview with Politico. “If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote” to change the filibuster. Likewise, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said that the senator is “against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about the filibuster.” In 1961, the prospect of gridlock and the possibilities opened up by a new administration motivated a coalition of liberals and moderates to change the rules and clear a path that would, in just a few short years, allow Congress to pass some of the most important legislation in its history. Today, liberals see the opportunity of the moment. But moderates don’t appear to be frustrated enough with gridlock and inaction to change the rules of the chamber. They seem to think they can negotiate Republicans out of their partisanship and win votes for policies — a $15 federal minimum wage, a new Voting Rights Act — that Republicans have already deemed unacceptable. And they seem to think that failure won’t matter, that Americans won’t notice how the Democratic Party campaigned on help and assistance but never delivered. Yes, without the filibuster to protect them, moderate members will have to take the occasional tough vote. But their constituents will probably care more about checks and vaccines than whether their senator voted with their more liberal colleagues. At this point, American elections are almost completely nationalized. The broad, diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party will either rise or fall together. Even members with their own personal political appeal need the entire party to win if they are to wield any influence over government. If Manchin wants the government to spend $4 trillion on infrastructure, then he’ll need the Democratic Party to succeed in as many areas as it can. The first step toward victory is a government that can act. So, sure, moderate Democrats can keep the filibuster if they want. But they should prepare for when the voting public decides it would rather have the party that promises nothing and does nothing than the one that promises quite a bit but won’t work to make any of it a reality.

Democrats should act like they won the election

An amusement park in India has come up with a &nbsp;unique and fun way to celebrate Indian-origin US Vice President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/kamala-harris">Kamala Harris'</a> win in the recently-concluded US election 2020.

Wonderla, a popular amusement park in a Bengaluru, a city in the southern state of Karnataka, has started an exclusive offer for people who share their name with the recently-elected US Vice President.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/the-simpsons-had-predicted-kamala-harris-inaugural-purple-outfit-21-years-ago-heres-proof-358554" hreflang="en">'The Simpsons' had predicted Kamala Harris' inaugural purple outfit 21 years ago. Here's proof</a>

"This Sunday all Kamala's WIN!," the amusement park's Facebook post read.

Any visitor whose name is Kamala will be given free entry into the amusement park in Bengaluru and its other branches in Kochi and Hyderabad.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/Wonderla/posts/5013060178765447" data-show-text="true" data-width="500">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/Wonderla/posts/5013060178765447" class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
This Sunday all Kamala's WIN!&nbsp; Any guest in the name of Kamala will get a free entry to the park on Sunday, 24th Jan...
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Wonderla/">Wonderla</a> on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/Wonderla/posts/5013060178765447">Friday, January 22, 2021</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In fact, anyone with similar names such as Kamla, Kama and Kamalam can also get free entry in the amusement park. However, no other variations of the name will be allowed to avail the offer.&nbsp;

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kamala-harris-indian-family-is-waiting-for-her-to-become-president-358310" hreflang="en">Kamala Harris' Indian family is waiting for her to become president</a>

However, there is a condition. "The offer is available only for the first 100 guests eligible for the offer under each park," the Facebook post clarified.

The offer has also coincided with Girl Child Day, which is being celebrated on January 24&nbsp;in India.

Harris is the first South Asian-origin, African-American woman to become the Vice President of the United States of America. She was sworn in for her post on January 20 in an inauguration ceremony held in Washington.

An amusement park in India has come up with a unique and fun way to celebrate Indian-origin US Vice President Kamala Harris' win in the recently-concluded US election 2020.

An amusement park in India has come up with a unique and fun way to celebrate Indian-origin US Vice President Kamala Harris' win in the recently-concluded US election 2020. Wonderla, a popular amusement park in a Bengaluru, a city in the southern state of Karnataka, has started an exclusive offer for people who share their name with the recently-elected US Vice President. Also read| 'The Simpsons' had predicted Kamala Harris' inaugural purple outfit 21 years ago. Here's proof "This Sunday all Kamala's WIN!," the amusement park's Facebook post read. Any visitor whose name is Kamala will be given free entry into the amusement park in Bengaluru and its other branches in Kochi and Hyderabad. This Sunday all Kamala's WIN! Any guest in the name of Kamala will get a free entry to the park on Sunday, 24th Jan... Posted by Wonderla on Friday, January 22, 2021 × In fact, anyone with similar names such as Kamla, Kama and Kamalam can also get free entry in the amusement park. However, no other variations of the name will be allowed to avail the offer. Also read| Kamala Harris' Indian family is waiting for her to become president However, there is a condition. "The offer is available only for the first 100 guests eligible for the offer under each park," the Facebook post clarified. The offer has also coincided with Girl Child Day, which is being celebrated on January 24 in India. Harris is the first South Asian-origin, African-American woman to become the Vice President of the United States of America. She was sworn in for her post on January 20 in an inauguration ceremony held in Washington.

Bengaluru: Amusement park offers free entry to all 'Kamala' to celebrate Harris' win

In the race to the bottom for the title of worst American president, the same few sorry names appear at the end of almost every list, jockeying for last place. There’s Andrew Johnson, whose abysmal behavior during Reconstruction led to the first presidential impeachment. There’s Warren G. Harding, responsible for the Teapot Dome scandal. There’s hapless, hated Franklin Pierce; doomed, dead-after-32-days William Henry Harrison; and inevitably, James Buchanan, often considered worst of all because of how badly he bungled the lead-up to the Civil War.

But as historians consider the legacy of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>, it appears that even the woefully inadequate Buchanan has some serious competition for the spot at the bottom.

“Trump was the first president to be impeached twice and the first to stir up a mob to try to attack the Capitol and disrupt his successor from becoming president,” said Eric Rauchway, professor of history at the University of California, Davis. “These will definitely go down in history books, and they are not good.”

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-melania-trump-refuses-to-pose-with-donald-trump-after-he-leaves-white-house-twitter-laughs-358514">Watch: Melania Trump refuses to pose with Donald Trump after he leaves White House; Twitter laughs</a>

“I already feel that he is the worst,” said Ted Widmer, professor of history at the City University of New York, noting that as bad as Buchanan was — and he was very bad indeed — he was “not as aggressively bad as Trump.”

“Andrew Johnson and Nixon would be the two others in the worst category, and I think Trump has them beat pretty handily, too,” he added. “He has invented a whole new category, a subbasement that no one knew existed.”

Presidential ranking may be a water cooler exercise for historians, but it is also an official institutional pursuit. The Siena College Research Institute regularly compiles ranked lists of all the American presidents, based on the composite views of scholars. So does C-SPAN.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-trial-put-off-until-early-february-358797" hreflang="en">Trump impeachment trial put off until early February</a>

Various polls periodically ask regular citizens to weigh in. And on Twitter last week, Chris Hayes of MSNBC took the presidential-ranking parlor game to his followers, asking them to list the “five worst presidents of all time.” (He put Trump as the second worst, just after Johnson.)

Trump was a highly divisive president, of course, and one of the confounding things about him was how two people could look at his behavior and make completely different assessments.

But not so much anymore.

“I would say that before the election it depended on one’s political outlook,” with conservatives applauding his tax cuts, deregulation policies and judicial appointments, said William Cooper Jr., professor emeritus of history at Louisiana State University. “But from the election forward, I don’t see how anyone could feel that Trump’s behavior was anything but reprehensible or that he hasn’t completely destroyed any legacy he would have left.”

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-tried-replacing-attorney-general-for-personal-needs-reports-358769" hreflang="en">Donald Trump tried replacing attorney general for personal needs: Reports</a>

He cited Trump’s refusal to concede the election; his promotion of baseless conspiracy theories attacking voting integrity; his intemperate, self-promoting behavior during the Georgia Senate runoffs, which helped ensure victory for the two Democratic candidates; and his encouragement of the crowd that rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Even conservatives from Atlanta, where Cooper lives, have had it with Trump, he said. “He has tarred and feathered himself, and I think it will blemish him for a long, long, long time.”

Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University and a member of the advisory panel for C-SPAN’s Presidential Historians Survey, said that Trump “was a bad president in just about every regard.”

“I find him to be the worst president in U.S. history, personally,” Brinkley said, “even worse than William Henry Harrison, who was president for only one month. You don’t want to be ranked below him.”

Brinkley brought up Richard Nixon, the only president to resign in disgrace.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/the-end-of-trump-can-be-the-beginning-of-america-358889" hreflang="en">The end of Trump can be the beginning of America</a>

“At least when Nixon left, he put the country ahead of himself at the last minute,” Brinkley said. “Now he looks like a statesman compared to Trump.”

These are all hot takes, of course — the sound of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way,” the song playing Wednesday as Trump flew out of Washington, has barely faded from our ears — and it is too soon to know how history will judge him. But things do not augur well, said Don Levy, director of Siena’s research institute.

In the most recent Siena survey, a year into the Trump administration, Trump was rated 42nd out of 44 presidents, less terrible than only Buchanan and Johnson. In almost every category — integrity, intelligence and relationship with Congress, for instance — he was rated at or nearly rock bottom. (The exceptions: He was 25th in “willing to take risks” and 10th in “luck.”)

“Speaking in terms of this survey, it would be surprising if Trump was meaningfully rehabilitated,” Levy said. “If the opening paragraph of any discussion starts about being impeached twice, and the second sentence is about the coronavirus, and the third is about partisanship, that’s going to be very hard to overcome.”

Sean Wilentz, a professor of American history at Princeton University, said that Trump was the worst president in history, hands down.

“He’s in a whole other category in terms of the damage he’s done to the Republic,” said Wilentz, citing the radicalization of the Republican Party, the inept response to the pandemic and what he called “the brazen, almost psychedelic mendacity of the man.”

Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose most recent book, “Leadership: In Turbulent Times,” looks at how four presidents confronted tough moments in history, said that it normally takes a generation to evaluate a leader. But to the extent that a president’s legacy is determined by his ability to rise to a crisis, Trump will be remembered for his failures: how poorly he handled COVID-19 and how disgracefully he behaved after the election.

“History will look with grave disfavor on President Trump for the crisis he created,” she said.

For his part, Rauchway said he believed that Trump would “crash the bottom five” on the presidential rankings but that the bottom spot itself was uncertain. “I think he has some stiff competition” in Johnson, whom Rauchway personally regards as the worst president of all.

“If I had to predict where historiography would go, I think people would have to recognize that Trumpism — nativism and white supremacy — has deep roots in American history,” Rauchway said. “But Trump himself put it to new and malignant purpose.”

Robert Strauss, a journalist and the author of “Worst. President. Ever.,” a popular history of Buchanan, seemed reluctant to allow the subject of his book to relinquish his title.

“I can go through a litany of things that Buchanan did,” he said. “In the time period between Lincoln’s election and the inauguration” — that is, during the lame-duck period of Buchanan’s presidency — “he let seven states secede and said, ‘I can’t do anything about it.’ He also influenced the Dred Scott decision, the worst decision in Supreme Court history.”

Of course, “the difference was that Buchanan was a nice guy,” Strauss said. “He was the greatest party-giver of the 19th century. He was kind to his nieces and nephews. What he was, was not a very good president.”

As they considered Trump’s record in comparison to that of other presidents, some historians said that he could have done things to salvage his reputation.

“If he had presided over a competent response to COVID, he would have won reelection easily,” Widmer of the City University of New York said. “And if he had responded with grace to his loss, a lot of people would have given him some grudging respect.”

And yes, he added, Trump was worse than Buchanan.

“Trump is a worse failure because he really wanted to be reelected, and he was rejected,” Widmer said. “Buchanan colossally failed, but at least he had the dignity not to run again.”

In the race to the bottom for the title of worst American president, the same few sorry names appear at the end of almost every list, jockeying for last place. There’s Andrew Johnson, whose abysmal behavior during Reconstruction led to the first presidential impeachment.

In the race to the bottom for the title of worst American president, the same few sorry names appear at the end of almost every list, jockeying for last place. There’s Andrew Johnson, whose abysmal behavior during Reconstruction led to the first presidential impeachment. There’s Warren G. Harding, responsible for the Teapot Dome scandal. There’s hapless, hated Franklin Pierce; doomed, dead-after-32-days William Henry Harrison; and inevitably, James Buchanan, often considered worst of all because of how badly he bungled the lead-up to the Civil War. But as historians consider the legacy of Donald Trump, it appears that even the woefully inadequate Buchanan has some serious competition for the spot at the bottom. “Trump was the first president to be impeached twice and the first to stir up a mob to try to attack the Capitol and disrupt his successor from becoming president,” said Eric Rauchway, professor of history at the University of California, Davis. “These will definitely go down in history books, and they are not good.” Also read| Watch: Melania Trump refuses to pose with Donald Trump after he leaves White House; Twitter laughs “I already feel that he is the worst,” said Ted Widmer, professor of history at the City University of New York, noting that as bad as Buchanan was — and he was very bad indeed — he was “not as aggressively bad as Trump.” “Andrew Johnson and Nixon would be the two others in the worst category, and I think Trump has them beat pretty handily, too,” he added. “He has invented a whole new category, a subbasement that no one knew existed.” Presidential ranking may be a water cooler exercise for historians, but it is also an official institutional pursuit. The Siena College Research Institute regularly compiles ranked lists of all the American presidents, based on the composite views of scholars. So does C-SPAN. Also read| Trump impeachment trial put off until early February Various polls periodically ask regular citizens to weigh in. And on Twitter last week, Chris Hayes of MSNBC took the presidential-ranking parlor game to his followers, asking them to list the “five worst presidents of all time.” (He put Trump as the second worst, just after Johnson.) Trump was a highly divisive president, of course, and one of the confounding things about him was how two people could look at his behavior and make completely different assessments. But not so much anymore. “I would say that before the election it depended on one’s political outlook,” with conservatives applauding his tax cuts, deregulation policies and judicial appointments, said William Cooper Jr., professor emeritus of history at Louisiana State University. “But from the election forward, I don’t see how anyone could feel that Trump’s behavior was anything but reprehensible or that he hasn’t completely destroyed any legacy he would have left.” Also read| Donald Trump tried replacing attorney general for personal needs: Reports He cited Trump’s refusal to concede the election; his promotion of baseless conspiracy theories attacking voting integrity; his intemperate, self-promoting behavior during the Georgia Senate runoffs, which helped ensure victory for the two Democratic candidates; and his encouragement of the crowd that rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Even conservatives from Atlanta, where Cooper lives, have had it with Trump, he said. “He has tarred and feathered himself, and I think it will blemish him for a long, long, long time.” Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University and a member of the advisory panel for C-SPAN’s Presidential Historians Survey, said that Trump “was a bad president in just about every regard.” “I find him to be the worst president in U.S. history, personally,” Brinkley said, “even worse than William Henry Harrison, who was president for only one month. You don’t want to be ranked below him.” Brinkley brought up Richard Nixon, the only president to resign in disgrace. Also read| The end of Trump can be the beginning of America “At least when Nixon left, he put the country ahead of himself at the last minute,” Brinkley said. “Now he looks like a statesman compared to Trump.” These are all hot takes, of course — the sound of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way,” the song playing Wednesday as Trump flew out of Washington, has barely faded from our ears — and it is too soon to know how history will judge him. But things do not augur well, said Don Levy, director of Siena’s research institute. In the most recent Siena survey, a year into the Trump administration, Trump was rated 42nd out of 44 presidents, less terrible than only Buchanan and Johnson. In almost every category — integrity, intelligence and relationship with Congress, for instance — he was rated at or nearly rock bottom. (The exceptions: He was 25th in “willing to take risks” and 10th in “luck.”) “Speaking in terms of this survey, it would be surprising if Trump was meaningfully rehabilitated,” Levy said. “If the opening paragraph of any discussion starts about being impeached twice, and the second sentence is about the coronavirus, and the third is about partisanship, that’s going to be very hard to overcome.” Sean Wilentz, a professor of American history at Princeton University, said that Trump was the worst president in history, hands down. “He’s in a whole other category in terms of the damage he’s done to the Republic,” said Wilentz, citing the radicalization of the Republican Party, the inept response to the pandemic and what he called “the brazen, almost psychedelic mendacity of the man.” Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose most recent book, “Leadership: In Turbulent Times,” looks at how four presidents confronted tough moments in history, said that it normally takes a generation to evaluate a leader. But to the extent that a president’s legacy is determined by his ability to rise to a crisis, Trump will be remembered for his failures: how poorly he handled COVID-19 and how disgracefully he behaved after the election. “History will look with grave disfavor on President Trump for the crisis he created,” she said. For his part, Rauchway said he believed that Trump would “crash the bottom five” on the presidential rankings but that the bottom spot itself was uncertain. “I think he has some stiff competition” in Johnson, whom Rauchway personally regards as the worst president of all. “If I had to predict where historiography would go, I think people would have to recognize that Trumpism — nativism and white supremacy — has deep roots in American history,” Rauchway said. “But Trump himself put it to new and malignant purpose.” Robert Strauss, a journalist and the author of “Worst. President. Ever.,” a popular history of Buchanan, seemed reluctant to allow the subject of his book to relinquish his title. “I can go through a litany of things that Buchanan did,” he said. “In the time period between Lincoln’s election and the inauguration” — that is, during the lame-duck period of Buchanan’s presidency — “he let seven states secede and said, ‘I can’t do anything about it.’ He also influenced the Dred Scott decision, the worst decision in Supreme Court history.” Of course, “the difference was that Buchanan was a nice guy,” Strauss said. “He was the greatest party-giver of the 19th century. He was kind to his nieces and nephews. What he was, was not a very good president.” As they considered Trump’s record in comparison to that of other presidents, some historians said that he could have done things to salvage his reputation. “If he had presided over a competent response to COVID, he would have won reelection easily,” Widmer of the City University of New York said. “And if he had responded with grace to his loss, a lot of people would have given him some grudging respect.” And yes, he added, Trump was worse than Buchanan. “Trump is a worse failure because he really wanted to be reelected, and he was rejected,” Widmer said. “Buchanan colossally failed, but at least he had the dignity not to run again.”

The Trump presidency is now history. So how will it rank?

WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump boarded the plane to Florida on Wednesday, he cast his achievements as sweeping, ambitious and, above all, enduring — a few hours before his successor began demolishing that legacy at breakneck speed.

“We’ve accomplished so much together,” Trump told a crowd of his supporters, ticking off what he believed to be his top policy successes on immigration, deregulation, veterans affairs and taxes — adding, “We were not a regular administration.”

The passage of Trump’s 2017 tax bill and his appointment of three justices to the Supreme Court are clearly his most enduring accomplishments. But many of Trump’s other signature actions were enacted via executive fiat, making them especially vulnerable to rapid reversal the same way — by an executive order.

President Joe Biden, a more experienced Washington operator, is not using the process to build his legacy, as Trump tried to do, but as a means of erasing Trump’s.

In his first 48 hours in office, Biden cranked out about 30 executive orders, of which 14 target a broad range of Trump executive mandates, with the remainder aimed at implementing emergency measures intended to deal with the pandemic and the economic crisis.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that most of what Trump did can be undone in an afternoon. It’s going to take at least 10 days,” said John Podesta, a former adviser to President Barack Obama who lobbied for the targeted use of executive action in Obama’s second term when congressional Republicans blocked his environmental and immigration proposals.

“I think Trump sort of views Article II of the Constitution” — which details the powers of the presidency — “as making him omnipotent, and now he’s going to find out that except for cutting taxes, and maybe some of the foreign policy stuff, very little will actually last,” he added.

One former senior Trump aide, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, agreed. “Very little of what Trump did was done to ensure permanence. At the pace Biden is moving, everything Trump did will be gone by the time the sun rises on Monday — except his judicial appointments.”

The list of Biden executive orders aimed at rolling back Trump initiatives includes: restoring the country’s commitment to funding the World Health Organization; rejoining the Paris climate accords; reversing Trump’s ban on immigration from several predominantly Muslim nations and halting immigration enforcement in the country’s interior; stopping construction of the border wall; ensuring protections for LGBTQ workers undermined by Trump appointees; killing the Keystone XL pipeline permit; reimposing the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; imposing new ethics rules and tossing out Trump’s “1776 Commission” report.

The effort has its roots in a less focused campaign at the start of the Trump administration. Four years ago, during the transition, a Trump aide printed out the detailed checklist of Obama’s campaign promises from the official White House website with the goal, never quite achieved, of reversing every single one.

Trump’s allies said his stewardship of the economy, even after the pandemic, was his greatest legacy, an opinion shared by his aides who put together a list of about 1,000 accomplishments that has subsequently been scrubbed from the White House website.

“Before the China Virus invaded our shores, we built the world’s most prosperous economy,” it begins. “America gained 7 million new jobs — more than three times government experts’ projections. Middle-Class family income increased nearly $6,000 — more than five times the gains during the entire previous administration.”

The list is light on legislative achievements. Trump, who did not take the time to learn the levers of power, did not consistently engage with congressional leaders, beyond basking in their support or making last-minute demands to increase funding for his wall by threatening to scuttle big budget deals.

While Trump lorded over Twitter, important lessons for him lurked, unwatched, on YouTube.

In a remarkable interview 10 days before his death in 1973, Lyndon B. Johnson, the most skilled legislator-president in the country’s recent history, explained why he had resisted the temptation to ram through landmark civil rights reforms by using executive orders.

Pursuing a legislative path was tougher and led to an uncertain outcome, but he wanted his reforms to endure, Johnson explained, and to do so they required the stubborn force of law.

Black leaders “wanted me to issue an executive order and proclaim this by presidential edict,” said Johnson, speaking of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — an approach that, he concluded, “would not be very effective if the Congress had not legislated.”

If Trump needed a more contemporary lesson than Johnson’s, he only had to look back to his predecessor, Obama, who endured a protracted and messy process to pass the Affordable Care Act — a law that has endured, albeit weakened, despite Trump’s repeated efforts to destroy it.

For the first two years of his administration, Trump enjoyed majorities in both houses of Congress, affording him the opportunity to legislate on the issues he campaigned on: tightening immigration restrictions and building a border wall, repealing Obamacare, and restoring vitality to the economically ravaged Midwestern heartland.

But he never seriously tried to build consensus on immigration reform and opted instead for acting unilaterally on the issue, drafting a poorly executed ban on visitors from several Muslim and African countries during his first days in office, to the chagrin of seasoned counselors, like his first White House counsel, Donald McGahn, former aides said.

Instead, Trump became enthralled with the pageantry of issuing the executive orders, turning quotidian signing sessions into televised demonstrations of his power.

At the same time, Trump was frittering away opportunities to create a durable legislative legacy, walking away, without explanation, from initiatives like an ambitious infrastructure package that might have drawn broad bipartisan consensus and altered the trajectory of his presidency.

Two bills broke that mold — the tax cuts and the 2018 criminal justice reform bill, a measure that enjoyed strong support in both parties and became a main theme of the Republican National Convention when he was seeking to win the support of Black voters.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader — who has soured on Trump since the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol — was responsible for a more enduring element of his presidency: the clever use of congressional riders to repeal some agency regulations, making them harder to repeal than the thousands of quickly reversible rule changes implemented by the president’s appointees.

Whether Biden will also become overly reliant on executive action remains an open question. But as a guide, some on Biden’s team are using a 140-page law review article from 2001 by Justice Elena Kagan of the Supreme Court, then a professor at Harvard Law School, which charts a middle course, supporting the use of executive power as a tool for regulatory efforts but not as a license to unilaterally dictate every action taken by presidential subordinates.

Two officials involved in the rollout of Biden’s orders said that his use of executive decrees was not a reflection of an expansive view of executive authority but rather a response to the pandemic and the damage done by Trump’s policies.

They said his use of executive actions would diminish when congressional action picked up.

On Friday, Brian Deese, a Biden economic adviser, said the administration’s top priority was passing a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, but stopgaps included in the orders, like a potential minimum wage hike for federal employees and increased food assistance, were needed to keep the country from falling into “a very serious economic hole.”

But Biden seems to know that the path to completing his agenda runs through Congress, particularly the Senate, where he served for nearly four decades.

WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump boarded the plane to Florida on Wednesday, he cast his achievements as sweeping, ambitious and, above all, enduring — a few hours before his successor began demolishing that legacy at breakneck speed.

WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump boarded the plane to Florida on Wednesday, he cast his achievements as sweeping, ambitious and, above all, enduring — a few hours before his successor began demolishing that legacy at breakneck speed. “We’ve accomplished so much together,” Trump told a crowd of his supporters, ticking off what he believed to be his top policy successes on immigration, deregulation, veterans affairs and taxes — adding, “We were not a regular administration.” The passage of Trump’s 2017 tax bill and his appointment of three justices to the Supreme Court are clearly his most enduring accomplishments. But many of Trump’s other signature actions were enacted via executive fiat, making them especially vulnerable to rapid reversal the same way — by an executive order. President Joe Biden, a more experienced Washington operator, is not using the process to build his legacy, as Trump tried to do, but as a means of erasing Trump’s. In his first 48 hours in office, Biden cranked out about 30 executive orders, of which 14 target a broad range of Trump executive mandates, with the remainder aimed at implementing emergency measures intended to deal with the pandemic and the economic crisis. “I don’t think it’s fair to say that most of what Trump did can be undone in an afternoon. It’s going to take at least 10 days,” said John Podesta, a former adviser to President Barack Obama who lobbied for the targeted use of executive action in Obama’s second term when congressional Republicans blocked his environmental and immigration proposals. “I think Trump sort of views Article II of the Constitution” — which details the powers of the presidency — “as making him omnipotent, and now he’s going to find out that except for cutting taxes, and maybe some of the foreign policy stuff, very little will actually last,” he added. One former senior Trump aide, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, agreed. “Very little of what Trump did was done to ensure permanence. At the pace Biden is moving, everything Trump did will be gone by the time the sun rises on Monday — except his judicial appointments.” The list of Biden executive orders aimed at rolling back Trump initiatives includes: restoring the country’s commitment to funding the World Health Organization; rejoining the Paris climate accords; reversing Trump’s ban on immigration from several predominantly Muslim nations and halting immigration enforcement in the country’s interior; stopping construction of the border wall; ensuring protections for LGBTQ workers undermined by Trump appointees; killing the Keystone XL pipeline permit; reimposing the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; imposing new ethics rules and tossing out Trump’s “1776 Commission” report. The effort has its roots in a less focused campaign at the start of the Trump administration. Four years ago, during the transition, a Trump aide printed out the detailed checklist of Obama’s campaign promises from the official White House website with the goal, never quite achieved, of reversing every single one. Trump’s allies said his stewardship of the economy, even after the pandemic, was his greatest legacy, an opinion shared by his aides who put together a list of about 1,000 accomplishments that has subsequently been scrubbed from the White House website. “Before the China Virus invaded our shores, we built the world’s most prosperous economy,” it begins. “America gained 7 million new jobs — more than three times government experts’ projections. Middle-Class family income increased nearly $6,000 — more than five times the gains during the entire previous administration.” The list is light on legislative achievements. Trump, who did not take the time to learn the levers of power, did not consistently engage with congressional leaders, beyond basking in their support or making last-minute demands to increase funding for his wall by threatening to scuttle big budget deals. While Trump lorded over Twitter, important lessons for him lurked, unwatched, on YouTube. In a remarkable interview 10 days before his death in 1973, Lyndon B. Johnson, the most skilled legislator-president in the country’s recent history, explained why he had resisted the temptation to ram through landmark civil rights reforms by using executive orders. Pursuing a legislative path was tougher and led to an uncertain outcome, but he wanted his reforms to endure, Johnson explained, and to do so they required the stubborn force of law. Black leaders “wanted me to issue an executive order and proclaim this by presidential edict,” said Johnson, speaking of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — an approach that, he concluded, “would not be very effective if the Congress had not legislated.” If Trump needed a more contemporary lesson than Johnson’s, he only had to look back to his predecessor, Obama, who endured a protracted and messy process to pass the Affordable Care Act — a law that has endured, albeit weakened, despite Trump’s repeated efforts to destroy it. For the first two years of his administration, Trump enjoyed majorities in both houses of Congress, affording him the opportunity to legislate on the issues he campaigned on: tightening immigration restrictions and building a border wall, repealing Obamacare, and restoring vitality to the economically ravaged Midwestern heartland. But he never seriously tried to build consensus on immigration reform and opted instead for acting unilaterally on the issue, drafting a poorly executed ban on visitors from several Muslim and African countries during his first days in office, to the chagrin of seasoned counselors, like his first White House counsel, Donald McGahn, former aides said. Instead, Trump became enthralled with the pageantry of issuing the executive orders, turning quotidian signing sessions into televised demonstrations of his power. At the same time, Trump was frittering away opportunities to create a durable legislative legacy, walking away, without explanation, from initiatives like an ambitious infrastructure package that might have drawn broad bipartisan consensus and altered the trajectory of his presidency. Two bills broke that mold — the tax cuts and the 2018 criminal justice reform bill, a measure that enjoyed strong support in both parties and became a main theme of the Republican National Convention when he was seeking to win the support of Black voters. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader — who has soured on Trump since the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol — was responsible for a more enduring element of his presidency: the clever use of congressional riders to repeal some agency regulations, making them harder to repeal than the thousands of quickly reversible rule changes implemented by the president’s appointees. Whether Biden will also become overly reliant on executive action remains an open question. But as a guide, some on Biden’s team are using a 140-page law review article from 2001 by Justice Elena Kagan of the Supreme Court, then a professor at Harvard Law School, which charts a middle course, supporting the use of executive power as a tool for regulatory efforts but not as a license to unilaterally dictate every action taken by presidential subordinates. Two officials involved in the rollout of Biden’s orders said that his use of executive decrees was not a reflection of an expansive view of executive authority but rather a response to the pandemic and the damage done by Trump’s policies. They said his use of executive actions would diminish when congressional action picked up. On Friday, Brian Deese, a Biden economic adviser, said the administration’s top priority was passing a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, but stopgaps included in the orders, like a potential minimum wage hike for federal employees and increased food assistance, were needed to keep the country from falling into “a very serious economic hole.” But Biden seems to know that the path to completing his agenda runs through Congress, particularly the Senate, where he served for nearly four decades.

The lure of executive orders: Easy to implement, but just as easy to cancel

The United States, under the new Biden administration, is planning to reverse Trump's "draconian" immigration approach while working on policies addressing the causes of migration.

Cracking down on both legal and illegal immigration was a core focus of Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump. Biden, meanwhile, has made an early push for a bill that would open a path for citizenship for the roughly 11 million people living in the United States illegally, though even his allies in Congress acknowledge that may be "a Herculean task."

In a Friday call with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Biden outlined his plan to create new legal pathways for immigration and improve the process for people requesting asylum, according to an account of the call released by the White House.

Priorities include "reversing the previous administration’s draconian immigration policies," the White House said.

The two leaders agreed to work together towards reducing "irregular migration."

The call was “pleasant and respectful,” López Obrador said in a brief Twitter post. "Everything indicates relations will be good and for the benefit of our people and nations."

Mexico has a major role to play in Biden’s plans for immigration reform. Earlier this month, Mexico helped coordinate efforts in Central America to contain a large caravan of migrants heading for the United States.

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry also said it had begun talks with Washington about a COVID-19-related order signed by Biden to establish firmer health protocols for people entering US territory.

The United States, under the new Biden administration, is planning to reverse Trump's "draconian" immigration approach while working on policies addressing the causes of migration.

The United States, under the new Biden administration, is planning to reverse Trump's "draconian" immigration approach while working on policies addressing the causes of migration. Cracking down on both legal and illegal immigration was a core focus of Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump. Biden, meanwhile, has made an early push for a bill that would open a path for citizenship for the roughly 11 million people living in the United States illegally, though even his allies in Congress acknowledge that may be "a Herculean task." In a Friday call with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Biden outlined his plan to create new legal pathways for immigration and improve the process for people requesting asylum, according to an account of the call released by the White House. Priorities include "reversing the previous administration’s draconian immigration policies," the White House said. The two leaders agreed to work together towards reducing "irregular migration." The call was “pleasant and respectful,” López Obrador said in a brief Twitter post. "Everything indicates relations will be good and for the benefit of our people and nations." Mexico has a major role to play in Biden’s plans for immigration reform. Earlier this month, Mexico helped coordinate efforts in Central America to contain a large caravan of migrants heading for the United States. Mexico’s Foreign Ministry also said it had begun talks with Washington about a COVID-19-related order signed by Biden to establish firmer health protocols for people entering US territory.

US to reverse Trump's immigration policies, Biden tells Mexican president

The former US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a> lawyer Rudy Giuliani is facing criticism now, more than ever, since his boss and friend completed his term of presidency.

A group of prominent lawyers have now asked the New York's judiciary to suspend Giuliani's law license and has alleged him of making false claims post US election.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-tried-replacing-attorney-general-for-personal-needs-reports-358769">Donald Trump tried replacing attorney general for personal needs: Reports</a>

He has also been alleged of motivating Trump supporters to engage in "trial by combat" after the former President diverted them to riot inside the US Capitol.

The group, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, has also called for an investigation for the past works of the tainted lawyer. He has earlier served as a federal prosecutor and a New York City mayor, before being hired as a personal attorney for Trump.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-tried-replacing-attorney-general-for-personal-needs-reports-358769">Donald Trump tried replacing attorney general for personal needs: Reports</a>

"This complaint is about law, not politics," the group of lawyers claimed in their letter to the attorney grievance committee for the New York supreme court.

The letter has been signed by more than 40 lawyers who are expecting this letter will be taken into consideration by the committee and can have serious consequences for Guiliani. The committee has the power to censure and suspend lawyers, in addition to revoking law licenses.

Giuliani has been the torch-bearer of the recent lawsuits filed against several state governments with the aim of overturning the US election result in which Trump had lost to the new US President<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden"> Joe Biden.</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-ex-president-trumps-impeachment-trial-postponed-to-february-358759">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-ex-president-trumps-impeachment-trial-postponed-to-february-358759/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Dozens of lawsuits were filed, and lost, within a span of nearly a month, by Giuliani's team, following which Biden's historic win against Trump was confirmed.

Trump is now set to appear for his <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-trial-put-off-until-early-february-358797">second impeachment trial</a> — which is the first time for any US President — which was set in motion by the US Senate after Trump urged his supporters to march to the US Capitol, resulting in a deadly riot and destruction of federal property.&nbsp;The leaders of the US Senate have now, however, agreed to push back his&nbsp;impeachment trial by two weeks.

He has also been recently alleged of working with a Justice Department lawyer to&nbsp;replace the then-acting US attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen with a candidate of his choice to help him turn out the results of the Georgia state in the recently-concluded US election 2020.

The former US President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani is facing criticism now, more than ever, since his boss and friend completed his term of presidency. A group of prominent lawyers have now asked the New York's judiciary to suspend Giuliani's law license and has alleged him of making false claims post US election.

The former US President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani is facing criticism now, more than ever, since his boss and friend completed his term of presidency. A group of prominent lawyers have now asked the New York's judiciary to suspend Giuliani's law license and has alleged him of making false claims post US election. Also read| Donald Trump tried replacing attorney general for personal needs: Reports He has also been alleged of motivating Trump supporters to engage in "trial by combat" after the former President diverted them to riot inside the US Capitol. The group, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, has also called for an investigation for the past works of the tainted lawyer. He has earlier served as a federal prosecutor and a New York City mayor, before being hired as a personal attorney for Trump. Also read| Donald Trump tried replacing attorney general for personal needs: Reports "This complaint is about law, not politics," the group of lawyers claimed in their letter to the attorney grievance committee for the New York supreme court. The letter has been signed by more than 40 lawyers who are expecting this letter will be taken into consideration by the committee and can have serious consequences for Guiliani. The committee has the power to censure and suspend lawyers, in addition to revoking law licenses. Giuliani has been the torch-bearer of the recent lawsuits filed against several state governments with the aim of overturning the US election result in which Trump had lost to the new US President Joe Biden. WATCH| Dozens of lawsuits were filed, and lost, within a span of nearly a month, by Giuliani's team, following which Biden's historic win against Trump was confirmed. Trump is now set to appear for his second impeachment trial — which is the first time for any US President — which was set in motion by the US Senate after Trump urged his supporters to march to the US Capitol, resulting in a deadly riot and destruction of federal property. The leaders of the US Senate have now, however, agreed to push back his impeachment trial by two weeks. He has also been recently alleged of working with a Justice Department lawyer to replace the then-acting US attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen with a candidate of his choice to help him turn out the results of the Georgia state in the recently-concluded US election 2020.

Group of lawyers call for suspension of Rudy Giuliani's law license

The leaders of the US Senate have agreed to push back former president Donald Trump's impeachment trial by two weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said the trial is set to begin during the week of February 8, an arrangement praised by the chamber's top Republican, Mitch McConnell.

This would give the chamber more time to focus on President Joe Biden's legislative agenda and Cabinet nominees before turning to the contentious showdown over Trump.

Trump on January 13 became the first US president to have been impeached twice. The Senate acquitted him last year in the previous trial focused on his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son. Trump's presidential term ended on Wednesday.

The House of Representatives is due to formally deliver to the Senate on Monday (January 25) the impeachment charge accusing Trump of inciting an insurrection, a move that ordinarily would have triggered the beginning of the trial within a day.&nbsp;

The charge stems from Trump's incendiary speech to supporters before they stormed the Capitol on January 6 in a rampage that delayed the formal congressional certification of Biden's election victory and left five people dead, including a police officer.

The new timeline, however, will allow the Senate to move quickly on key Biden appointees and other tasks while giving House lawmakers who will prosecute the case and Trump's team more time to prepare for the trial.

The timeline was a compromise after McConnell had asked the Democratic-led House to delay sending the charge until next Thursday, and called on Schumer to postpone the trial until mid-February to give Trump more time to prepare a defense.

Doug Andres, a spokesman for McConnell, said the senator was pleased Democrats had given Trump's defense more time, and laid out a timeline that could have the trial begin as soon as February 9.

Under the timeline, House impeachment managers will file their pre-trial brief and Trump's defense team will file an answer to the impeachment charge on February 2, and each side will respond to those filings on February 8.

Meanwhile, conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds vote - meaning 17 of Trump's fellow Republicans would have to vote against him. A conviction would clear the way for a second vote, requiring a simply majority, to bar Trump from holding office again.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters earlier in the day that the Senate should be able to move forward with both the trial and Biden's agenda, beginning with his call for $1.9 trillion of fresh COVID-19 assistance for Americans and the US economy.

The deal came even as Schumer and McConnell struggled to assert control in a chamber divided 50-50, with Democrats holding a majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote.

Trump has, meanwhile, said he may seek the presidency again in 2024.

The leaders of the US Senate have agreed to push back former president Donald Trump's impeachment trial by two weeks. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said the trial is set to begin during the week of February 8, an arrangement praised by the chamber's top Republican, Mitch McConnell.

The leaders of the US Senate have agreed to push back former president Donald Trump's impeachment trial by two weeks. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said the trial is set to begin during the week of February 8, an arrangement praised by the chamber's top Republican, Mitch McConnell. This would give the chamber more time to focus on President Joe Biden's legislative agenda and Cabinet nominees before turning to the contentious showdown over Trump. Trump on January 13 became the first US president to have been impeached twice. The Senate acquitted him last year in the previous trial focused on his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son. Trump's presidential term ended on Wednesday. The House of Representatives is due to formally deliver to the Senate on Monday (January 25) the impeachment charge accusing Trump of inciting an insurrection, a move that ordinarily would have triggered the beginning of the trial within a day. The charge stems from Trump's incendiary speech to supporters before they stormed the Capitol on January 6 in a rampage that delayed the formal congressional certification of Biden's election victory and left five people dead, including a police officer. The new timeline, however, will allow the Senate to move quickly on key Biden appointees and other tasks while giving House lawmakers who will prosecute the case and Trump's team more time to prepare for the trial. The timeline was a compromise after McConnell had asked the Democratic-led House to delay sending the charge until next Thursday, and called on Schumer to postpone the trial until mid-February to give Trump more time to prepare a defense. Doug Andres, a spokesman for McConnell, said the senator was pleased Democrats had given Trump's defense more time, and laid out a timeline that could have the trial begin as soon as February 9. Under the timeline, House impeachment managers will file their pre-trial brief and Trump's defense team will file an answer to the impeachment charge on February 2, and each side will respond to those filings on February 8. Meanwhile, conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds vote - meaning 17 of Trump's fellow Republicans would have to vote against him. A conviction would clear the way for a second vote, requiring a simply majority, to bar Trump from holding office again. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters earlier in the day that the Senate should be able to move forward with both the trial and Biden's agenda, beginning with his call for $1.9 trillion of fresh COVID-19 assistance for Americans and the US economy. The deal came even as Schumer and McConnell struggled to assert control in a chamber divided 50-50, with Democrats holding a majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote. Trump has, meanwhile, said he may seek the presidency again in 2024.

Trump impeachment trial put off until early February

The former US President and reality TV star, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>, has been accused of plotting with a Justice Department lawyer to replace the US attorney general to meet his selfish motives.

Trump, allegedly, wanted to replace the then-acting US attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen with a candidate of his choice to help him turn out the results of the Georgia state in the recently-concluded <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">US election 2020.</a>

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/over-150-national-guard-troops-for-biden-inauguration-test-positive-for-coronavirus-358691" hreflang="en">Over 150 National Guard troops for Biden inauguration test COVID positive</a>

Jeffrey Clark, the lawyer who provided help to the former President, had been trying to come up with different plans to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the concerned people regarding the election results. The two had been closely working together to replace Rosen with Clark.

The former President wanted to devise a plan to remove Rosen as then then-acting attorney general had refused to cater to the antics of Trump and has denied all baseless accusations of voter fraud.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/inside-us-president-joe-bidens-redecorated-oval-office-358715" hreflang="en">Inside US President Joe Biden's redecorated Oval Office</a>

This piece of news has come at a time when Trump has started his post-White House life with a bump in his professional, social and personal life as he is set to face a Senate trial for "incitement of insurrection" for motivating his supporters to carry out riots in the US Capitol.

His personal life, too, has taken a hit with reports and rumours of his divorce with <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-melania-trump-refuses-to-pose-with-donald-trump-after-he-leaves-white-house-twitter-laughs-358514">Melania Trump</a> started surfacing after the former FLOTUS refused to pose with him the day their duties as the First Couple ended.

However, the plan was terminated after the majority of the concerned employees said they would resign if Rosen was removed from his post.

The claim was first made by the US media house, the New York Times.

The former US President and reality TV star, Donald Trump, has been accused of plotting with a Justice Department lawyer to replace the US attorney general to meet his selfish motives.

The former US President and reality TV star, Donald Trump, has been accused of plotting with a Justice Department lawyer to replace the US attorney general to meet his selfish motives. Trump, allegedly, wanted to replace the then-acting US attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen with a candidate of his choice to help him turn out the results of the Georgia state in the recently-concluded US election 2020. Also read| Over 150 National Guard troops for Biden inauguration test COVID positive Jeffrey Clark, the lawyer who provided help to the former President, had been trying to come up with different plans to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the concerned people regarding the election results. The two had been closely working together to replace Rosen with Clark. The former President wanted to devise a plan to remove Rosen as then then-acting attorney general had refused to cater to the antics of Trump and has denied all baseless accusations of voter fraud. Also read| Inside US President Joe Biden's redecorated Oval Office This piece of news has come at a time when Trump has started his post-White House life with a bump in his professional, social and personal life as he is set to face a Senate trial for "incitement of insurrection" for motivating his supporters to carry out riots in the US Capitol. His personal life, too, has taken a hit with reports and rumours of his divorce with Melania Trump started surfacing after the former FLOTUS refused to pose with him the day their duties as the First Couple ended. However, the plan was terminated after the majority of the concerned employees said they would resign if Rosen was removed from his post. The claim was first made by the US media house, the New York Times.

Donald Trump tried replacing attorney general for personal needs: Reports

Former US president Donald Trump will go on trial in the US Senate soon after an impeachment case against him is transmitted by the House of Representatives on Monday (January 25).

The House impeached the Republican leader for a historic second time on January 13, just one week before he left office, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to send the article of impeachment to the Senate.&nbsp;The step is necessary in order to launch the trial process.

"I have spoken to Speaker Pelosi who informed me that the article will be delivered to the Senate on Monday," Chuck Schumer, the new Democratic Senate majority leader, said in a floor speech Friday.

"A trial will be held in the United States Senate and there will be a vote whether to convict the president," Schumer told his colleagues.

Trump was impeached on a single charge of "incitement of insurrection" for his role in whipping up his supporters during a speech in Washington on January 6, the day a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol.

The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, severely reprimanded the outgoing president and left the door open for voting to convict Trump.&nbsp;He, however, sought a delay in an impeachment trial until February, arguing Trump needs time to hire lawyers and mount a defense.

But on Friday, McConnell, now the Senate minority leader, acknowledged the Democrats' timetable.

McConnell spoke of the "unprecedentedly fast" process in the House, where Trump was impeached in a single day.

He also said that delaying the trial would have provided time for the Senate to confirm members of new President Joe Biden's cabinet, and consider crucial legislation like a coronavirus pandemic rescue package. 
&nbsp;

Former US president Donald Trump will go on trial in the US Senate soon after an impeachment case against him is transmitted by the House of Representatives on Monday (January 25).

Former US president Donald Trump will go on trial in the US Senate soon after an impeachment case against him is transmitted by the House of Representatives on Monday (January 25). The House impeached the Republican leader for a historic second time on January 13, just one week before he left office, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to send the article of impeachment to the Senate. The step is necessary in order to launch the trial process. "I have spoken to Speaker Pelosi who informed me that the article will be delivered to the Senate on Monday," Chuck Schumer, the new Democratic Senate majority leader, said in a floor speech Friday. "A trial will be held in the United States Senate and there will be a vote whether to convict the president," Schumer told his colleagues. Trump was impeached on a single charge of "incitement of insurrection" for his role in whipping up his supporters during a speech in Washington on January 6, the day a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol. The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, severely reprimanded the outgoing president and left the door open for voting to convict Trump. He, however, sought a delay in an impeachment trial until February, arguing Trump needs time to hire lawyers and mount a defense. But on Friday, McConnell, now the Senate minority leader, acknowledged the Democrats' timetable. McConnell spoke of the "unprecedentedly fast" process in the House, where Trump was impeached in a single day. He also said that delaying the trial would have provided time for the Senate to confirm members of new President Joe Biden's cabinet, and consider crucial legislation like a coronavirus pandemic rescue package.

Trump impeachment to be sent to Senate on January 25

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — It was New Year’s Eve, and dance music was pulsating from the backyard of a multimillion-dollar home here co-owned by Philip Esformes, a former nursing home executive who orchestrated one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history.

Just days after being granted clemency by President Donald Trump and released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes was under a disco ball celebrating his daughter’s wedding.

Not far away, in Hialeah, Florida, Judith Negron, 49, who had been convicted in a separate scheme to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent Medicare payments, was also at home for the holidays instead of in federal prison. Thanks to a commutation by Trump, she had been released after serving eight years of a 35-year sentence and was relieved of any remaining obligation to pay her share of $87 million in court-ordered restitution.

This was hardly the outcome that Paul E. Pelletier expected when he and a team of other top Justice Department prosecutors and federal investigators set out to expose what Esformes and Negron had done.

After years of painstaking work and millions of dollars spent to investigate and prosecute the cases, the remainders of the sentences being served by the two convicted felons — participants in a type of fraud that costs taxpayers billions of dollars — had been wiped away by the stroke of a presidential pen.

In explaining his decisions, Trump said that Negron was a “wife and mother” and had dedicated her time in prison to “improving her life and the lives of her fellow inmates.” Esformes, he said, spent his time in prison “devoted to prayer and repentance and is in declining health,” and that others had raised claims of misconduct by prosecutors in his case.

The presidential rationales did not hold much weight with those who had sought to hold Esformes and Negron accountable.

“It is an incredible kick in the teeth to the agents and prosecutors who toil away every day under very difficult circumstances to achieve justice and some restitution to the taxpayers from the billions of dollars that has literally been stolen from them,” Pelletier said.

His frustration is shared by many current and former Justice Department officials who spent years working on these cases, considered two of the most important taken up in the nationwide effort to combat widespread Medicare fraud.

“It is disheartening, demoralizing,” said Wifredo A. Ferrer, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, speaking generally about presidential commutations in Medicare fraud cases. “We are doing these cases to control health care costs and save lives and make sure legitimate health care centers don’t have to compete with the crooks.”

The wave of pardons and commutations issued by Trump in his final months in office has drawn criticism from prosecutors and federal agents involved in other types of cases as well. Most notably, his decision to pardon four Blackwater guards convicted in the killing of Iraqi civilians infuriated many involved in those complex, long-running and contentious prosecutions.

Trump’s willingness to grant clemency in a string of Medicare cases has elicited particular outrage in Florida, a hotbed of this type of case and a focus of Justice Department efforts to combat fraud.

Trump added to the anger Tuesday, when he commuted what was left of the prison sentence for Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, 66, who ran clinics in Florida that fraudulently diagnosed Medicare patients with eye diseases and then performed medically unnecessary tests and procedures, falsely billing the federal government at least $42 million, according to prosecutors.

He was sentenced in 2018 to 17 years in prison and was not scheduled to be released from prison until 2031, according to Bureau of Prisons records.

Roger H. Stefin, lead prosecutor on the Melgen case, said that he considered it to be the most important conviction of his nearly 32-year career at the Justice Department — and that he was outraged at what Trump did.

“It is an insult and slap in the face to everybody,” said Stefin, 67, who retired last month, including “the patients who are getting needles stuck in their eyes and lasers blasting their retinas for treatments they did not even need.”

He remains baffled at why Trump acted in this case. “Why do these rich and well-connected people — really bad people — get this special treatment?” he said. “Why do they deserve it when other people are languishing in the jails?”

Negron, and lawyers for Melgen and Esformes, 52, argue that the commutations were justified. They said the Justice Department was overzealous in its prosecutions, either by using unethical practices during the investigation or by pushing for excessively long prison sentences and unrealistic restitution orders.

“I was sentenced based on numbers that were not relevant to me,” Negron said this month in an interview, referring to her 35-year sentence and multimillion-dollar restitution requirement. She argued that her earnings from the scheme were not more than her salary of about $250,000 a year. Prosecutors said during the trial that much of the stolen money was still missing.

Melgen’s case had become particularly high-profile because of his friendship with Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who was accused of bribery and corruption for accepting gifts from Melgen while intervening in his case with federal officials. Menendez’s trial ended with a deadlocked jury; a judge subsequently dismissed some of the charges, and the Justice Department decided not to retry him.

“Throughout this ordeal, I have come to realize the very deep flaws in our justice system and how people are at the complete mercy of prosecutors and judges,” Melgen said in a statement issued by his lawyer.

Some lawyers have argued that Trump’s actions on the Medicare cases were justified.

“There are a lot of health care cases that are very questionable, very questionable, and I think that’s been brought to the attention of the White House,” said Alan M. Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s legal team during his first impeachment and a supporter of clemency for Esformes.

The cases involving Esformes and Negron were investigated by a special unit created in Miami in 2007 and led by Pelletier that targeted Medicare fraud. Pelletier and his colleagues said they were amazed at the depth of corruption they found.

“We were ground zero for Medicare fraud,” Ferrer said.

There were so many schemes unfolding in South Florida that prosecutors set up an office with two football fields’ worth of space to store documents seized during raids and house the dozens of prosecutors, FBI agents and personnel from the inspector general’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services assigned to the team.

The team also included a nurse who could help them reverse-engineer falsified billing codes and data experts who could examine billing trends to help them identify surges in reimbursements that might merit further investigation. The program was eventually expanded to 14 other cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Houston and Chicago.

In Negron’s case, investigators found that the network of mental-health clinics she helped run, known as American Therapeutic Corp., paid bribes and kickbacks to owners of nursing homes and halfway houses and to so-called patient brokers to deliver clients to their clinics. In many cases, those clients were not eligible for the services that the company then billed Medicare to supposedly provide.

Negron and others made sure that patient files and therapist notes were altered to make it falsely appear that patients were being treated, with Negron at times signing files as if she was in two places at once.

In total, at least $83 million in improper Medicare payments were made to the companies over eight years. Only a tiny share of the money was located after arrests were made.

The case involving Esformes was even bigger, as the network of clinics he owned collected an estimated $1.3 billion in fraudulent Medicare claims, with Esformes extracting $38.7 million in payments from 2010 to 2016, according to prosecutors.

They said he used the money to fuel a luxurious lifestyle that included a $360,000 watch; a $1.6 million Ferrari; a series of multimillion-dollar homes in Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles; and even bribes for a basketball coach to help his son get into college.

Esformes, according to testimony during his trial, used code words like “fettuccine” for cash payments that would be placed in supermarket bags and delivered to a closet in the same Miami Beach home where he celebrated New Year’s Eve.

The average prison sentence in Medicare fraud cases is four or five years, according to recent summaries of convictions. But the longest sentences are reserved for defendants like Esformes and Negron who are shown to have played key roles in organizing the schemes.

The prosecutors intentionally sought long sentences both to punish them for the immense scale of the fraud and to send a deterrent message, Pelletier said.

“If you are going to steal $250 million from Medicare, you are going to jail for 20 years,” he said. “I have no sympathy for these people. None.”

Negron is now helping her husband run his pool construction business and looking after her two teenage sons. There was effectively no chance she would have managed to pay the government her share of the full restitution amount— $87.5 million split among several of the defendants. But now she will no longer have 10% of her monthly wages deducted to cover the debt.

Negron gained the attention of Trump in part because she happened to serve time in federal prison with Alice Marie Johnson, who after lobbying on her behalf by Kim Kardashian West had a life sentence on nonviolent drug charges commuted by Trump and has gone on to advise the White House on other pardon and commutation candidates.

Among those Johnson brought to the attention of the White House was Negron, given the length of her prison sentence, the fact that she had two children at home, and that this was her first criminal offense.

Negron later visited the White House with Kardashian West and Johnson to thank Trump.

Esformes’ release came after a lobbying campaign by the Aleph Institute, a group advised by Dershowitz and started by the Chabad-Lubavitch movement of Hasidic Jews, which seeks to help inmates facing long sentences. The movement has long-standing connections to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who helped oversee the pardon process.

Rabbi Sholom Lipskar, founder and chairman of the Aleph Institute — which has collected $65,000 worth of donations from Esformes’ family since his 2016 arrest — officiated the wedding held at Esformes’ property on New Year’s Eve.

Esformes is also still facing an order that he repay the federal government $5 million and forfeit another $38 million in illegal proceeds. But his lawyers are seeking to overturn those orders. Even though Esformes no longer faces any remaining prison time, his criminal conviction — and the resulting penalty — is being appealed, with his lawyers claiming prosecutorial misconduct.

The festivities at Esformes’ home on New Year’s Eve, soon after his release, surprised some of his neighbors. Anticipating complaints, the bride and groom distributed gift baskets to neighbors with a note apologizing “for any noise from the celebration.”

But one neighbor tweeted a photo of the gift basket, asserting that the lawn at Esformes’ home went uncut during his time in prison and expressing wonderment that Esformes so quickly “found the wherewithal to host a grand wedding for his daughter in his backyard tonight!”

The neighbor added the hashtag #CrimePays.

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — It was New Year’s Eve, and dance music was pulsating from the backyard of a multimillion-dollar home here co-owned by Philip Esformes, a former nursing home executive who orchestrated one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — It was New Year’s Eve, and dance music was pulsating from the backyard of a multimillion-dollar home here co-owned by Philip Esformes, a former nursing home executive who orchestrated one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history. Just days after being granted clemency by President Donald Trump and released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes was under a disco ball celebrating his daughter’s wedding. Not far away, in Hialeah, Florida, Judith Negron, 49, who had been convicted in a separate scheme to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent Medicare payments, was also at home for the holidays instead of in federal prison. Thanks to a commutation by Trump, she had been released after serving eight years of a 35-year sentence and was relieved of any remaining obligation to pay her share of $87 million in court-ordered restitution. This was hardly the outcome that Paul E. Pelletier expected when he and a team of other top Justice Department prosecutors and federal investigators set out to expose what Esformes and Negron had done. After years of painstaking work and millions of dollars spent to investigate and prosecute the cases, the remainders of the sentences being served by the two convicted felons — participants in a type of fraud that costs taxpayers billions of dollars — had been wiped away by the stroke of a presidential pen. In explaining his decisions, Trump said that Negron was a “wife and mother” and had dedicated her time in prison to “improving her life and the lives of her fellow inmates.” Esformes, he said, spent his time in prison “devoted to prayer and repentance and is in declining health,” and that others had raised claims of misconduct by prosecutors in his case. The presidential rationales did not hold much weight with those who had sought to hold Esformes and Negron accountable. “It is an incredible kick in the teeth to the agents and prosecutors who toil away every day under very difficult circumstances to achieve justice and some restitution to the taxpayers from the billions of dollars that has literally been stolen from them,” Pelletier said. His frustration is shared by many current and former Justice Department officials who spent years working on these cases, considered two of the most important taken up in the nationwide effort to combat widespread Medicare fraud. “It is disheartening, demoralizing,” said Wifredo A. Ferrer, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, speaking generally about presidential commutations in Medicare fraud cases. “We are doing these cases to control health care costs and save lives and make sure legitimate health care centers don’t have to compete with the crooks.” The wave of pardons and commutations issued by Trump in his final months in office has drawn criticism from prosecutors and federal agents involved in other types of cases as well. Most notably, his decision to pardon four Blackwater guards convicted in the killing of Iraqi civilians infuriated many involved in those complex, long-running and contentious prosecutions. Trump’s willingness to grant clemency in a string of Medicare cases has elicited particular outrage in Florida, a hotbed of this type of case and a focus of Justice Department efforts to combat fraud. Trump added to the anger Tuesday, when he commuted what was left of the prison sentence for Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, 66, who ran clinics in Florida that fraudulently diagnosed Medicare patients with eye diseases and then performed medically unnecessary tests and procedures, falsely billing the federal government at least $42 million, according to prosecutors. He was sentenced in 2018 to 17 years in prison and was not scheduled to be released from prison until 2031, according to Bureau of Prisons records. Roger H. Stefin, lead prosecutor on the Melgen case, said that he considered it to be the most important conviction of his nearly 32-year career at the Justice Department — and that he was outraged at what Trump did. “It is an insult and slap in the face to everybody,” said Stefin, 67, who retired last month, including “the patients who are getting needles stuck in their eyes and lasers blasting their retinas for treatments they did not even need.” He remains baffled at why Trump acted in this case. “Why do these rich and well-connected people — really bad people — get this special treatment?” he said. “Why do they deserve it when other people are languishing in the jails?” Negron, and lawyers for Melgen and Esformes, 52, argue that the commutations were justified. They said the Justice Department was overzealous in its prosecutions, either by using unethical practices during the investigation or by pushing for excessively long prison sentences and unrealistic restitution orders. “I was sentenced based on numbers that were not relevant to me,” Negron said this month in an interview, referring to her 35-year sentence and multimillion-dollar restitution requirement. She argued that her earnings from the scheme were not more than her salary of about $250,000 a year. Prosecutors said during the trial that much of the stolen money was still missing. Melgen’s case had become particularly high-profile because of his friendship with Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who was accused of bribery and corruption for accepting gifts from Melgen while intervening in his case with federal officials. Menendez’s trial ended with a deadlocked jury; a judge subsequently dismissed some of the charges, and the Justice Department decided not to retry him. “Throughout this ordeal, I have come to realize the very deep flaws in our justice system and how people are at the complete mercy of prosecutors and judges,” Melgen said in a statement issued by his lawyer. Some lawyers have argued that Trump’s actions on the Medicare cases were justified. “There are a lot of health care cases that are very questionable, very questionable, and I think that’s been brought to the attention of the White House,” said Alan M. Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s legal team during his first impeachment and a supporter of clemency for Esformes. The cases involving Esformes and Negron were investigated by a special unit created in Miami in 2007 and led by Pelletier that targeted Medicare fraud. Pelletier and his colleagues said they were amazed at the depth of corruption they found. “We were ground zero for Medicare fraud,” Ferrer said. There were so many schemes unfolding in South Florida that prosecutors set up an office with two football fields’ worth of space to store documents seized during raids and house the dozens of prosecutors, FBI agents and personnel from the inspector general’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services assigned to the team. The team also included a nurse who could help them reverse-engineer falsified billing codes and data experts who could examine billing trends to help them identify surges in reimbursements that might merit further investigation. The program was eventually expanded to 14 other cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Houston and Chicago. In Negron’s case, investigators found that the network of mental-health clinics she helped run, known as American Therapeutic Corp., paid bribes and kickbacks to owners of nursing homes and halfway houses and to so-called patient brokers to deliver clients to their clinics. In many cases, those clients were not eligible for the services that the company then billed Medicare to supposedly provide. Negron and others made sure that patient files and therapist notes were altered to make it falsely appear that patients were being treated, with Negron at times signing files as if she was in two places at once. In total, at least $83 million in improper Medicare payments were made to the companies over eight years. Only a tiny share of the money was located after arrests were made. The case involving Esformes was even bigger, as the network of clinics he owned collected an estimated $1.3 billion in fraudulent Medicare claims, with Esformes extracting $38.7 million in payments from 2010 to 2016, according to prosecutors. They said he used the money to fuel a luxurious lifestyle that included a $360,000 watch; a $1.6 million Ferrari; a series of multimillion-dollar homes in Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles; and even bribes for a basketball coach to help his son get into college. Esformes, according to testimony during his trial, used code words like “fettuccine” for cash payments that would be placed in supermarket bags and delivered to a closet in the same Miami Beach home where he celebrated New Year’s Eve. The average prison sentence in Medicare fraud cases is four or five years, according to recent summaries of convictions. But the longest sentences are reserved for defendants like Esformes and Negron who are shown to have played key roles in organizing the schemes. The prosecutors intentionally sought long sentences both to punish them for the immense scale of the fraud and to send a deterrent message, Pelletier said. “If you are going to steal $250 million from Medicare, you are going to jail for 20 years,” he said. “I have no sympathy for these people. None.” Negron is now helping her husband run his pool construction business and looking after her two teenage sons. There was effectively no chance she would have managed to pay the government her share of the full restitution amount— $87.5 million split among several of the defendants. But now she will no longer have 10% of her monthly wages deducted to cover the debt. Negron gained the attention of Trump in part because she happened to serve time in federal prison with Alice Marie Johnson, who after lobbying on her behalf by Kim Kardashian West had a life sentence on nonviolent drug charges commuted by Trump and has gone on to advise the White House on other pardon and commutation candidates. Among those Johnson brought to the attention of the White House was Negron, given the length of her prison sentence, the fact that she had two children at home, and that this was her first criminal offense. Negron later visited the White House with Kardashian West and Johnson to thank Trump. Esformes’ release came after a lobbying campaign by the Aleph Institute, a group advised by Dershowitz and started by the Chabad-Lubavitch movement of Hasidic Jews, which seeks to help inmates facing long sentences. The movement has long-standing connections to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who helped oversee the pardon process. Rabbi Sholom Lipskar, founder and chairman of the Aleph Institute — which has collected $65,000 worth of donations from Esformes’ family since his 2016 arrest — officiated the wedding held at Esformes’ property on New Year’s Eve. Esformes is also still facing an order that he repay the federal government $5 million and forfeit another $38 million in illegal proceeds. But his lawyers are seeking to overturn those orders. Even though Esformes no longer faces any remaining prison time, his criminal conviction — and the resulting penalty — is being appealed, with his lawyers claiming prosecutorial misconduct. The festivities at Esformes’ home on New Year’s Eve, soon after his release, surprised some of his neighbors. Anticipating complaints, the bride and groom distributed gift baskets to neighbors with a note apologizing “for any noise from the celebration.” But one neighbor tweeted a photo of the gift basket, asserting that the lawn at Esformes’ home went uncut during his time in prison and expressing wonderment that Esformes so quickly “found the wherewithal to host a grand wedding for his daughter in his backyard tonight!” The neighbor added the hashtag #CrimePays.

For prosecutors, Trump’s clemency decisions were a ‘kick in the teeth’

President Joe Biden is ordering an expansion of government benefits for hungry Americans, after the coronavirus pandemic ignited the worst food crisis the United States has seen in modern times.

The decree, one of two executive orders he is to sign on Friday, represents one of Biden's first actions to revive the world's largest economy after Covid-19 caused mass layoffs that have left many people scrambling to pay the bills.&nbsp;

"The American people can't afford to wait. And so many are hanging by a thread, they need help, and we are committed to doing everything we can to provide that help as quickly as possible," said&nbsp;Brian Deese, director of the National Economic Council.

Biden's main initiative to turn the economy around is a $1.9 trillion "rescue" package that he outlined last week, followed by a promised proposal aimed at fueling job creation and spurring hiring.

"Much, much more is needed. And so that's why, as we take these actions, we will continue to engage with Congress and with the American people around the need to move on the American rescue plan," Deese told reporters.

The orders also instruct government agencies to help people more quickly access federal stimulus payments, allow workers to leave jobs that could jeopardize their health, and expand protections for federal workers.

- Economy wrecked -

Even after two massive government aid packages, the US economy is reeling from the damage caused by the pandemic, which has killed more than 410,000 people -- the highest death toll in any country.

The Labor Department reported more than 1.3 million new applications for unemployment were filed last week, and as of the first week of January, nearly 16 million people were still receiving some form of government jobless benefits.

Amid the widespread joblessness, many families are struggling to pay for groceries: the Commerce Department reported in mid-December that 13.7 percent of adults lived in households where they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat.

Schools' decisions to close or modify their schedules due to the pandemic worsened the hunger crisis, as many poor children rely on meals served there.

The government last year offered families food aid equivalent to what their children would be getting at school, and Biden's order expands that by 15 percent, which the White House said would give a family with three children more than $100 extra every two months.

The president's order also instructs the Agriculture Department to issue guidance that would allow states to expand food aid to an additional 12 million people, and reevaluate its basis for determining benefits, according to the White House.

"These executive actions are quite a big deal," Lauren Bauer, an economic studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, told AFP.&nbsp;

"Every other month, a low-income family gets to make another grocery run. That is some serious firepower for the economy."

- 'Model employer' -

Congress has issued many Americans fresh stimulus checks totaling up to $600,&nbsp;but not everyone received them quickly: Biden's order calls for the Treasury Department to find ways to get that money to those in need.

It also asks the Labor Department to let people who turn down jobs that could harm them, including by exposing them to Covid-19, to be allowed to claim unemployment benefits.

Biden's second order restores collective bargaining rights to federal government employees, and instructs agencies to do the preliminary work to allow him to issue a new order requiring federal contractors to&nbsp;pay their workers a minimum of $15 an hour and provide them with paid emergency leave.

"These steps are designed to help ensure the federal government is a model employer," Deese said.

Biden has proposed raising the national minimum wage to $15, but that would require approval by Congress, where Democrats have a slim majority.

President Joe Biden is ordering an expansion of government benefits for hungry Americans, after the coronavirus pandemic ignited the worst food crisis the United States has seen in modern times.

President Joe Biden is ordering an expansion of government benefits for hungry Americans, after the coronavirus pandemic ignited the worst food crisis the United States has seen in modern times. The decree, one of two executive orders he is to sign on Friday, represents one of Biden's first actions to revive the world's largest economy after Covid-19 caused mass layoffs that have left many people scrambling to pay the bills. "The American people can't afford to wait. And so many are hanging by a thread, they need help, and we are committed to doing everything we can to provide that help as quickly as possible," said Brian Deese, director of the National Economic Council. Biden's main initiative to turn the economy around is a $1.9 trillion "rescue" package that he outlined last week, followed by a promised proposal aimed at fueling job creation and spurring hiring. "Much, much more is needed. And so that's why, as we take these actions, we will continue to engage with Congress and with the American people around the need to move on the American rescue plan," Deese told reporters. The orders also instruct government agencies to help people more quickly access federal stimulus payments, allow workers to leave jobs that could jeopardize their health, and expand protections for federal workers. - Economy wrecked - Even after two massive government aid packages, the US economy is reeling from the damage caused by the pandemic, which has killed more than 410,000 people -- the highest death toll in any country. The Labor Department reported more than 1.3 million new applications for unemployment were filed last week, and as of the first week of January, nearly 16 million people were still receiving some form of government jobless benefits. Amid the widespread joblessness, many families are struggling to pay for groceries: the Commerce Department reported in mid-December that 13.7 percent of adults lived in households where they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat. Schools' decisions to close or modify their schedules due to the pandemic worsened the hunger crisis, as many poor children rely on meals served there. The government last year offered families food aid equivalent to what their children would be getting at school, and Biden's order expands that by 15 percent, which the White House said would give a family with three children more than $100 extra every two months. The president's order also instructs the Agriculture Department to issue guidance that would allow states to expand food aid to an additional 12 million people, and reevaluate its basis for determining benefits, according to the White House. "These executive actions are quite a big deal," Lauren Bauer, an economic studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, told AFP. "Every other month, a low-income family gets to make another grocery run. That is some serious firepower for the economy." - 'Model employer' - Congress has issued many Americans fresh stimulus checks totaling up to $600, but not everyone received them quickly: Biden's order calls for the Treasury Department to find ways to get that money to those in need. It also asks the Labor Department to let people who turn down jobs that could harm them, including by exposing them to Covid-19, to be allowed to claim unemployment benefits. Biden's second order restores collective bargaining rights to federal government employees, and instructs agencies to do the preliminary work to allow him to issue a new order requiring federal contractors to pay their workers a minimum of $15 an hour and provide them with paid emergency leave. "These steps are designed to help ensure the federal government is a model employer," Deese said. Biden has proposed raising the national minimum wage to $15, but that would require approval by Congress, where Democrats have a slim majority.

Biden orders expanded aid to address growing hunger crisis

Former presidents and vice-presidents in the United States are usually guaranteed pensions, security, travel allowances and a raft of other entitlements after finishing up at the White House. And former US president Donald Trump is expected to inherit the same.

Trump formally left the White House, and Joe Biden took office on January 20 in a muted inauguration ceremony.

For the most part, the entitled perks remain available to Trump even if he is convicted by the Senate in a still-pending, looming impeachment trial.

Having said that, the Former Presidents Act remains an act of Congress that can be amended.

So Congress likely could strip Trump of the perks he enjoys as an ex-president.

In case, it does not, here are the perks that Trump stands to get once he re-enters life as a "regular" US citizen.

A life-long pension

The Former Presidents Act says former presidents "shall be entitled for the remainder of his life to receive from the United States a monetary allowance at a rate per annum ... which is equal to the annual rate of basic pay" (in this instance, we're looking at more than US$200,000) unless they're employed by the Federal Government in some other capacity.

Former presidents aren't entitled to this pension if they were convicted in an impeachment trial or removed from office — but only if either of those happened while still serving.

Because Donald Trump's potential impeachment conviction won't actually remove him from office, chances are he will get to keep his pension.

Access to classified briefings

Former presidents usually have access to routine intelligence briefings. But there have been strong calls to ensure Trump does not continue having access to classified intelligence.

Let's see what exactly happens and on what basis.

Security and protection

Former presidents also enjoy personal security protection. The stiputaled law says -- “under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorised to protect” a former president and their spouse.&nbsp;

Alternatively, presidents who do not receive Secret Service protection instead receive “up to $1,000,000 for each former President and up to $500,000 for the spouse of each former President each fiscal year for security and travel related expenses.”

The Department of Homeland Security, however, can deny Secret Service protection to Trump, or Congress can amend the law to strip Trump of his security protections.

Office and staff

The Former Presidents Act also funds office space and a modest staff for one-time chief executives. The total budget for such hires is $150,000 per year during the former president’s first 30 months out of office, and then $96,000 per year thereafter.

An ex-president may select the staff employed under this act. The administrator of general services, however, has the power to determine what kind of office space is “suitable” for Trump.

Allowance for his widow

The law provides this benefit to the “widow of each former President.”

If Trump dies before former first lady Melania Trump, then Melania is entitled to “a monetary allowance at a rate of $20,000 per annum,” provided that she does not remarry before turning 60 years old.

However, if the Trumps divorce, Melania would not be entitled to this allowance upon his death. If he were to remarry, his new spouse could potentially be eligible upon his death.

Ability to run for a second presidential term

If Trump is convicted, there's then an option to hold a separate vote on whether he should be allowed to have another crack at the presidency.

The Senate vote on whether he could run again would not need two-thirds of the Senate vote to go through.

Former presidents and vice-presidents in the United States are usually guaranteed pensions, security, travel allowances and a raft of other entitlements after finishing up at the White House.

Former presidents and vice-presidents in the United States are usually guaranteed pensions, security, travel allowances and a raft of other entitlements after finishing up at the White House. And former US president Donald Trump is expected to inherit the same. Trump formally left the White House, and Joe Biden took office on January 20 in a muted inauguration ceremony. For the most part, the entitled perks remain available to Trump even if he is convicted by the Senate in a still-pending, looming impeachment trial. Having said that, the Former Presidents Act remains an act of Congress that can be amended. So Congress likely could strip Trump of the perks he enjoys as an ex-president. In case, it does not, here are the perks that Trump stands to get once he re-enters life as a "regular" US citizen. A life-long pension The Former Presidents Act says former presidents "shall be entitled for the remainder of his life to receive from the United States a monetary allowance at a rate per annum ... which is equal to the annual rate of basic pay" (in this instance, we're looking at more than US$200,000) unless they're employed by the Federal Government in some other capacity. Former presidents aren't entitled to this pension if they were convicted in an impeachment trial or removed from office — but only if either of those happened while still serving. Because Donald Trump's potential impeachment conviction won't actually remove him from office, chances are he will get to keep his pension. Access to classified briefings Former presidents usually have access to routine intelligence briefings. But there have been strong calls to ensure Trump does not continue having access to classified intelligence. Let's see what exactly happens and on what basis. Security and protection Former presidents also enjoy personal security protection. The stiputaled law says -- “under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorised to protect” a former president and their spouse. Alternatively, presidents who do not receive Secret Service protection instead receive “up to $1,000,000 for each former President and up to $500,000 for the spouse of each former President each fiscal year for security and travel related expenses.” The Department of Homeland Security, however, can deny Secret Service protection to Trump, or Congress can amend the law to strip Trump of his security protections. Office and staff The Former Presidents Act also funds office space and a modest staff for one-time chief executives. The total budget for such hires is $150,000 per year during the former president’s first 30 months out of office, and then $96,000 per year thereafter. An ex-president may select the staff employed under this act. The administrator of general services, however, has the power to determine what kind of office space is “suitable” for Trump. Allowance for his widow The law provides this benefit to the “widow of each former President.” If Trump dies before former first lady Melania Trump, then Melania is entitled to “a monetary allowance at a rate of $20,000 per annum,” provided that she does not remarry before turning 60 years old. However, if the Trumps divorce, Melania would not be entitled to this allowance upon his death. If he were to remarry, his new spouse could potentially be eligible upon his death. Ability to run for a second presidential term If Trump is convicted, there's then an option to hold a separate vote on whether he should be allowed to have another crack at the presidency. The Senate vote on whether he could run again would not need two-thirds of the Senate vote to go through.

Pension and classified intel: Here are the perks Trump will get as former US president

Joe Biden began his presidency Wednesday with the same animating philosophy that guided his campaign: The center can hold.

That’s a big wager. American society is more brittle now than it has been in years. It is unequal, unhealthy and politically radicalized. A pandemic is raging nearly unchecked. The economy is in tatters. The climate is in crisis. Residents of red and blue America can’t even agree on the reality before their eyes, let alone demarcate the common ground they share.

Biden, now the 46th president, acknowledged all that in his inaugural address, calling for comity. “Let’s begin to listen to one another again, hear one another, see one another,” he said. “Show respect to one another. Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire, destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war, and we must reject the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured.”

It was a sanguine message to deliver from the steps of the U.S. Capitol, two weeks to the day after the building was sacked by a mob trying to overturn the results of the election. Because of the continued threat of violence, tens of thousands of National Guard troops were on hand Wednesday to provide security for a crowd that was sparse because of the coronavirus contagion.

Biden spoke to the bleak gravity of the moment, noting that democracy is as precious as it is fragile. “Without unity, there is no peace,” Biden said, “only bitterness and fury, no progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos.”

The past four years have been nothing if not exhausting and chaotic. Donald Trump began his term from the same rostrum in 2017, decrying the “American carnage” caused by urban poverty, lost manufacturing jobs, drugs and crime. After four years of Trump waging ceaseless battle against his political opponents, the country is still shot through with all those maladies and is even more unmoored from the political traditions that once bound it together.

In his last act as president, Trump and the first lady flew to Florida rather than share the stage with Biden and participate in the pageantry of a peaceful transition of power. But there was the faintest flicker of decency. “I wish the new administration great luck and great success,” Trump told supporters who watched his departure from Joint Base Andrews. “I think they’ll have great success. They have the foundation to do something really spectacular.”

Inaugurations are, by their nature, the closing of one chapter in the nation’s story and the beginning of another. Now at the helm of the executive branch, along with Kamala Harris — the country’s first female vice president, first Black vice president and first Asian American vice president — Biden has a chance to test the firmness of common ground. For the new president and the nation to succeed, there must be enough like-minded leaders willing to put prosperity over party and the good of the nation above all else.

Biden’s call for unity was not a demand that Americans agree but rather that they live in mutual tolerance, recommitted to the democratic process and to peacefully adjudicating their differences until the next inauguration. All Americans should be able to agree on that.

&lt;b&gt;The World Deserves Answers From China&lt;/b&gt;

The terrible ravages of the coronavirus pandemic are evident in every corner of the world, so it should seem self-evident that every effort must be made to find out where and when the virus made its fateful leap from animal to human. That is why a team from the World Health Organization last week arrived in Wuhan, China, where the coronavirus was first identified.

Alas, the Chinese Communist Party has consistently demonstrated that it is far more concerned with maintaining some myth of infallibility than with helping find the source of the scourge. In doing so, it is obstructing efforts to prevent other pandemics and endangering all humanity.

Just getting into China has taken the WHO’s international team of scientists more than a year, considerably lowering the odds of finding any clues about the origins of the virus. Even after permission was granted for the team to arrive in the first days of the new year, China procrastinated, prompting the director-general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, to express disappointment — a sentiment that in the politically charged lexicon of the organization amounts to a sharp rebuke.

When the team finally reached Wuhan on Thursday, China promptly planted more obstacles in its way. Two scientists remained in Singapore after they tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, and the remaining 13 were ordered to quarantine for two weeks in Wuhan, although all 15 tested negative for the virus before setting off.

When they do finally get to work, the going is not likely to get any easier. While the Chinese government publicly claimed it has cooperated with the WHO team from the outset “in an open, transparent and responsible attitude,” it has not. Instead it has repeatedly thrown out red herrings suggesting that the source of the virus was not China or that it might have had more than one source. Chinese officials have suggested at various times that the WHO should also go to Spain and other countries.

The Trump administration did not help. When he was president, Donald Trump contributed to the politicization of the pandemic by regularly referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” and suggesting that it might have escaped from a Chinese laboratory.

Trump also withdrew the United States from the WHO after accusing the organization of not being sufficiently critical of China. In fact, the WHO is politically constrained from publicly criticizing any of its member states. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s withdrawal from a global organization critical to the struggle against a pandemic was widely condemned as the height of folly. President Joe Biden is expected to promptly rejoin.

It is China, however, that bears the primary responsibility for tracing the origins of the deadly pathogen first identified on its territory. Instead, China first sought to quell reports of a new disease. Then China slapped stern control over any information about it while putting out unsubstantiated claims and touting its handling of the outbreak.

An investigation by The Associated Press found that as the pandemic gained momentum, President Xi Jinping gave direct orders that any information had to be cleared by a government task force and that anyone publishing without permission, “causing serious adverse social impact, shall be held accountable.” As a result, little has been made public, and the WHO team is not likely to get the direct access to data and research that is critical for its investigation.

Without cooperation and transparency in China, there is little the WHO can learn. The sprawling Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, which peddled game meat and live animals and to which many of the first infections were traced, has been closed and disinfected. The samples and information gathered there are locked away at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and no researchers will dare speak with the international team without explicit permission — and a carefully vetted narrative — from the government.

Whether that first germ came from a bat or a pangolin or a civet or a neighboring country is likely to remain a mystery, and the search for ways to stop such transmission will remain handicapped.

The WHO, which is beholden to each of its 194 member states, has little leverage with China. But the rest of the world should raise its voice and demand that Beijing share everything it knows with the WHO experts and the world. It should be made clear to Xi that to treat a disease that has sickened 94 million people and killed 2 million as a propaganda problem is dangerous and unworthy of a country with pretensions to global influence and power.

Joe Biden began his presidency Wednesday with the same animating philosophy that guided his campaign: The center can hold. That’s a big wager. American society is more brittle now than it has been in years.

Joe Biden began his presidency Wednesday with the same animating philosophy that guided his campaign: The center can hold. That’s a big wager. American society is more brittle now than it has been in years. It is unequal, unhealthy and politically radicalized. A pandemic is raging nearly unchecked. The economy is in tatters. The climate is in crisis. Residents of red and blue America can’t even agree on the reality before their eyes, let alone demarcate the common ground they share. Biden, now the 46th president, acknowledged all that in his inaugural address, calling for comity. “Let’s begin to listen to one another again, hear one another, see one another,” he said. “Show respect to one another. Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire, destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war, and we must reject the culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured.” It was a sanguine message to deliver from the steps of the U.S. Capitol, two weeks to the day after the building was sacked by a mob trying to overturn the results of the election. Because of the continued threat of violence, tens of thousands of National Guard troops were on hand Wednesday to provide security for a crowd that was sparse because of the coronavirus contagion. Biden spoke to the bleak gravity of the moment, noting that democracy is as precious as it is fragile. “Without unity, there is no peace,” Biden said, “only bitterness and fury, no progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos.” The past four years have been nothing if not exhausting and chaotic. Donald Trump began his term from the same rostrum in 2017, decrying the “American carnage” caused by urban poverty, lost manufacturing jobs, drugs and crime. After four years of Trump waging ceaseless battle against his political opponents, the country is still shot through with all those maladies and is even more unmoored from the political traditions that once bound it together. In his last act as president, Trump and the first lady flew to Florida rather than share the stage with Biden and participate in the pageantry of a peaceful transition of power. But there was the faintest flicker of decency. “I wish the new administration great luck and great success,” Trump told supporters who watched his departure from Joint Base Andrews. “I think they’ll have great success. They have the foundation to do something really spectacular.” Inaugurations are, by their nature, the closing of one chapter in the nation’s story and the beginning of another. Now at the helm of the executive branch, along with Kamala Harris — the country’s first female vice president, first Black vice president and first Asian American vice president — Biden has a chance to test the firmness of common ground. For the new president and the nation to succeed, there must be enough like-minded leaders willing to put prosperity over party and the good of the nation above all else. Biden’s call for unity was not a demand that Americans agree but rather that they live in mutual tolerance, recommitted to the democratic process and to peacefully adjudicating their differences until the next inauguration. All Americans should be able to agree on that. The World Deserves Answers From China The terrible ravages of the coronavirus pandemic are evident in every corner of the world, so it should seem self-evident that every effort must be made to find out where and when the virus made its fateful leap from animal to human. That is why a team from the World Health Organization last week arrived in Wuhan, China, where the coronavirus was first identified. Alas, the Chinese Communist Party has consistently demonstrated that it is far more concerned with maintaining some myth of infallibility than with helping find the source of the scourge. In doing so, it is obstructing efforts to prevent other pandemics and endangering all humanity. Just getting into China has taken the WHO’s international team of scientists more than a year, considerably lowering the odds of finding any clues about the origins of the virus. Even after permission was granted for the team to arrive in the first days of the new year, China procrastinated, prompting the director-general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, to express disappointment — a sentiment that in the politically charged lexicon of the organization amounts to a sharp rebuke. When the team finally reached Wuhan on Thursday, China promptly planted more obstacles in its way. Two scientists remained in Singapore after they tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, and the remaining 13 were ordered to quarantine for two weeks in Wuhan, although all 15 tested negative for the virus before setting off. When they do finally get to work, the going is not likely to get any easier. While the Chinese government publicly claimed it has cooperated with the WHO team from the outset “in an open, transparent and responsible attitude,” it has not. Instead it has repeatedly thrown out red herrings suggesting that the source of the virus was not China or that it might have had more than one source. Chinese officials have suggested at various times that the WHO should also go to Spain and other countries. The Trump administration did not help. When he was president, Donald Trump contributed to the politicization of the pandemic by regularly referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” and suggesting that it might have escaped from a Chinese laboratory. Trump also withdrew the United States from the WHO after accusing the organization of not being sufficiently critical of China. In fact, the WHO is politically constrained from publicly criticizing any of its member states. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s withdrawal from a global organization critical to the struggle against a pandemic was widely condemned as the height of folly. President Joe Biden is expected to promptly rejoin. It is China, however, that bears the primary responsibility for tracing the origins of the deadly pathogen first identified on its territory. Instead, China first sought to quell reports of a new disease. Then China slapped stern control over any information about it while putting out unsubstantiated claims and touting its handling of the outbreak. An investigation by The Associated Press found that as the pandemic gained momentum, President Xi Jinping gave direct orders that any information had to be cleared by a government task force and that anyone publishing without permission, “causing serious adverse social impact, shall be held accountable.” As a result, little has been made public, and the WHO team is not likely to get the direct access to data and research that is critical for its investigation. Without cooperation and transparency in China, there is little the WHO can learn. The sprawling Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, which peddled game meat and live animals and to which many of the first infections were traced, has been closed and disinfected. The samples and information gathered there are locked away at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and no researchers will dare speak with the international team without explicit permission — and a carefully vetted narrative — from the government. Whether that first germ came from a bat or a pangolin or a civet or a neighboring country is likely to remain a mystery, and the search for ways to stop such transmission will remain handicapped. The WHO, which is beholden to each of its 194 member states, has little leverage with China. But the rest of the world should raise its voice and demand that Beijing share everything it knows with the WHO experts and the world. It should be made clear to Xi that to treat a disease that has sickened 94 million people and killed 2 million as a propaganda problem is dangerous and unworthy of a country with pretensions to global influence and power.

Biden bets on unity

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a fierce advocate of fair wages and a former presidential candidate who lost the Democratic nomination to now-President Joe Biden. And thanks to his practical clothing choices he is also now the center of a seemingly endless flood of altered pictures that dominated some corners of the internet in the hours after Biden’s socially distanced inauguration Wednesday.

Amid the dark suits and bright coats dotting the Capitol steps, Sanders was photographed sitting masked, cross-legged and bundled up in a bulky coat and mittens against the frigid weather in Washington, D.C. Soon after, the image, taken by photographer Brendan Smialowski for Getty Images, began to circulate on social media inserted into a wide array of photographs and scenes from movies and artworks.

On a day all about Biden, it was in some ways appropriate that Sanders, whose strongest political support in the presidential race came from young voters, would nonetheless be the star of the day’s biggest meme by doing nothing but sitting and crossing his arms. In their primary competition, Sanders enjoyed a significantly larger online following than Biden, especially among those who often communicate through memes.

Though other memes starring Sanders were often used to say something — he wore what appears to be the same coat in a 2019 fundraising video in which he is “once again asking for your financial support,” a line that has been repurposed in a litany of ways — there was no such deeper meaning to the newest meme. Instead of using his image to make an argument, he was simply placed into new contexts, with his pose, outfit and expression themselves serving as the joke.

While the day belonged to Biden, the meme served as an amusing sideshow, a bit of fun and levity after four years in which presidential politics brought Sanders’ supporters few reasons to be in a good mood.

It wasn’t the only meme inspired by Inauguration Day: Others touched on former first lady Michelle Obama’s outfit and on Lady Gaga, who sang the national anthem dressed not entirely unlike a character from the “Hunger Games.” But even with Janet Yellen, Biden’s nominee for Treasury secretary, dressed just as warmly, it was Sanders, the incoming chair of the Senate Budget Committee, who seemed far the favorite.

Early posts about him started with simple reviews of his practical, relatively unglamorous outfit. Some saw their uncles and fathers in his choice to put warmth over style.

Then came the memes, in which social media users took the original image of Sanders and found new locations for him and his coat. He was inserted into history. Sat at the bowling alley with The Dude. Enjoyed the sun at a closed state beach in New Jersey with that state’s former governor, Chris Christie.

Still others brought the Sanders image to the movies, showing him on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise in “Star Trek,” and as a member of the Avengers.

The National Bobblehead Hall of Fame capitalized by selling its own version of the pose. Nick Sawhney, a software engineer in New York, created a tool that allows you to insert Sanders into any street address in Google Maps street view.

The senator’s avatar looked busy. It visited a museum and sat on the Iron Throne from “Game of Thrones.” It dropped in on a curling match and photobombed a Leonardo da Vinci painting.

There was a cameo in Mario Kart, a news conference in Mexico and a trip to the surface of the moon. He took a tour of New York City.

BuzzFeed News reported that Sanders got his mittens from Jen Ellis, a second-grade teacher in Essex Junction, Vermont, who made gloves on the side. She said she sent him a pair after he lost a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

Ellis tweeted that the mittens were made from repurposed wool and lined with fleece.

In an interview with CBS, Sanders laughed off the attention.

“In Vermont, we dress, we know something about the cold,” he told Gayle King. “And we’re not so concerned about good fashion. We just want to keep warm. And that’s what I did today.”

“Mission accomplished,” King said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a fierce advocate of fair wages and a former presidential candidate who lost the Democratic nomination to now-President Joe Biden.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a fierce advocate of fair wages and a former presidential candidate who lost the Democratic nomination to now-President Joe Biden. And thanks to his practical clothing choices he is also now the center of a seemingly endless flood of altered pictures that dominated some corners of the internet in the hours after Biden’s socially distanced inauguration Wednesday. Amid the dark suits and bright coats dotting the Capitol steps, Sanders was photographed sitting masked, cross-legged and bundled up in a bulky coat and mittens against the frigid weather in Washington, D.C. Soon after, the image, taken by photographer Brendan Smialowski for Getty Images, began to circulate on social media inserted into a wide array of photographs and scenes from movies and artworks. On a day all about Biden, it was in some ways appropriate that Sanders, whose strongest political support in the presidential race came from young voters, would nonetheless be the star of the day’s biggest meme by doing nothing but sitting and crossing his arms. In their primary competition, Sanders enjoyed a significantly larger online following than Biden, especially among those who often communicate through memes. Though other memes starring Sanders were often used to say something — he wore what appears to be the same coat in a 2019 fundraising video in which he is “once again asking for your financial support,” a line that has been repurposed in a litany of ways — there was no such deeper meaning to the newest meme. Instead of using his image to make an argument, he was simply placed into new contexts, with his pose, outfit and expression themselves serving as the joke. While the day belonged to Biden, the meme served as an amusing sideshow, a bit of fun and levity after four years in which presidential politics brought Sanders’ supporters few reasons to be in a good mood. It wasn’t the only meme inspired by Inauguration Day: Others touched on former first lady Michelle Obama’s outfit and on Lady Gaga, who sang the national anthem dressed not entirely unlike a character from the “Hunger Games.” But even with Janet Yellen, Biden’s nominee for Treasury secretary, dressed just as warmly, it was Sanders, the incoming chair of the Senate Budget Committee, who seemed far the favorite. Early posts about him started with simple reviews of his practical, relatively unglamorous outfit. Some saw their uncles and fathers in his choice to put warmth over style. Then came the memes, in which social media users took the original image of Sanders and found new locations for him and his coat. He was inserted into history. Sat at the bowling alley with The Dude. Enjoyed the sun at a closed state beach in New Jersey with that state’s former governor, Chris Christie. Still others brought the Sanders image to the movies, showing him on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise in “Star Trek,” and as a member of the Avengers. The National Bobblehead Hall of Fame capitalized by selling its own version of the pose. Nick Sawhney, a software engineer in New York, created a tool that allows you to insert Sanders into any street address in Google Maps street view. The senator’s avatar looked busy. It visited a museum and sat on the Iron Throne from “Game of Thrones.” It dropped in on a curling match and photobombed a Leonardo da Vinci painting. There was a cameo in Mario Kart, a news conference in Mexico and a trip to the surface of the moon. He took a tour of New York City. BuzzFeed News reported that Sanders got his mittens from Jen Ellis, a second-grade teacher in Essex Junction, Vermont, who made gloves on the side. She said she sent him a pair after he lost a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. Ellis tweeted that the mittens were made from repurposed wool and lined with fleece. In an interview with CBS, Sanders laughed off the attention. “In Vermont, we dress, we know something about the cold,” he told Gayle King. “And we’re not so concerned about good fashion. We just want to keep warm. And that’s what I did today.” “Mission accomplished,” King said.

Bernie Sanders is once again the star of a meme

The newly formed administration in the United States, led by Joe Biden, unveiled a detailed Covid-19 roadmap Thursday to boost vaccinations and testing while centering scientific expertise.

President Biden, during his inaugural speech on Wednesday, warned the pandemic was entering its "deadliest period."&nbsp;His presidency will initially be shaped by his response to Covid-19 and the associated economic emergency.

Whereas Trump seldom acknowledged the tragic toll the virus was inflicting on Americans, Biden paused in his inaugural address -- which the public was essentially barred from attending due to the pandemic -- to offer a moment's silent prayer for its victims.

Officials said Biden would immediately sign 10 executive orders and other directives to jumpstart the national strategy, which experts said was sorely missing under his predecessor Donald Trump.

The US is the world's hardest-hit country with more than 405,000 deaths, and government models suggest the B.1.1.7 variant imported from Britain could supercharge the outbreak's trajectory in the coming months.

"For almost a year now, Americans could not look to the federal government for any strategy, let alone a comprehensive approach to respond to Covid," Jeff Zients, a former management consultant who is Biden's new Covid-19 task force coordinator, told reporters.

Biden's plan has organised goals like restoring the trust of the American people, surging the vaccination campaign, and mitigating viral spread through aggressive masking and testing, while expanding the public health workforce.

It also seeks to expand emergency relief and invoke emergency legislation to increase industrial production;&nbsp;safely reopen schools, businesses and travel; protect the most vulnerable and advance racial equity; and restore US global leadership with future pandemic preparedness.

The administration is seeking $1.9 trillion from Congress for its plans, which includes $20 billion for vaccines and $50 billion for testing.

A few measures were already announced in recent days, including recommending that the eligibility criteria for vaccine priority groups be widened and simplified in order to increase the rate of shots being injected.

As it stands, the federal government has overseen the allocation of 35.9 million doses to states, of which 16.5 million have been used -- or 46 per cent.&nbsp;

The administration will also continue the policy of rolling out vaccine doses for Pfizer and Moderna's two-shot regimes as soon as they become available.

The Trump team had initially set aside the booster as reserve, but later changed course after running low on supply.

Executive orders would also be advanced to establish a pandemic testing board, to boost research efforts into treatments, and create a Health Equity Task Force.

This group, headed by Yale associate professor Marcella Nunez-Smith, will advise the president on allocating resources and funding in communities affected by inequities linked to race, geography and disability.

The administration also plans to invoke the Defence Production Act to boost supply of personal protective equipment, lab equipment and to maximize vaccine production.&nbsp;

Tim Manning, who will coordinate supply chain issues, told reporters he had identified 12 supply shortfalls where the law could be invoked.

Biden's team has relentlessly criticised the Trump administration in recent weeks over its failure in particular to adequately plan for the last mile of its Covid response and get vaccines developed at record speed into arms.

An early test will be whether they achieve their own goal of vaccinating 100 million Americans within Biden's first 100 days in office, by April 20.

(with inputs from agencies)

The newly formed administration in the United States, led by Joe Biden, unveiled a detailed Covid-19 roadmap Thursday to boost vaccinations and testing while centering scientific expertise.

The newly formed administration in the United States, led by Joe Biden, unveiled a detailed Covid-19 roadmap Thursday to boost vaccinations and testing while centering scientific expertise. President Biden, during his inaugural speech on Wednesday, warned the pandemic was entering its "deadliest period." His presidency will initially be shaped by his response to Covid-19 and the associated economic emergency. Whereas Trump seldom acknowledged the tragic toll the virus was inflicting on Americans, Biden paused in his inaugural address -- which the public was essentially barred from attending due to the pandemic -- to offer a moment's silent prayer for its victims. Officials said Biden would immediately sign 10 executive orders and other directives to jumpstart the national strategy, which experts said was sorely missing under his predecessor Donald Trump. The US is the world's hardest-hit country with more than 405,000 deaths, and government models suggest the B.1.1.7 variant imported from Britain could supercharge the outbreak's trajectory in the coming months. "For almost a year now, Americans could not look to the federal government for any strategy, let alone a comprehensive approach to respond to Covid," Jeff Zients, a former management consultant who is Biden's new Covid-19 task force coordinator, told reporters. Biden's plan has organised goals like restoring the trust of the American people, surging the vaccination campaign, and mitigating viral spread through aggressive masking and testing, while expanding the public health workforce. It also seeks to expand emergency relief and invoke emergency legislation to increase industrial production; safely reopen schools, businesses and travel; protect the most vulnerable and advance racial equity; and restore US global leadership with future pandemic preparedness. The administration is seeking $1.9 trillion from Congress for its plans, which includes $20 billion for vaccines and $50 billion for testing. A few measures were already announced in recent days, including recommending that the eligibility criteria for vaccine priority groups be widened and simplified in order to increase the rate of shots being injected. As it stands, the federal government has overseen the allocation of 35.9 million doses to states, of which 16.5 million have been used -- or 46 per cent. The administration will also continue the policy of rolling out vaccine doses for Pfizer and Moderna's two-shot regimes as soon as they become available. The Trump team had initially set aside the booster as reserve, but later changed course after running low on supply. Executive orders would also be advanced to establish a pandemic testing board, to boost research efforts into treatments, and create a Health Equity Task Force. This group, headed by Yale associate professor Marcella Nunez-Smith, will advise the president on allocating resources and funding in communities affected by inequities linked to race, geography and disability. The administration also plans to invoke the Defence Production Act to boost supply of personal protective equipment, lab equipment and to maximize vaccine production. Tim Manning, who will coordinate supply chain issues, told reporters he had identified 12 supply shortfalls where the law could be invoked. Biden's team has relentlessly criticised the Trump administration in recent weeks over its failure in particular to adequately plan for the last mile of its Covid response and get vaccines developed at record speed into arms. An early test will be whether they achieve their own goal of vaccinating 100 million Americans within Biden's first 100 days in office, by April 20. (with inputs from agencies)

Biden unveils ambitious Covid strategy on first day of office

Kamala Harris' family in India huddled around their television set to watch her inauguration as she created history on Wednesday. She was sworn in as the 49th vice-president of the nation -- the first female, Black and south Asian vice-president in US history.

The family though plans on being in the US in person in four years if she becomes America's number one.

Harris was born in California but her mother took her on several trips to India as a child, and her links to the country have set its 1.3 billion people abuzz.

"I wish she does such a damn good job, four years later she will automatically get a Democratic nomination and win the presidency," said Harris's uncle Gopalan Balachandran.

Balachandran could not be in Washington to see Harris sworn in on Wednesday because of the coronavirus pandemic.

"It would have been nice to have been there," the uncle told AFP, but he hopes to travel to the United States at a later date if he can secure a vaccination.

US media reports have spoken of a possible deal under which President Joe Biden, 78, will serve only one term, leaving Harris a clear run to the Democratic Party's candidacy in the next election.

Balachandran's daughter, Sharada Balachandran Orihuela, an English professor at the University of Maryland, was at the ceremony and was pictured with Harris.

Hours before the event, Harris, 56, posted a video on Twitter in which she credited the women who have inspired her, including her late mother Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer specialist who was born in India.

"She (Kamala) did everything on her own. If anybody, her beacon was her mother," Balachandran said.

Celebrations for the inauguration were held in the family's ancestral village, Thulasendrapuram, in Tamil Nadu state, with firecrackers set off and people clapping and cheering as Harris took the oath.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated Harris, calling her swearing-in a "historic occasion".&nbsp;

Modi said he was "looking forward to interacting with her to make India-USA relations more robust. The India-USA partnership is beneficial for our planet."

(with inputs from AFP)

Kamala Harris' family in India huddled around their television set to watch her inauguration as she created history on Wednesday. She was sworn in as the 49th vice-president of the nation -- the first female, Black and south Asian vice-president in US history.

Kamala Harris' family in India huddled around their television set to watch her inauguration as she created history on Wednesday. She was sworn in as the 49th vice-president of the nation -- the first female, Black and south Asian vice-president in US history. The family though plans on being in the US in person in four years if she becomes America's number one. Harris was born in California but her mother took her on several trips to India as a child, and her links to the country have set its 1.3 billion people abuzz. "I wish she does such a damn good job, four years later she will automatically get a Democratic nomination and win the presidency," said Harris's uncle Gopalan Balachandran. Balachandran could not be in Washington to see Harris sworn in on Wednesday because of the coronavirus pandemic. "It would have been nice to have been there," the uncle told AFP, but he hopes to travel to the United States at a later date if he can secure a vaccination. US media reports have spoken of a possible deal under which President Joe Biden, 78, will serve only one term, leaving Harris a clear run to the Democratic Party's candidacy in the next election. Balachandran's daughter, Sharada Balachandran Orihuela, an English professor at the University of Maryland, was at the ceremony and was pictured with Harris. Hours before the event, Harris, 56, posted a video on Twitter in which she credited the women who have inspired her, including her late mother Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer specialist who was born in India. "She (Kamala) did everything on her own. If anybody, her beacon was her mother," Balachandran said. Celebrations for the inauguration were held in the family's ancestral village, Thulasendrapuram, in Tamil Nadu state, with firecrackers set off and people clapping and cheering as Harris took the oath. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated Harris, calling her swearing-in a "historic occasion". Modi said he was "looking forward to interacting with her to make India-USA relations more robust. The India-USA partnership is beneficial for our planet." (with inputs from AFP)

Kamala Harris' Indian family is waiting for her to become president

Joe Biden took office&nbsp;as the 46th president of the United States on Wednesday. At a scaled-back ceremony in Washington that was largely stripped of its usual pomp and circumstance, Biden assumed the helm of a country beset by deep political divides and battered by a raging coronavirus pandemic.

Biden, 78, has become the oldest US president in history. And this is only one of the many firsts the ceremony will boast of for generations to come.

For Biden, who long harboured presidential ambitions, the inauguration was the zenith of a five-decade career in public service that included more than three decades in the US Senate and two terms as vice-president under former president Barack Obama.

Biden is the first and likely to be the only Silent Generation president. He&nbsp;is the first president to be born between 1928 and 1945. In other words, Biden is the first president to be born before the end of World War II in almost 30 years. Every president starting with Bill Clinton is a member of the Baby Boomer generation.&nbsp;

Every president from John F&nbsp;Kennedy to George HW&nbsp;Bush was born between 1901 and 1927 (i.e. the Greatest Generation).&nbsp;&nbsp;

Biden succeeded where other members of the Silent Generation (e.g. Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and John McCain) had failed before him.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-sworn-in-as-46th-president-of-united-states-358118">Also read |&nbsp;Joe Biden sworn in as 46th President of United States</a>

The ceremony unfolded in front of a heavily fortified US Capitol, where a mob of Trump supporters stormed the building two weeks ago, enraged by his false claims that November’s election was stolen with millions of fraudulent votes. The violence prompted the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives to impeach Trump last week for an unprecedented second time.

The ceremony was hence itself a herculean task to be accomplished. Thousands of National Guard troops were called into the city after the siege, which left five people dead and briefly forced lawmakers into hiding.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/harris-inauguration-news-kamala-harris-breaks-barriers-as-americas-first-black-south-asian-woman-vice-president-358140">Also read |&nbsp;Kamala Harris breaks barriers as America's first Black, South Asian woman Vice President</a>

Instead of a throng of supporters, the National Mall was covered by nearly 200,000 flags and 56 pillars of light meant to represent people from US states and territories.

Biden, who had vowed to “restore the soul of America,” called for American unity at a time of crisis in his inaugural address. He possibly became the first president of the nation to mention racism and White supremacy in his inaugural address.

He said the United States must confront and defeat the rise of white supremacy and domestic extremism, adding, "I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real. But I also know they are not new. Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal, and the harsh ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, demonisation have long torn us apart."

The norm-defying Trump flouted one last convention on his way out of the White House when he refused to meet with Biden or attend his successor’s inauguration, breaking with a political tradition seen as affirming the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump, who never conceded the November 3 election, did not mention Biden by name in his final remarks as president on Wednesday morning, when he touted his administration’s record and promised to be back “in some form.” He then boarded Air Force One for the last time and flew to his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Florida.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/a-day-of-many-firsts-highlights-from-us-presidential-inauguration-358179">A day of many firsts: Highlights from US presidential inauguration</a>

Vice-President Mike Pence, former US presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and both McCarthy and McConnell all however attended Biden’s inauguration ceremony.

President Joe Biden took a moment to jog over to a press area, while he was walking to the White House, and fist bumped a member of the press, according to CNN. "Keep doing what you're doing," Biden said.

Biden's running mate, Kamala Harris, the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, became the first Black person, first woman and first Asian American to serve as vice-president after she was sworn in by US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina member.

A US senator from California the past four years, Harris has shattered many a glass ceiling. She served as San Francisco’s first female district attorney and was California’s first woman of color to be elected attorney general.

As the Senate’s only Black woman, Harris emerged as a leading voice on racial justice and police reform after Minneapolis police killed African-American man George Floyd in May. She marched with protesters on the streets of Washington and won over some liberal skeptics.

There are obvious differences between Biden and Harris -- when it comes to race and gender, but it’s really worth thinking how similar their journeys have been.

Biden has waited forever for this moment. He first ran for president more than 30 years ago. He was first elected to the Senate nearly 50 years ago.&nbsp;

Harris’ trek to the vice presidency was much shorter in political life. But her scale of achievement has been no less.

Usually, presidents choose vice-presidents who have more experience than they do. But Biden chose a younger, Black woman.

Asked on the CBS programme “60 Minutes” last year why, given Biden’s age, he believed Harris would be ready to step into the presidency if something happened to him, Biden rapidly fired off five reasons.

“Number one, her values. Number two, she is smart as a devil, and number three, she has a backbone like a ramrod. Number four, she is really principled. And number five, she has had significant experience in the largest state in the union in running the justice department that’s only second in size to the United States Justice Department. And obviously, I hope that never becomes a question,” Biden said.

Biden takes office at a time of deep national unease, with the country facing what his advisers have described as four compounding crises: the pandemic, the economic downtown, climate change and racial inequality. He has promised immediate action, including a raft of executive orders on his first day in office.

Biden will waste little time trying to turn the page on the Trump era, signing 15 executive actions on Wednesday on issues ranging from the pandemic to the economy to climate change.

The orders include mandating masks on federal property, rejoining the Paris climate accord and ending Trump’s travel ban on some Muslim-majority countries.

Joe Biden took office as the 46th president of the United States on Wednesday. At a scaled-back ceremony in Washington that was largely stripped of its usual pomp and circumstance, Biden assumed the helm of a country beset by deep political divides and battered by a raging coronavirus pandemic.

Joe Biden took office as the 46th president of the United States on Wednesday. At a scaled-back ceremony in Washington that was largely stripped of its usual pomp and circumstance, Biden assumed the helm of a country beset by deep political divides and battered by a raging coronavirus pandemic. Biden, 78, has become the oldest US president in history. And this is only one of the many firsts the ceremony will boast of for generations to come. For Biden, who long harboured presidential ambitions, the inauguration was the zenith of a five-decade career in public service that included more than three decades in the US Senate and two terms as vice-president under former president Barack Obama. Biden is the first and likely to be the only Silent Generation president. He is the first president to be born between 1928 and 1945. In other words, Biden is the first president to be born before the end of World War II in almost 30 years. Every president starting with Bill Clinton is a member of the Baby Boomer generation. Every president from John F Kennedy to George HW Bush was born between 1901 and 1927 (i.e. the Greatest Generation). Biden succeeded where other members of the Silent Generation (e.g. Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and John McCain) had failed before him. Also read | Joe Biden sworn in as 46th President of United States The ceremony unfolded in front of a heavily fortified US Capitol, where a mob of Trump supporters stormed the building two weeks ago, enraged by his false claims that November’s election was stolen with millions of fraudulent votes. The violence prompted the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives to impeach Trump last week for an unprecedented second time. The ceremony was hence itself a herculean task to be accomplished. Thousands of National Guard troops were called into the city after the siege, which left five people dead and briefly forced lawmakers into hiding. Also read | Kamala Harris breaks barriers as America's first Black, South Asian woman Vice President Instead of a throng of supporters, the National Mall was covered by nearly 200,000 flags and 56 pillars of light meant to represent people from US states and territories. Biden, who had vowed to “restore the soul of America,” called for American unity at a time of crisis in his inaugural address. He possibly became the first president of the nation to mention racism and White supremacy in his inaugural address. He said the United States must confront and defeat the rise of white supremacy and domestic extremism, adding, "I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real. But I also know they are not new. Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal, and the harsh ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, demonisation have long torn us apart." The norm-defying Trump flouted one last convention on his way out of the White House when he refused to meet with Biden or attend his successor’s inauguration, breaking with a political tradition seen as affirming the peaceful transfer of power. Trump, who never conceded the November 3 election, did not mention Biden by name in his final remarks as president on Wednesday morning, when he touted his administration’s record and promised to be back “in some form.” He then boarded Air Force One for the last time and flew to his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Florida. A day of many firsts: Highlights from US presidential inauguration Vice-President Mike Pence, former US presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and both McCarthy and McConnell all however attended Biden’s inauguration ceremony. President Joe Biden took a moment to jog over to a press area, while he was walking to the White House, and fist bumped a member of the press, according to CNN. "Keep doing what you're doing," Biden said. Biden's running mate, Kamala Harris, the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, became the first Black person, first woman and first Asian American to serve as vice-president after she was sworn in by US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina member. A US senator from California the past four years, Harris has shattered many a glass ceiling. She served as San Francisco’s first female district attorney and was California’s first woman of color to be elected attorney general. As the Senate’s only Black woman, Harris emerged as a leading voice on racial justice and police reform after Minneapolis police killed African-American man George Floyd in May. She marched with protesters on the streets of Washington and won over some liberal skeptics. There are obvious differences between Biden and Harris -- when it comes to race and gender, but it’s really worth thinking how similar their journeys have been. Biden has waited forever for this moment. He first ran for president more than 30 years ago. He was first elected to the Senate nearly 50 years ago. Harris’ trek to the vice presidency was much shorter in political life. But her scale of achievement has been no less. Usually, presidents choose vice-presidents who have more experience than they do. But Biden chose a younger, Black woman. Asked on the CBS programme “60 Minutes” last year why, given Biden’s age, he believed Harris would be ready to step into the presidency if something happened to him, Biden rapidly fired off five reasons. “Number one, her values. Number two, she is smart as a devil, and number three, she has a backbone like a ramrod. Number four, she is really principled. And number five, she has had significant experience in the largest state in the union in running the justice department that’s only second in size to the United States Justice Department. And obviously, I hope that never becomes a question,” Biden said. Biden takes office at a time of deep national unease, with the country facing what his advisers have described as four compounding crises: the pandemic, the economic downtown, climate change and racial inequality. He has promised immediate action, including a raft of executive orders on his first day in office. Biden will waste little time trying to turn the page on the Trump era, signing 15 executive actions on Wednesday on issues ranging from the pandemic to the economy to climate change. The orders include mandating masks on federal property, rejoining the Paris climate accord and ending Trump’s travel ban on some Muslim-majority countries.

Why Biden inauguration was a landmark day in political history of US

More than a week after Donald Trump's supporters took to the US Capitol and destroyed the federal property, the Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed that the riots had been "provoked" by the outgoing President.

Calling it a provocation, he said "the mob was fed lies," by the twice-impeached President Trump.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/breaking-tradition-trump-plans-self-farewell-before-bidens-inauguration-ceremony-357814" hreflang="en">Breaking tradition: Trump plans self-farewell before Biden's inauguration</a>

"They were provoked by the president and other powerful people," he said.&nbsp;

He also openly admitted that the Trump supporters "tried to use fear and violence to stop" to stop the official certification of Joe Biden that was being taken care of that day in the Capitol by the Speaker Nancy Pelosi and outgoing Vice President Mike Pence.

"But we pressed on. We stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in our nation, not even for one night," he said.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-laughs-at-us-crumbling-democracy-amid-fears-of-riots-during-bidens-inauguration-357741" hreflang="en">Iran laughs at US' crumbling democracy amid fears of riots during inauguration</a>

McConnell's statement has come a day before the President-elect Joe Biden is scheduled to take an oath in the upcoming inauguration ceremony on January 20.

As of now, while the Democrats have openly criticised and blamed Trump for promoting and encouraging the Capitol riots, the Republicans have not openly criticised the US leader.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/fbi-vetting-guard-troops-amid-fears-of-insider-attack-357492">WATCH|</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/fbi-vetting-guard-troops-amid-fears-of-insider-attack-357492/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, days after the riot, Trump had declared a state of emergency and issued an order of deploying thousands of National Guard in Washington as the FBI had warned another such riot.&nbsp;

Trump supporters have been since the Capitol riots parading the streets in hope of being able to organise another such riot. However, they have been unsuccessful till now.

The security in the city has been beefed up for Biden's inauguration, which Trump has denied to take part in — breaking an old tradition. Instead, Trump will be hosting a sendoff event for himself in the early hours of Wednesday morning at a military airfield in Maryland, US.

More than a week after Donald Trump's supporters took to the US Capitol and destroyed the federal property, the Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed that the riots had been "provoked" by the outgoing President.

More than a week after Donald Trump's supporters took to the US Capitol and destroyed the federal property, the Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed that the riots had been "provoked" by the outgoing President. Calling it a provocation, he said "the mob was fed lies," by the twice-impeached President Trump. Also read| Breaking tradition: Trump plans self-farewell before Biden's inauguration "They were provoked by the president and other powerful people," he said. He also openly admitted that the Trump supporters "tried to use fear and violence to stop" to stop the official certification of Joe Biden that was being taken care of that day in the Capitol by the Speaker Nancy Pelosi and outgoing Vice President Mike Pence. "But we pressed on. We stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in our nation, not even for one night," he said. Also read| Iran laughs at US' crumbling democracy amid fears of riots during inauguration McConnell's statement has come a day before the President-elect Joe Biden is scheduled to take an oath in the upcoming inauguration ceremony on January 20. As of now, while the Democrats have openly criticised and blamed Trump for promoting and encouraging the Capitol riots, the Republicans have not openly criticised the US leader. WATCH| × Meanwhile, days after the riot, Trump had declared a state of emergency and issued an order of deploying thousands of National Guard in Washington as the FBI had warned another such riot. Trump supporters have been since the Capitol riots parading the streets in hope of being able to organise another such riot. However, they have been unsuccessful till now. The security in the city has been beefed up for Biden's inauguration, which Trump has denied to take part in — breaking an old tradition. Instead, Trump will be hosting a sendoff event for himself in the early hours of Wednesday morning at a military airfield in Maryland, US.

Trump 'provoked' and 'fed lies' in Capitol riots: Republican Senate leader McConnell

As the President-elect <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> will stand in front of the US to take an oath as the new President of the US, the outgoing leader <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;will be planning his own farewell party.

Traditionally, the outgoing President is supposed to be present at the inauguration ceremony of the incoming President. However, Trump has decided to break this tradition by refusing to take part in the inauguration ceremony being held on January 20.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-to-issue-100-presidential-pardons-on-last-day-reports-357721" hreflang="en">Donald Trump to issue 100 presidential pardons on last day: Reports</a>

Instead, Trump will be hosting a sendoff event for himself in the early hours of Wednesday morning at a military airfield in Maryland, US.

As his sendoff, Trump apparently has demanded a massive military parade and a proper farewell by the official armed forces as the commander-in-chief — a ceremony which has never happened before.

Have a look|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/washington-prepares-for-bidens-inauguration-with-final-dress-rehearsals-357790" hreflang="en">Washington prepares for Biden's inauguration with final dress rehearsals</a>

He has also demanded his close aides, family members, administration employees and supporters to be welcomed in a grand manner in this 'red-carpet' affair.

In this first-of-its-kind event, invitations have been sent by the White House that has invited the guests to Joint Base Andrews, a military base used by Air Force One in Maryland. The guests have been invited on Wednesday at 8 am, which is four hours before Biden's inauguration ceremony starts.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
President Trump is leaving office on Wednesday. Plans are underway for a departure ceremony at Joint Base Andrews. 
 
This is the invite sent to supporters. It includes a list of prohibited items such as ammunition, explosives, firearms, laser pointers and toy guns. <a href="https://t.co/AZNoPUxCWB">pic.twitter.com/AZNoPUxCWB</a>
— Brie Jackson (@PositivelyBrie) <a href="https://twitter.com/PositivelyBrie/status/1351181029042761735?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 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>

In addition to this, the guests have been asked to reach then venue by 7:15 am and have been asked to not carry firearms, ammunition, explosives and such items — things that the Trump supporters have been using to riot around the country.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/washington-on-high-alert-ahead-of-biden-inauguration-357513">WATCH|</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/washington-on-high-alert-ahead-of-biden-inauguration-357513/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Several moving trucks were spotted outside the White House and Trump's new residence, the Mar-a-Lago resort, and his residence in Palm Beach.&nbsp;

After the ceremony, he will be flying to Mar-a-Lago, as per reports, abord the Air Force One.

As the President-elect Joe Biden will stand in front of the US to take an oath as the new President of the US, the outgoing leader Donald Trump will be planning his own farewell party.

As the President-elect Joe Biden will stand in front of the US to take an oath as the new President of the US, the outgoing leader Donald Trump will be planning his own farewell party. Traditionally, the outgoing President is supposed to be present at the inauguration ceremony of the incoming President. However, Trump has decided to break this tradition by refusing to take part in the inauguration ceremony being held on January 20. Also read| Donald Trump to issue 100 presidential pardons on last day: Reports Instead, Trump will be hosting a sendoff event for himself in the early hours of Wednesday morning at a military airfield in Maryland, US. As his sendoff, Trump apparently has demanded a massive military parade and a proper farewell by the official armed forces as the commander-in-chief — a ceremony which has never happened before. Have a look| Washington prepares for Biden's inauguration with final dress rehearsals He has also demanded his close aides, family members, administration employees and supporters to be welcomed in a grand manner in this 'red-carpet' affair. In this first-of-its-kind event, invitations have been sent by the White House that has invited the guests to Joint Base Andrews, a military base used by Air Force One in Maryland. The guests have been invited on Wednesday at 8 am, which is four hours before Biden's inauguration ceremony starts. President Trump is leaving office on Wednesday. Plans are underway for a departure ceremony at Joint Base Andrews. This is the invite sent to supporters. It includes a list of prohibited items such as ammunition, explosives, firearms, laser pointers and toy guns. pic.twitter.com/AZNoPUxCWB — Brie Jackson (@PositivelyBrie) January 18, 2021 × In addition to this, the guests have been asked to reach then venue by 7:15 am and have been asked to not carry firearms, ammunition, explosives and such items — things that the Trump supporters have been using to riot around the country. WATCH| × Several moving trucks were spotted outside the White House and Trump's new residence, the Mar-a-Lago resort, and his residence in Palm Beach. After the ceremony, he will be flying to Mar-a-Lago, as per reports, abord the Air Force One.

Breaking tradition: Trump plans self-farewell before Biden's inauguration ceremony

us-election-2020

Us Election 2020, News on Us Election 2020, stories on Us Election 2020, articles on Us Election 2020, Us Election 2020 stories at Wion, Us Election 2020 news, Us Election 2020 latest news

us election-2020