North Korea said it would sever diplomatic relations with Malaysia in the wake of a court there ruling that a national could be extradited to the United States to face money laundering charges.

State media KCNA reported on Friday that North Korea's foreign affairs ministry warned Washington would "pay a price".

On March 9, Malaysia`s top court ruled that a North Korean man, Mun Chol Myong, could be extradited to the United States to face money laundering charges, according to media reports.

Mun had been arrested in 2019 after the United States accused him of laundering funds through front companies and issuing fraudulent documents to support illicit shipments to North Korea. He fought the extradition request, arguing that it was politically motivated.

The ministry called the extradition a "nefarious act and unpardonably heavy crime" by Malaysian authorities, who had "offered our citizen as a sacrifice of the US hostile move in defiance of the acknowledged international laws."

Malaysia's actions had destroyed "the entire foundation of the bilateral relations based on the respect for sovereignty," it said.

Kuala Lumpur's once-close ties with Pyongyang were severely downgraded after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un`s estranged brother, Kim Jong Nam, was killed at a Kuala Lumpur airport in February 2017 when two women smeared his face with VX nerve agent, which the United Nations lists as a weapon of mass destruction.

"We warn in advance that the US - the backstage manipulator and main culprit of this incident - that it will also be made to pay a due price," KCNA reported.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Thursday said that the administration of President Joe Biden would complete a review of its North Korea policy in the next few weeks in close consultation with allies.

(with inputs)

North Korea said it would sever diplomatic relations with Malaysia in the wake of a court there ruling that a national could be extradited to the United States to face money laundering charges.

North Korea said it would sever diplomatic relations with Malaysia in the wake of a court there ruling that a national could be extradited to the United States to face money laundering charges. State media KCNA reported on Friday that North Korea's foreign affairs ministry warned Washington would "pay a price". On March 9, Malaysia`s top court ruled that a North Korean man, Mun Chol Myong, could be extradited to the United States to face money laundering charges, according to media reports. Mun had been arrested in 2019 after the United States accused him of laundering funds through front companies and issuing fraudulent documents to support illicit shipments to North Korea. He fought the extradition request, arguing that it was politically motivated. The ministry called the extradition a "nefarious act and unpardonably heavy crime" by Malaysian authorities, who had "offered our citizen as a sacrifice of the US hostile move in defiance of the acknowledged international laws." Malaysia's actions had destroyed "the entire foundation of the bilateral relations based on the respect for sovereignty," it said. Kuala Lumpur's once-close ties with Pyongyang were severely downgraded after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un`s estranged brother, Kim Jong Nam, was killed at a Kuala Lumpur airport in February 2017 when two women smeared his face with VX nerve agent, which the United Nations lists as a weapon of mass destruction. "We warn in advance that the US - the backstage manipulator and main culprit of this incident - that it will also be made to pay a due price," KCNA reported. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Thursday said that the administration of President Joe Biden would complete a review of its North Korea policy in the next few weeks in close consultation with allies. (with inputs)

North Korea to sever ties with Malaysia over extradition of citizen to US

Jobs are coming back. Businesses are reopening. But a year after the pandemic jolted the economy, applications for unemployment benefits remain stubbornly, shockingly high — higher on a weekly basis than at any point in any previous recession, by some measures.

And headway has stalled: Initial weekly claims under regular and emergency programs, combined, have been stuck at just above 1 million since last fall, and last week was no exception, the Labor Department reported Thursday.

“It goes up a little bit, it goes down, but really we haven’t seen much progress,” said AnnElizabeth Konkel, an economist for the career site Indeed. “A year into this, I’m starting to wonder, what is it going to take to fix the magnitude problem? How is this going to actually end?”

The continued high rate of unemployment applications has been something of a mystery for many economists. With the pandemic still suppressing activity in many sectors, it makes sense that joblessness would remain high. But businesses are reopening in much of the country, and employment and spending trends are generally improving. So shouldn’t unemployment filings be falling?

New evidence from California may offer a partial explanation: According to a report released Thursday by the California Policy Lab, a research organization affiliated with the University of California, nearly 80% of the unemployment applications filed in the state last month were from people who had been laid off earlier in the pandemic, gone back to work, and been laid off again.

Such repeat claims were particularly common in the information sector — which in California includes many film and television employees who have been sidelined by the pandemic — and in the hard-hit hotel and restaurant industries, as well as in construction.

Policy Lab researchers had access to detailed information from the state that allowed them to track individual workers through the system, something not possible with federal data.

California’s economy is unlike that of the rest of the country in myriad ways, and the pandemic has played out differently there than in many other places. But if the same patterns hold elsewhere, the findings suggest that the ups and downs of the pandemic — lockdowns and reopenings, restrictions that tighten and ease as virus cases rise and fall — have left many workers stuck in a sort of limbo.

A restaurant may recall some workers when indoor dining is allowed, only to lay them off again a few weeks later when restrictions are reimposed. A worker may find a temporary job at a warehouse, or pick up a few hours of work on a delivery app, but be unable to find a more stable job.

“This shows the oscillation of employed, unemployed, employed, unemployed — people cycling back into the system,” said Elizabeth Pancotti, policy director at Employ America, a group in Washington that has been an advocate for the unemployed. “We did not see that in previous recessions.”

What that instability will mean for workers’ long-term prospects remains unclear. Economic research has found that extended periods of unemployment can leave workers at a permanent disadvantage in the labor market. But there is little precedent for a period of such prolonged instability.

“We don’t know what happens if you’re out of work for two months, you come back to work for two months, you’re out of work for two months, you keep going back and forth,” Pancotti said.

The California data shows how the economic effects of the pandemic have been concentrated among certain industries and demographic groups — and how the consequences continue to mount for the most affected workers, even as the crisis eases for many others.

Nearly 90% of Black workers in the state have claimed unemployment benefits at some point in the pandemic, according to the Policy Lab analysis, compared with about 40% of whites. Younger and less-educated workers have been hit especially hard.

Those totals include filings under the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which covers people left out of the regular unemployment system, a group that disproportionately includes Black workers. The record keeping for that program has been plagued by overcounting and fraudulent claims. But even a look at the state’s regular unemployment insurance program, which hasn’t faced the same issues, reveals remarkable numbers: Close to 3 in 10 California workers, and more than 4 in 10 Black workers, have claimed benefits during the crisis.

“That degree of inequality is mind-blowing,” said Till von Wachter of the University of California, Los Angeles, one of the report’s authors.

Many of those who lost jobs early in the crisis have since returned to work. But millions have not. The Policy Lab found that nearly 4 million Californians had received more than 26 weeks of benefits during the pandemic, a rough measure of long-term unemployment.

“We have solidly shifted into a world where a large-scale problem of long-term unemployment is now a reality,” von Wachter said. Black workers, older workers, women and those with less education have been more likely to end up out of work for extended periods.

Nationally, nearly 6 million people were enrolled as of late February in federal extended-benefit programs that cover people who have exhausted their regular benefits, which last for six months in most states. The aid package signed by President Joe Biden last week ensures that those programs will continue until fall, but benefits alone won’t prevent the damage that prolonged joblessness can do to workers’ careers and mental and physical health.

“The recovery needs to be on the scale of being a once-in-a-generation economic upswing to really pull those people back into the labor market,” Konkel said.

The latest data provides little sign of that happening. More than 746,000 people filed first-time applications for state unemployment benefits last week, up 24,000 from the previous week, according to the Labor Department. In addition, 282,000 filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance.

Most forecasters expect the labor market recovery to accelerate in coming months, as warmer weather and rising vaccination rates allow more businesses to reopen, and as the new injection of government aid encourages Americans to go out and spend. Policymakers at the Federal Reserve said Wednesday that they expect the unemployment rate to fall to 4.5% by the end of the year, a significant upgrade over the 5% they forecast three months ago.

“We’re already starting to see improvement now, and I think that will start to accelerate fairly quickly,” said Daniel Zhao, an economist at the career site Glassdoor.

But government aid can do only so much as long as the pandemic continues to limit consumers’ behavior. The pace of the recovery now, Zhao said, depends on a factor beyond the scope of normal economic analysis.

“The dominating factor right now is how quickly we can get vaccines in arms,” he said.

Jobs are coming back. Businesses are reopening. But a year after the pandemic jolted the economy, applications for unemployment benefits remain stubbornly, shockingly high — higher on a weekly basis than at any point in any previous recession, by some measures.

Jobs are coming back. Businesses are reopening. But a year after the pandemic jolted the economy, applications for unemployment benefits remain stubbornly, shockingly high — higher on a weekly basis than at any point in any previous recession, by some measures. And headway has stalled: Initial weekly claims under regular and emergency programs, combined, have been stuck at just above 1 million since last fall, and last week was no exception, the Labor Department reported Thursday. “It goes up a little bit, it goes down, but really we haven’t seen much progress,” said AnnElizabeth Konkel, an economist for the career site Indeed. “A year into this, I’m starting to wonder, what is it going to take to fix the magnitude problem? How is this going to actually end?” The continued high rate of unemployment applications has been something of a mystery for many economists. With the pandemic still suppressing activity in many sectors, it makes sense that joblessness would remain high. But businesses are reopening in much of the country, and employment and spending trends are generally improving. So shouldn’t unemployment filings be falling? New evidence from California may offer a partial explanation: According to a report released Thursday by the California Policy Lab, a research organization affiliated with the University of California, nearly 80% of the unemployment applications filed in the state last month were from people who had been laid off earlier in the pandemic, gone back to work, and been laid off again. Such repeat claims were particularly common in the information sector — which in California includes many film and television employees who have been sidelined by the pandemic — and in the hard-hit hotel and restaurant industries, as well as in construction. Policy Lab researchers had access to detailed information from the state that allowed them to track individual workers through the system, something not possible with federal data. California’s economy is unlike that of the rest of the country in myriad ways, and the pandemic has played out differently there than in many other places. But if the same patterns hold elsewhere, the findings suggest that the ups and downs of the pandemic — lockdowns and reopenings, restrictions that tighten and ease as virus cases rise and fall — have left many workers stuck in a sort of limbo. A restaurant may recall some workers when indoor dining is allowed, only to lay them off again a few weeks later when restrictions are reimposed. A worker may find a temporary job at a warehouse, or pick up a few hours of work on a delivery app, but be unable to find a more stable job. “This shows the oscillation of employed, unemployed, employed, unemployed — people cycling back into the system,” said Elizabeth Pancotti, policy director at Employ America, a group in Washington that has been an advocate for the unemployed. “We did not see that in previous recessions.” What that instability will mean for workers’ long-term prospects remains unclear. Economic research has found that extended periods of unemployment can leave workers at a permanent disadvantage in the labor market. But there is little precedent for a period of such prolonged instability. “We don’t know what happens if you’re out of work for two months, you come back to work for two months, you’re out of work for two months, you keep going back and forth,” Pancotti said. The California data shows how the economic effects of the pandemic have been concentrated among certain industries and demographic groups — and how the consequences continue to mount for the most affected workers, even as the crisis eases for many others. Nearly 90% of Black workers in the state have claimed unemployment benefits at some point in the pandemic, according to the Policy Lab analysis, compared with about 40% of whites. Younger and less-educated workers have been hit especially hard. Those totals include filings under the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which covers people left out of the regular unemployment system, a group that disproportionately includes Black workers. The record keeping for that program has been plagued by overcounting and fraudulent claims. But even a look at the state’s regular unemployment insurance program, which hasn’t faced the same issues, reveals remarkable numbers: Close to 3 in 10 California workers, and more than 4 in 10 Black workers, have claimed benefits during the crisis. “That degree of inequality is mind-blowing,” said Till von Wachter of the University of California, Los Angeles, one of the report’s authors. Many of those who lost jobs early in the crisis have since returned to work. But millions have not. The Policy Lab found that nearly 4 million Californians had received more than 26 weeks of benefits during the pandemic, a rough measure of long-term unemployment. “We have solidly shifted into a world where a large-scale problem of long-term unemployment is now a reality,” von Wachter said. Black workers, older workers, women and those with less education have been more likely to end up out of work for extended periods. Nationally, nearly 6 million people were enrolled as of late February in federal extended-benefit programs that cover people who have exhausted their regular benefits, which last for six months in most states. The aid package signed by President Joe Biden last week ensures that those programs will continue until fall, but benefits alone won’t prevent the damage that prolonged joblessness can do to workers’ careers and mental and physical health. “The recovery needs to be on the scale of being a once-in-a-generation economic upswing to really pull those people back into the labor market,” Konkel said. The latest data provides little sign of that happening. More than 746,000 people filed first-time applications for state unemployment benefits last week, up 24,000 from the previous week, according to the Labor Department. In addition, 282,000 filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. Most forecasters expect the labor market recovery to accelerate in coming months, as warmer weather and rising vaccination rates allow more businesses to reopen, and as the new injection of government aid encourages Americans to go out and spend. Policymakers at the Federal Reserve said Wednesday that they expect the unemployment rate to fall to 4.5% by the end of the year, a significant upgrade over the 5% they forecast three months ago. “We’re already starting to see improvement now, and I think that will start to accelerate fairly quickly,” said Daniel Zhao, an economist at the career site Glassdoor. But government aid can do only so much as long as the pandemic continues to limit consumers’ behavior. The pace of the recovery now, Zhao said, depends on a factor beyond the scope of normal economic analysis. “The dominating factor right now is how quickly we can get vaccines in arms,” he said.

Why are jobless claims still high? For some, it’s the multiple layoffs

White supremacist propaganda in the United States, including racist, anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ messages, nearly doubled last year to a record level, according to a report in the Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL said in a report on its website that supremacist propaganda appeared in every US state except Hawaii last year, with the highest levels of activity in Texas, Washington, California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

“The barrage of propaganda, which overwhelmingly features veiled white supremacist language with a patriotic slant, is an effort to normalize white supremacists’ message and bolster recruitment efforts while targeting minority groups including Jews, Blacks, Muslims, non-white immigrants, and the LGBTQ community,” the report said.

Critics say this white supremacism got a boost from US President Donald Trump’s recently-ended presidency though he denied racism and said he was smeared by political opponents.

The New York-based advocacy group’s data showed 5,125 cases were reported in 2020, compared to 2,724 in 2019 -- even though incidents on college campuses dropped by more than half, possibly due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Trump's successor, President Joe Biden, has on his part, ordered an assessment of the risk of domestic terrorism in the wake of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters, some of whom displayed supremacist symbols.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned last month that white supremacy and neo-Nazi movements were becoming a “transnational threat” and had exploited the coronavirus pandemic to boost their support.

White supremacist propaganda in the United States, including racist, anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ messages, nearly doubled last year to a record level, according to a report in the Anti-Defamation League.

White supremacist propaganda in the United States, including racist, anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ messages, nearly doubled last year to a record level, according to a report in the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL said in a report on its website that supremacist propaganda appeared in every US state except Hawaii last year, with the highest levels of activity in Texas, Washington, California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania. “The barrage of propaganda, which overwhelmingly features veiled white supremacist language with a patriotic slant, is an effort to normalize white supremacists’ message and bolster recruitment efforts while targeting minority groups including Jews, Blacks, Muslims, non-white immigrants, and the LGBTQ community,” the report said. Critics say this white supremacism got a boost from US President Donald Trump’s recently-ended presidency though he denied racism and said he was smeared by political opponents. The New York-based advocacy group’s data showed 5,125 cases were reported in 2020, compared to 2,724 in 2019 -- even though incidents on college campuses dropped by more than half, possibly due to COVID-19 restrictions. Trump's successor, President Joe Biden, has on his part, ordered an assessment of the risk of domestic terrorism in the wake of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters, some of whom displayed supremacist symbols. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned last month that white supremacy and neo-Nazi movements were becoming a “transnational threat” and had exploited the coronavirus pandemic to boost their support.

White supremacist propaganda in US hit record in 2020, group says

Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin arrived in Seoul on Wednesday with top US diplomat Antony Blinken following for talks with South Korean officials to bolster a united front against an increasingly assertive China and the nuclear-armed North.

The South is the second leg of their inaugural overseas trip, and like their first stop, Japan, a leading security ally of the United States.

The Biden administration is focused on rallying alliances with its key Asian partners to counter a rising China.&nbsp;

Before leaving Tokyo, Secretary of State Blinken accused Beijing of acting more repressively at home and "more aggressively abroad", citing its activities in the East and South China Seas and towards Taiwan.

"It's important for us to make clear together that China cannot expect&nbsp;to act with impunity," Blinken said.

North Korea is likely to move up the agenda in the South, where the US stations 28,500 troops to defend it against its neighbour.

Meanwhile, in North Korea's first comments directed at the Biden administration, Kim Jong Un's powerful sister on Tuesday warned the United States to "refrain from causing a stink" if it wants to "sleep in peace" for the next four years.

Kim Yo Jong, a senior official who handles inter-Korean affairs, also criticised the US and South Korea for holding military exercises. She also said the North would consider abandoning a 2018 bilateral agreement on reducing military tensions and abolish a decades-old ruling party unit tasked to handle inter-Korean relations if it no longer had to cooperate with the South.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-will-be-watching-kim-jong-uns-sister-warns-us-ahead-of-austin-blinkens-visit-to-seoul-370770">Also read |&nbsp;'North Korea will be watching': Kim Jong Un's sister warns US ahead of Austin, Blinken's visit to Seoul</a>

She said the North would also consider scrapping an office that handled South Korean tours to the North's scenic Diamond Mountain, which Seoul suspended in 2008 after a North Korean guard fatally shot a South Korean tourist.

A senior official from the Biden administration said Saturday that US officials have tried to reach out to North Korea through multiple channels since last month, but had yet to receive a response.

The South Korean and US militaries began annual military exercises last week that continue through Thursday.

The drills are command post exercises and computerised simulation and don't involve field training. They said they held the downsized drills after reviewing factors like the status of COVID-19 and diplomatic efforts to resume the nuclear talks with North Korea.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-north-korea-loom-as-blinken-austin-head-to-asia-370426">Also read |&nbsp;China, North Korea loom as Blinken, Austin head to Asia&nbsp;</a>

The new US administration is expected to wrap up a review of North Korea policy in coming weeks. And Blinken said Washington is considering whether additional pressure on North Korea could be effective.

Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin arrived in Seoul on Wednesday with top US diplomat Antony Blinken following for talks with South Korean officials to bolster a united front against an increasingly assertive China and the nuclear-armed North.

Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin arrived in Seoul on Wednesday with top US diplomat Antony Blinken following for talks with South Korean officials to bolster a united front against an increasingly assertive China and the nuclear-armed North. The South is the second leg of their inaugural overseas trip, and like their first stop, Japan, a leading security ally of the United States. The Biden administration is focused on rallying alliances with its key Asian partners to counter a rising China. Before leaving Tokyo, Secretary of State Blinken accused Beijing of acting more repressively at home and "more aggressively abroad", citing its activities in the East and South China Seas and towards Taiwan. "It's important for us to make clear together that China cannot expect to act with impunity," Blinken said. North Korea is likely to move up the agenda in the South, where the US stations 28,500 troops to defend it against its neighbour. Meanwhile, in North Korea's first comments directed at the Biden administration, Kim Jong Un's powerful sister on Tuesday warned the United States to "refrain from causing a stink" if it wants to "sleep in peace" for the next four years. Kim Yo Jong, a senior official who handles inter-Korean affairs, also criticised the US and South Korea for holding military exercises. She also said the North would consider abandoning a 2018 bilateral agreement on reducing military tensions and abolish a decades-old ruling party unit tasked to handle inter-Korean relations if it no longer had to cooperate with the South. Also read | 'North Korea will be watching': Kim Jong Un's sister warns US ahead of Austin, Blinken's visit to Seoul She said the North would also consider scrapping an office that handled South Korean tours to the North's scenic Diamond Mountain, which Seoul suspended in 2008 after a North Korean guard fatally shot a South Korean tourist. A senior official from the Biden administration said Saturday that US officials have tried to reach out to North Korea through multiple channels since last month, but had yet to receive a response. The South Korean and US militaries began annual military exercises last week that continue through Thursday. The drills are command post exercises and computerised simulation and don't involve field training. They said they held the downsized drills after reviewing factors like the status of COVID-19 and diplomatic efforts to resume the nuclear talks with North Korea. Also read | China, North Korea loom as Blinken, Austin head to Asia The new US administration is expected to wrap up a review of North Korea policy in coming weeks. And Blinken said Washington is considering whether additional pressure on North Korea could be effective.

Top US officials arrive in Seoul with China, North Korea on agenda

US&nbsp;Secretary of State Antony Blinken has urged Paraguay to work with its diplomatic ally Taiwan to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, after protests in the South American country over the government`s handling of the health crisis. 
 
Thousands of Paraguayans have protested in the capital Asunción over the lack of medicine and intensive care beds amid a spike in coronavirus cases and calls to impeach President Mario Abdo. 
 
The US&nbsp;State Department said Blinken spoke with Abdo on Sunday, outlining US&nbsp;efforts to help tackle the pandemic, and underscored the importance of free expression, peaceful demonstration, and the rule of law. 
 
"The Secretary stressed the importance of continuing to work with democratic regional and global partners, including Taiwan, to overcome this global pandemic, combat corruption, and increase transparency and accountability," it said in a statement. 
 
Paraguay is Chinese-claimed Taiwan`s sole remaining diplomatic ally in South America. China views democratic Taiwan as one of its provinces, with no right to the trappings of a state. 
 
The United States has expressed concern at Beijing`s efforts to win over the remaining 15 countries which still have formal ties with Taipei and expand Chinese influence, especially in Latin America which Washington traditionally views as its backyard. 
 
Paraguay had kept infections very low early last year but COVID-19 cases have jumped since September and vaccines have been slow to arrive, though Chile donated around 20,000 doses of the Chinese-made Sinovac vaccine to Paraguay this month. 
 
Paraguay`s Senate last week approved a declaration of support for a plan to use $12.8 million in funds given by Taiwan for a housing development project to be used to buy 2 million vaccine doses. 
 
Taiwan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Joanne Ou said Taiwan and Paraguay have a "solid friendship". 
 
"Our government will continue to uphold the spirit of pulling together in times of trouble and trying our best to assist allies to fight the pandemic together within the scope of our capabilities," she said.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has urged Paraguay to work with its diplomatic ally Taiwan to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, after protests in the South American country over the government`s handling of the health crisis.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has urged Paraguay to work with its diplomatic ally Taiwan to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, after protests in the South American country over the government`s handling of the health crisis. Thousands of Paraguayans have protested in the capital Asunción over the lack of medicine and intensive care beds amid a spike in coronavirus cases and calls to impeach President Mario Abdo. The US State Department said Blinken spoke with Abdo on Sunday, outlining US efforts to help tackle the pandemic, and underscored the importance of free expression, peaceful demonstration, and the rule of law. "The Secretary stressed the importance of continuing to work with democratic regional and global partners, including Taiwan, to overcome this global pandemic, combat corruption, and increase transparency and accountability," it said in a statement. Paraguay is Chinese-claimed Taiwan`s sole remaining diplomatic ally in South America. China views democratic Taiwan as one of its provinces, with no right to the trappings of a state. The United States has expressed concern at Beijing`s efforts to win over the remaining 15 countries which still have formal ties with Taipei and expand Chinese influence, especially in Latin America which Washington traditionally views as its backyard. Paraguay had kept infections very low early last year but COVID-19 cases have jumped since September and vaccines have been slow to arrive, though Chile donated around 20,000 doses of the Chinese-made Sinovac vaccine to Paraguay this month. Paraguay`s Senate last week approved a declaration of support for a plan to use $12.8 million in funds given by Taiwan for a housing development project to be used to buy 2 million vaccine doses. Taiwan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Joanne Ou said Taiwan and Paraguay have a "solid friendship". "Our government will continue to uphold the spirit of pulling together in times of trouble and trying our best to assist allies to fight the pandemic together within the scope of our capabilities," she said.

US urges Paraguay to work with Taiwan amid pandemic protests

The 21st-century economy has been a two-decade series of punches in the gut. The century began in economic triumphalism in the United States, with a sense that business cycles had been vanquished and prosperity secured for a blindingly bright future.

17 Reasons to Let the Economic Optimism Begin

It is easy to overlook amid the hundreds of pages of the $1.9 trillion stimulus plan President Joe Biden signed into law Thursday, but a short section aims to combat America’s maternal mortality crisis by expanding health coverage for new mothers.

The United States has the highest rate of maternal deaths in the industrialized world. One-third of those deaths happen after delivery, when a significant share of American women experience a gap in coverage.

Under current law, all states provide Medicaid coverage to low-income women who are pregnant. More than 40% of babies born each year in the United States are to mothers enrolled in the public health program.

But coverage runs out 60 days after delivery, causing many women to become uninsured shortly after giving birth.

The American Rescue Plan will let states extend Medicaid coverage for a full year and provides federal funding to do so. As with the enhanced child tax credit, expanding postpartum Medicaid is another stimulus policy that bolsters the safety net supporting low-income parents in the United States

“Illinois has one of the highest maternal death rates for Black mothers, which is very concerning to me,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who has written legislation calling for this policy change. “These are also communities that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic.”

Legislators have become increasingly concerned about the nation’s maternal mortality rate, which declined through most of the 20th century but has increased in the last few decades. Black mothers have a significantly higher mortality rate than white mothers, and women giving birth in the United States overall are twice as likely to die as those in Canada and five times as likely as those in Germany.

A recent study found that 20% of uninsured new mothers skipped care because of cost, and half worried about not being able to afford their medical bills.

“These aren’t people who are uninsured because they don’t think it’s valuable or don’t have health concerns,” said Stacey McMorrow, a principal research associate at the Urban Institute and author of the study. “They are people who have medical needs.”

Her research found that, between 2015 and 2018, 11.5% of new mothers lacked health insurance coverage. That rate is slightly higher than the general population’s. About half of those uninsured women were Hispanic, and two-thirds lived in the South. The uninsured rate for new mothers is especially high in states that do not participate in the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which provides public coverage to all citizens who earn less than 133% of the federal poverty line.

Recent studies have found that increased Medicaid access for the general population, which will cover some new mothers, is associated with lower maternal mortality and more use of medical care in the postpartum year.

Extending Medicaid coverage longer would also help women comply with new postpartum guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In 2018, it began recommending that postpartum care be delivered as a series of visits from three to 12 weeks after delivery. Before that, the association recommended only one visit at six weeks after birth.

“This is an evidence-based, well-supported proposal,” said Katy Kozhimannil, a professor of health policy at the University of Minnesota. “It would be extremely helpful for women to have financial access to health insurance and health care after they deliver.”

She said the extension of postpartum Medicaid should be seen in the context of the larger set of benefits the stimulus will provide parents. There are the $1,400 checks for each family member, including children, that will go out to most Americans. The new child tax credit will also provide big financial boosts for many families with children.

Taken together, the changes in the stimulus should lessen the financial strain that comes with becoming a parent, both for medical bills and other expenses. Still, experts say major stressors and gaps in the safety net will remain. The United States does not guarantee paid leave for new parents. States will have to sign up to add this benefit to Medicaid and pay a share of the costs. Even in states that do make that decision, new mothers could still find themselves uninsured after the year of coverage ends.

“It’s an important steppingstone, but it kicks the can down the road a bit,” said McMorrow of the Urban Institute. “Twelve months later, this coverage will still run out.”

The blanket permission for all states to expand this coverage is also a reversal of a stance by the Trump administration. In recent years, five states requested waivers to lengthen Medicaid coverage for new mothers. Federal officials never responded.

States will no longer have to go through a lengthy waiver application to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage. Instead, they can notify the federal government they plan to provide the benefit and move forward without waiting for any additional approval.

States did continue to cover new mothers last year because of federal rules requiring them to keep all beneficiaries enrolled until the end of the public health emergency. The new stimulus policy will begin April 2022, and it requires states to opt in. The Congressional Budget Office estimates coverage will cost a total of $1,500 per person; states will have to pay a share of that. The policy is set to phase out in five years, but drafters like Duckworth hope to see it made permanent eventually.

“We know, in the long run, it costs us more if we don’t take care of this problem,” she said.

States across the political spectrum have already shown interest in extending postpartum coverage for new mothers. California and Texas have used state funds to provide this type of coverage. Mississippi and Maryland legislators recently introduced a bill that would create a similar program in their states.

“What we’ve seen is that red states, blue states and purple states are taking up the issue,” said Skye Perryman, chief legal officer for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

It is easy to overlook amid the hundreds of pages of the $1.9 trillion stimulus plan President Joe Biden signed into law Thursday, but a short section aims to combat America’s maternal mortality crisis by expanding health coverage for new mothers.

It is easy to overlook amid the hundreds of pages of the $1.9 trillion stimulus plan President Joe Biden signed into law Thursday, but a short section aims to combat America’s maternal mortality crisis by expanding health coverage for new mothers. The United States has the highest rate of maternal deaths in the industrialized world. One-third of those deaths happen after delivery, when a significant share of American women experience a gap in coverage. Under current law, all states provide Medicaid coverage to low-income women who are pregnant. More than 40% of babies born each year in the United States are to mothers enrolled in the public health program. But coverage runs out 60 days after delivery, causing many women to become uninsured shortly after giving birth. The American Rescue Plan will let states extend Medicaid coverage for a full year and provides federal funding to do so. As with the enhanced child tax credit, expanding postpartum Medicaid is another stimulus policy that bolsters the safety net supporting low-income parents in the United States “Illinois has one of the highest maternal death rates for Black mothers, which is very concerning to me,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who has written legislation calling for this policy change. “These are also communities that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic.” Legislators have become increasingly concerned about the nation’s maternal mortality rate, which declined through most of the 20th century but has increased in the last few decades. Black mothers have a significantly higher mortality rate than white mothers, and women giving birth in the United States overall are twice as likely to die as those in Canada and five times as likely as those in Germany. A recent study found that 20% of uninsured new mothers skipped care because of cost, and half worried about not being able to afford their medical bills. “These aren’t people who are uninsured because they don’t think it’s valuable or don’t have health concerns,” said Stacey McMorrow, a principal research associate at the Urban Institute and author of the study. “They are people who have medical needs.” Her research found that, between 2015 and 2018, 11.5% of new mothers lacked health insurance coverage. That rate is slightly higher than the general population’s. About half of those uninsured women were Hispanic, and two-thirds lived in the South. The uninsured rate for new mothers is especially high in states that do not participate in the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which provides public coverage to all citizens who earn less than 133% of the federal poverty line. Recent studies have found that increased Medicaid access for the general population, which will cover some new mothers, is associated with lower maternal mortality and more use of medical care in the postpartum year. Extending Medicaid coverage longer would also help women comply with new postpartum guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In 2018, it began recommending that postpartum care be delivered as a series of visits from three to 12 weeks after delivery. Before that, the association recommended only one visit at six weeks after birth. “This is an evidence-based, well-supported proposal,” said Katy Kozhimannil, a professor of health policy at the University of Minnesota. “It would be extremely helpful for women to have financial access to health insurance and health care after they deliver.” She said the extension of postpartum Medicaid should be seen in the context of the larger set of benefits the stimulus will provide parents. There are the $1,400 checks for each family member, including children, that will go out to most Americans. The new child tax credit will also provide big financial boosts for many families with children. Taken together, the changes in the stimulus should lessen the financial strain that comes with becoming a parent, both for medical bills and other expenses. Still, experts say major stressors and gaps in the safety net will remain. The United States does not guarantee paid leave for new parents. States will have to sign up to add this benefit to Medicaid and pay a share of the costs. Even in states that do make that decision, new mothers could still find themselves uninsured after the year of coverage ends. “It’s an important steppingstone, but it kicks the can down the road a bit,” said McMorrow of the Urban Institute. “Twelve months later, this coverage will still run out.” The blanket permission for all states to expand this coverage is also a reversal of a stance by the Trump administration. In recent years, five states requested waivers to lengthen Medicaid coverage for new mothers. Federal officials never responded. States will no longer have to go through a lengthy waiver application to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage. Instead, they can notify the federal government they plan to provide the benefit and move forward without waiting for any additional approval. States did continue to cover new mothers last year because of federal rules requiring them to keep all beneficiaries enrolled until the end of the public health emergency. The new stimulus policy will begin April 2022, and it requires states to opt in. The Congressional Budget Office estimates coverage will cost a total of $1,500 per person; states will have to pay a share of that. The policy is set to phase out in five years, but drafters like Duckworth hope to see it made permanent eventually. “We know, in the long run, it costs us more if we don’t take care of this problem,” she said. States across the political spectrum have already shown interest in extending postpartum coverage for new mothers. California and Texas have used state funds to provide this type of coverage. Mississippi and Maryland legislators recently introduced a bill that would create a similar program in their states. “What we’ve seen is that red states, blue states and purple states are taking up the issue,” said Skye Perryman, chief legal officer for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Small piece of the stimulus has ambitious aim of saving mothers’ lives

There are plenty of numbers in the $1.9 trillion relief plan signed into law by President Joe Biden this past week. $1,400 for stimulus checks. $130 billion for schools. $350 billion for state and local governments.

But the most politically significant number might just be zero.

Yes, zero. That is the number of congressional Republicans who supported the legislation.

Looking at the lack of GOP support, you might assume the bill was unpopular, at least with Republican voters. You would be wrong. Americans overwhelmingly support the package, including a significant portion of the Republican base. According to some analysts, the bill is the most popular piece of major legislation in over a decade.

So Republicans will definitely pay a political price for opposing a measure that the country, including a large portion of their base, seems to want, right?

Well, it is complicated.

We are now in the post-passage phase of the American Rescue Plan, a battle likely to last through the midterm elections next year.

During the weeks of negotiations over the legislation, Republicans were unable to coalesce around a comprehensive argument against the bill. Instead, they offered a scattershot list of complaints. After the legislation passed, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s main argument seemed to be that the economic recovery would have happened anyhow.

“We’re about to have a boom,” said McConnell, the minority leader. “And if we do have a boom, it will have absolutely nothing to do with this $1.9 trillion.”

Others seemed far more focused on Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head, culture war bait that fires up their conservative base. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, even took the issue to the House floor.

“First they outlaw Dr. Seuss, and now they want to tell us what to say,” he said during a debate over a Democratic voting rights bill. (It was the company overseeing the author’s estate, not any Democrats, that recently chose to stop publishing several of his works. And Republicans’ focus on Dr. Seuss did deliver some economic benefit: More than 1.2 million copies of stories by the children’s book author sold in the first week of March — more than quadruple from the week before.)

The Republican predicament is simple: People like getting money, especially when they are struggling, and this bill will deliver. Roughly 90% of U.S. households will be eligible for stimulus checks. More than 93% of children — 69 million — will receive what is essentially a guaranteed income for families. Even those who do not receive a payment will benefit from new funding for reopening schools and vaccine distribution.

Former President Donald Trump taught Republican voters to love that kind of government spending by championing stimulus measures that were even larger than this bill. That makes it difficult for GOP lawmakers who backed those measures to argue against the cost of this legislation without facing charges of hypocrisy or possible pushback from portions of their base.

To shift public opinion, Republicans will have to settle on a clear argument against the legislation and find the party discipline to drive it. To that end, they will be keeping a close eye on how the money is distributed, hoping to find examples of waste or fraud that they can highlight to undercut Biden’s policy agenda. One area ripe for discontent is the aid to state and local governments, which polls significantly lower among Republicans than Democrats. But it will not be easy; Republicans are already struggling to overcome deep divides in their ranks.

Biden, acutely aware of the potential pitfalls, wants to ensure that Americans understand the benefits of this bill — and that they give him credit. His address Thursday evening was the start of an administrationwide push to promote the legislation across the country. It is a strategy to avoid the struggles of former President Barack Obama, who some Democrats believe was not aggressive enough in selling his 2009 stimulus package to voters.

The situation is not exactly the same: Unlike Obama, who faced the challenge of a slow recovery, Biden is likely to benefit from a quickly expanding economy, with forecasters predicting growth to speed up in the coming months as more Americans get vaccinated. He also starts his campaign with more goodwill. Biden’s legislation is roughly 20 percentage points more popular than the 2009 bill was immediately after passage.

Still, the 2009 stimulus package provides an instructive example on how quickly public opinion can change. No House Republicans voted for that $787 billion package, and only three moderate Republicans in the Senate backed it, even as nearly 2 in 3 Americans supported the bill.

Republicans calculated that they could make the bill a centerpiece of their efforts to win control of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections. They began arguing that the legislation was “chock-full of wasteful government spending” and failed to create jobs, even as dozens also trumpeted the federal dollars flowing into their states. Voters conflated the stimulus bill with the bailouts of the banking and auto industries, confusion that helped incite some of the fiercest opposition to Obama in the form of the tea party movement.

By January 2010, about 75% said half or more of the stimulus money had been wasted. Three months later, 62% said the legislation had not created jobs. And in exit polls after the 2010 midterms, only about one-third of voters said the package had actually helped.

White House officials eventually conceded that they had made mistakes in framing the public discussion of the measure. But by then, it was too late: Republicans won control of the House and gained six seats in the Senate.

There are plenty of numbers in the $1.9 trillion relief plan signed into law by President Joe Biden this past week. $1,400 for stimulus checks. $130 billion for schools.

There are plenty of numbers in the $1.9 trillion relief plan signed into law by President Joe Biden this past week. $1,400 for stimulus checks. $130 billion for schools. $350 billion for state and local governments. But the most politically significant number might just be zero. Yes, zero. That is the number of congressional Republicans who supported the legislation. Looking at the lack of GOP support, you might assume the bill was unpopular, at least with Republican voters. You would be wrong. Americans overwhelmingly support the package, including a significant portion of the Republican base. According to some analysts, the bill is the most popular piece of major legislation in over a decade. So Republicans will definitely pay a political price for opposing a measure that the country, including a large portion of their base, seems to want, right? Well, it is complicated. We are now in the post-passage phase of the American Rescue Plan, a battle likely to last through the midterm elections next year. During the weeks of negotiations over the legislation, Republicans were unable to coalesce around a comprehensive argument against the bill. Instead, they offered a scattershot list of complaints. After the legislation passed, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s main argument seemed to be that the economic recovery would have happened anyhow. “We’re about to have a boom,” said McConnell, the minority leader. “And if we do have a boom, it will have absolutely nothing to do with this $1.9 trillion.” Others seemed far more focused on Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head, culture war bait that fires up their conservative base. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, even took the issue to the House floor. “First they outlaw Dr. Seuss, and now they want to tell us what to say,” he said during a debate over a Democratic voting rights bill. (It was the company overseeing the author’s estate, not any Democrats, that recently chose to stop publishing several of his works. And Republicans’ focus on Dr. Seuss did deliver some economic benefit: More than 1.2 million copies of stories by the children’s book author sold in the first week of March — more than quadruple from the week before.) The Republican predicament is simple: People like getting money, especially when they are struggling, and this bill will deliver. Roughly 90% of U.S. households will be eligible for stimulus checks. More than 93% of children — 69 million — will receive what is essentially a guaranteed income for families. Even those who do not receive a payment will benefit from new funding for reopening schools and vaccine distribution. Former President Donald Trump taught Republican voters to love that kind of government spending by championing stimulus measures that were even larger than this bill. That makes it difficult for GOP lawmakers who backed those measures to argue against the cost of this legislation without facing charges of hypocrisy or possible pushback from portions of their base. To shift public opinion, Republicans will have to settle on a clear argument against the legislation and find the party discipline to drive it. To that end, they will be keeping a close eye on how the money is distributed, hoping to find examples of waste or fraud that they can highlight to undercut Biden’s policy agenda. One area ripe for discontent is the aid to state and local governments, which polls significantly lower among Republicans than Democrats. But it will not be easy; Republicans are already struggling to overcome deep divides in their ranks. Biden, acutely aware of the potential pitfalls, wants to ensure that Americans understand the benefits of this bill — and that they give him credit. His address Thursday evening was the start of an administrationwide push to promote the legislation across the country. It is a strategy to avoid the struggles of former President Barack Obama, who some Democrats believe was not aggressive enough in selling his 2009 stimulus package to voters. The situation is not exactly the same: Unlike Obama, who faced the challenge of a slow recovery, Biden is likely to benefit from a quickly expanding economy, with forecasters predicting growth to speed up in the coming months as more Americans get vaccinated. He also starts his campaign with more goodwill. Biden’s legislation is roughly 20 percentage points more popular than the 2009 bill was immediately after passage. Still, the 2009 stimulus package provides an instructive example on how quickly public opinion can change. No House Republicans voted for that $787 billion package, and only three moderate Republicans in the Senate backed it, even as nearly 2 in 3 Americans supported the bill. Republicans calculated that they could make the bill a centerpiece of their efforts to win control of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections. They began arguing that the legislation was “chock-full of wasteful government spending” and failed to create jobs, even as dozens also trumpeted the federal dollars flowing into their states. Voters conflated the stimulus bill with the bailouts of the banking and auto industries, confusion that helped incite some of the fiercest opposition to Obama in the form of the tea party movement. By January 2010, about 75% said half or more of the stimulus money had been wasted. Three months later, 62% said the legislation had not created jobs. And in exit polls after the 2010 midterms, only about one-third of voters said the package had actually helped. White House officials eventually conceded that they had made mistakes in framing the public discussion of the measure. But by then, it was too late: Republicans won control of the House and gained six seats in the Senate.

Will Republicans pay a price for opposing the stimulus?

US lawmakers belonging to Democratic Party on Friday said that they will begin working on legislation to overhaul use of military force for attacking overseas targets.

With the goal to implement it in a few weeks, the legislation would end military forces being used overseas, a tactic employed by both Democrat and Republican presidents over the years.

Gregory Meeks, a US representative and Chair of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee said that they would begin debating repealing the Authorization For the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which sanctioned the Iraqi war which took place in 2002.

"I intend to mark up legislation in the Foreign Affairs Committee in the coming weeks to repeal it," Reuters cited Meeks as saying during a video news conference.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/new-york-governor-faces-more-serious-accusation-from-the-sixth-woman-369573" hreflang="en">New York governor faces more serious accusation from the sixth woman</a>

Recently, senators have been pushing for the return of the power to declare war to US Congress from the White House. After President Joe Biden authorised airstrikes on Syria, a bipartisan group on March 3 introduced legislation to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, along with the one passed in 1991.

Last year, the Democratic-led House repealed the 2002 AUMF, a measure which was never taken up by the Senate - which was under Republican control then. Currently, the Senate has a Democratic majority.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-admin-to-reconsider-objections-to-h1b-visas-during-trump-regime-370100" hreflang="en">Biden admin to reconsider objections to H1B visas during Trump regime</a>

The US Constitution gives war declaration powers to Congress, not the president. But after the Congress passed non-expiring AUMFs, the authority shifted.

"It's time we end these forever wars," Reuters quoted representative Barbara Lee said. Lee shed light on how AUMFs have been used over 40 times to justify attacks in 19 countries.

Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman said that all authorisations should have end dates, should be applicable on specific countries, and should require consultation with, and while reporting to Congress.

US lawmakers belonging to Democratic Party on Friday said that they will begin working on legislation to overhaul use of military force for attacking overseas targets.

US lawmakers belonging to Democratic Party on Friday said that they will begin working on legislation to overhaul use of military force for attacking overseas targets. With the goal to implement it in a few weeks, the legislation would end military forces being used overseas, a tactic employed by both Democrat and Republican presidents over the years. Gregory Meeks, a US representative and Chair of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee said that they would begin debating repealing the Authorization For the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which sanctioned the Iraqi war which took place in 2002. "I intend to mark up legislation in the Foreign Affairs Committee in the coming weeks to repeal it," Reuters cited Meeks as saying during a video news conference. Also read: New York governor faces more serious accusation from the sixth woman Recently, senators have been pushing for the return of the power to declare war to US Congress from the White House. After President Joe Biden authorised airstrikes on Syria, a bipartisan group on March 3 introduced legislation to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, along with the one passed in 1991. Last year, the Democratic-led House repealed the 2002 AUMF, a measure which was never taken up by the Senate - which was under Republican control then. Currently, the Senate has a Democratic majority. Also read: Biden admin to reconsider objections to H1B visas during Trump regime The US Constitution gives war declaration powers to Congress, not the president. But after the Congress passed non-expiring AUMFs, the authority shifted. "It's time we end these forever wars," Reuters quoted representative Barbara Lee said. Lee shed light on how AUMFs have been used over 40 times to justify attacks in 19 countries. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman said that all authorisations should have end dates, should be applicable on specific countries, and should require consultation with, and while reporting to Congress.

US lawmakers mulling legislation to end 'forever wars' overseas

As states have begun vaccinating Americans with medical conditions that may raise their risk for a severe case of COVID-19, they are setting widely varying rules about which conditions to prioritize.

The morass of guidelines has set off a free-for-all among people with underlying health problems like cancer or Type 2 diabetes to persuade state health and political officials to add particular conditions to an evolving vaccine priority list.

In Royal Oak, Michigan, Megan Bauer, who lives with cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease that can cause serious lung infections, said she was grateful that other people with heightened risks were getting vaccinated: health care workers, teachers, her 81-year-old grandmother. If Bauer lived in Montana, New Mexico, Virginia, Washington, D.C., or at least 14 other states, she could get the vaccine now, too. But not in Michigan.

“The wait seems never-ending,” Bauer said. “With cystic fibrosis, every day is precious, so losing this time is difficult.”

In the initial months of the COVID vaccine rollout, states sought to balance between prioritizing older people, who are most likely to die from the virus, and people in professions most likely to be exposed to it. Under recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people with medical conditions that have been associated with an increased risk for severe virus symptoms, were slated to come next.

At least 37 states, as well as Washington, D.C., are now allowing some residents with certain health problems to receive vaccines, according to a New York Times survey. But the health issues granted higher priority differ from state to state, and even county to county.

Some people with Down syndrome may get vaccines in at least 35 states, for instance, but some of those states are not offering shots to people with other developmental conditions. At least 30 states allow some people with Type 2 diabetes to get vaccines, but only 23 states include people with Type 1 diabetes. At least 19 states are making the vaccine available to some people with cystic fibrosis; at least 14 have included some people with liver disease; and at least 15 have deemed some smokers eligible. At least 30 states have prioritized vaccines for people who are overweight or obese, according to the Times survey, though they vary even there, some setting the bar at a body mass index of 25, others at 30 or 40.

Some states require people to prove they have a medical condition, although at least 16 states and Washington, D.C., do not. And at least 12 states allow people to get a recommendation from a health professional to get a shot, even if their medical condition has not been given priority by the state.

In the absence of large, rigorous studies of the coronavirus’s effect on people with other medical problems, medical ethicists said, there are few clear principles to apply to determine a priority sequence among many conditions. Many states are taking their cues from a list of 12 sorts of conditions that the CDC has deemed to have substantial evidence for elevated COVID risks, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes, smoking and Down syndrome. CDC officials have said that they regularly review the scientific literature and will expand the list as warranted.

But some medical ethicists argue that the list itself is misleading, because it suggests that the risks for all diagnoses have been considered and ranked. Is a 50-year-old with Type 1 diabetes at greater risk from COVID than a 25-year-old with sickle cell disease, or a 35-year-old with intellectual disabilities?

The issue has set off a flurry of jockeying by advocacy groups to sway health and political leaders in state capitols to move particular health conditions higher on priority lists.

Because the vaccine rules can be set by governors — who typically consult with hospital officials and their own medical and ethical advisory groups — many appeals have taken a personal bent: “@GovMikeDeWine,” Hanna Detwiler, a bone-marrow transplant patient in Columbus, Ohio, tweeted about her inability to get a vaccine last month, “Do better.”

About three dozen health advocacy groups sent a letter in late January to Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York after growing concerned that the state might not explicitly include people with HIV on its priority list for shots. The groups cited the state health department’s own research on HIV as a risk factor for getting severely ill with COVID-19. New York ultimately became one of at least 14 states, along with Washington, D.C., to announce that HIV was on the vaccine priority list. A spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Health said this week that New York had always intended to include HIV patients on the priority list.

Across the country, the vaccine eligibility requirements are a moving target. Ohio added bone marrow transplant patients like Detwiler to its list last week after initially offering the vaccine only to those who had received a solid organ transplant. Next week, California, where only some counties have previously offered vaccines to people with medical conditions, will allow shots statewide to millions of people with health problems. That reversed the state’s earlier plan to prioritize shots based solely on age, which sparked high-profile opposition from disabilities rights advocates who used a hashtag #HighRiskCA.

Connecticut recently flipped in the opposite direction, ending plans to expand eligibility for shots to people with preexisting health conditions in favor of priorities based on age. And even some patient advocates who have pushed for inclusion are disheartened by what may be a system where the loudest voices, with perhaps the most funding or political clout, prevail.

“That is not how our public policies should be decided, on who is better at advocating,” said Kara Ayers, director of the Center for Dignity in Healthcare for People with Disabilities, which has created a vaccine prioritization dashboard with the Johns Hopkins Disability Health Research Center to help people with medical conditions track their status.

State government officials say their decisions on which health conditions to include often come down to some combination of evidence, logistics and political reality.

In Michigan, a recent announcement was bittersweet for Bauer. This week, the state expanded vaccine eligibility to people with cystic fibrosis and other medical conditions, so long as they are older than 50.

In 2019, the median age of death for people with cystic fibrosis in the United States was 32, according to a patient registry kept by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

“Most people with CF,’’ said Bauer, who is 24, “may not be in that group.”

As states have begun vaccinating Americans with medical conditions that may raise their risk for a severe case of COVID-19, they are setting widely varying rules about which conditions to prioritize.

As states have begun vaccinating Americans with medical conditions that may raise their risk for a severe case of COVID-19, they are setting widely varying rules about which conditions to prioritize. The morass of guidelines has set off a free-for-all among people with underlying health problems like cancer or Type 2 diabetes to persuade state health and political officials to add particular conditions to an evolving vaccine priority list. In Royal Oak, Michigan, Megan Bauer, who lives with cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease that can cause serious lung infections, said she was grateful that other people with heightened risks were getting vaccinated: health care workers, teachers, her 81-year-old grandmother. If Bauer lived in Montana, New Mexico, Virginia, Washington, D.C., or at least 14 other states, she could get the vaccine now, too. But not in Michigan. “The wait seems never-ending,” Bauer said. “With cystic fibrosis, every day is precious, so losing this time is difficult.” In the initial months of the COVID vaccine rollout, states sought to balance between prioritizing older people, who are most likely to die from the virus, and people in professions most likely to be exposed to it. Under recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people with medical conditions that have been associated with an increased risk for severe virus symptoms, were slated to come next. At least 37 states, as well as Washington, D.C., are now allowing some residents with certain health problems to receive vaccines, according to a New York Times survey. But the health issues granted higher priority differ from state to state, and even county to county. Some people with Down syndrome may get vaccines in at least 35 states, for instance, but some of those states are not offering shots to people with other developmental conditions. At least 30 states allow some people with Type 2 diabetes to get vaccines, but only 23 states include people with Type 1 diabetes. At least 19 states are making the vaccine available to some people with cystic fibrosis; at least 14 have included some people with liver disease; and at least 15 have deemed some smokers eligible. At least 30 states have prioritized vaccines for people who are overweight or obese, according to the Times survey, though they vary even there, some setting the bar at a body mass index of 25, others at 30 or 40. Some states require people to prove they have a medical condition, although at least 16 states and Washington, D.C., do not. And at least 12 states allow people to get a recommendation from a health professional to get a shot, even if their medical condition has not been given priority by the state. In the absence of large, rigorous studies of the coronavirus’s effect on people with other medical problems, medical ethicists said, there are few clear principles to apply to determine a priority sequence among many conditions. Many states are taking their cues from a list of 12 sorts of conditions that the CDC has deemed to have substantial evidence for elevated COVID risks, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes, smoking and Down syndrome. CDC officials have said that they regularly review the scientific literature and will expand the list as warranted. But some medical ethicists argue that the list itself is misleading, because it suggests that the risks for all diagnoses have been considered and ranked. Is a 50-year-old with Type 1 diabetes at greater risk from COVID than a 25-year-old with sickle cell disease, or a 35-year-old with intellectual disabilities? The issue has set off a flurry of jockeying by advocacy groups to sway health and political leaders in state capitols to move particular health conditions higher on priority lists. Because the vaccine rules can be set by governors — who typically consult with hospital officials and their own medical and ethical advisory groups — many appeals have taken a personal bent: “@GovMikeDeWine,” Hanna Detwiler, a bone-marrow transplant patient in Columbus, Ohio, tweeted about her inability to get a vaccine last month, “Do better.” About three dozen health advocacy groups sent a letter in late January to Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York after growing concerned that the state might not explicitly include people with HIV on its priority list for shots. The groups cited the state health department’s own research on HIV as a risk factor for getting severely ill with COVID-19. New York ultimately became one of at least 14 states, along with Washington, D.C., to announce that HIV was on the vaccine priority list. A spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Health said this week that New York had always intended to include HIV patients on the priority list. Across the country, the vaccine eligibility requirements are a moving target. Ohio added bone marrow transplant patients like Detwiler to its list last week after initially offering the vaccine only to those who had received a solid organ transplant. Next week, California, where only some counties have previously offered vaccines to people with medical conditions, will allow shots statewide to millions of people with health problems. That reversed the state’s earlier plan to prioritize shots based solely on age, which sparked high-profile opposition from disabilities rights advocates who used a hashtag #HighRiskCA. Connecticut recently flipped in the opposite direction, ending plans to expand eligibility for shots to people with preexisting health conditions in favor of priorities based on age. And even some patient advocates who have pushed for inclusion are disheartened by what may be a system where the loudest voices, with perhaps the most funding or political clout, prevail. “That is not how our public policies should be decided, on who is better at advocating,” said Kara Ayers, director of the Center for Dignity in Healthcare for People with Disabilities, which has created a vaccine prioritization dashboard with the Johns Hopkins Disability Health Research Center to help people with medical conditions track their status. State government officials say their decisions on which health conditions to include often come down to some combination of evidence, logistics and political reality. In Michigan, a recent announcement was bittersweet for Bauer. This week, the state expanded vaccine eligibility to people with cystic fibrosis and other medical conditions, so long as they are older than 50. In 2019, the median age of death for people with cystic fibrosis in the United States was 32, according to a patient registry kept by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. “Most people with CF,’’ said Bauer, who is 24, “may not be in that group.”

How America’s vaccine system makes people with health problems fight for a place in line

China urged the United States on Sunday to remove "unreasonable" curbs on cooperation as soon as possible and work together on issues like climate change, while accusing Washington of bringing chaos in the name of spreading democracy. 
 
Last week, US&nbsp;President Joe Biden singled out a "growing rivalry with China" as a key challenge facing the United States, with his top diplomat describing the country as "the biggest geopolitical test" of this century. 
 
Speaking at his annual news conference, the Chinese government`s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, struck a tough line even as he outlined where the world`s two biggest economies could work together. 
 
Questioned about US-China frictions over Taiwan, Xinjiang and the disputed South China Sea, Wang said Beijing "will never accept baseless accusations and smears". 
 
The United States had used democracy and human rights as a basis for arbitrarily interfering with other countries` affairs, he said. "The U.S. should realise this as soon as possible, otherwise the world will continue to experience instability." 
 
The White House brushed aside the criticisms over Taiwan and said Washington would continue to support Taipei. 
 
Wang said differences between Beijing and Washington must be managed carefully, the two sides must advocate healthy competition not zero-sum finger-pointing, and that areas like climate change and fighting the pandemic were where they could cooperate. 
 
"It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway and lift the various unreasonable restrictions placed on Sino-US&nbsp;cooperation to date as soon as possible, and not create new obstacles artificially." 
 
The United States and China are at odds over influence in the Indo-Pacific region, Beijing`s economic practices, Hong Kong, Taiwan and human rights in China`s Xinjiang region. 
 
The Biden administration has indicated it will broadly continue the tough approach to China taken by former President Donald Trump, but do so in coordination with allies. 
 
Wang warned there was no room for compromise on Chinese-claimed Taiwan and the new US&nbsp;government should drop the previous administration`s "dangerous acts of playing with fire". 
 
Biden`s team called the U.S. commitment to democratic Taiwan "rock solid" and on Monday White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told a regular news briefing Washington would "continue to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defence capability." 
 
"Our position on Taiwan remains clear. We will stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity, security and values in the Indo-Pacific region," she said when asked about Wang`s remarks. 
 
Under Trump, the United States imposed sanctions against China and its officials over Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Beijing`s economic policies, which have not been lifted by Biden. 
 
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said he agrees with his predecessor Mike Pompeo`s determination that genocide against Muslims is under way in Xinjiang. 
 
Activists and UN&nbsp;experts say 1 million Muslim Uighurs are held in Chinese camps. China denies abuses and says its camps provide vocational training and are needed to fight extremism. 
 
Wang said some Western politicians chose to believe lies about Xinjiang, and took a dig at Western countries` records. 
 
"When it comes to `genocide`, most people think of North American Indians in the 16th century, African slaves in the 19th century, Jews in the 20th century, and the Australian aborigines who are still fighting today," he said. 
 
"The so-called `genocide` in Xinjiang is ridiculously absurd. It is a rumour with ulterior motives and a complete lie."

China urged the United States on Sunday to remove "unreasonable" curbs on cooperation as soon as possible and work together on issues like climate change, while accusing Washington of bringing chaos in the name of spreading democracy.

China urged the United States on Sunday to remove "unreasonable" curbs on cooperation as soon as possible and work together on issues like climate change, while accusing Washington of bringing chaos in the name of spreading democracy. Last week, US President Joe Biden singled out a "growing rivalry with China" as a key challenge facing the United States, with his top diplomat describing the country as "the biggest geopolitical test" of this century. Speaking at his annual news conference, the Chinese government`s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, struck a tough line even as he outlined where the world`s two biggest economies could work together. Questioned about US-China frictions over Taiwan, Xinjiang and the disputed South China Sea, Wang said Beijing "will never accept baseless accusations and smears". The United States had used democracy and human rights as a basis for arbitrarily interfering with other countries` affairs, he said. "The U.S. should realise this as soon as possible, otherwise the world will continue to experience instability." The White House brushed aside the criticisms over Taiwan and said Washington would continue to support Taipei. Wang said differences between Beijing and Washington must be managed carefully, the two sides must advocate healthy competition not zero-sum finger-pointing, and that areas like climate change and fighting the pandemic were where they could cooperate. "It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway and lift the various unreasonable restrictions placed on Sino-US cooperation to date as soon as possible, and not create new obstacles artificially." The United States and China are at odds over influence in the Indo-Pacific region, Beijing`s economic practices, Hong Kong, Taiwan and human rights in China`s Xinjiang region. The Biden administration has indicated it will broadly continue the tough approach to China taken by former President Donald Trump, but do so in coordination with allies. Wang warned there was no room for compromise on Chinese-claimed Taiwan and the new US government should drop the previous administration`s "dangerous acts of playing with fire". Biden`s team called the U.S. commitment to democratic Taiwan "rock solid" and on Monday White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told a regular news briefing Washington would "continue to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defence capability." "Our position on Taiwan remains clear. We will stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity, security and values in the Indo-Pacific region," she said when asked about Wang`s remarks. Under Trump, the United States imposed sanctions against China and its officials over Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Beijing`s economic policies, which have not been lifted by Biden. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said he agrees with his predecessor Mike Pompeo`s determination that genocide against Muslims is under way in Xinjiang. Activists and UN experts say 1 million Muslim Uighurs are held in Chinese camps. China denies abuses and says its camps provide vocational training and are needed to fight extremism. Wang said some Western politicians chose to believe lies about Xinjiang, and took a dig at Western countries` records. "When it comes to `genocide`, most people think of North American Indians in the 16th century, African slaves in the 19th century, Jews in the 20th century, and the Australian aborigines who are still fighting today," he said. "The so-called `genocide` in Xinjiang is ridiculously absurd. It is a rumour with ulterior motives and a complete lie."

China says hopes US will remove 'unreasonable' curbs on cooperation

Washington is keen on a six-country meet including India for a meet on Afghanistan as it reviews its strategy for the country. In a letter to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken&nbsp;has outlined several ways "to move matter more fundamentally and quickly towards a settlement".&nbsp;

The letter, which surfaced in Afghan media on Sunday said, "We intend to as the United Nations to convene foreign ministers and envoys from Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, and US to discuss a unified approach to supporting peace in Afghanistan".&nbsp;

In the letter, Blinken explained, "it is my belief that these countries share an abiding common interest in a stable Afghanistan and must work together if we are to succeed".

Sunday also saw, US Special Representative to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad speaking to India's External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar. A tweet from Jaishankar's account said, "discussed latest developments pertaining to peace talks".

India has been seen as a close partner of the Afghan government and has built a number of mega infrastructure projects in the country, from the Afghan Parliament to the India Afghan friendship dam in western Herat province. Last month saw Indian PM Modi and Afghan President Ghani holding a virtual summit and also announcing the start of Shahtoot dam project, which will be built by India and provide clean drinking water to residents of Kabul.

The letter by Blinken also includes a written proposal that will be shared by Khalilzad with President Ghani and Taliban leaders and is "aimed at accelerating discussions on a negotiated settlement and ceasefire", Turkish government hosting a meet between the two&nbsp;sides, reduction in violence proposal to "prevent a spring offensive by the Taliban" and eventual full withdrawal of American forces by May 1.

It has been 20 years since the fall of the Taliban and US presence in Afghanistan with Washington keen to leave the country. Last year saw&nbsp;US-Taliban pact, followed by the start of talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. While these two&nbsp;developments have been seen as positive, the violence level continues to increase in the country.

Washington is keen on a six-country meet including India for a meet on Afghanistan as it reviews its strategy for the country. In a letter to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has outlined several ways "to move matter more fundamentally and quickly towards a settlement".

Washington is keen on a six-country meet including India for a meet on Afghanistan as it reviews its strategy for the country. In a letter to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has outlined several ways "to move matter more fundamentally and quickly towards a settlement". The letter, which surfaced in Afghan media on Sunday said, "We intend to as the United Nations to convene foreign ministers and envoys from Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, and US to discuss a unified approach to supporting peace in Afghanistan". In the letter, Blinken explained, "it is my belief that these countries share an abiding common interest in a stable Afghanistan and must work together if we are to succeed". Sunday also saw, US Special Representative to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad speaking to India's External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar. A tweet from Jaishankar's account said, "discussed latest developments pertaining to peace talks". India has been seen as a close partner of the Afghan government and has built a number of mega infrastructure projects in the country, from the Afghan Parliament to the India Afghan friendship dam in western Herat province. Last month saw Indian PM Modi and Afghan President Ghani holding a virtual summit and also announcing the start of Shahtoot dam project, which will be built by India and provide clean drinking water to residents of Kabul. The letter by Blinken also includes a written proposal that will be shared by Khalilzad with President Ghani and Taliban leaders and is "aimed at accelerating discussions on a negotiated settlement and ceasefire", Turkish government hosting a meet between the two sides, reduction in violence proposal to "prevent a spring offensive by the Taliban" and eventual full withdrawal of American forces by May 1. It has been 20 years since the fall of the Taliban and US presence in Afghanistan with Washington keen to leave the country. Last year saw US-Taliban pact, followed by the start of talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. While these two developments have been seen as positive, the violence level continues to increase in the country.

Washington keen on 6-country meet including India on Afghanistan

When Gov. Andrew Cuomo came under fire just a few weeks ago over his handling of nursing home deaths in the pandemic, he and his top advisers followed their usual playbook to stem the fallout: They worked the phones, pressing his case in private calls to legislators and other New York Democrats.

Then came a crisis that Cuomo’s signature blend of threats, flattery and browbeating could not mitigate. And he seemed to know it.

As three women stepped forward with claims of sexual harassment and other unwanted advances by Cuomo, the most visible governor in America effectively went dark.

After one of the women detailed her accusations against the governor in a Medium post, state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, decided that she would come out with a statement calling for an independent investigation — an implicit rebuke of Cuomo. She reached out to the governor’s team to alert them, aware of the typical angry response.

No call came, she said.

“None of my colleagues have said they have heard from the governor on this,” Krueger said of the harassment accusations.

At the greatest moment of political peril for Cuomo in his decade in power, interviews with nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers, strategists and Albany veterans paint a portrait of a governor who is increasingly isolated.

Cuomo faces a federal inquiry into his administration’s handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic and an independent investigation into the harassment allegations, making his political path forward more challenging by the day.

On Friday, the state Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, passed legislation to significantly curtail Cuomo’s vast emergency powers. When the governor appeared to suggest that he had played a role in the bill’s formulation, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie — not prone to criticizing Cuomo — immediately shot that down, pointedly saying in a statement that “we did not negotiate this bill with the governor.”

Other lawmakers on Friday escalated their calls to reprimand the governor, demanding investigations, impeachment proceedings and even resignations, after The New York Times reported that his administration had rewritten a report to obscure the full extent of nursing home deaths.

“If true, everyone involved in lying to the public and to the Legislature must resign immediately,” said state Sen. Rachel May, a Democrat from Syracuse. “And that includes the governor.”

It is an extraordinary turnaround for the man who was former President Donald Trump’s most prominent foil in the early months of the pandemic and whose power in New York appeared nearly unassailable as 2021 began.

Some people who have spoken to Cuomo in recent days have described him as shaken by the speed with which the political fallout arrived, with dueling scandals and reports of his bullying behavior all converging, very publicly, at once. Others have questioned whether he grasped the gravity of his circumstances.

But the rapidly unfurling crises, they said, have been especially challenging for a governor who has always sought to be in control. Now he is at the whims of often-fickle public opinion, fuming legislators and investigations.

Amid mounting scrutiny and nine days without a news conference, Cuomo picked Wednesday to emerge, one week after Lindsey Boylan, one of two former aides to speak out, detailed her accusations — which the governor has strenuously denied.

His appearance followed strategy sessions with a small circle of trusted loyalists at the governor’s mansion, amid internal deliberations about both the substance of his remarks and how to manage the delivery and tone on a sensitive subject, according to people who have been in touch with the team.

Longtime advisers and allies have helped the governor navigate the series of crises. They include two former top aides, Steven Cohen, the former secretary to the governor, and William Mulrow, another former secretary to the governor who now works at the private equity firm Blackstone; Melissa DeRosa, the governor’s top aide; Cuomo’s pollster, Jefrey Pollock; and Beth Garvey, special counsel to the governor.

The result Wednesday was an uncharacteristically rattled chief executive who delivered an emotional apology for his conduct but insisted that he had never “touched anyone inappropriately” and that he did not intend to resign.

“Palace intrigue aside, there’s a job to be done, and New Yorkers elected the governor to do it,” a spokesperson for the governor, Richard Azzopardi, said in a statement. “Which is why he has been focused on getting as many shots in arms as possible, making sure New York is getting its fair share in Washington’s COVID relief package and working on a state budget that is due in three weeks.”

People who have been in touch with Cuomo’s team described some staff members — in particular, younger ones — as demoralized and exhausted as a series of controversies play out on top of a year of navigating COVID-19 in an exceptionally demanding environment.

Several staff members have departed his office in recent days, citing a variety of reasons. Among those who have left are Gareth Rhodes, who served as a member of the state coronavirus task force and was a frequent guest star during Cuomo’s news briefings, and members of his press team.

As the Legislature heads into high-stakes budget negotiations, even Cuomo’s traditional allies acknowledge that his influence has taken a hit.

“It’s made his job more difficult,” said Jay Jacobs, the New York State Democratic Party chair, who said he had spoken with Cuomo on Thursday. “When you’re under this kind of pressure, that’s going to influence the amount of, the degree of, your political strength.”

Jacobs seems to be the relatively rare political figure who has discussed the accusations with Cuomo directly. As the allegations unfolded, Cuomo’s team denied wrongdoing and issued statements, but a number of leading lawmakers in Albany and Washington did not hear from the governor on the matter.

Donors, some of whom embrace Cuomo as a moderating force in the party, began to worry about his future. And a person close to Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul described an uptick in outreach to her office from political figures around the state — an unmistakable sign of uncertainty around Cuomo.

At least for now, many Democratic voters appear to see the dynamics concerning the governor differently, a reminder that the political impact of the controversies is fluid and unpredictable. A Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday showed that Democrats overwhelmingly did not believe that he should resign, and half of those Democrats surveyed supported his running for reelection next year.

But if Democratic voters are reserving some judgment on Cuomo, he has faced a staggering backlash from politicians in his party, many of whom have traditionally been reluctant to publicly challenge him — in some cases, for fear of retribution.

Overlaying all of the turmoil is a sense of great uncertainty around whether additional women will raise allegations.

“Any further people coming forward, I would think it would be time for him to resign,” the state Senate majority leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, said on Spectrum News’ “Capital Tonight” Thursday.

Indeed, the public outcry and the dearth of vocal defenders illustrate both the complexities of the problems Cuomo faces and how little he has invested in building mutually respectful relationships in politics. As with other New York politicians in times of extreme crisis, it is a dynamic that is haunting him now.

“The governor is in trouble because he’s a very tough guy and there are many people who don’t like him,” said George Arzt, a veteran New York political consultant who has known Cuomo for years. “He doesn’t have that reservoir of friends and good feeling to sort of push back. At this point, you don’t see many surrogates out there, and that’s a problem.”

Asked to point a reporter to surrogates for the governor, spokespeople for Cuomo did not respond.

In interviews over the past week, observers of Cuomo discussed political comparisons to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned abruptly after revelations of his involvement with a prostitution ring. In both cases, critics saw the men as domineering personalities who made enemies in political circles — leaving few people willing to go to bat for them when scandal hit.

“Spitzer at one point thought that he could fight it, and that was quickly given up when he realized that his allies were not saying a word,” Arzt recalled.

Certainly, he suggested, Cuomo “has his own inner circle that is still ready to go to war with him” — not to mention a long list of accomplishments in office and, Arzt said, “tremendous skill as a tactician.”

“I do believe if anyone can get out of this, he can,” Arzt said, “if no other shoe drops.”

And as Hank Sheinkopf, another longtime Democratic strategist, put it, “Eliot Spitzer had no friends. Andrew Cuomo has some friends.”

This week, Hazel Dukes, president of the NAACP New York State Conference, said of Cuomo that it was “ridiculous to ask him to resign.” And while few prominent New York politicians have rushed to defend him, many have also held their fire regarding the question of resignation, deferring first to the independent investigation.

For now, Cuomo continues to occupy a prominent space on the national stage. As the chair of the National Governors Association, he kicked off a meeting with President Joe Biden and other governors during the last week of February. Cuomo and Biden have had a strong political alliance in the past, but the two have not otherwise spoken since the harassment allegations broke, a Biden adviser said. The White House has indicated that it supports the independent investigation of the accusations of harassment against the governor.

“When the investigation concludes, Democrats, I believe, will coalesce around doing the right thing,” Jacobs said. “We have to let the chips fall where they may, but I don’t see the value in a rush to judgment. I only see the potential cost.”

In the meantime, Cuomo’s allies have quietly conducted outreach to figures including the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader.

“I feel that a woman’s statements have to be taken seriously but that he deserves a full, fair investigation,” Sharpton said. “So I’m not calling, as of yet, for his resignation. But I’m also not attacking the women.”

The question for Cuomo is whether Democratic leaders are willing to wait for that investigation to play out or if other developments force a reassessment of their posture before that happens. There are also many people in New York politics who have accumulated a list of grievances toward Cuomo that span decades. Some of them may relish the chance to break from him if they sense enough weakness — as they did with one of his predecessors.

“I distinctly remember with Spitzer, watching it all go down and saying at the time to myself, if he just had a few more friends who were willing to stand by him, I bet he could get past this,” Krueger said. “But it was all really rapid, and there wasn’t anybody coming forward.”

When Gov. Andrew Cuomo came under fire just a few weeks ago over his handling of nursing home deaths in the pandemic, he and his top advisers followed their usual playbook to stem the fallout: They worked the phones, pressing his case in private calls to legislators and other New York Democrats.

When Gov. Andrew Cuomo came under fire just a few weeks ago over his handling of nursing home deaths in the pandemic, he and his top advisers followed their usual playbook to stem the fallout: They worked the phones, pressing his case in private calls to legislators and other New York Democrats. Then came a crisis that Cuomo’s signature blend of threats, flattery and browbeating could not mitigate. And he seemed to know it. As three women stepped forward with claims of sexual harassment and other unwanted advances by Cuomo, the most visible governor in America effectively went dark. After one of the women detailed her accusations against the governor in a Medium post, state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, decided that she would come out with a statement calling for an independent investigation — an implicit rebuke of Cuomo. She reached out to the governor’s team to alert them, aware of the typical angry response. No call came, she said. “None of my colleagues have said they have heard from the governor on this,” Krueger said of the harassment accusations. At the greatest moment of political peril for Cuomo in his decade in power, interviews with nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers, strategists and Albany veterans paint a portrait of a governor who is increasingly isolated. Cuomo faces a federal inquiry into his administration’s handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic and an independent investigation into the harassment allegations, making his political path forward more challenging by the day. On Friday, the state Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, passed legislation to significantly curtail Cuomo’s vast emergency powers. When the governor appeared to suggest that he had played a role in the bill’s formulation, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie — not prone to criticizing Cuomo — immediately shot that down, pointedly saying in a statement that “we did not negotiate this bill with the governor.” Other lawmakers on Friday escalated their calls to reprimand the governor, demanding investigations, impeachment proceedings and even resignations, after The New York Times reported that his administration had rewritten a report to obscure the full extent of nursing home deaths. “If true, everyone involved in lying to the public and to the Legislature must resign immediately,” said state Sen. Rachel May, a Democrat from Syracuse. “And that includes the governor.” It is an extraordinary turnaround for the man who was former President Donald Trump’s most prominent foil in the early months of the pandemic and whose power in New York appeared nearly unassailable as 2021 began. Some people who have spoken to Cuomo in recent days have described him as shaken by the speed with which the political fallout arrived, with dueling scandals and reports of his bullying behavior all converging, very publicly, at once. Others have questioned whether he grasped the gravity of his circumstances. But the rapidly unfurling crises, they said, have been especially challenging for a governor who has always sought to be in control. Now he is at the whims of often-fickle public opinion, fuming legislators and investigations. Amid mounting scrutiny and nine days without a news conference, Cuomo picked Wednesday to emerge, one week after Lindsey Boylan, one of two former aides to speak out, detailed her accusations — which the governor has strenuously denied. His appearance followed strategy sessions with a small circle of trusted loyalists at the governor’s mansion, amid internal deliberations about both the substance of his remarks and how to manage the delivery and tone on a sensitive subject, according to people who have been in touch with the team. Longtime advisers and allies have helped the governor navigate the series of crises. They include two former top aides, Steven Cohen, the former secretary to the governor, and William Mulrow, another former secretary to the governor who now works at the private equity firm Blackstone; Melissa DeRosa, the governor’s top aide; Cuomo’s pollster, Jefrey Pollock; and Beth Garvey, special counsel to the governor. The result Wednesday was an uncharacteristically rattled chief executive who delivered an emotional apology for his conduct but insisted that he had never “touched anyone inappropriately” and that he did not intend to resign. “Palace intrigue aside, there’s a job to be done, and New Yorkers elected the governor to do it,” a spokesperson for the governor, Richard Azzopardi, said in a statement. “Which is why he has been focused on getting as many shots in arms as possible, making sure New York is getting its fair share in Washington’s COVID relief package and working on a state budget that is due in three weeks.” People who have been in touch with Cuomo’s team described some staff members — in particular, younger ones — as demoralized and exhausted as a series of controversies play out on top of a year of navigating COVID-19 in an exceptionally demanding environment. Several staff members have departed his office in recent days, citing a variety of reasons. Among those who have left are Gareth Rhodes, who served as a member of the state coronavirus task force and was a frequent guest star during Cuomo’s news briefings, and members of his press team. As the Legislature heads into high-stakes budget negotiations, even Cuomo’s traditional allies acknowledge that his influence has taken a hit. “It’s made his job more difficult,” said Jay Jacobs, the New York State Democratic Party chair, who said he had spoken with Cuomo on Thursday. “When you’re under this kind of pressure, that’s going to influence the amount of, the degree of, your political strength.” Jacobs seems to be the relatively rare political figure who has discussed the accusations with Cuomo directly. As the allegations unfolded, Cuomo’s team denied wrongdoing and issued statements, but a number of leading lawmakers in Albany and Washington did not hear from the governor on the matter. Donors, some of whom embrace Cuomo as a moderating force in the party, began to worry about his future. And a person close to Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul described an uptick in outreach to her office from political figures around the state — an unmistakable sign of uncertainty around Cuomo. At least for now, many Democratic voters appear to see the dynamics concerning the governor differently, a reminder that the political impact of the controversies is fluid and unpredictable. A Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday showed that Democrats overwhelmingly did not believe that he should resign, and half of those Democrats surveyed supported his running for reelection next year. But if Democratic voters are reserving some judgment on Cuomo, he has faced a staggering backlash from politicians in his party, many of whom have traditionally been reluctant to publicly challenge him — in some cases, for fear of retribution. Overlaying all of the turmoil is a sense of great uncertainty around whether additional women will raise allegations. “Any further people coming forward, I would think it would be time for him to resign,” the state Senate majority leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, said on Spectrum News’ “Capital Tonight” Thursday. Indeed, the public outcry and the dearth of vocal defenders illustrate both the complexities of the problems Cuomo faces and how little he has invested in building mutually respectful relationships in politics. As with other New York politicians in times of extreme crisis, it is a dynamic that is haunting him now. “The governor is in trouble because he’s a very tough guy and there are many people who don’t like him,” said George Arzt, a veteran New York political consultant who has known Cuomo for years. “He doesn’t have that reservoir of friends and good feeling to sort of push back. At this point, you don’t see many surrogates out there, and that’s a problem.” Asked to point a reporter to surrogates for the governor, spokespeople for Cuomo did not respond. In interviews over the past week, observers of Cuomo discussed political comparisons to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned abruptly after revelations of his involvement with a prostitution ring. In both cases, critics saw the men as domineering personalities who made enemies in political circles — leaving few people willing to go to bat for them when scandal hit. “Spitzer at one point thought that he could fight it, and that was quickly given up when he realized that his allies were not saying a word,” Arzt recalled. Certainly, he suggested, Cuomo “has his own inner circle that is still ready to go to war with him” — not to mention a long list of accomplishments in office and, Arzt said, “tremendous skill as a tactician.” “I do believe if anyone can get out of this, he can,” Arzt said, “if no other shoe drops.” And as Hank Sheinkopf, another longtime Democratic strategist, put it, “Eliot Spitzer had no friends. Andrew Cuomo has some friends.” This week, Hazel Dukes, president of the NAACP New York State Conference, said of Cuomo that it was “ridiculous to ask him to resign.” And while few prominent New York politicians have rushed to defend him, many have also held their fire regarding the question of resignation, deferring first to the independent investigation. For now, Cuomo continues to occupy a prominent space on the national stage. As the chair of the National Governors Association, he kicked off a meeting with President Joe Biden and other governors during the last week of February. Cuomo and Biden have had a strong political alliance in the past, but the two have not otherwise spoken since the harassment allegations broke, a Biden adviser said. The White House has indicated that it supports the independent investigation of the accusations of harassment against the governor. “When the investigation concludes, Democrats, I believe, will coalesce around doing the right thing,” Jacobs said. “We have to let the chips fall where they may, but I don’t see the value in a rush to judgment. I only see the potential cost.” In the meantime, Cuomo’s allies have quietly conducted outreach to figures including the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader. “I feel that a woman’s statements have to be taken seriously but that he deserves a full, fair investigation,” Sharpton said. “So I’m not calling, as of yet, for his resignation. But I’m also not attacking the women.” The question for Cuomo is whether Democratic leaders are willing to wait for that investigation to play out or if other developments force a reassessment of their posture before that happens. There are also many people in New York politics who have accumulated a list of grievances toward Cuomo that span decades. Some of them may relish the chance to break from him if they sense enough weakness — as they did with one of his predecessors. “I distinctly remember with Spitzer, watching it all go down and saying at the time to myself, if he just had a few more friends who were willing to stand by him, I bet he could get past this,” Krueger said. “But it was all really rapid, and there wasn’t anybody coming forward.”

A governor in isolation: How Andrew Cuomo lost his grip on New York

Over 20,000 United States organisations have been compromised in the aftermath of an attack on Microsoft's email software.

According to media reports, the hack has affected more than the download from SolarWinds Corp, which witnessed a massive hack in December 2020.&nbsp;Reuters cited a person familiar with the US government's response on Friday as saying that the organisations suffered after a back door was installed, capitalising on pre-existing flaws in the software.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://www.wionews.com/videos/microsoft-chinese-government-accountable-for-cyber-attacks-on-exchange-server-367883/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In addition, the hack has affected thousands of organisations across Asia and Europe. Even then, despite emergency patches, the hacks continue to plague the company. Initially, Microsoft claimed that the hacks consisted of "limited and targeted attacks", but did not comment on the intensity of the issue.

It added, "impacted customers should contact our support teams for additional help and resources." A scan of the connected devices showed that only 10 per cent of the vulnerable had installed the patches by Friday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/solarwinds-hack-was-work-of-more-than-1000-engineers-microsoft-365845" hreflang="en">SolarWinds hack was work of more than 1,000 engineers: Microsoft</a> 
 
On Tuesday, the company claimed that the hacking group infiltrated the email inboxes. Microsoft claimed in a blog post that hackers took advantage of vulnerabilities that were previously unknown. Reportedly, four vulnerabilities were found in Microsoft's email software. The group which hacked the company is being referred to as HAFNIUM, which Microsoft claims is linked to China.

In another post, Volexity - a cybersecurity firm - claimed that it observed hackers using one of the four software loopholes to steal "full contents of several user mailboxes". The hackers only required details of an exchange server, and information about the account they intended to hack.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/microsoft-planned-to-buy-social-media-firm-pinterest-report-362914" hreflang="en">Microsoft planned to buy social media firm Pinterest: Report</a> 
 
Over the years, many countries including the United States have accused China of overseeing cyber espionage activities, something Chinese authorities continue to deny. &nbsp;Even before Microsoft officially acknowledged the hack, the activities of hackers had begun to garner attention from analysts in the cybersecurity community.

Mike McLellan, the director of intelligence for Dell Technologies Inc's Secureworks, was cited by Reuters as saying that they witnessed a spike in activity on Exchange servers over Sunday. Even at that firm, 10 customers have been affected. According to McLellan, hacking activity had gone up with focus on seeding malicious software, which could also highlight potential intrusions that could infect Microsoft's networks. 
 
According to Microsoft, the targets of the Chinese hackers included researchers for infectious diseases, education institutions, defence contractors, policy think tanks, and NGOs.

Over 20,000 United States organisations have been compromised in the aftermath of an attack on Microsoft's email software. According to media reports, the hack has affected more than the download from SolarWinds Corp, which witnessed a massive hack in December 2020.

Over 20,000 United States organisations have been compromised in the aftermath of an attack on Microsoft's email software. According to media reports, the hack has affected more than the download from SolarWinds Corp, which witnessed a massive hack in December 2020. Reuters cited a person familiar with the US government's response on Friday as saying that the organisations suffered after a back door was installed, capitalising on pre-existing flaws in the software. In addition, the hack has affected thousands of organisations across Asia and Europe. Even then, despite emergency patches, the hacks continue to plague the company. Initially, Microsoft claimed that the hacks consisted of "limited and targeted attacks", but did not comment on the intensity of the issue. It added, "impacted customers should contact our support teams for additional help and resources." A scan of the connected devices showed that only 10 per cent of the vulnerable had installed the patches by Friday. Also read: SolarWinds hack was work of more than 1,000 engineers: Microsoft On Tuesday, the company claimed that the hacking group infiltrated the email inboxes. Microsoft claimed in a blog post that hackers took advantage of vulnerabilities that were previously unknown. Reportedly, four vulnerabilities were found in Microsoft's email software. The group which hacked the company is being referred to as HAFNIUM, which Microsoft claims is linked to China. In another post, Volexity - a cybersecurity firm - claimed that it observed hackers using one of the four software loopholes to steal "full contents of several user mailboxes". The hackers only required details of an exchange server, and information about the account they intended to hack. Also read: Microsoft planned to buy social media firm Pinterest: Report Over the years, many countries including the United States have accused China of overseeing cyber espionage activities, something Chinese authorities continue to deny. Even before Microsoft officially acknowledged the hack, the activities of hackers had begun to garner attention from analysts in the cybersecurity community. Mike McLellan, the director of intelligence for Dell Technologies Inc's Secureworks, was cited by Reuters as saying that they witnessed a spike in activity on Exchange servers over Sunday. Even at that firm, 10 customers have been affected. According to McLellan, hacking activity had gone up with focus on seeding malicious software, which could also highlight potential intrusions that could infect Microsoft's networks. According to Microsoft, the targets of the Chinese hackers included researchers for infectious diseases, education institutions, defence contractors, policy think tanks, and NGOs.

Over 20,000 US organisations affected by China's Microsoft hack: Reports

The new US Defense Secretary&nbsp;Lloyd Austin will be visiting India later in March.&nbsp;His visit will take place in the second half of March and will be part of his larger visit to Indo-Pacific countries.

This will be the first in-person visit of any top Biden administration official to Delhi and comes two&nbsp;months after the new president took charge in Washington.

During his India visit, Llyod will hold talks with Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. Both ministers held talks in January, with a key focus on the Indo-Pacific vision backed by New Delhi and Washington.

The visit happens&nbsp;as work is in progress for the Quad leadership meeting. The meet will be attended by US President Joe Biden,&nbsp;Australian PM Scott Morrison, Indian PM Narendra Modi, and Japan's&nbsp;Yoshihide Suga.

Australian PM Scott Morrison confirming plans of the meet said, "I am looking forward to that first gathering of quad leaders. It will be the first-ever gathering of quad leaders. I already had bilateral discussions with Narendra Modi and Yoshihide Suga, the PM of Japan and PM of India."

India and the US share close defence cooperation with Washington authorising&nbsp;over $20 billion in defence sales to India.

US State Department last week said, "It’s these offers of advanced U.S. defense platforms that demonstrate our commitment to India’s security and sovereignty. It demonstrates our commitment to that global, comprehensive, strategic partnership."

The new US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will be visiting India later in March. His visit will take place in the second half of March and will be part of his larger visit to Indo-Pacific countries.

The new US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will be visiting India later in March. His visit will take place in the second half of March and will be part of his larger visit to Indo-Pacific countries. This will be the first in-person visit of any top Biden administration official to Delhi and comes two months after the new president took charge in Washington. During his India visit, Llyod will hold talks with Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. Both ministers held talks in January, with a key focus on the Indo-Pacific vision backed by New Delhi and Washington. The visit happens as work is in progress for the Quad leadership meeting. The meet will be attended by US President Joe Biden, Australian PM Scott Morrison, Indian PM Narendra Modi, and Japan's Yoshihide Suga. Australian PM Scott Morrison confirming plans of the meet said, "I am looking forward to that first gathering of quad leaders. It will be the first-ever gathering of quad leaders. I already had bilateral discussions with Narendra Modi and Yoshihide Suga, the PM of Japan and PM of India." India and the US share close defence cooperation with Washington authorising over $20 billion in defence sales to India. US State Department last week said, "It’s these offers of advanced U.S. defense platforms that demonstrate our commitment to India’s security and sovereignty. It demonstrates our commitment to that global, comprehensive, strategic partnership."

New US Defense Secretary Austin to visit India this month

The U.S. government is evaluating whether to house unaccompanied migrant children at a military base in Virginia amid a sharp rise in migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notice seen by Reuters.

A Pentagon spokesman confirmed that Fort Lee, a U.S. Army facility about 30 miles (48 km) south of Richmond, was under consideration.

The number of migrant children arriving at the southwestern border has increased in recent months, putting pressure on HHS-run shelters that house the children before they are released to parents or other sponsors in the United States.

In the notice, HHS said it urgently needs to find more shelter space for unaccompanied minors. The department said it must "aggressively" find solutions for the rising number of children entering the country amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The number of migrants caught crossing the border and allowed to enter the United States has increased in recent weeks, as U.S. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has pledged to reverse many of the hardline policies of former President Donald Trump, a Republican.

U.S. officials are hurrying to find housing and speed up releases of a growing number of unaccompanied children arriving at the border after Biden exempted them in February from a Trump-era policy known as Title 42. That policy, issued on COVID-19-related public health grounds, allows U.S. authorities to rapidly expel migrants caught at the border.

Under U.S. law, children under the age of 18 caught crossing the border without a parent or legal guardian are labeled "unaccompanied" and must be transferred from Border Patrol facilities to HHS shelters within 72 hours.

The law outlines separate procedures for children from Mexico and Canada that allow them to be more easily removed from the country.

Most children arriving without a parent or legal guardian are from Mexico and Central America.

The United States has used military bases to house unaccompanied children during previous spikes in arrivals, including during a surge of unaccompanied minors in 2014 under former President Barack Obama.

The Biden administration also plans to convert two family detention centers in Texas into facilities that would quickly process incoming migrant families and allow them to be released within 72 hours pending the outcome of their cases, according to two people familiar with the plan.

HHS said that as of March 4 the agency had 7,700 unaccompanied minors in custody, the highest level since 2019. As of last week, it had roughly 7,700 beds available.

Unaccompanied children come to the United States to reunite with family members or escape violence and poverty in their home countries, according to experts. In some cases, children arrive at the border with an adult, such as a relative or family friend, but are deemed "unaccompanied" because they are traveling without a parent or legal guardian.

The U.S. government is evaluating whether to house unaccompanied migrant children at a military base in Virginia amid a sharp rise in migrants arriving at the U.

The U.S. government is evaluating whether to house unaccompanied migrant children at a military base in Virginia amid a sharp rise in migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notice seen by Reuters. A Pentagon spokesman confirmed that Fort Lee, a U.S. Army facility about 30 miles (48 km) south of Richmond, was under consideration. The number of migrant children arriving at the southwestern border has increased in recent months, putting pressure on HHS-run shelters that house the children before they are released to parents or other sponsors in the United States. In the notice, HHS said it urgently needs to find more shelter space for unaccompanied minors. The department said it must "aggressively" find solutions for the rising number of children entering the country amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of migrants caught crossing the border and allowed to enter the United States has increased in recent weeks, as U.S. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has pledged to reverse many of the hardline policies of former President Donald Trump, a Republican. U.S. officials are hurrying to find housing and speed up releases of a growing number of unaccompanied children arriving at the border after Biden exempted them in February from a Trump-era policy known as Title 42. That policy, issued on COVID-19-related public health grounds, allows U.S. authorities to rapidly expel migrants caught at the border. Under U.S. law, children under the age of 18 caught crossing the border without a parent or legal guardian are labeled "unaccompanied" and must be transferred from Border Patrol facilities to HHS shelters within 72 hours. The law outlines separate procedures for children from Mexico and Canada that allow them to be more easily removed from the country. Most children arriving without a parent or legal guardian are from Mexico and Central America. The United States has used military bases to house unaccompanied children during previous spikes in arrivals, including during a surge of unaccompanied minors in 2014 under former President Barack Obama. The Biden administration also plans to convert two family detention centers in Texas into facilities that would quickly process incoming migrant families and allow them to be released within 72 hours pending the outcome of their cases, according to two people familiar with the plan. HHS said that as of March 4 the agency had 7,700 unaccompanied minors in custody, the highest level since 2019. As of last week, it had roughly 7,700 beds available. Unaccompanied children come to the United States to reunite with family members or escape violence and poverty in their home countries, according to experts. In some cases, children arrive at the border with an adult, such as a relative or family friend, but are deemed "unaccompanied" because they are traveling without a parent or legal guardian.

US considering use of Virginia military base to house migrant children

Pentagon officials placed “unusual” restrictions on the D.C. National Guard before the Capitol riot, its commander told senators Wednesday, saying the military leaders’ fears of a repeat of aggressive tactics used during racial justice protests last year slowed decision-making and squandered time as the violence by a pro-Trump mob escalated.

Military and federal security officials detailed in a joint Senate committee hearing the additional security breakdowns that led to the failure to quell the mob attack on Jan. 6. Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the D.C. National Guard commander, said he did not receive approval to mobilize troops until more than three hours after he had requested it.

The delay he outlined was longer than previously known and came to light in the latest hearing by lawmakers investigating the attack.

Days before the riot, the Pentagon had removed Walker’s authority to quickly deploy his troops, he testified. He said he was unable to move troops even from one traffic stop to another without permission from Ryan D. McCarthy, the Army secretary. Once Walker had approval for deployment, the guard arrived at the Capitol only minutes later, at 5:20 p.m., and helped reestablish the security perimeter on the east side of the building.

Walker said he could have had 150 troops to the complex hours earlier. The violent rampage that unfolded over nearly five hours caused injuries to nearly 140 police officers and left five people dead.

“That number could have made a difference,” Walker said of the possibility of deploying his troops earlier.

“Seconds mattered,” he added. “Minutes mattered.”

In response to questions from senators, Walker said he believed that a double standard existed in the military decision-making, pointing out differences between the quick and aggressive tactics he was authorized to use during protests last spring and summer of police killings of Black men and the slower response to the violence of Trump supporters. He said military officials had expressed concerns about the optics of sending troops into the Capitol to subdue Americans.

“The Army senior leaders did not think it looked good” and did not think “it would be a good optic,” Walker said. “The word I kept hearing was the ‘optics’ of it.”

When asked whether a similar debate had played out last year, Walker said no.

“It was never discussed the week of June,” he said. “It was never discussed July 4, when we were supporting the city. It was never discussed Aug. 28, when we supported the city.”

“Did you think that was unusual?” asked Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the Democratic head of the Homeland Security Committee.

“I did,” Walker said.

The restrictions were put in place because of the widely criticized crackdown by the guard on mostly peaceful protesters in Washington in June, said Robert G. Salesses, a senior Defense Department official testifying at the hearing.

He said that McCarthy and other military officials, including Christopher Miller, the acting defense secretary, delayed deciding whether to deploy forces on Jan. 6 because they wanted to know more about what the troops would be doing. They had assumed deployment authority over the D.C. National Guard to avoid a repeat of last year, Salesses said.

“Secretary Miller wanted to make the decisions of how the National Guard was going to be employed on that day,” Salesses testified.

Walker recounted how the day had unfolded as Trump supporters protesting congressional certification of the election results devolved into violence. He said he had received a “frantic call” at 1:49 p.m. from Steven A. Sund, then the chief of the Capitol Police, about half an hour before rioters breached the Capitol.

“Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency at the Capitol,” Walker testified. “He requested the immediate assistance of as many available National Guardsmen I could muster.”

He said he had immediately alerted Army leaders and even put troops on buses “ready to move to the Capitol.” But Miller did not approve the request until 3:04 p.m., after military officials had expressed their concerns about optics. Walker did not receive word that Pentagon officials had authorized his request until 5:08 p.m. — three hours and 19 minutes after he had received Sund’s plea.

“I keep thinking of the hours that went by, and the people who were injured and the officers whose lives were changed forever,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. and the chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee. “We must get to the bottom of why, that very day, it took the Defense Department so long to deploy the guard.”

After hearing Walker’s testimony, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the top Republican on the committee, told reporters he wanted to hear from higher-ranking military officials.

“Certainly we’ll have questions for Secretary McCarthy and for acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller,” Blunt said. “It’s definitely going to require an opportunity to ask them questions about their view from their perspective of why this decision-making process went so horribly wrong.”

The testimony came at the latest bipartisan investigative hearing of the Homeland Security and Rules Committees. At a hearing last week, Chief Robert J. Contee III of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington testified that he was “stunned” at the slow deployment of the National Guard on Jan. 6, noting that even as the violence escalated, the Army had expressed reluctance to send troops.

At that hearing, the first joint oversight meeting of the two committees, three former top Capitol security officials deflected responsibility for failures that contributed to the riot, blaming the other agencies, one another and at one point even a subordinate for the breakdowns that allowed hundreds of Trump supporters to storm the Capitol.

The officials testified that the FBI and the intelligence community had failed to provide adequate warnings that rioters planned to seize the Capitol and that the Pentagon was too slow to authorize guard troops to help overwhelmed police forces after the attack began.

In addition to Walker and Salesses, the officials who testified Wednesday were Melissa Smislova, a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and Jill Sanborn, the FBI’s assistant director of its counterterrorism division.

After the attack, law enforcement officials have been focusing on rioters who are members of militias and extremist groups as part of their investigation. Sanborn testified that few of the 257 rioters arrested so far were being investigated by the FBI before the attack.

“I can only recall from my memory one of the individuals that was under investigation prior,” she said.

The testimony came as the Capitol Police said they were increasing security this week on Capitol Hill, warning of “potential threats toward members of Congress or toward the Capitol complex.”

Testifying at a House hearing, Yogananda D. Pittman, the acting Capitol Police chief, told lawmakers that her agency had received “concerning” intelligence about possible threats against the Capitol for Thursday. But she said the information was law-enforcement sensitive and she would share it only in a closed briefing. She assured committee members that the police force would be ready.

Pittman noted that threats against lawmakers were “through the roof,” rising almost 94% the first two months of this year over 2020.

After Jan. 6, the Capitol Police leadership is asking for almost $620 million in total spending, an increase of nearly 21% over current levels to pay for new equipment, training and an additional 212 officers for assignments such as a permanent backup force. Pittman also told the lawmakers that she would be working with the architect of the Capitol to design more “physical hardening” of the building after it was overrun by the rioters.

Pentagon officials placed “unusual” restrictions on the D.C. National Guard before the Capitol riot, its commander told senators Wednesday, saying the military leaders’ fears of a repeat of aggressive tactics used during racial justice protests last year slowed decision-making and squandered time as the violence by a pro-Trump mob escalated.

Pentagon officials placed “unusual” restrictions on the D.C. National Guard before the Capitol riot, its commander told senators Wednesday, saying the military leaders’ fears of a repeat of aggressive tactics used during racial justice protests last year slowed decision-making and squandered time as the violence by a pro-Trump mob escalated. Military and federal security officials detailed in a joint Senate committee hearing the additional security breakdowns that led to the failure to quell the mob attack on Jan. 6. Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the D.C. National Guard commander, said he did not receive approval to mobilize troops until more than three hours after he had requested it. The delay he outlined was longer than previously known and came to light in the latest hearing by lawmakers investigating the attack. Days before the riot, the Pentagon had removed Walker’s authority to quickly deploy his troops, he testified. He said he was unable to move troops even from one traffic stop to another without permission from Ryan D. McCarthy, the Army secretary. Once Walker had approval for deployment, the guard arrived at the Capitol only minutes later, at 5:20 p.m., and helped reestablish the security perimeter on the east side of the building. Walker said he could have had 150 troops to the complex hours earlier. The violent rampage that unfolded over nearly five hours caused injuries to nearly 140 police officers and left five people dead. “That number could have made a difference,” Walker said of the possibility of deploying his troops earlier. “Seconds mattered,” he added. “Minutes mattered.” In response to questions from senators, Walker said he believed that a double standard existed in the military decision-making, pointing out differences between the quick and aggressive tactics he was authorized to use during protests last spring and summer of police killings of Black men and the slower response to the violence of Trump supporters. He said military officials had expressed concerns about the optics of sending troops into the Capitol to subdue Americans. “The Army senior leaders did not think it looked good” and did not think “it would be a good optic,” Walker said. “The word I kept hearing was the ‘optics’ of it.” When asked whether a similar debate had played out last year, Walker said no. “It was never discussed the week of June,” he said. “It was never discussed July 4, when we were supporting the city. It was never discussed Aug. 28, when we supported the city.” “Did you think that was unusual?” asked Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the Democratic head of the Homeland Security Committee. “I did,” Walker said. The restrictions were put in place because of the widely criticized crackdown by the guard on mostly peaceful protesters in Washington in June, said Robert G. Salesses, a senior Defense Department official testifying at the hearing. He said that McCarthy and other military officials, including Christopher Miller, the acting defense secretary, delayed deciding whether to deploy forces on Jan. 6 because they wanted to know more about what the troops would be doing. They had assumed deployment authority over the D.C. National Guard to avoid a repeat of last year, Salesses said. “Secretary Miller wanted to make the decisions of how the National Guard was going to be employed on that day,” Salesses testified. Walker recounted how the day had unfolded as Trump supporters protesting congressional certification of the election results devolved into violence. He said he had received a “frantic call” at 1:49 p.m. from Steven A. Sund, then the chief of the Capitol Police, about half an hour before rioters breached the Capitol. “Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency at the Capitol,” Walker testified. “He requested the immediate assistance of as many available National Guardsmen I could muster.” He said he had immediately alerted Army leaders and even put troops on buses “ready to move to the Capitol.” But Miller did not approve the request until 3:04 p.m., after military officials had expressed their concerns about optics. Walker did not receive word that Pentagon officials had authorized his request until 5:08 p.m. — three hours and 19 minutes after he had received Sund’s plea. “I keep thinking of the hours that went by, and the people who were injured and the officers whose lives were changed forever,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. and the chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee. “We must get to the bottom of why, that very day, it took the Defense Department so long to deploy the guard.” After hearing Walker’s testimony, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the top Republican on the committee, told reporters he wanted to hear from higher-ranking military officials. “Certainly we’ll have questions for Secretary McCarthy and for acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller,” Blunt said. “It’s definitely going to require an opportunity to ask them questions about their view from their perspective of why this decision-making process went so horribly wrong.” The testimony came at the latest bipartisan investigative hearing of the Homeland Security and Rules Committees. At a hearing last week, Chief Robert J. Contee III of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington testified that he was “stunned” at the slow deployment of the National Guard on Jan. 6, noting that even as the violence escalated, the Army had expressed reluctance to send troops. At that hearing, the first joint oversight meeting of the two committees, three former top Capitol security officials deflected responsibility for failures that contributed to the riot, blaming the other agencies, one another and at one point even a subordinate for the breakdowns that allowed hundreds of Trump supporters to storm the Capitol. The officials testified that the FBI and the intelligence community had failed to provide adequate warnings that rioters planned to seize the Capitol and that the Pentagon was too slow to authorize guard troops to help overwhelmed police forces after the attack began. In addition to Walker and Salesses, the officials who testified Wednesday were Melissa Smislova, a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and Jill Sanborn, the FBI’s assistant director of its counterterrorism division. After the attack, law enforcement officials have been focusing on rioters who are members of militias and extremist groups as part of their investigation. Sanborn testified that few of the 257 rioters arrested so far were being investigated by the FBI before the attack. “I can only recall from my memory one of the individuals that was under investigation prior,” she said. The testimony came as the Capitol Police said they were increasing security this week on Capitol Hill, warning of “potential threats toward members of Congress or toward the Capitol complex.” Testifying at a House hearing, Yogananda D. Pittman, the acting Capitol Police chief, told lawmakers that her agency had received “concerning” intelligence about possible threats against the Capitol for Thursday. But she said the information was law-enforcement sensitive and she would share it only in a closed briefing. She assured committee members that the police force would be ready. Pittman noted that threats against lawmakers were “through the roof,” rising almost 94% the first two months of this year over 2020. After Jan. 6, the Capitol Police leadership is asking for almost $620 million in total spending, an increase of nearly 21% over current levels to pay for new equipment, training and an additional 212 officers for assignments such as a permanent backup force. Pittman also told the lawmakers that she would be working with the architect of the Capitol to design more “physical hardening” of the building after it was overrun by the rioters.

Officials put ‘unusual’ limits on DC National Guard before riot, commander says

Residents in a city in USA's Mississippi state are without water for weeks, said media reports from number of credible outlets. Residents of Jackson, Mississippi have been facing this situation since a winter storm lashed the area in February. The storm interfered with the functioning of the city's water plant and broke water pipes that were frozen solid. The residents are even without drinking water.

As per reports, there are no sure signs of water supply getting restored in near future.

Since February 23, local authorities have issued advisories saying people should boil water before drinking it.

As citizens battled severe shortage of water, aging infrastructure is being blamed for failure to restore water supply. Public Works Director has been quoted by CNN as saying that the system "crashed like a computer". He added that the administration was working to bring the situation back to normal but that progress had been slow.

Angry residents are commenting on Jackson city's official Facebook page.

"Every year we have some type of issue with the water. This didn’t just start but every year you gotta PLAN and stop just trying to put a bandage on the problem WHEN it happens," writes Mary Evans Fox

People are understandably upset that the repair work is going on at Snail's pace

"The repairs are very slow. How many people are working on these breaks.? Have you contracted to get others on staff like the power company did?," wrote Charlotte Bryant

Marq McPherson voices concern about what is being reported in media about aging infrastructure in the city.

"Jackson has an incredibly old water infrastructure that has been ignored for the better part of 50 years..." says Marq

After February's winter storm, the weather has warmed and power is back, but citizens are still waiting for water supply to get restored.

Residents in a city in USA's Mississippi state are without water for weeks, said media reports from number of credible outlets. Residents of Jackson, Mississippi have been facing this situation since a winter storm lashed the area in February.

Residents in a city in USA's Mississippi state are without water for weeks, said media reports from number of credible outlets. Residents of Jackson, Mississippi have been facing this situation since a winter storm lashed the area in February. The storm interfered with the functioning of the city's water plant and broke water pipes that were frozen solid. The residents are even without drinking water. As per reports, there are no sure signs of water supply getting restored in near future. Since February 23, local authorities have issued advisories saying people should boil water before drinking it. As citizens battled severe shortage of water, aging infrastructure is being blamed for failure to restore water supply. Public Works Director has been quoted by CNN as saying that the system "crashed like a computer". He added that the administration was working to bring the situation back to normal but that progress had been slow. Angry residents are commenting on Jackson city's official Facebook page. "Every year we have some type of issue with the water. This didn’t just start but every year you gotta PLAN and stop just trying to put a bandage on the problem WHEN it happens," writes Mary Evans Fox People are understandably upset that the repair work is going on at Snail's pace "The repairs are very slow. How many people are working on these breaks.? Have you contracted to get others on staff like the power company did?," wrote Charlotte Bryant Marq McPherson voices concern about what is being reported in media about aging infrastructure in the city. "Jackson has an incredibly old water infrastructure that has been ignored for the better part of 50 years..." says Marq After February's winter storm, the weather has warmed and power is back, but citizens are still waiting for water supply to get restored.

Residents in Mississippi in US without water for weeks

US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price said on Wednesday that major defence sales by US to India demonstrated USA's "commitment to India's security and sovereignty". &nbsp;He said that authorisation for defence sales of US 20 billion has already been made.

"As of this year, the united states has authorized over USD 20 billion in defence sales to India. It's these offers of advanced us defence platforms that demonstrate our commitment to India's security and sovereignty," state department spokesperson ned price told reporters at his daily news conference.

"It demonstrates our commitment to that global, comprehensive, strategic partnership," he said.

The US also spoke about 5G network being a priority but also expressed concern about the dangers of installing networks with equipment that can be manipulated or even controlled by China.

The State Department expressed satisfaction at the return of economic and political normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.

"We welcome steps to return the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to full economic and political normalcy consistent with India`s democratic values," said US State Department spokesperson Ned Price.

"We continue to follow developments in Jammu and Kashmir closely," he added. He said that the United States policy towards Jammu and Kashmir has not changed," he said.

(With ANI inputs)

US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price said on Wednesday that major defence sales by US to India demonstrated USA's "commitment to India's security and sovereignty".

US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price said on Wednesday that major defence sales by US to India demonstrated USA's "commitment to India's security and sovereignty". He said that authorisation for defence sales of US 20 billion has already been made. "As of this year, the united states has authorized over USD 20 billion in defence sales to India. It's these offers of advanced us defence platforms that demonstrate our commitment to India's security and sovereignty," state department spokesperson ned price told reporters at his daily news conference. "It demonstrates our commitment to that global, comprehensive, strategic partnership," he said. The US also spoke about 5G network being a priority but also expressed concern about the dangers of installing networks with equipment that can be manipulated or even controlled by China. The State Department expressed satisfaction at the return of economic and political normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir. "We welcome steps to return the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to full economic and political normalcy consistent with India`s democratic values," said US State Department spokesperson Ned Price. "We continue to follow developments in Jammu and Kashmir closely," he added. He said that the United States policy towards Jammu and Kashmir has not changed," he said. (With ANI inputs)

US talks of its 'commitment to India's security and sovereignty'

Four weeks into his presidency and President Biden realizes that it is not easy to set back the US's foreign policy aims to its traditional pillars. His outlook was summed up in his first foreign policy statement at the State Department on 4 February 2021 – which included an emphasis on the restoration of the habits of global cooperation and re-building the muscle of democratic alliances that have 'atrophied.' It also emphasized determining the US foreign policy course as a balance between geo-politics and respect for human rights.&nbsp;

Nowhere is this reset being harder to implement than the Middle East region, a volatile cocktail of nation-state conflicts, religious fundamentalism and terrorism and active superpower intervention. For one, some of the conflicts and issues in the Middle East today were created by the Obama era policies when Biden was the Vice President. Two nowhere else was the Trump-style break from a stated 'neutral' US foreign policy to doling out personal favors that changed the contours of interaction between the region's countries more prominent. Third, the absence of a US 'mediating' guarantee created a new/enlarged role for varied actors – Turkey, Russia, and&nbsp;China that the US will find hard to reset.

President Biden's main foreign policy challenge in the Middle East will be 'how you solve a problem like Iran.' Critics have said that given Biden's close involvement with the Iran deal under President Obama, the current administration runs the risk of adopting the 'old wine in a new bottle strategy.' Since Biden has assumed office – Iran has threatened to block a UN nuclear watchdog from conducting snap inspections of some nuclear sites.&nbsp;

Iran-backed Shiite militias have attacked the US-coalition forces in Erbil in northern Iraq, reflecting their growing power in a country embroiled in years of war. In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have escalated violence against the government forces in the oil-rich central province of Marib. They have also intensified drone attacks against the neighboring Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).&nbsp;

Marking a break from Trump’s four years, these developments are starting to create disquiet among the traditional US allies in the region – Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Under Trump’s policy of maximum pressure on Iran, without any diplomacy, Arab states and Israel had forged a ‘tentative relationship’ focused on containing Iran in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon.

For their efforts at rapprochement with Israel (via the Abraham Accord), the Arab rulers were rewarded personally – when &nbsp;President Trump used his discretionary powers to look the other way as evidence of MBS’s involvement emerged in journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. Or when he signed arms deals with UAE or refused to end the US support of the Yemen war despite a US Senate resolution. However, since Biden's victory, it has been made clear that the US will try and rebalance this 'one-sided' and obvious tilt.

This rebalancing has begun with Saudi Arabia. Supported by a Senate striving to reclaim its war-making powers, the US has ceased its support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Biden has personally criticized Saudi's track record on human rights and said in no uncertain terms that it would speak directly to King Salman and not to Crown Prince MBS, the country's de-facto leader.

The arms sale of F35 fighter jets to the UAE has been put on hold. Regarding Israel, though Biden is unlikely to reverse measures like shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem, there is a general consensus that PM Netanyahu will not be given free rein in the US calculations in the region.&nbsp;

However, as Iran steps up its offensive – Biden will be faced with some critical policy choices –&nbsp;

A) How much to bend to preserve the legacy of the Iran deal and what happens if Iran walks out.

B) How to recalibrate relationships with the allies in the above background.&nbsp;

What has the potential to complicate this balancing act is the new actors/dynamics that have emerged and gained strength in the region.&nbsp;

Of course, the first emphasis is on the US's most significant geopolitical and economic rival – China. While China has developed political, trading and economic linkages with countries across the board in the Middle East, its priorities are not a threat to the US interests just yet. However, three focal areas can complicate the geo-politics for the US.&nbsp;

The first is the partnership between Iran and China that gained strength under the Trump administration. China made huge purchases of Iranian crude oil in violation of US sanctions, invested in infrastructure projects and sold essential supplies to Iran.

A pro-China hardline faction in Iran has gained prominence and is likely driving a hard bargain with the Biden administration. With the Iranian presidential elections scheduled in June 2021, a probable win for this hardline wing could mean an end to all negotiations on the Iran deal and a further shift towards China.&nbsp;

What is problematic for the Biden administration is that China has gained currency as a 'strategic balancer' to the US across all genres of actors – Shiite militias from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon have taken Chinese support.

The region's Arab monarchies and Israel have similarly made investment deals and are using Chinese companies for infrastructure building. They have also chosen to ignore Chinese human rights violations in Uighur.&nbsp;

The second cog in the wheel is Russia’s relationship with Iran and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that has complicated US attempts to detangle from Iraq and Syria.

Turkey has emerged as the ‘black swan’ with emerging stress points with the US – such as the sanctions over its possession of Russia’s S-400 air defense system and its unilateral action in the Kurdish (US allies) areas of Iraq and Syria. There is also an element of a European disengagement with the US stands in the region as Europe has learned to pursue independent stands on Iran, Russia, etc., under the Trump presidency.&nbsp;

After being confirmed, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s initial addresses created a foreign policy roadmap for the Biden administration in which priorities were Asia-Pacific, rapprochement with European allies and then the Western hemisphere. However, developments in the past few weeks have shown that Middle East remains the region where US troops, resources and infra remain high at risk.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the new Biden administration's first military operation targeted Iran-backed fighters in Syria on 25 February. But with allies diverging, Iran belligerent, global consensus on issues such as Iran deal thin at best, US will have to think of out of box solutions.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Four weeks into his presidency and President Biden realizes that it is not easy to set back the US's foreign policy aims to its traditional pillars. His outlook was summed up in his first foreign policy statement at the State Department on 4 February 2021 – which included an emphasis on the restoration of the habits of global cooperation and re-building the muscle of democratic alliances that have 'atrophied.

Four weeks into his presidency and President Biden realizes that it is not easy to set back the US's foreign policy aims to its traditional pillars. His outlook was summed up in his first foreign policy statement at the State Department on 4 February 2021 – which included an emphasis on the restoration of the habits of global cooperation and re-building the muscle of democratic alliances that have 'atrophied.' It also emphasized determining the US foreign policy course as a balance between geo-politics and respect for human rights. Nowhere is this reset being harder to implement than the Middle East region, a volatile cocktail of nation-state conflicts, religious fundamentalism and terrorism and active superpower intervention. For one, some of the conflicts and issues in the Middle East today were created by the Obama era policies when Biden was the Vice President. Two nowhere else was the Trump-style break from a stated 'neutral' US foreign policy to doling out personal favors that changed the contours of interaction between the region's countries more prominent. Third, the absence of a US 'mediating' guarantee created a new/enlarged role for varied actors – Turkey, Russia, and China that the US will find hard to reset. President Biden's main foreign policy challenge in the Middle East will be 'how you solve a problem like Iran.' Critics have said that given Biden's close involvement with the Iran deal under President Obama, the current administration runs the risk of adopting the 'old wine in a new bottle strategy.' Since Biden has assumed office – Iran has threatened to block a UN nuclear watchdog from conducting snap inspections of some nuclear sites. Iran-backed Shiite militias have attacked the US-coalition forces in Erbil in northern Iraq, reflecting their growing power in a country embroiled in years of war. In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have escalated violence against the government forces in the oil-rich central province of Marib. They have also intensified drone attacks against the neighboring Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Marking a break from Trump’s four years, these developments are starting to create disquiet among the traditional US allies in the region – Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Under Trump’s policy of maximum pressure on Iran, without any diplomacy, Arab states and Israel had forged a ‘tentative relationship’ focused on containing Iran in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon. For their efforts at rapprochement with Israel (via the Abraham Accord), the Arab rulers were rewarded personally – when President Trump used his discretionary powers to look the other way as evidence of MBS’s involvement emerged in journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. Or when he signed arms deals with UAE or refused to end the US support of the Yemen war despite a US Senate resolution. However, since Biden's victory, it has been made clear that the US will try and rebalance this 'one-sided' and obvious tilt. This rebalancing has begun with Saudi Arabia. Supported by a Senate striving to reclaim its war-making powers, the US has ceased its support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Biden has personally criticized Saudi's track record on human rights and said in no uncertain terms that it would speak directly to King Salman and not to Crown Prince MBS, the country's de-facto leader. The arms sale of F35 fighter jets to the UAE has been put on hold. Regarding Israel, though Biden is unlikely to reverse measures like shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem, there is a general consensus that PM Netanyahu will not be given free rein in the US calculations in the region. However, as Iran steps up its offensive – Biden will be faced with some critical policy choices – A) How much to bend to preserve the legacy of the Iran deal and what happens if Iran walks out. B) How to recalibrate relationships with the allies in the above background. What has the potential to complicate this balancing act is the new actors/dynamics that have emerged and gained strength in the region. Of course, the first emphasis is on the US's most significant geopolitical and economic rival – China. While China has developed political, trading and economic linkages with countries across the board in the Middle East, its priorities are not a threat to the US interests just yet. However, three focal areas can complicate the geo-politics for the US. The first is the partnership between Iran and China that gained strength under the Trump administration. China made huge purchases of Iranian crude oil in violation of US sanctions, invested in infrastructure projects and sold essential supplies to Iran. A pro-China hardline faction in Iran has gained prominence and is likely driving a hard bargain with the Biden administration. With the Iranian presidential elections scheduled in June 2021, a probable win for this hardline wing could mean an end to all negotiations on the Iran deal and a further shift towards China. What is problematic for the Biden administration is that China has gained currency as a 'strategic balancer' to the US across all genres of actors – Shiite militias from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon have taken Chinese support. The region's Arab monarchies and Israel have similarly made investment deals and are using Chinese companies for infrastructure building. They have also chosen to ignore Chinese human rights violations in Uighur. The second cog in the wheel is Russia’s relationship with Iran and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that has complicated US attempts to detangle from Iraq and Syria. Turkey has emerged as the ‘black swan’ with emerging stress points with the US – such as the sanctions over its possession of Russia’s S-400 air defense system and its unilateral action in the Kurdish (US allies) areas of Iraq and Syria. There is also an element of a European disengagement with the US stands in the region as Europe has learned to pursue independent stands on Iran, Russia, etc., under the Trump presidency. After being confirmed, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s initial addresses created a foreign policy roadmap for the Biden administration in which priorities were Asia-Pacific, rapprochement with European allies and then the Western hemisphere. However, developments in the past few weeks have shown that Middle East remains the region where US troops, resources and infra remain high at risk. Therefore, it is not surprising that the new Biden administration's first military operation targeted Iran-backed fighters in Syria on 25 February. But with allies diverging, Iran belligerent, global consensus on issues such as Iran deal thin at best, US will have to think of out of box solutions. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: US foreign policy and its Middle East conundrum

A US court has given a final approval to Facebook's $650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute between the group and users in the US state of Illinois.&nbsp;

According to a report in AFP, the decision was issued on Friday.

Chicago attorney Jay Edelson in 2015 accused Facebook of illegally collecting biometric data to identify faces in violation of a 2008 Illinois privacy law.&nbsp;

At the end of January 2020, Facebook agreed to pay $550 million after it failed to get the lawsuit -- filed as a class action in 2018 -- dismissed.&nbsp;In July 2020, however, the judge in the case, James Donato, ruled that the amount was insufficient.&nbsp;

During the trial, it emerged that Facebook was violating Illinois law by storing biometric data -- digital scans of people's faces, in support of its face-tagging feature -- without users' consent.&nbsp;

In 2019, Facebook proposed that the facial recognition feature be optional only.&nbsp;

(with inputs)

A US court has given a final approval to Facebook's $650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute between the group and users in the US state of Illinois. According to a report in AFP, the decision was issued on Friday.

A US court has given a final approval to Facebook's $650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute between the group and users in the US state of Illinois. According to a report in AFP, the decision was issued on Friday. Chicago attorney Jay Edelson in 2015 accused Facebook of illegally collecting biometric data to identify faces in violation of a 2008 Illinois privacy law. At the end of January 2020, Facebook agreed to pay $550 million after it failed to get the lawsuit -- filed as a class action in 2018 -- dismissed. In July 2020, however, the judge in the case, James Donato, ruled that the amount was insufficient. During the trial, it emerged that Facebook was violating Illinois law by storing biometric data -- digital scans of people's faces, in support of its face-tagging feature -- without users' consent. In 2019, Facebook proposed that the facial recognition feature be optional only. (with inputs)

Facebook to pay $650mn settlement over US privacy dispute

President Joe Biden’s administration is in “no rush” to lift U.S. sanctions on Venezuela but would consider easing them if President Nicolas Maduro takes confidence-building steps showing he is ready to negotiate seriously with the opposition, a White House official told Reuters.

Signaling that the new U.S. president may be unlikely to loosen the screws on Venezuela anytime soon, the official emphasized that existing sanctions have enough special provisions to allow for humanitarian aid shipments to help Venezuelans cope with economic hardships and the COVID-19 pandemic.

But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Maduro’s Socialist government has been “actively preventing the delivery of humanitarian assistance.”

This suggests that for now Biden is prepared to stick with the specific sanctions, including crippling oil-sector penalties, imposed by former President Donald Trump on the OPEC nation, despite the failure to force Maduro from power.

But Biden, by contrast, intends to move away from the mostly unilateral approach of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign and enlist more countries to help seek a diplomatic solution, the official said in an interview.

Biden’s administration has made clear it will continue to recognize opposition leader Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president. Dozens of countries have backed Guaido’s claim following Maduro’s re-election in 2018 in a vote Western governments called a sham, though cracks recently have appeared in Guaido`s international support.

“We’re in no rush to lift sanctions,” the official said. “If the regime undertakes confidence-building measures that show that they`re ready and willing to engage in real conversations with the opposition ... if they`re ready to take serious steps, then we will consider the alleviation of sanctions."

The official did not specify what steps Maduro would need to make but said he could not be allowed to use negotiations as a “delaying tactic” to consolidate power and divide the opposition, as he has been accused of doing in the past.

Maduro, who calls Guaido a U.S. puppet, has shown no signs of giving ground. Having retained support of the military as well as Russia, China, Cuba and Iran, he has rejected or ignored previous demands for such concessions.

The Biden administration also appears to have little sense of urgency for major gestures toward Cuba despite hopes for a softer approach after Trump, often citing its support for Maduro, rolled back historic Obama-era détente with Havana.

Some Biden advisers had suggested earlier that he could start by loosening up the flow of remittances from Cuban Americans and ease restrictions on family travel to the Communist-ruled island.

But while acknowledging such changes could have a positive impact, the official said a Cuba policy shift was not currently among Biden’s top priorities, which include the coronavirus pandemic, economic recovery and rebuilding alliances abroad.

“Frankly, first things first,” the official said.

There has also been no sign of any immediate plans to rescind Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, though Biden officials have said Trump’s last-minute decision to return Havana to the U.S. blacklist is under review.

President Joe Biden’s administration is in “no rush” to lift U.S. sanctions on Venezuela but would consider easing them if President Nicolas Maduro takes confidence-building steps showing he is ready to negotiate seriously with the opposition, a White House official told Reuters.

President Joe Biden’s administration is in “no rush” to lift U.S. sanctions on Venezuela but would consider easing them if President Nicolas Maduro takes confidence-building steps showing he is ready to negotiate seriously with the opposition, a White House official told Reuters. Signaling that the new U.S. president may be unlikely to loosen the screws on Venezuela anytime soon, the official emphasized that existing sanctions have enough special provisions to allow for humanitarian aid shipments to help Venezuelans cope with economic hardships and the COVID-19 pandemic. But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Maduro’s Socialist government has been “actively preventing the delivery of humanitarian assistance.” This suggests that for now Biden is prepared to stick with the specific sanctions, including crippling oil-sector penalties, imposed by former President Donald Trump on the OPEC nation, despite the failure to force Maduro from power. But Biden, by contrast, intends to move away from the mostly unilateral approach of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign and enlist more countries to help seek a diplomatic solution, the official said in an interview. Biden’s administration has made clear it will continue to recognize opposition leader Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president. Dozens of countries have backed Guaido’s claim following Maduro’s re-election in 2018 in a vote Western governments called a sham, though cracks recently have appeared in Guaido`s international support. “We’re in no rush to lift sanctions,” the official said. “If the regime undertakes confidence-building measures that show that they`re ready and willing to engage in real conversations with the opposition ... if they`re ready to take serious steps, then we will consider the alleviation of sanctions." The official did not specify what steps Maduro would need to make but said he could not be allowed to use negotiations as a “delaying tactic” to consolidate power and divide the opposition, as he has been accused of doing in the past. Maduro, who calls Guaido a U.S. puppet, has shown no signs of giving ground. Having retained support of the military as well as Russia, China, Cuba and Iran, he has rejected or ignored previous demands for such concessions. The Biden administration also appears to have little sense of urgency for major gestures toward Cuba despite hopes for a softer approach after Trump, often citing its support for Maduro, rolled back historic Obama-era détente with Havana. Some Biden advisers had suggested earlier that he could start by loosening up the flow of remittances from Cuban Americans and ease restrictions on family travel to the Communist-ruled island. But while acknowledging such changes could have a positive impact, the official said a Cuba policy shift was not currently among Biden’s top priorities, which include the coronavirus pandemic, economic recovery and rebuilding alliances abroad. “Frankly, first things first,” the official said. There has also been no sign of any immediate plans to rescind Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, though Biden officials have said Trump’s last-minute decision to return Havana to the U.S. blacklist is under review.

Biden in no rush to lift Venezuela sanctions, seeks 'serious steps' by Maduro

US President Joe Biden said on Saturday that US will make "an announcement" on Saudi Arabia on Monday. US intelligence report on Saturday said that Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had approved killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. However, White House played down Biden's statement on the announcement.

Asked about punishing the crown prince, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, who is also known as MbS, Biden said: "There will be an announcement on Monday as to what we are going to be doing with Saudi Arabia generally."

Biden did not provide details.

But a White House official suggested no new significant steps were expected.

"The administration took a wide range of new actions on Friday. The president is referring to the fact that on Monday, the State Department will provide more details and elaborate on those announcements, not new announcements," the official said.

Biden administration faced some criticism that the president should have been tougher on the crown prince who was not sanctioned despite being blamed for approving Khashoggi's murder. Washington Post was especially forthcoming in its criticism.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-bidens-challenges-in-west-asia-366693">US President Joe Biden's challenges in West Asia</a>

Jamal Khashoggi, a US resident, wrote opinion columns for the Washington Post. He was critical of the Saudi regime and Mohammed bin Salman's policies. He was killed and dismembered by a team of operatives linked to the prince in the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

The Saudi government, which has denied any involvement by the crown prince, on Friday issued a statement rejecting the U.S. report’s findings and repeating its previous statements that Khashoggi’s killing was a heinous crime by a rogue group.

Among the punitive steps the United States took on Friday was the imposition of a visa ban on some Saudis believed involved in the Khashoggi killing and sanctions on others, including a former deputy intelligence chief, which would freeze their U.S. assets and generally bar Americans from dealing with them.

(With Reuters inputs)

US President Joe Biden said on Saturday that US will make "an announcement" on Saudi Arabia on Monday. US intelligence report on Saturday said that Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had approved killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

US President Joe Biden said on Saturday that US will make "an announcement" on Saudi Arabia on Monday. US intelligence report on Saturday said that Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had approved killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. However, White House played down Biden's statement on the announcement. Asked about punishing the crown prince, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, who is also known as MbS, Biden said: "There will be an announcement on Monday as to what we are going to be doing with Saudi Arabia generally." Biden did not provide details. But a White House official suggested no new significant steps were expected. "The administration took a wide range of new actions on Friday. The president is referring to the fact that on Monday, the State Department will provide more details and elaborate on those announcements, not new announcements," the official said. Biden administration faced some criticism that the president should have been tougher on the crown prince who was not sanctioned despite being blamed for approving Khashoggi's murder. Washington Post was especially forthcoming in its criticism. Also Read | US President Joe Biden's challenges in West Asia Jamal Khashoggi, a US resident, wrote opinion columns for the Washington Post. He was critical of the Saudi regime and Mohammed bin Salman's policies. He was killed and dismembered by a team of operatives linked to the prince in the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. The Saudi government, which has denied any involvement by the crown prince, on Friday issued a statement rejecting the U.S. report’s findings and repeating its previous statements that Khashoggi’s killing was a heinous crime by a rogue group. Among the punitive steps the United States took on Friday was the imposition of a visa ban on some Saudis believed involved in the Khashoggi killing and sanctions on others, including a former deputy intelligence chief, which would freeze their U.S. assets and generally bar Americans from dealing with them. (With Reuters inputs)

US to make announcement on Saudi Arabia on Monday

US House of Representatives on Saturday passed a huge USD 1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. The relief measure has cleared the first hurdle four days after COVID-19 death toll in the US crossed 500,000 mark. The bill includes a provision to raise minimum wage to USD 15 an hour. Passage of the bill in the House of Representatives is being considered first major legislative victory for US President Joe Biden. Democratic Party has already hailed the bill as a critical step in funnelling new funding toward vaccinations, overburdened local governments, and millions of families devastated by the pandemic.

The bill was cleared in the House on a party-line vote of 219 to 212. It moves to Senate next where Democrats and Republican hold 50 votes each. Democratic Party holds a slight edge as Vice President Kamala Harris has a casting vote in case of a tie in the Senate

"The American people need to know that their government is there for them," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in debate on the House floor.

Republicans, who have broadly backed previous COVID-19 spending, said much of the current package was not necessary, highlighting elements like a subway near Pelosi's San Francisco district. Only 9% of the total would go directly toward fighting the virus, they said.

"It just throws out money without accountability," House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-report-says-saudi-prince-approved-murder-of-journalist-khashoggi-366550">US report says Saudi Prince approved murder of journalist Khashoggi</a>

The president has focused his first weeks in office on tackling the greatest U.S. public health crisis in a century, which has upended most aspects of American life.

Democrats aim to get the bill to him to sign into law before mid-March when enhanced unemployment benefits and some other types of aid are due to expire.

The bill's big-ticket items include $1,400 direct payments to individuals, a $400-per-week federal unemployment benefit through Aug. 29, and help for those in difficulty paying rents and home mortgages during the pandemic.

(With Reuters input)

US House of Representatives on Saturday passed a huge USD 1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. The relief measure has cleared the first hurdle four days after COVID-19 death toll in the US crossed 500,000 mark.

US House of Representatives on Saturday passed a huge USD 1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. The relief measure has cleared the first hurdle four days after COVID-19 death toll in the US crossed 500,000 mark. The bill includes a provision to raise minimum wage to USD 15 an hour. Passage of the bill in the House of Representatives is being considered first major legislative victory for US President Joe Biden. Democratic Party has already hailed the bill as a critical step in funnelling new funding toward vaccinations, overburdened local governments, and millions of families devastated by the pandemic. The bill was cleared in the House on a party-line vote of 219 to 212. It moves to Senate next where Democrats and Republican hold 50 votes each. Democratic Party holds a slight edge as Vice President Kamala Harris has a casting vote in case of a tie in the Senate "The American people need to know that their government is there for them," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in debate on the House floor. Republicans, who have broadly backed previous COVID-19 spending, said much of the current package was not necessary, highlighting elements like a subway near Pelosi's San Francisco district. Only 9% of the total would go directly toward fighting the virus, they said. "It just throws out money without accountability," House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said. Also Read | US report says Saudi Prince approved murder of journalist Khashoggi The president has focused his first weeks in office on tackling the greatest U.S. public health crisis in a century, which has upended most aspects of American life. Democrats aim to get the bill to him to sign into law before mid-March when enhanced unemployment benefits and some other types of aid are due to expire. The bill's big-ticket items include $1,400 direct payments to individuals, a $400-per-week federal unemployment benefit through Aug. 29, and help for those in difficulty paying rents and home mortgages during the pandemic. (With Reuters input)

US House passes $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, minimum wage raised

The United States is seeking to return to the UN Human Rights Council, three years after former president Donald Trump's administration withdrew.

"I'm pleased to announce the United States will seek election to the Human Rights Council for the 2022-24 term," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the council in a video message. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/why-do-chronic-violators-of-human-rights-like-china-pak-want-a-seat-at-the-unhrc-335063">Also read: Why do chronic violators of human rights like China &amp; Pak want a seat at the UNHRC?</a>

"We humbly ask for the support of all UN member states in our bid to return to a seat in this body."

The United States announced earlier this month that it would re-engage with the 47-member council after Trump's administration pulled the country out in June 2018.

Blinken also complained about its "unrelenting bias" against Israel and the "hypocrisy" of allowing rights-abusing nations a seat at the table.&nbsp;

The US departure left a void that China and others have been eager to fill at the council.

While Washington has vowed to begin active participation in the council's activities immediately, it could not automatically regain the membership it walked away from three years ago.

Elections for the next term will be held towards the end of this year.

While the US under new President Joe Biden is eager to return to the fold of the council, Blinken stressed that the country still agrees with some of the criticisms lobbed by the previous administration.

"Institutions are not perfect," he said, adding, "as the United States reengages, we urge the Human Rights Council to look at how it conducts its business. That includes its disproportionate focus on Israel."

The United States has long complained that prominent rights abusers are given seats on the council.

Currently, the membership includes China, Russia, and Venezuela, along with Cuba, Cameroon, Eritrea and the Philippines.

"Those with the worst human rights records should not be members of this council," Blinken said.

The council, set up in 2006, has a stand-alone item on the Palestinian territories on its agenda every session - the only issue with such treatment - which both Democratic and Republican administrations have opposed.

It routinely adopts resolutions condemning alleged violations by Israel in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Blinken reiterated the US call on Russia to release opposition figure Alexei Navalny as well as hundreds of others detained during protests.

He said Washington would denounce atrocities in Xinjiang, China's western region where activists and UN experts say 1 million Muslim Uighurs are held in camps. And he acknowledged rights issues at home, saying the United States would work to combat both systemic racism and economic injustice.

(with inputs from agencies)

The United States is seeking to return to the UN Human Rights Council, three years after former president Donald Trump's administration withdrew. "I'm pleased to announce the United States will seek election to the Human Rights Council for the 2022-24 term," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the council in a video message.

The United States is seeking to return to the UN Human Rights Council, three years after former president Donald Trump's administration withdrew. "I'm pleased to announce the United States will seek election to the Human Rights Council for the 2022-24 term," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the council in a video message. Also read: Why do chronic violators of human rights like China & Pak want a seat at the UNHRC? "We humbly ask for the support of all UN member states in our bid to return to a seat in this body." The United States announced earlier this month that it would re-engage with the 47-member council after Trump's administration pulled the country out in June 2018. Blinken also complained about its "unrelenting bias" against Israel and the "hypocrisy" of allowing rights-abusing nations a seat at the table. The US departure left a void that China and others have been eager to fill at the council. While Washington has vowed to begin active participation in the council's activities immediately, it could not automatically regain the membership it walked away from three years ago. Elections for the next term will be held towards the end of this year. While the US under new President Joe Biden is eager to return to the fold of the council, Blinken stressed that the country still agrees with some of the criticisms lobbed by the previous administration. "Institutions are not perfect," he said, adding, "as the United States reengages, we urge the Human Rights Council to look at how it conducts its business. That includes its disproportionate focus on Israel." The United States has long complained that prominent rights abusers are given seats on the council. Currently, the membership includes China, Russia, and Venezuela, along with Cuba, Cameroon, Eritrea and the Philippines. "Those with the worst human rights records should not be members of this council," Blinken said. The council, set up in 2006, has a stand-alone item on the Palestinian territories on its agenda every session - the only issue with such treatment - which both Democratic and Republican administrations have opposed. It routinely adopts resolutions condemning alleged violations by Israel in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Blinken reiterated the US call on Russia to release opposition figure Alexei Navalny as well as hundreds of others detained during protests. He said Washington would denounce atrocities in Xinjiang, China's western region where activists and UN experts say 1 million Muslim Uighurs are held in camps. And he acknowledged rights issues at home, saying the United States would work to combat both systemic racism and economic injustice. (with inputs from agencies)

US aims to return to UN Human Rights Council, Secretary of State confirms

<div id="fb-root">
A modern miracle just took place in Oklahoma, United States. A dog was recently born with six legs, and much to the doctors' shock, the animal is surviving against all odds. 
 
The "miracle" was shared by Neel Veterinary Hospital on Facebook, where the dog was born. In the Facebook post, it was explained how the puppy, whose name is Skipper, was able to survive for longer than other dogs who are born with the same issue. 
 
The dog suffers a disorder called "monocephalus dipygus", which explains the 6 legs.
</div>
<script async defer crossorigin="anonymous" src="https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v9.0" nonce="TtortMy1"></script>

<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/NeelVeterinaryHospital/posts/3713009785419026" data-show-text="true" data-width="500">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/NeelVeterinaryHospital/posts/3713009785419026" class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
This is a miracle named Skipper. Literally. She has survived longer than we suspect any other canine has (at just 4 days...
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NeelVeterinaryHospital/">Neel Veterinary Hospital</a> on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/NeelVeterinaryHospital/posts/3713009785419026">Sunday, 21 February 2021</a></blockquote>
</div>

&nbsp;

“You might notice she looks a little different - 6 legs! She has a type of congenital conjoining disorders called monocephalus dipygus and monocephalus rachipagus dibrachius tetrapus which simply means she has 1 head and chest cavity but 2 pelvic regions, 2 lower urinary tracts, 2 reproductive systems, 2 tails and 6 legs among other things,” the Facebook post said. 
 
The dog though is in a healthy condition with her organs in great shape.

“Positively, her organs appear to be in great shape, she is peeing and pooping, and is very strong! She nurses well and is growing appropriately so far. All of her legs move and respond to stimulus just like a normal puppy,” the post added. 
 
But it's not all sunny from here on. The dog may need physical therapy to maintain mobility and may need assistance later on in life.

In the Facebook post, the hospital added how they intend to study her condition in-depth to bring relief to her. ''She is doing well at home now'', the post added.

A modern miracle just took place in Oklahoma, United States. A dog was recently born with six legs, and much to the doctors' shock, the animal is surviving against all odds.

A modern miracle just took place in Oklahoma, United States. A dog was recently born with six legs, and much to the doctors' shock, the animal is surviving against all odds. The "miracle" was shared by Neel Veterinary Hospital on Facebook, where the dog was born. In the Facebook post, it was explained how the puppy, whose name is Skipper, was able to survive for longer than other dogs who are born with the same issue. The dog suffers a disorder called "monocephalus dipygus", which explains the 6 legs. This is a miracle named Skipper. Literally. She has survived longer than we suspect any other canine has (at just 4 days... Posted by Neel Veterinary Hospital on Sunday, 21 February 2021 “You might notice she looks a little different - 6 legs! She has a type of congenital conjoining disorders called monocephalus dipygus and monocephalus rachipagus dibrachius tetrapus which simply means she has 1 head and chest cavity but 2 pelvic regions, 2 lower urinary tracts, 2 reproductive systems, 2 tails and 6 legs among other things,” the Facebook post said. The dog though is in a healthy condition with her organs in great shape. “Positively, her organs appear to be in great shape, she is peeing and pooping, and is very strong! She nurses well and is growing appropriately so far. All of her legs move and respond to stimulus just like a normal puppy,” the post added. But it's not all sunny from here on. The dog may need physical therapy to maintain mobility and may need assistance later on in life. In the Facebook post, the hospital added how they intend to study her condition in-depth to bring relief to her. ''She is doing well at home now'', the post added.

'A miracle': Puppy born with six legs beats all odds to survive

Do you like cereal? What we're about to tell you could change the way you look at the benign food item. The United States Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) recently found the breakfast favourite item laced with cocaine instead of sugar.

The shipment was uncovered by CBP officers in Cincinnati, Ohio on February 13. The package in question contained 19 kilograms (44 pounds) of corn flakes coated not with the obvious ingredient sugar, but with cocaine. 
 
A news release by CBP shed light on how they uncovered the package. A CBP narcotics detector dog named Bico found the shipment, which was headed to a private residence in Hong Kong, and was coming from Peru.

Upon testing the shipment, officers realised that the corn flakes were coated with cocaine instead of sugar.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/india-news/exporter-arrested-245kg-drugs-seized-in-kitchenware-bound-for-australia-361634" hreflang="en">Exporter arrested; 24.5kg drugs seized in kitchenware bound for Australia</a> 
 
"The men and women at the Port of Cincinnati are committed to stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, and they continue to use their training, intuition, and strategic skills to prevent these kinds of illegitimate shipments from reaching the public," Cincinnati Port Director Richard Gillespie was quoted as saying by CNN.

According to the CBP, it seized 1,677 kilograms (3,677 pounds) of drugs at ports of entry across the United States in 2020.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/un-removes-cannabis-from-list-of-worlds-most-dangerous-drugs-347118" hreflang="en">UN removes cannabis from list of world's most dangerous drugs</a>

Drug traffickers are notoriously famous for employing creative ways to get drugs across the border.

A similar uncanny incident took place in Italy in July, whereby the police found cocaine stuffed in coffee beans which were individually emptied out. The officers stumbled on this package for it was addressed to a fictional Mafia boss from a Hollywood film.

Do you like cereal? What we're about to tell you could change the way you look at the benign food item. The United States Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) recently found the breakfast favourite item laced with cocaine instead of sugar.

Do you like cereal? What we're about to tell you could change the way you look at the benign food item. The United States Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) recently found the breakfast favourite item laced with cocaine instead of sugar. The shipment was uncovered by CBP officers in Cincinnati, Ohio on February 13. The package in question contained 19 kilograms (44 pounds) of corn flakes coated not with the obvious ingredient sugar, but with cocaine. A news release by CBP shed light on how they uncovered the package. A CBP narcotics detector dog named Bico found the shipment, which was headed to a private residence in Hong Kong, and was coming from Peru. Upon testing the shipment, officers realised that the corn flakes were coated with cocaine instead of sugar. Also read: Exporter arrested; 24.5kg drugs seized in kitchenware bound for Australia "The men and women at the Port of Cincinnati are committed to stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, and they continue to use their training, intuition, and strategic skills to prevent these kinds of illegitimate shipments from reaching the public," Cincinnati Port Director Richard Gillespie was quoted as saying by CNN. According to the CBP, it seized 1,677 kilograms (3,677 pounds) of drugs at ports of entry across the United States in 2020. Also read: UN removes cannabis from list of world's most dangerous drugs Drug traffickers are notoriously famous for employing creative ways to get drugs across the border. A similar uncanny incident took place in Italy in July, whereby the police found cocaine stuffed in coffee beans which were individually emptied out. The officers stumbled on this package for it was addressed to a fictional Mafia boss from a Hollywood film.

Shipment with 19 kgs of cocaine-coated cereal intercepted by US authorities

Ten big US corporations slashed donations to candidates seeking federal office by more than 90 per cent in January. This followed after they pledged to not donate to Republican Party lawmakers who supported former US President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his election defeat. After his defeat in US Presidential elections 2020, Donald Trump had falsely claimed that the election was rigged and continued making allegations without presenting any evidence. These culminated in a violent attack by his supporters on US Capitol building on January 6.

None of the political action committees of 10 major companies reviewed by Reuters, including Microsoft Corp, Walmart Inc, AT&amp;T Inc and Comcast Corp, donated to any of the 147 congressional Republicans who voted to support Trump's claims just hours after his supporters launched a deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Disclosures to the Federal Election Commission ahead of a Saturday filing deadline showed the group of corporate PACs affiliated with those 10 companies made $13,000 in new donations to candidates in January. The reports were the first by the PACs to detail contributions made since the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

The money donated during the month was less than one-tenth the roughly $190,000 the 10 company PACs gave candidates in January 2017, and tiny relative to the roughly $10 million donated to candidates during the 2019-2020 election season. The 147 lawmakers who voted to overturn President Joe Biden's victory had received more than $2 million from those 10 PACs during the last two-year political cycle.

Only committees tied to two of the companies - General Electric Co and American Express Co - reported any new giving to federal candidates in January.

American Express' PAC gave $5,000 to Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota, while GE's gave $5,000 to Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a prominent Republican Trump critic, and $1,000 to Representative Rick Larsen of Washington, a Democrat.

It is true that political donations slows down in months after US presidential elections and money from corporate political action committees is a small slice of the funds raised by political campaigns.

However, the sudden and marked slump in political donations after incidents in January points to slower start to political donations as strategising for 2022 midterm election begins.

While more than a thousand PACs are associated with corporate America, the 10 reviewed by Reuters include major companies which made clear public statements that they would throttle back donations following the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

(With Reuters inputs)

Ten big US corporations slashed donations to candidates seeking federal office by more than 90 per cent in January. This followed after they pledged to not donate to Republican Party lawmakers who supported former US President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his election defeat.

Ten big US corporations slashed donations to candidates seeking federal office by more than 90 per cent in January. This followed after they pledged to not donate to Republican Party lawmakers who supported former US President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his election defeat. After his defeat in US Presidential elections 2020, Donald Trump had falsely claimed that the election was rigged and continued making allegations without presenting any evidence. These culminated in a violent attack by his supporters on US Capitol building on January 6. None of the political action committees of 10 major companies reviewed by Reuters, including Microsoft Corp, Walmart Inc, AT&T Inc and Comcast Corp, donated to any of the 147 congressional Republicans who voted to support Trump's claims just hours after his supporters launched a deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol. Disclosures to the Federal Election Commission ahead of a Saturday filing deadline showed the group of corporate PACs affiliated with those 10 companies made $13,000 in new donations to candidates in January. The reports were the first by the PACs to detail contributions made since the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The money donated during the month was less than one-tenth the roughly $190,000 the 10 company PACs gave candidates in January 2017, and tiny relative to the roughly $10 million donated to candidates during the 2019-2020 election season. The 147 lawmakers who voted to overturn President Joe Biden's victory had received more than $2 million from those 10 PACs during the last two-year political cycle. Only committees tied to two of the companies - General Electric Co and American Express Co - reported any new giving to federal candidates in January. American Express' PAC gave $5,000 to Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota, while GE's gave $5,000 to Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a prominent Republican Trump critic, and $1,000 to Representative Rick Larsen of Washington, a Democrat. It is true that political donations slows down in months after US presidential elections and money from corporate political action committees is a small slice of the funds raised by political campaigns. However, the sudden and marked slump in political donations after incidents in January points to slower start to political donations as strategising for 2022 midterm election begins. While more than a thousand PACs are associated with corporate America, the 10 reviewed by Reuters include major companies which made clear public statements that they would throttle back donations following the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. (With Reuters inputs)

Big US corporates slashed political donations after Trump's claims of election fraud

A spokesperson for Iran government said on Saturday that the country believed US sanctions would soon be lifted in spite of “diplomatic wrangling” over nuclear deal. This signalled Tehran's desire to end the impasse while not offering a new position.&nbsp;

USA and Iran have been sparring with each other over who should take first step to revive nuclear deal that was struck in the year 2015. Obama administration struck the deal with Iran but Donald Trump withdrew US from the accord.

Now Iran insists that the United States must first lift former President Donald Trump’s sanctions while Washington says Tehran must first return to compliance with the deal.

The White House said on Friday that the United States plans to take no additional actions in response to pressure from Iran before potential talks with Tehran and major powers about returning to the deal.

However, government spokesman Ali Rabiei was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency on Saturday: &nbsp; 
“We predict with confidence that diplomatic initiatives will result in a favourable outcome despite the diplomatic wrangling, which are a natural prelude to the return of the parties to their commitments, including the lifting of all sanctions in the near future.”

Under the deal with major powers, Iran accepted curbs to its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of international sanctions. Washington reimposed sanctions after Trump quit the deal in 2018, and Iran responded by violating some of the deal’s nuclear limits.

Adding to pressure for a resolution to the impasse, a law passed by the hardline parliament obliges Tehran on Feb. 23 to limit the sweeping access given to U.N. inspectors under the deal.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, is due in Tehran this weekend to discuss ways to work with Iran in light of the possibility of scaling back cooperation.

Rabiei said the law “does not go against our commitment” to the agreement, nor is it “an obstacle to our appropriate response to American actions”. 
&nbsp;

A spokesperson for Iran government said on Saturday that the country believed US sanctions would soon be lifted in spite of “diplomatic wrangling” over nuclear deal.

A spokesperson for Iran government said on Saturday that the country believed US sanctions would soon be lifted in spite of “diplomatic wrangling” over nuclear deal. This signalled Tehran's desire to end the impasse while not offering a new position. USA and Iran have been sparring with each other over who should take first step to revive nuclear deal that was struck in the year 2015. Obama administration struck the deal with Iran but Donald Trump withdrew US from the accord. Now Iran insists that the United States must first lift former President Donald Trump’s sanctions while Washington says Tehran must first return to compliance with the deal. The White House said on Friday that the United States plans to take no additional actions in response to pressure from Iran before potential talks with Tehran and major powers about returning to the deal. However, government spokesman Ali Rabiei was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency on Saturday: “We predict with confidence that diplomatic initiatives will result in a favourable outcome despite the diplomatic wrangling, which are a natural prelude to the return of the parties to their commitments, including the lifting of all sanctions in the near future.” Under the deal with major powers, Iran accepted curbs to its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of international sanctions. Washington reimposed sanctions after Trump quit the deal in 2018, and Iran responded by violating some of the deal’s nuclear limits. Adding to pressure for a resolution to the impasse, a law passed by the hardline parliament obliges Tehran on Feb. 23 to limit the sweeping access given to U.N. inspectors under the deal. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, is due in Tehran this weekend to discuss ways to work with Iran in light of the possibility of scaling back cooperation. Rabiei said the law “does not go against our commitment” to the agreement, nor is it “an obstacle to our appropriate response to American actions”.

Iran confident that US sanctions will be lifted: Govt spokesperson

In 2017, an Iranian-American couple drew up a list of cities in the United States and Europe where they could settle now that both their daughters had left for college.

An extraordinary idea struck the couple, Emad Shargi and Bahareh Amidi Shargi. Move to Iran.

They had an attachment to the language, culture and traditions of a homeland they had both left as children. They had traveled to Iran several times over the years and felt a welcoming vibe.

Shargi, 56, was a partner at a company in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, leasing and selling private airplanes. Amidi Shargi, 53, a poet, gave public lectures at universities and hospitals — including a TEDx talk about the therapeutic power of poetry.

Family members in America, particularly Shargi’s father, warned them against the move, saying the Islamic Republic was “no place for them.” They dismissed the concerns as exaggeration because neither had ever been involved in politics.

That decision upended their lives. Shargi is the latest dual American citizen arrested in Iran. He was sentenced on Nov. 30 to 10 years in prison on murky charges of national security violations, after a trial that he not only did not attend but had no idea had been taking place.

Amidi Shargi is now living in Washington navigating efforts aimed at securing her husband’s release and containing the growing anxiety of their children and elderly parents. Amidi Shargi spoke out publicly in an interview for the first time, about their ordeal.

“Iran felt like we were at home. We traveled all around, took in all the history,” Amidi Shargi said. “We did not think this would happen to him. Not in a million years, not a drop in the sea.”

Shargi’s conviction came against the backdrop of other provocative steps Iran has taken since the election of President Joe Biden to pressure the new administration into reversing the “maximum pressure” policy of the former president, Donald Trump. Trump scrapped U.S. participation in the 2015 nuclear agreement and reimposed severe economic sanctions.

At least three other American citizens of Iranian descent have been held in Iran for years.

“In the past decade, Iran has frequently pursued its foreign policy goals through detention and hostage taking of dual nationals. This latest imprisonment of Emad Shargi is consistent with this track record,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the director of the Center for Human Rights in Iran, a New York-based advocacy group.

As the Biden administration attempts to define how to deal with Iran, which could include a return to the nuclear deal, families of the imprisoned Americans are calling for the administration to prioritize returning their loved ones in any negotiations.

Besides Shargi, those held include Baqer Namazi, a former UNICEF official, his son Siamak Namazi, a businessman, and Morad Tahbaz, an environmentalist entrepreneur.

Trump’s administration engaged with Iran in prisoner swap deals that won the release of two U.S. citizens held by the Iranians — Xiyue Wang, a Princeton graduate student, and Michael R. White, a Navy veteran. The other imprisoned Americans are officially regarded by Iran as Iranian citizens, despite their U.S. passports.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken announced on Monday that the United States would join 58 countries in an initiative aimed at creating a universal approach to confront state sponsored hostage taking and arbitrary detentions.

“We will work with our allies, many of which also have nationals currently detained by the Iranian government, to seek their release and to stand up to Iran’s disgraceful practice of using unjust detentions of foreign nationals as a political tool,” the State Department said through a spokesperson.

When speaking of her husband, Amidi Shargi recited one of her poems about an angel with broken wings who after a long period of sitting still discovers that resilience can help him fly again.

“That angel is Emad. He is by far the kindest gentlest partner, the most present father. He is sitting still in a jail cell without his wings,” said Amidi Shargi, breaking into tears.

Trouble with Iran’s security apparatus started about a year after the couple moved to Tehran, she recalled. By then, Shargi was working as an international vice president of Sarava, a high-profile Iranian venture capital fund with 30 companies in its portfolio and $200 million in foreign investments.

Security forces raided their house, confiscated their passports, electronic equipment and family albums and arrested Shargi. He was detained for eight months at the 2-Alef ward of the Revolutionary Guard’s intelligence unit inside Tehran’s Evin Prison and interrogated about his business ties and travels.

Amidi Shargi was also interrogated several times, she said, and was threatened repeatedly with reprisals if she informed the U.S. authorities or spoke with the media about her husband’s case.

Shargi was released on bail after eight months in December 2018.

In December 2019, the Revolutionary Court issued an order informing Shargi that he has been cleared of all spying and national security charges, according to a copy of the order the family’s lawyer shared with The New York Times.

“We thought our silence had paid off and it was over, and we could leave,” Amidi Shargi said. But it was not that simple.

Two mysterious events worried them: A false Iranian news report that they had been arrested, and the inexplicable refusal of the authorities to return Shargi’s passport.

They both agreed she should fly back to the United States to rejoin their children.

Throughout 2020 he was called before the Revolutionary Court for three hearings. On Nov. 30 the court summoned Shargi and the judge told him he had been tried in absentia and sentenced to 10 years in prison and was presented with a 35-page document convicting him of espionage. His lawyer filed an appeal.

Unbeknown to his family or lawyer, Shargi decided to flee through the border with Iraqi Kurdistan where smugglers have designated routes for trafficking people and goods across the border.

Amidi Shargi spoke to her husband on Dec. 4, she said, and then he did not return her calls or see her frantic texts. She asked acquaintances in Tehran to search for him in their house, at hospitals and the police station.

Iranian authorities offered no information of his whereabouts and the family had no news of him for more than a month.

On Jan. 17, a website affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard reported he had been arrested at a checkpoint in the province of Western Azerbaijan about 12 miles from the Iraq border.

“It was devastating, we all found out through the news and we were calling each other trying to get information,” Amidi Shargi said.

A spokesman for Iran’s Judiciary, Gholamhossein Esmaeili, confirmed the arrest at a news conference in late January without identifying Shargi by name. Esmaeili’s account also differed inexplicably from the Revolutionary Court order that had exonerated Shargi in December 2019. The spokesman said Shargi had been out on bail and had an “ongoing case against him” on espionage and other charges.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not respond to an inquiry about Shargi’s case.

Shargi called his wife last Saturday for the first time since he disappeared. In what she described as his trademark soft-spoken voice, he apologized for not having been in touch sooner.

“I got the girls on the speaker. We said ‘we love you, we miss you, we are praying for you to come back home,’” Amidi Shargi said. He couldn’t talk long or disclose much, she said, except that he was being held at the same place as before, meaning Evin Prison.

In 2017, an Iranian-American couple drew up a list of cities in the United States and Europe where they could settle now that both their daughters had left for college.

In 2017, an Iranian-American couple drew up a list of cities in the United States and Europe where they could settle now that both their daughters had left for college. An extraordinary idea struck the couple, Emad Shargi and Bahareh Amidi Shargi. Move to Iran. They had an attachment to the language, culture and traditions of a homeland they had both left as children. They had traveled to Iran several times over the years and felt a welcoming vibe. Shargi, 56, was a partner at a company in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, leasing and selling private airplanes. Amidi Shargi, 53, a poet, gave public lectures at universities and hospitals — including a TEDx talk about the therapeutic power of poetry. Family members in America, particularly Shargi’s father, warned them against the move, saying the Islamic Republic was “no place for them.” They dismissed the concerns as exaggeration because neither had ever been involved in politics. That decision upended their lives. Shargi is the latest dual American citizen arrested in Iran. He was sentenced on Nov. 30 to 10 years in prison on murky charges of national security violations, after a trial that he not only did not attend but had no idea had been taking place. Amidi Shargi is now living in Washington navigating efforts aimed at securing her husband’s release and containing the growing anxiety of their children and elderly parents. Amidi Shargi spoke out publicly in an interview for the first time, about their ordeal. “Iran felt like we were at home. We traveled all around, took in all the history,” Amidi Shargi said. “We did not think this would happen to him. Not in a million years, not a drop in the sea.” Shargi’s conviction came against the backdrop of other provocative steps Iran has taken since the election of President Joe Biden to pressure the new administration into reversing the “maximum pressure” policy of the former president, Donald Trump. Trump scrapped U.S. participation in the 2015 nuclear agreement and reimposed severe economic sanctions. At least three other American citizens of Iranian descent have been held in Iran for years. “In the past decade, Iran has frequently pursued its foreign policy goals through detention and hostage taking of dual nationals. This latest imprisonment of Emad Shargi is consistent with this track record,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the director of the Center for Human Rights in Iran, a New York-based advocacy group. As the Biden administration attempts to define how to deal with Iran, which could include a return to the nuclear deal, families of the imprisoned Americans are calling for the administration to prioritize returning their loved ones in any negotiations. Besides Shargi, those held include Baqer Namazi, a former UNICEF official, his son Siamak Namazi, a businessman, and Morad Tahbaz, an environmentalist entrepreneur. Trump’s administration engaged with Iran in prisoner swap deals that won the release of two U.S. citizens held by the Iranians — Xiyue Wang, a Princeton graduate student, and Michael R. White, a Navy veteran. The other imprisoned Americans are officially regarded by Iran as Iranian citizens, despite their U.S. passports. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken announced on Monday that the United States would join 58 countries in an initiative aimed at creating a universal approach to confront state sponsored hostage taking and arbitrary detentions. “We will work with our allies, many of which also have nationals currently detained by the Iranian government, to seek their release and to stand up to Iran’s disgraceful practice of using unjust detentions of foreign nationals as a political tool,” the State Department said through a spokesperson. When speaking of her husband, Amidi Shargi recited one of her poems about an angel with broken wings who after a long period of sitting still discovers that resilience can help him fly again. “That angel is Emad. He is by far the kindest gentlest partner, the most present father. He is sitting still in a jail cell without his wings,” said Amidi Shargi, breaking into tears. Trouble with Iran’s security apparatus started about a year after the couple moved to Tehran, she recalled. By then, Shargi was working as an international vice president of Sarava, a high-profile Iranian venture capital fund with 30 companies in its portfolio and $200 million in foreign investments. Security forces raided their house, confiscated their passports, electronic equipment and family albums and arrested Shargi. He was detained for eight months at the 2-Alef ward of the Revolutionary Guard’s intelligence unit inside Tehran’s Evin Prison and interrogated about his business ties and travels. Amidi Shargi was also interrogated several times, she said, and was threatened repeatedly with reprisals if she informed the U.S. authorities or spoke with the media about her husband’s case. Shargi was released on bail after eight months in December 2018. In December 2019, the Revolutionary Court issued an order informing Shargi that he has been cleared of all spying and national security charges, according to a copy of the order the family’s lawyer shared with The New York Times. “We thought our silence had paid off and it was over, and we could leave,” Amidi Shargi said. But it was not that simple. Two mysterious events worried them: A false Iranian news report that they had been arrested, and the inexplicable refusal of the authorities to return Shargi’s passport. They both agreed she should fly back to the United States to rejoin their children. Throughout 2020 he was called before the Revolutionary Court for three hearings. On Nov. 30 the court summoned Shargi and the judge told him he had been tried in absentia and sentenced to 10 years in prison and was presented with a 35-page document convicting him of espionage. His lawyer filed an appeal. Unbeknown to his family or lawyer, Shargi decided to flee through the border with Iraqi Kurdistan where smugglers have designated routes for trafficking people and goods across the border. Amidi Shargi spoke to her husband on Dec. 4, she said, and then he did not return her calls or see her frantic texts. She asked acquaintances in Tehran to search for him in their house, at hospitals and the police station. Iranian authorities offered no information of his whereabouts and the family had no news of him for more than a month. On Jan. 17, a website affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard reported he had been arrested at a checkpoint in the province of Western Azerbaijan about 12 miles from the Iraq border. “It was devastating, we all found out through the news and we were calling each other trying to get information,” Amidi Shargi said. A spokesman for Iran’s Judiciary, Gholamhossein Esmaeili, confirmed the arrest at a news conference in late January without identifying Shargi by name. Esmaeili’s account also differed inexplicably from the Revolutionary Court order that had exonerated Shargi in December 2019. The spokesman said Shargi had been out on bail and had an “ongoing case against him” on espionage and other charges. Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not respond to an inquiry about Shargi’s case. Shargi called his wife last Saturday for the first time since he disappeared. In what she described as his trademark soft-spoken voice, he apologized for not having been in touch sooner. “I got the girls on the speaker. We said ‘we love you, we miss you, we are praying for you to come back home,’” Amidi Shargi said. He couldn’t talk long or disclose much, she said, except that he was being held at the same place as before, meaning Evin Prison.

They thought, ‘why not Iran,’ and the decision upended their lives

Jabir McKnight woke up on the morning of Jan. 6 with an uneasy feeling.

The day before had been great: He and another congressional staff member had celebrated Founders Day for their historically Black fraternity, Kappa Alpha Psi. But as McKnight walked that Wednesday to Capitol Hill, where he had always felt safe, images of white supremacist violence in Charleston, South Carolina, and Charlottesville, Virginia, began to race through his head.

Hours before the violent pro-Trump mob rampaged through the halls of Congress, leaving nearly 140 police officers injured and five people dead, McKnight recalled, he could not shake the sense that something very bad was about to happen.

“The writing was on the wall for this,” said McKnight, 23, who is the communications director for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

He pointed to examples of right-wing violence in recent months and years. “For Black staffers, it’s a little bit different, because a lot of these attacks are directed toward our people,” he said. “We’ve seen these things happen over and over and over again. I don’t think we were blinded that people who are domestic terrorists would say, ‘Oh, it’s the Capitol, we’ll stop there.’”

Symbols of racism and white supremacy were on full display at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Rioters paraded the Confederate battle flag through the halls. One man wore a “Camp Auschwitz” sweatshirt, others flew the flag of the fictional country Kekistan, which mimics a Nazi war flag.

Black Capitol Police officers have described the intense racism they endured from the mob; one told Buzzfeed News he was called a racist slur 15 times, causing him to break down in tears.

Only a small percentage of congressional aides are Black. Since the attack, McKnight and others who were in nearby offices in the Capitol complex that day have been talking among themselves about how close the violence came to them, what it means to experience such a virulent expression of racism in what is supposed to be a citadel of liberty, and the suspicion they now feel toward other aides, members of Congress and random people they encounter as they go about their business on Capitol Hill.

“It makes the trauma worse,” McKnight said. “Because as you’re walking around, you don’t know who could have been involved with what.”

For some Black staff members, the Capitol attack brought back memories of how they had tried to avoid people they felt could be prone to racist violence — only to find them at their place of work.

“This was the ugliest display of racism that I’ve seen ever. And I’m from the South,” says Remmington Belford, 30, the communications director for Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y. “There’s a specific demographic of people that you know conduct themselves that way, and you find your way away from them. Those people came to Capitol Hill. The people who believe in supremacy due to genetics were on Capitol Hill, and they were armed, and they were incensed.”

The staff members described feelings of fear about the physical threat and anger about the psychic damage done by the mob.

“I never though I’d see the Confederate flag walked through the halls of Congress,” said Mike McQuerry, 50, the communications director for Delegate Stacey Plaskett, D-Virgin Islands and an impeachment manager in the trial of former President Donald Trump. “As much as we think we’ve had progress, we haven’t progressed that much.”

McQuerry said that white rioters, using force and rage, gained access to parts of the Capitol that had always been off-limits to him, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office or the floor of the Senate.

“Those insurgents got to places where we as staffers couldn’t go,” he said, “places we wouldn’t even think about going.”

McKnight, Belford and McQuerry watched the worst of the violence from fortified offices in the Rayburn Building on the House side of the Capitol complex.

“The fear was very present,” Belford said, adding that he had planned two escape routes, including rushing through a window. “As far as close? They were steps away. Let’s be very clear. There’s no force that protects us in Rayburn” once the rioters breached the Capitol.

“We were fortified in our offices,” McKnight said. “You don’t know what’s on the other side of the door. You never knew what was on the other side. We were worried about any sound we heard. Are they here? Are they in the building? The only time you would have known is when it was too late. Everyone was terrified.”

As they watched the mayhem that day, the aides said, they feared for their lives, realizing that not only lawmakers could be attacked but so could they.

After the siege, congressional aides have reported trouble sleeping and feeling anxious, claustrophobic, angry and depressed. Lawmakers have requested additional resources to support the mental health needs of employees in response to surging demand.

“It was the first time I realized that post-traumatic stress syndrome is a thing,” said Belford, who is from Houston. “We as staffers are still dealing with the trauma.”

Despite what they experienced that day, McQuerry, who is from Detroit, said staff members felt an obligation to push on with work.

“There’s not that many of us that work up here,” he said of Black aides to members of Congress. “It’s affected us tremendously. We have to just push through. I think we deal with it every day. PTSD is really real.”

During the riot, some Democratic lawmakers said they thought they might be able to blend in with Republican members of Congress to avoid the violence. Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., said recently on the House floor that he recognized his privilege when this thought occurred to him.

“Within moments, I realized that blending in was not an option available to our colleagues color,” he said. “So I’m here tonight to say to my brothers and sisters in Congress, and all around our country: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. For I had never understood, really understood, what privilege really means.”

Aides who represent members of color said they were well aware that Black lawmakers could be targeted because “our members are some of the most vocal against Trump’s harmful and divisive practices,” Belford said. “The fear was very present. We cannot blend in. We cannot not be visible. Our skin color often becomes a target.”

They were reminded this week of the threats to lawmakers when a top security official suggested on Tuesday that members of Congress consider upgrading their home security systems to include panic buttons and key fobs. In a lengthy memo sent to House lawmakers and their aides, Timothy Blodgett, the acting sergeant-at-arms, reiterated measures that he advised lawmakers to take to protect their Washington and district offices as well as their homes.

The guidance — which encouraged refraining from posting about lawmakers’ appearances at events until after they have “safely left,” using special hoods to reduce exposure to “harmful materials” sent by mail and installing panic buttons in lawmakers’ homes — starkly illustrated the continuing shock waves after the Jan. 6 attack.

Lawmakers have received briefings on a handful of specific active threats to the Capitol and to members after the attack, and court documents have detailed plans by individuals in the pro-Trump mob to kill specific members of Congress.

One man threatened to put “a bullet” in Pelosi’s head “on Live TV,”; another threatened to assassinate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that day, according to federal prosecutors.

McKnight, who is from Philadelphia, said he had spoken with colleagues who felt shocked after moving to Washington.

“So where can you go?” McKnight said. “You just moved to D.C. to work in politics and be in a safe environment, and now that’s changed.”

As traumatizing as the riot was, the staff members said they had also received an outpouring of support.

During the attack, Plaskett posted on Twitter a photograph of her staff, including McQuerry, telling the public they were safe. McQuerry said he received a flood of texts containing messages such as “I love you” and “be safe.”

McKnight said he was also inundated with support from friends, family and acquaintances.

“We could have lost our lives,” he said. “Not only were people watching, but people cared.”

Jabir McKnight woke up on the morning of Jan. 6 with an uneasy feeling. The day before had been great: He and another congressional staff member had celebrated Founders Day for their historically Black fraternity, Kappa Alpha Psi.

Jabir McKnight woke up on the morning of Jan. 6 with an uneasy feeling. The day before had been great: He and another congressional staff member had celebrated Founders Day for their historically Black fraternity, Kappa Alpha Psi. But as McKnight walked that Wednesday to Capitol Hill, where he had always felt safe, images of white supremacist violence in Charleston, South Carolina, and Charlottesville, Virginia, began to race through his head. Hours before the violent pro-Trump mob rampaged through the halls of Congress, leaving nearly 140 police officers injured and five people dead, McKnight recalled, he could not shake the sense that something very bad was about to happen. “The writing was on the wall for this,” said McKnight, 23, who is the communications director for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. He pointed to examples of right-wing violence in recent months and years. “For Black staffers, it’s a little bit different, because a lot of these attacks are directed toward our people,” he said. “We’ve seen these things happen over and over and over again. I don’t think we were blinded that people who are domestic terrorists would say, ‘Oh, it’s the Capitol, we’ll stop there.’” Symbols of racism and white supremacy were on full display at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Rioters paraded the Confederate battle flag through the halls. One man wore a “Camp Auschwitz” sweatshirt, others flew the flag of the fictional country Kekistan, which mimics a Nazi war flag. Black Capitol Police officers have described the intense racism they endured from the mob; one told Buzzfeed News he was called a racist slur 15 times, causing him to break down in tears. Only a small percentage of congressional aides are Black. Since the attack, McKnight and others who were in nearby offices in the Capitol complex that day have been talking among themselves about how close the violence came to them, what it means to experience such a virulent expression of racism in what is supposed to be a citadel of liberty, and the suspicion they now feel toward other aides, members of Congress and random people they encounter as they go about their business on Capitol Hill. “It makes the trauma worse,” McKnight said. “Because as you’re walking around, you don’t know who could have been involved with what.” For some Black staff members, the Capitol attack brought back memories of how they had tried to avoid people they felt could be prone to racist violence — only to find them at their place of work. “This was the ugliest display of racism that I’ve seen ever. And I’m from the South,” says Remmington Belford, 30, the communications director for Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y. “There’s a specific demographic of people that you know conduct themselves that way, and you find your way away from them. Those people came to Capitol Hill. The people who believe in supremacy due to genetics were on Capitol Hill, and they were armed, and they were incensed.” The staff members described feelings of fear about the physical threat and anger about the psychic damage done by the mob. “I never though I’d see the Confederate flag walked through the halls of Congress,” said Mike McQuerry, 50, the communications director for Delegate Stacey Plaskett, D-Virgin Islands and an impeachment manager in the trial of former President Donald Trump. “As much as we think we’ve had progress, we haven’t progressed that much.” McQuerry said that white rioters, using force and rage, gained access to parts of the Capitol that had always been off-limits to him, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office or the floor of the Senate. “Those insurgents got to places where we as staffers couldn’t go,” he said, “places we wouldn’t even think about going.” McKnight, Belford and McQuerry watched the worst of the violence from fortified offices in the Rayburn Building on the House side of the Capitol complex. “The fear was very present,” Belford said, adding that he had planned two escape routes, including rushing through a window. “As far as close? They were steps away. Let’s be very clear. There’s no force that protects us in Rayburn” once the rioters breached the Capitol. “We were fortified in our offices,” McKnight said. “You don’t know what’s on the other side of the door. You never knew what was on the other side. We were worried about any sound we heard. Are they here? Are they in the building? The only time you would have known is when it was too late. Everyone was terrified.” As they watched the mayhem that day, the aides said, they feared for their lives, realizing that not only lawmakers could be attacked but so could they. After the siege, congressional aides have reported trouble sleeping and feeling anxious, claustrophobic, angry and depressed. Lawmakers have requested additional resources to support the mental health needs of employees in response to surging demand. “It was the first time I realized that post-traumatic stress syndrome is a thing,” said Belford, who is from Houston. “We as staffers are still dealing with the trauma.” Despite what they experienced that day, McQuerry, who is from Detroit, said staff members felt an obligation to push on with work. “There’s not that many of us that work up here,” he said of Black aides to members of Congress. “It’s affected us tremendously. We have to just push through. I think we deal with it every day. PTSD is really real.” During the riot, some Democratic lawmakers said they thought they might be able to blend in with Republican members of Congress to avoid the violence. Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., said recently on the House floor that he recognized his privilege when this thought occurred to him. “Within moments, I realized that blending in was not an option available to our colleagues color,” he said. “So I’m here tonight to say to my brothers and sisters in Congress, and all around our country: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. For I had never understood, really understood, what privilege really means.” Aides who represent members of color said they were well aware that Black lawmakers could be targeted because “our members are some of the most vocal against Trump’s harmful and divisive practices,” Belford said. “The fear was very present. We cannot blend in. We cannot not be visible. Our skin color often becomes a target.” They were reminded this week of the threats to lawmakers when a top security official suggested on Tuesday that members of Congress consider upgrading their home security systems to include panic buttons and key fobs. In a lengthy memo sent to House lawmakers and their aides, Timothy Blodgett, the acting sergeant-at-arms, reiterated measures that he advised lawmakers to take to protect their Washington and district offices as well as their homes. The guidance — which encouraged refraining from posting about lawmakers’ appearances at events until after they have “safely left,” using special hoods to reduce exposure to “harmful materials” sent by mail and installing panic buttons in lawmakers’ homes — starkly illustrated the continuing shock waves after the Jan. 6 attack. Lawmakers have received briefings on a handful of specific active threats to the Capitol and to members after the attack, and court documents have detailed plans by individuals in the pro-Trump mob to kill specific members of Congress. One man threatened to put “a bullet” in Pelosi’s head “on Live TV,”; another threatened to assassinate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that day, according to federal prosecutors. McKnight, who is from Philadelphia, said he had spoken with colleagues who felt shocked after moving to Washington. “So where can you go?” McKnight said. “You just moved to D.C. to work in politics and be in a safe environment, and now that’s changed.” As traumatizing as the riot was, the staff members said they had also received an outpouring of support. During the attack, Plaskett posted on Twitter a photograph of her staff, including McQuerry, telling the public they were safe. McQuerry said he received a flood of texts containing messages such as “I love you” and “be safe.” McKnight said he was also inundated with support from friends, family and acquaintances. “We could have lost our lives,” he said. “Not only were people watching, but people cared.”

For black aides on Capitol Hill, Jan. 6 brought particular trauma

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