Elections

In retrospect, the Mueller report was a cry for help.“The Office,” as the special counsel so self-effacingly called itself in its report, knew its limits, or at least chose them. It could not indict a sitting president. It was generous with the benefit of the doubt when evaluating a potential “obstructive act” or gauging criminal intent by President Donald Trump. It considered mitigating, and sometimes dubious, explanations for his behavior, and was as restrained in interpreting the president’s misdeeds as it was zealous in listing them.Its conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice became a Washington classic of needle-threading ambiguity: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” The Office declined to call Trump a criminal, however much it might have wanted to.Instead, scattered throughout its 448 pages, the Mueller report includes some not-so-subtle instructions and warnings that future investigators, less inhibited, could heed when facing fresh misdeeds.The two highest-profile congressional investigations of Trump that followed — the 2019 report by the House Intelligence Committee on Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine as well as the recently released report by the select committee on the Jan. 6 attack — read like deliberate contrasts to the document produced by Robert Mueller and his team. Their presentation is dramatic, not dense; their conclusions are blunt, not oblique; their arguments are political as much as legal. And yet, the Ukraine and Jan. 6 reports seem to follow the cues, explicit or implied, that the Mueller report left behind.Read together, these three major investigations of the Trump presidency appear in conversation with one another, ever more detailed drafts of a most unorthodox historical record — a history in which these documents are characters as much as chroniclers.The documents try to explain the former president, and they also strain to contain him. The Mueller report inspects the guardrails that Trump bent and sometimes broke. The Ukraine report lays out the case that led to his first impeachment. The Jan. 6 report now declares him “unfit” to return to the nation’s highest office — the very office Trump is again pursuing — or to any office below it.The effect is cumulative. While the Mueller report evaluates Trump’s behavior as a series of individual, unrelated actions, it knows better, stating near the end that the president’s “pattern of conduct as a whole” was vital to grasping his intentions. The Ukraine and Jan. 6 reports took up that task, establishing links among Trump’s varied transgressions.While the Mueller report wonders whether Trump and his advisers committed certain acts “willfully” — that is, “with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct” — the investigations into his strong-arming of Ukraine and the Capitol assault seek to show that Trump knew that his actions violated the law and that his statements ran counter to the truth.And while the Mueller report grudgingly posits that some of the president’s questionable actions might have been taken with the public, rather than the private, interest in mind, the Ukraine and Jan. 6 reports contend that with Trump, the distinction between public and private always collapsed in favor of the latter.The Mueller report would not declare that the president deserved impeachment or had committed crimes, but it didn’t mind if someone else reached those conclusions. It states plainly that accusing Trump of a crime could “pre-empt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” that is, the constitutional process of impeachment, which the Ukraine investigation would soon deliver.The Mueller report also notes in its final pages that “only a successor Administration would be able to prosecute a former President,” which is what the Jan. 6 special committee, with its multiple criminal referrals, has urged the Biden administration’s Justice Department to do.The Ukraine and Jan. 6 reports did their best to answer Mueller’s call.ALL THREE REPORTS INCLUDE quintessentially Trumpian scenes, consistent in their depictions of the former president’s methods, and very much in keeping with numerous journalistic accounts of how he sought to manipulate people, rules and institutions.When the Jan. 6 report shows Trump haranguing Mike Pence, telling the vice president that Pence would be known as a “patriot” if Pence helped overturn the 2020 election, it’s hard not to recall the scene in the Mueller report when the president tells Jeff Sessions that the attorney general would go down as a “hero” if he reversed his recusal from the Russia investigation.All three reports show Trump deploying the mechanisms of government for political gain. Less than four months into his term, Trump relies on a Department of Justice memo as cover to fire the F.B.I. director; he uses the Office of Management and Budget to delay the disbursal of military aid to Ukraine in 2019; and he attempts to use fake state electoral certificates to upend the results of the 2020 vote.Perhaps no moment is more believable than the Ukraine report’s description of Trump’s April 2019 conversation with the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, when Trump makes a point of mentioning that Ukraine is “always very well represented” in the Miss Universe pageants.Still, each investigation offers a slightly different theory of Trump. In the Mueller report, Trump and his aides come across as the gang that can’t cheat straight — too haphazard to effectively coordinate with a foreign government, too ignorant of campaign finance laws to purposely violate them, often comically naïve about the gravity of their plight. When Michael Flynn resigns from the White House after admitting to lying about his contacts with Russian officials, Trump consoles him with the assurance, “We’ll give you a good recommendation,” as if Flynn were a departing mailroom intern rather than a disgraced ex-national security adviser.When the Trump campaign tried to conceal details surrounding its infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016, the Mueller report suggests that the effort “may reflect an intention to avoid political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality,” that is, that the Trump team might have felt just shame, not guilt.The Mueller report rebuts the Trumpian notion that the president can employ his legitimate authority regardless of the illegitimacy of his purpose. “An improper motive can render an actor’s conduct criminal even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor’s authority,” the report states, in the patient tone of a parent explaining household rules to a child. But even in the damning sections on Trump’s potential obstruction of justice (in which “the Office” all but states that it would have charged Trump if it could have), the report theorizes that the president may have been attacking the inquiries against him out of concern that they hindered his ability to govern, not because he was hiding some nefarious activity.The Ukraine report, by contrast, regards Trump as more strategic than chaotic, and it does not wallow in the netherworld between the president’s personal benefit and his public service. “The President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security,” Representative Adam Schiff declares in the report’s preface.The three investigations tell different stories, but the misdeeds all run together, more overlapping than sequential. The president’s effort to squeeze Zelensky’s government into investigating the Biden family (ironically, under the guise of Trump’s anti-corruption concerns) was an attempt to manipulate the 2020 election, while his desire for Ukraine to investigate its own supposed U.S. election interference (on behalf of the Democrats, naturally) was part of Trump’s ongoing battle to defend the glorious memory of his 2016 victory. “We were struck by the fact that the President’s misconduct was not an isolated occurrence, nor was it the product of a naïve president,” Schiff writes. Indeed, several weeks before Trump’s famous phone conversation with Zelensky on July 25, 2019, Trump had already ordered a hold on hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, which it would dangle as leverage. And the purely political nature of the enterprise was made plain when the report notes that Trump did not care if Ukraine in fact conducted any investigations. It simply had to announce them.The Mueller report argues that “Viewing the [president’s] acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance.” The Ukraine report shows that the conversation that Trump described as “a perfect call” was not the ask; it was the confirmation. When Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor, though,” Zelensky and his aides had already been notified what was coming. The Ukraine scandal was never about a single call, just like the Jan. 6 report was not about a single day.The Jan. 6 report is the most dramatic — and certainly the most readable — of the three documents. It is vaguely journalistic in style, even adopting the narrative convention of turning memorable quotes into chapter titles, like “I Just Want to Find 11,780 Votes” and “Be There, Will Be Wild!” (Contrast this with the Mueller report’s “Background Legal and Evidentiary Principles” or “Legal Defenses to the Application of Obstruction-of-Justice Statutes to the President,” among its other sexy teasers.) At times, the Jan. 6 report applies too much writerly gloss. When it points out that Trump and his campaign used bogus claims of election fraud after the 2020 vote to raise more than $250 million from supporters, the report says that the Big Lie enabled “the Big Rip-off.” I’m sure someone was proud of that wording, but in this case it is more than enough just to state the facts.The Jan. 6 report takes seriously the admonition to view the president’s actions collectively, not individually; the phrase “multipart plan” appears throughout the report, with Trump as the architect. Several observers of the Trump era have described how the president learned to maneuver his way through the executive branch and grew bolder in his abuses of it; in the Jan. 6 report, that transition is complete. No longer the bumbling, reactive and instinctual occupant of the Oval Office, here Trump is fully in charge — purposely spreading false information about election fraud, pressuring Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College count, leaning on state and local electoral officials to change the vote totals, summoning tens of thousands of supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, and urging them to march to the Capitol, then standing by for hours as the violent attack was underway. “The central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed,” the report concludes.Trump told America that he alone could fix it; the Jan. 6 report tells us that he alone could break it.Even more so than the Ukraine report, the Jan. 6 report repeatedly emphasizes how Trump knew, well, everything. “Donald Trump’s own campaign officials told him early on that his claims of fraud were false,” Liz Cheney, the committee vice chair, writes in her introduction. “Donald Trump’s senior Justice Department officials — each appointed by Donald Trump himself — investigated the allegations and told him repeatedly that his fraud claims were false. Donald Trump’s White House lawyers also told him his fraud claims were false.”There is no room here for the plausible deniability that the Mueller report entertained, for the notion that Trump didn’t know better, or that, in the immortal words of Attorney General William P. Barr when he creatively interpreted the Mueller report to exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, that the president was “frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency.”This alleged sincerity underscored the president’s “noncorrupt motives,” as Barr put it. In the Jan. 6 report, any case for Trumpian sincerity is eviscerated in a six-page chart in the executive summary, which catalogs the many times the president was informed of the facts of the election yet continued to lie about them. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” Trump told top Department of Justice officials in late December 2020, the report says.Just announce an investigation into the Bidens. Just say the 2020 election was rigged. Trump’s most corrupt action is always the corruption of reality.The Jan. 6 report devotes a chapter to explaining how the president purposely mustered a mob to Washington, how his “will be wild!” call-out on social media united rival extremist groups in a common cause, and how he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” to obstruct the affirmation of a legitimate vote.Two days before his speech, Trump had already floated the idea to advisers that he would join the protesters at the Capitol, and he even briefly considered deploying 10,000 members of the National Guard “to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by left-wing counterprotesters,” the report states.This is among the most remarkable moments in the Jan. 6 chronicle. Rather than worry about violence against lawmakers and the Capitol itself, Trump was focused on protecting his supporters. They interpreted the president’s call to join him in Washington that day as a command to save their country, violently if necessary, and they stood down only when he issued a video instructing them to do so. The Jan. 6 report, in a dramatic but not inaccurate flourish, affirms that, during the assault on the Capitol, Trump “was not only the commander in chief of the U.S. military, but also of the rioters.”On that day, he chose to lead the rioters. Jan. 6 was the closest Trump would get to holding that military parade he so longed to see in Washington. Instead of parading in front of the Capitol, his troops marched against it.AFTER MAKING THE CASE that Trump incited the assault, the Jan. 6 report expresses shock at how little Trump did to stop it, an act of omission it labels a “dereliction of duty.” Yet, by the report’s own logic, why would Trump have stopped the insurrectionists? “President Trump had summoned a mob, including armed extremists and conspiracy theorists, to Washington, D.C. on the day the joint session of Congress was to meet,” the report states. “He then told that same mob to march on the U.S. Capitol and ‘fight.’ They clearly got the message.” (Some variation of the word “fight” appeared only twice in Trump’s prepared speech for his Jan. 6 speech, but the president would utter the word 20 times throughout his remarks, the report notes.) If the rioters were in fact doing his bidding, the president would have no reason to call them off once the mayhem began.That Trump would rile people up and then sit back and watch the outcome on television was the least surprising part of the day. It was how he spent his presidency. In calling out Trump’s failure to act, the Jan. 6 report was imagining that Trump, in that moment, might have become presidential at last, shocked by what his own actions wrought into being something other than himself. In its condemnation of Trump, the report still longed for his transformation. After so many pages, so much testimony, so much analysis, it still struggled to understand him.The challenges of interpreting and describing what another person was thinking, doing or intending at a particular moment — even a person as overanalyzed as Donald J. Trump — comes alive in one passage, or rather, one word, of the Jan. 6 report. The issue is not even the word itself, but the form in which it is rendered.The report cites the testimony of a White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, who explained how, on the morning of Jan. 6, the president was incensed that the presence of magnetometers (used to detect weapons) was inhibiting some armed supporters from entering the Ellipse, where the president was to deliver his speech.As always, Trump wanted a bigger crowd. Hutchinson said she heard him say something like, “I don’t F’ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the F’ing mags away. Let my people in.”They’re not here to hurt me. Which word should one emphasize when uttering that sentence aloud? If it is the verb hurt,” the sentiment would be somewhat benign. They are not here to hurt me, the president might have meant, but to praise or cheer or support me. If the emphasis falls on “me,” however, the meaning is more sinister. They’re not here to hurt me, the implication would be, but to hurt someone else. That someone else could be Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, an officer of the Capitol Police or any of the lawmakers gathering to fulfill their duty and certify Joe Biden as president.So, which was it? The Jan. 6 report confuses matters by italicizing “me” in the document’s final chapter but leaving it unitalicized in the executive summary. The video of Hutchinson’s testimony shows her reciting the line quickly and neutrally, with perhaps a slight emphasis on “hurt” rather than “me.” (You can watch and listen for yourself.)Of course, the less ambiguous interpretation of Trump’s words is that either inflection — whether “hurt” or “me” — still means the president was unconcerned of anyone’s safety but his own. Perhaps “I don’t F’ing care” is the most relevant phrase.With a document surpassing 800 pages, it may seem too much to linger on the typeface of a single two-letter pronoun. But for accounts that can serve as both historical records and briefs for the prosecution, every word and every quote — every framing and every implication — is a choice that deserves scrutiny.The studious restraint of the Mueller report came in for much criticism once the special counsel failed to deliver a dagger to the heart of the Trump presidency and once the document was so easily miscast by interested parties. Even its copious redactions, justified by the opaque phrase “Harm to Ongoing Matter” appearing over a sea of blotted out text, seemed designed to frustrate. Yet, for all its diffidence, there is power in the document’s understated prose, in its methodical collection of evidence, in its unwillingness to overstep its bounds while investigating a president who knew few bounds himself.The Ukraine and Jan. 6 reports came at a time when Trump’s misconduct was better understood, when Mueller-like restraint was less in fashion, and when those attempting to hold the chief executive accountable grasped every tool at hand. For all their passion and bluntness, they encountered their own constraints, limits that are likely inherent to the form, to the challenge of recording on paper and by committee the impulses not just of a man but of an era with which he became synonymous.Expectations are heaped upon these reports, not only for what they might reveal, but for what those revelations might unleash, or what they might help repair. Such demands are excessive and probably counterproductive. It is hard enough to determine the true meaning of a lone word, to reconstruct a fleeting moment in history. It is harder still to reconstruct a nation’s political life, that other ongoing matter to which so much harm has been done.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Is there anything liberals can do about Ron DeSantis other than quietly seethe, loudly condemn him every time he makes headlines and hope that his political flaws — his distaste for glad-handing, his less-than-inspiring public-speaking style, his conspicuous unlikability — will take him down before he gets anywhere close to the presidency? It would be tempting to write off DeSantis, the bombastic Republican governor of Florida, as another unelectable right-wing lunatic unfit for national office.We’ve made that mistake before.It’s reliably depressing to revisit 2016 and the misbegotten liberal conviction that America couldn’t possibly elevate Donald Trump to the presidency. We’ve already cataloged the mistakes in media coverage and dissected what we missed that somehow made Trump a viable, let alone a desirable, candidate to occupy the Oval Office. But here we go again. As the Democratic political strategist Lis Smith has remarked, the left’s reaction to DeSantis looks just like its reaction to Trump: “He’s picking these fights. He’s saying and doing abhorrent things. And all the same characters — whether in the media, Democratic politics, the punditry class, whatever it is — have the same freakout.”Let’s pay closer attention this time.First, we shouldn’t underestimate DeSantis. He may resemble Trump in his politics — but not in his intellect or resolve. Compare their respective backgrounds: Whereas Trump’s acceptance into the University of Pennsylvania, after an academic record notable only for its mediocrity, was an egregious example of leveraging personal connections to get into a prestigious university, DeSantis, the son of a TV ratings box installer and a nurse, actually earned his way into the Ivy League. People bent over backward to ascribe some accidental form of grifter street smarts to Trump. But DeSantis is demonstrably intelligent and industrious. He worked his way through Yale while playing baseball and graduated magna cum laude.Whereas Trump skirted military service with a convenient discovery of bone spurs, DeSantis was a commissioned officer in the Navy. He graduated from Harvard Law School. He may share Trump’s taste for bluster, but this is not someone who bumbled his way into public office. As Dexter Filkins observed last year in a New Yorker profile, “DeSantis has an intense work ethic, a formidable intelligence and a granular understanding of policy.”Because we can assume DeSantis knows what he’s doing, we should make careful note of his record in Florida, where he has been governor since 2019. His approval rating in Florida is consistently over 50 percent and includes high ratings among Latinos and in former liberal strongholds like Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties.The jury is still out on whether DeSantis’s unorthodox response to Covid-19 was a colossal error or an unexpected success or, more likely, something in between, but the fact that he took an aggressive approach to avoid the pains of lockdown on small businesses and families wasn’t lost on Florida voters. While other politicians prevaricated and dithered, DeSantis spoke with conviction and seemed to be doing something, and to many working families in Florida, that mattered.When I visited Miami from Covid-conscious New York in 2021, the vibe in bars and restaurants in the Wynwood art district — where nobody asked for proof of vaccination and I was the only person in a mask — was euphoric. In that young, overwhelmingly liberal corner of the city, people weren’t faulting DeSantis for his pandemic policies. He also acted decisively last year during Hurricane Ian, a response that won strong bipartisan approval.In a country where government often looks sclerotic, DeSantis’s knack for action bears notice. We can decry his stunt in shipping migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, but we should also be attending to the real concerns of people living in areas of heavy immigration. Lest we forget, Hispanic voters in Florida preferred DeSantis to his Democratic opponent in last year’s election for governor; they also supported his Martha’s Vineyard escapade, according to a Telemundo/LX News poll. “There are lots of Hispanic voters in this state who really like the governor’s style, this strongman who won’t back down,” one pollster explained at the time.Democrats need to grapple with this appeal. It would be easy to write DeSantis off as a cartoon culture warrior or as racist, homophobic, transphobic and xenophobic. He may well be all those things, and so may some of his constituents. But he may not be, and either way, it would be foolish to characterize all his followers as such. Assuming a stance of moral superiority will do us no good. (See: Hillary Clinton, “deplorables.”)Finally, we shouldn’t let DeSantis co-opt positions on which Democrats have historical strength and a natural advantage: education, health care, jobs. There are reasons so many Americans are relocating to the Sunshine State beyond the balmy weather. This month, DeSantis released a budget plan that featured targeted tax cuts aimed at parents, salary increases for state employees, including teachers, and significant investments in schools, including programs in civic education.DeSantis’s maverick approach to primary, secondary and higher education has brought widespread condemnation from Democrats, particularly from their more progressive wing. But we should pay attention to why his policies land better with voters than with progressive critics. A law like the Stop WOKE Act of 2021 (later partly blocked by a federal court), which limited the discussion of certain racial issues during diversity training sessions offered by private employers and in the classroom, may come with an incendiary name and some egregious efforts to curtail free speech. But it’s important to recognize that aspects of it appeal to Floridians tired of racial and ethnic divisiveness and the overt politicization of what’s taught in the classroom.As many liberals will quietly acknowledge, the Parental Rights in Education Act, which DeSantis signed last year and which opponents nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay” law, has reasonable and legitimate attractions for a broad range of parents who worry about the focus, efficacy and age appropriateness of what their kids are learning in primary and secondary school. Democratic leadership should worry, too. Keeping quiet or pretending those concerns aren’t real won’t make them go away.Then there’s college. The challenges of higher education have never been a strength for the Republican Party, which has long ignored the myriad needs of indebted students and the financial and existential pressures on academic institutions. If ideological conformity has taken root in American universities, long a bastion of liberal ideals, then Democrats are the ones with the knowledge, experience and record to attend to the problem. It’s on liberals to check the excesses of illiberal orthodoxies rampant among those on its far-left wing. It’s on us to ensure academic freedom and the kind of educational system parents can trust.It should be cause for alarm that recent polls show Republicans holding an advantage on educational issues. Rather than dismiss parents’ concerns as somehow unfounded or wrongheaded, we should be listening to them and finding better solutions to their grievances. Telling parents they’re bigots or are unenlightened for not embracing the latest faddish orthodoxy is not a winning message.Which brings us back to Trump. We know that he takes DeSantis seriously because Trump has shown signs that he’s scared of DeSantis as a competitor. If even Trump knows that much, Democrats are capable of knowing more. Trump may think the best way to defang DeSantis — whom he calls “DeSanctimonious” — is to mock and belittle him. Democrats should recognize it will take far more than that.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

While praising the administration’s actions so far, activists say the State of the Union speech could have done more to address what they view as a national health crisis.During the midterm campaigns, Democrats spent months focused on the demise of federal abortion rights and the danger they said it posed to all Americans.In his State of the Union speech, President Biden spent roughly 42 seconds.The White House says that it used the moment to call on Congress to reinstate the protections provided under Roe v. Wade, and that it has taken the most aggressive approach to abortion rights of any administration in history. But some abortion rights supporters said they saw the brief mention as a missed opportunity to leverage the power of the bully pulpit in what they often describe as a national health crisis. They were also mystified that the president passed up a chance to play up his own record, which nearly all praised.“President Biden’s remarks on the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade were disappointing and a lost opportunity,” said Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argued the case over Roe at the Supreme Court. “As demonstrated resoundingly in the midterms, abortion rights are a kitchen-table issue that Americans care deeply about, and highlighting that reality would have fit into the president’s theme of fundamental fairness.”The White House believes President Biden has most likely reached the legal limits of his powers through executive actions on abortion issues.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesThe criticism reflects Democrats’ limited options on the federal level, as the fight has shifted to state legislatures. The issue became a potent tool for the party in the midterms, energizing voters and staving off some expected defeats. But after Democrats lost control of the House, it became all but impossible for them to fulfill promises to reinstate a federal right to abortion.Since the court ruling in June, Mr. Biden has signed a series of executive orders protecting access to medication abortion and contraception, ensuring emergency medical care for pregnant women and protecting patient privacy. But at times his administration has fallen short in activists’ eyes, including in declining to declare a national emergency over the summer. The administration says such a measure wouldn’t offer any new tools to combat the restrictions.The White House believes Mr. Biden has most likely reached the legal limits of his powers through executive actions, leaving few options other than rallying voters and providing assistance to Democratic state legislators working to stop or undo restrictions.Biden’s State of the Union AddressChallenging the G.O.P.: In the first State of the Union address of a new era of divided government, President Biden delivered a plea to Republicans for unity but vowed not to back off his economic agenda.State of Uncertainty: Mr. Biden used his speech to portray the United States as a country in recovery. But what he did not emphasize was that America also faces a lot of uncertainty in 2023.Foreign Policy: Mr. Biden spends his days confronting Russia and China. So it was especially striking that in his address, he chose to spend relatively little time on America’s global role.A Tense Exchange: Before the speech, Senator Mitt Romney admonished Representative George Santos, a fellow Republican, telling him he “shouldn’t have been there.”Mini Timmaraju, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, praised Vice President Kamala Harris’s efforts and called Mr. Biden the “most pro-choice reproductive freedom president” in history, saying abortion rights got more attention than in any previous State of the Union.“The tension is that he represents a lot of progress, but it’s never going to feel like enough because we’re in a crisis,” she said. “Everybody in our community wishes we had more of the president’s time, more of the president’s attention, more presence in that State of the Union, but that being said, I keep going back to judging this administration on what they’re getting done.”On Tuesday night, Mr. Biden mentioned the battle over abortion rights an hour into his 80-minute speech, typically a moment for presidents to outline their priorities..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.He did not propose any new policy initiatives on the issue. Nor did he describe the struggles of the guests invited by a number of Democratic lawmakers and the first lady, Jill Biden, who represented the issue. Dr. Biden brought a Texas woman who almost died from sepsis after the state’s abortion restrictions caused a delay in treatment for her pregnancy.“Congress must restore the right that was taken away in Roe v. Wade and protect Roe v. Wade,” he said. “The vice president and I are doing everything to protect access to reproductive health care and safeguard patient safety. But already, more than a dozen states are enforcing extreme abortion bans.”He added, “Make no mistake about it: If Congress passes a national ban, I will veto it.”Any sweeping abortion action remains unlikely given the divided control of Congress. Democrats lack the votes in the Senate, and Mr. Biden is unable to grant Roe’s protections through executive action.His brief remarks cut a striking contrast with the deluge of words about the issue from Democrats during the midterm elections, when the candidates and their allies spent nearly half a billion dollars on ads mentioning abortion — more than twice what they spent on the next top issue, crime, according to AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm.Mr. Biden, a practicing Catholic, has spent years wrestling with his faith and Democratic politics over the issue, generally supporting abortion rights but personally opposed to the procedure. But since the ruling, he has been more vocal about his disagreement with the court and his support for Congress’s legislating a federal right to an abortion.Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, at the Capitol last month. The end of Roe energized Democratic voters in last year’s midterms.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesSince the midterms, Mr. Biden has largely delegated the issue to Ms. Harris, who has hosted dozens of events with state leaders to discuss abortion access. Last month, on what would have been the 50th anniversary of Roe, she warned that “no one is immune” from efforts to curb access to reproductive health care.In a statement released after the speech, Planned Parenthood Action Fund highlighted the nine abortion patients, providers and advocates invited by Dr. Biden and Democratic lawmakers as guests to the speech. The group “is grateful to have a trusted partner in the Biden administration,” it wrote, and declined to offer additional remarks.While they’ve been pleased with this administration’s actions, some leaders of the abortion rights movement would like to see Mr. Biden talk more specifically about plans to expand access to the procedure.“We really wanted to hear what the administration is prepared to do for the current reality of abortion access and the continued threats that exist across the country,” said Morgan Hopkins, president of All* Above All, a reproductive justice coalition. “We didn’t hear that.”The moment is particularly fraught, as activists and the administration await a ruling as soon as this week in a Texas case brought by conservative groups seeking to revoke a more than two-decade-old federal approval of mifepristone, a common medication abortion pill. The decision will be made by a single judge, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee known for his conservative views on social issues.Given that medication accounts for more than half of abortions and that the pills have become a way for some women to circumvent state bans, a ruling against the drug could have sweeping impacts. Any appeal of the decision would go to the right-leaning Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, eventually, to the Supreme Court with its conservative majority.Last week, Xavier Becerra, the secretary of health and human services, met with abortion providers at a clinic in Alexandria, Va. And a number of agencies, coordinated by the White House, are planning for a variety of outcomes, though they are limited in terms of executive actions. More

President Biden plans to use his visit to the University of Tampa to warn about what he says are Republican proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security.WASHINGTON — President Biden heads to Florida on Thursday afternoon with a political gift he had not been expecting before Tuesday night’s State of the Union speech.The perfect foil.Mr. Biden had always planned to use his visit to the University of Tampa to warn about what he says are Republican proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security. The White House sees the issue as a potent one for the president as he prepares to seek a second term.But despite months of warning about “MAGA Republicans,” Mr. Biden had so far failed to make the threats seem real to voters. Numerous recent polls show Mr. Biden’s support lagging, even among Democrats, who overwhelmingly say they want someone else as their nominee in the 2024 presidential election.Strategists from both parties said the Republican outbursts during his address to Congress — and Mr. Biden’s real-time exchange about the fate of the entitlement programs with a handful of heckling lawmakers — instantly crystallized, on national television in front of millions of Americans, what Mr. Biden has been struggling to say.Aides said the president returned to the White House late Tuesday astonished that Republicans had played into his hands, giving him a prime-time opportunity to look commanding on an issue that resonates deeply with many Democrats, Republicans and independents. They said Mr. Biden would refer to the exchange with the Republicans during his remarks on Thursday.The remarkable back-and-forth started when Mr. Biden accused some Republicans of threatening Social Security and Medicare — an assertion that they rejected, loudly.“Liar!” screamed Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia.When Republicans continued to deny they planned to cut the social programs, the president said he was happy Republicans were committing to leave the programs alone.Biden’s State of the Union AddressChallenging the G.O.P.: In the first State of the Union address of a new era of divided government, President Biden delivered a plea to Republicans for unity but vowed not to back off his economic agenda.State of Uncertainty: Mr. Biden used his speech to portray the United States as a country in recovery. But what he did not emphasize was that America also faces a lot of uncertainty in 2023.Foreign Policy: Mr. Biden spends his days confronting Russia and China. So it was especially striking that in his address, he chose to spend relatively little time on America’s global role.A Tense Exchange: Before the speech, Senator Mitt Romney admonished Representative George Santos, a fellow Republican, telling him he “shouldn’t have been there.”“That moment — if Republicans don’t do something to fix it — could present the perfect contrast that Biden would need going into 2024,” said Kevin Madden, who served as a senior adviser to Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, during Mr. Romney’s two presidential campaigns, in 2008 and 2012.That opportunity couldn’t have come soon enough for Mr. Biden, who is widely expected to announce his re-election plans by April.Since he defeated former President Donald J. Trump in 2020, Mr. Biden has had difficulty conjuring a useful political villain, in part because Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. For much of his first year, Mr. Biden seemed to be fighting more with his own party — specifically, Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — than with Republicans.During the 2022 midterm elections, many Democratic congressional candidates won by connecting their opponents to Mr. Trump and the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election had been stolen. A senior White House adviser, who asked for anonymity to discuss political strategy, said that since those elections ended, Mr. Biden has been hampered by having no well-defined opponent (and only Mr. Trump as a declared candidate for 2024).Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Mr. Biden and one of his top communications advisers, said the scrimmage between the president and House Republicans on Tuesday night should provide Americans with a more visceral understanding of what the president has been talking about.“Clearly, having the House Republican caucus behaving the way they are, and are signaling strongly they will continue to behave, is going to give the president an easy contrast,” she said. “What the House Republican caucus is doing for him is giving him a way to draw a contrast between what he is for — what he’s trying to get done, and who he’s trying to get it done for — with the House Republicans.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Republicans accuse Mr. Biden of lying about their intentions. Many, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, say they are not willing to consider any proposals to cut funding for Medicare and Social Security to pay for desired reductions in the nation’s debt and deficit. When Mr. Biden suggested the opposite Tuesday night, Republicans erupted in boos.At times, Mr. McCarthy seemed to be trying to shush his members, a sign that he did not see their outbursts as helpful to their cause.But Republicans so far have not said how they propose to reduce spending by a large enough amount to achieve their debt reduction goals. And there have been several notable Republicans who have proposed ideas like making all laws expire after five years unless lawmakers renew them — an idea that Mr. Biden says means Social Security and Medicare would go away automatically if such a vote failed.Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the Republican who put forward the five-year expiration idea, blasted Mr. Biden on Twitter on Wednesday.“@JoeBiden once again lies about Republicans trying to cut Social Security and Medicare,” he wrote, along with a video calling on Mr. Biden to resign that he said would run Thursday to greet Mr. Biden’s arrival.The debate over entitlements is a complicated one, and Republicans have recently seized on an announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that they would be cracking down on private insurance companies that are overcharging the government through Medicare Advantage programs that are add-ons to traditional Medicare.Administration officials call the move a needed effort at financial accountability that could save taxpayers $4.7 billion over 10 years. But Republicans are already calling it a Medicare cut by Mr. Biden’s government and using it to deflect the president’s own accusations.“It’s President Biden who is proposing to cut Medicare Advantage, a program used by almost 4 in 10 Arkansas seniors,” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, tweeted this week. “This would be a mistake.”Mr. Madden said the White House is smart to maximize the impact of the exchange between Mr. Biden and the Republicans during what has traditionally been a decorous gathering of the nation’s leaders.He said the television coverage of the exchange had focused on the most extreme voices in the Republican Party, like Ms. Greene, who have “a sort of a political appeal that’s toxic in many swing states and in the most important areas of swing states, like suburbs.”But he cautioned that even the most astonishing moments from State of the Union speeches “tend to melt on contact,” evaporating quickly in the ever-changing news cycle.“That is the challenge for this White House,” Mr. Madden said. “They have often tired of their own message and haven’t driven one consistently.”Still, supporters of Mr. Biden said the president and the White House should do whatever possible to keep Americans’ attention on the contrast between the president and the House Republicans who heckled him.Last October, before the midterm elections, Eric Schultz, who served as a deputy press secretary for former President Barack Obama, predicted that Republicans would eventually do or say something to make the difference clear.“This isn’t a group that’s known for a measured approach,” he said at the time. “The more clownish they are, the better it is for the administration. Betting on House Republicans being clownish is a good bet.”Contacted on Wednesday, Mr. Schultz said he still agreed with that sentiment. More

Joe Biden quoted what he said were statements from Senators Rick Scott, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson on their views about federal legislation, including Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Republicans had heckled Biden during his State of the Union speech, in which he criticized their threats to attack social security and Medicare  More

A new law targets a party founded by an imprisoned former official of the neo-Nazi group Golden Dawn. But critics say its reach could be wider.Greece’s government has moved to block from Parliament an extreme-right party seen as a successor to the neo-Nazi group Golden Dawn, which shot to prominence a decade ago but was effectively banned after being declared a criminal organization.On Wednesday, a government-sponsored bill in Parliament that bars from the legislature parties whose leaders have been convicted of serious crimes and are deemed a potential threat to democracy passed with the votes of the ruling conservatives and the opposition Socialist party, who control a total of 178 seats out of the 300 in the house. The main leftist Syriza party abstained, and smaller opposition parties voted against it.While it was not explicitly mentioned in the bill, the new legislation would effectively disqualify National Party — Greeks, a party founded by a former top official of Golden Dawn, Ilias Kasidiaris, on the grounds that he is a convicted criminal.Government officials have named Mr. Kasidiaris as the target of the bill and on Tuesday he sent an injunction to the speaker of Parliament demanding that it be revoked.Mr. Kasidiaris, who has a tattoo of a swastika that he describes as an ancient Greek symbol and has long expressed support for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, is serving a 13-year jail sentence, but he has campaigned for his new party from his cell.The government’s move came after opinion polls showed that National Party — Greeks would exceed the 3 percent threshold for entering Parliament in elections that are expected in April.Mr. Kasidiaris and other leaders of Golden Dawn were found guilty in October 2020 of running a criminal organization that attacked leftist critics and migrants, and the party, which shot to prominence in 2012 during an economic crisis, was disbanded.The party remained popular even after the arrest of its leadership in 2013, when the murder of a leftist rapper, Pavlos Fyssas, was linked to a member of Golden Dawn. Its lawmakers secured re-election in 2015, while facing criminal charges, and remained in Parliament until 2019, when they failed to win re-election.While the dire conditions that allowed Golden Dawn to thrive are gone — Greece’s economy has been growing since it emerged from its last bailout in 2018 — the new party, which Mr. Kasidiaris founded in 2020, has been gaining popularity amid a broader rise of nationalism in parts of Europe. It campaigns on issues like the deportation of undocumented immigrants and “zero tolerance” for crime.A recent opinion poll put support for Mr. Kasidiaris’s party ahead of the general elections expected in April at around 3.4 percent.But about 70 percent of respondents in the same poll also said the party should be stopped from running in elections, which may have emboldened the government.The bill passed on Wednesday built on a 2021 law that prevented convicted criminals from running as party leaders in elections. The new law extends that ban to a party’s nominal head as well as its “true leadership,” reflecting fears that Mr. Kasidiaris might control legislators from behind the scenes.The bill also stipulates that parties should serve “the free functioning of the democratic Constitution,” a change that some critics said could leave the door open for abuse.Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said the measure’s aim was “not to ban ideas but to safeguard the democratic constitutional order,” noting that similar provisions existed in other European countries. “We have a duty to protect democracy from its enemies,” he told Parliament on Tuesday.While supporting the fundamental aim of the ban, some Greek opposition parties argued that it was too broad.The leftist Syriza party said the legislation could be subject to “misinterpretations” and proposed restricting the ban to parties with Nazi or racist ideologies. Greece’s Communist Party said it included “dangerous generalizations and preconditions for the participation of parties in elections.”Nikos Alivizatos, an expert in constitutional law who was attacked by Golden Dawn members and supporters in 2010, said the provision could lead to “innocent” parties being blocked, and that it would have been better to target violent groups and to simply ban convicted criminals from running as legislators, not just as party leaders.“It’s dangerous to move beyond the criterion of the direct use of violence, because then it becomes an almost philosophical issue, and there is room for varying interpretations,” Mr. Alivizatos said. “The price of every democracy is to tolerate someone who might be a fascist.”In a speech in Parliament before the vote on Wednesday, the leader of Syriza, Alexis Tsipras, argued that Mr. Mitsotakis’s primary aim was to eliminate an electoral rival to his right. “He’s not concerned about blocking Nazis, fascist groups or about cracking down on far-right and nationalist populism,” Mr. Tsipras said. “He’s concerned about getting the votes of the far right and nationalists.”Since Golden Dawn’s demise, other, less extreme parties have emerged on the Greek far right including the nationalist Greek Solution, which has 10 seats in Greece’s 300-member Parliament. But none has espoused a neo-Nazi ideology like Golden Dawn.In promoting his party, Mr. Kasidiaris has sought to cast it as patriotic and anti-establishment and has recorded phone messages for his YouTube channel on topics ranging from Russia’s war in Ukraine (he opposed Greek support for Ukraine’s war effort) to migration (he called for all undocumented migrants to be deported). He has managed to do this despite a ban on cellphones in Greek prisons.In a post on Twitter on Tuesday, Mr. Kasidiaris said the legislation passed on Wednesday, which he said was targeting him, was unconstitutional and violated the European Convention of Human Rights and the principle of free elections.The prime minister insisted that it was not Mr. Kasidiaris’s beliefs that had prompted the intervention, but the crimes for which he, along with other Golden Dawn leaders, was convicted.“No one wants to see parliamentary representation again become a vehicle for violence against citizens, leading to brutal murders, injuries and abhorrent pogroms,” Mr. Mitsotakis said on Tuesday. “No one wants to relive the thuggery οf the past.” More

His State of the Union address was not exactly a celebration of a unity agenda. But the president seemed to relish the scrimmage.WASHINGTON — President Biden was about midway through a speech of about 7,218-words on Tuesday when a Republican lawmaker tried to shut him down with a single one: “Liar!”It was Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, whom the president had baited by accusing Republicans of wanting to threaten entitlement programs like Social Security.Later in the speech, when Mr. Biden called for an end to the fentanyl crisis in the United States, another lawmaker yelled out, “It’s your fault!” — a reference to the amount of drugs that are smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border. Another lawmaker yelled out an expletive.His second State of the Union address was punctuated by outbursts, jeers and peals of mocking laughter, but Mr. Biden turned the tables on his Republican opponents and argued in real time with the insurgents. It appeared to be the start of his re-election campaign.When the Republicans shouted back that no, they were not threatening Social Security, Mr. Biden smiled, appearing to relish the scrimmage, and ad-libbed that he was pleased they all agreed.“I’m glad to see — no, I tell you, I enjoy conversion,” Mr. Biden said. He is unlikely to win over a large number of Republicans to support legislation, but his reply to the contingent led by Ms. Greene was meant as an unsubtle reminder that he spent 36 years as a senator working to win Republican votes for his legislative efforts.Mr. Biden arriving in the House chamber for the speech.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesSpeaker Kevin McCarthy and Vice President Kamala Harris greeting President Biden at the address, in a break from the generally combative mood.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMr. Biden walked into his speech facing low approval ratings and flashing-red polling numbers that suggest Americans do not feel that his economic policies have helped them. He also entered a chamber full of people who have quietly (and not so quietly) questioned how an 80-year-old president could run for re-election.Yet Mr. Biden appeared in control as he took his time “How are ya, man”-ning down the aisle of the House chamber before reaching the dais, where Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, were waiting. Breaking from the combative mood of the chamber, Ms. Harris and Mr. McCarthy engaged in small talk, and the speaker greeted Mr. Biden warmly.Biden’s State of the Union AddressChallenging the G.O.P.: In the first State of the Union speech of a new era of divided government, President Biden called on Republicans to work with him to “finish the job” of repairing the unsettled economy.State of Uncertainty: Mr. Biden used his speech to portray the United States as a country in recovery. But what he did not emphasize was that America also faces a lot of uncertainty in 2023.Foreign Policy: Mr. Biden spends his days confronting Russia and China. So it was especially striking that in his address, he chose to spend relatively little time on America’s global role.A Tense Exchange: Before the speech, Senator Mitt Romney admonished Representative George Santos, a fellow Republican, telling him he “shouldn’t have been there.”The president had a shaky start on the teleprompter as he raced through his remarks and mangled some lines, although he had plenty of energy. He got an even bigger burst once the Republicans’ heckles and boos began, and was most animated when he veered off the teleprompter and addressed them directly before a live television audience of millions. At times, the House floor seemed like the British Parliament, where catcalls and shouted insults from the opposing party are tradition..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.In 2009, it was considered a travesty when Representative Joe Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, shouted “you lie” at President Barack Obama during a joint address to Congress. Back then, Mr. Wilson was formally rebuked by the whole House.Times have changed. Republican lawmakers shouted both “liar” and “bullshit” at parts of Mr. Biden’s speech, and no one appeared shocked. After the speech, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee defended yelling out “it’s your fault” as Mr. Biden described the fentanyl crisis, telling reporters it was “a visceral response.”Though Mr. McCarthy appeared willing to play peacemaker at moments when tensions threatened to boil over — the speaker shushed Republicans who yelled at Mr. Biden for calling to codify citizenship for Americans brought to the United States as children — his role over the next months will be to oppose virtually all of Mr. Biden’s agenda.On Tuesday, Republicans spent much of their time signaling that they would help in that mission. Some lawmakers even prepared to mock Mr. Biden in advance: Ms. Greene carried a white helium balloon around the Capitol, mocking Mr. Biden’s response to a giant Chinese spy balloon that traversed the United States this past week before an American F-22 blew it up off the coast of South Carolina.Mr. Biden spotlighted Rodney Wells and RowVaughn Wells, the stepfather and mother of Tyre Nichols, as he called for police reform.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesAt points, Mr. Biden turned down the volume, calling for police reform by spotlighting the grieving parents of Tyre Nichols, who died after a brutal beating on Jan. 7 at the hands of Memphis police officers. The president emphatically called for more research to end cancer. And he spoke directly to “forgotten” Americans who are struggling financially.“Jobs are coming back,” Mr. Biden said. “Pride is coming back, because of choices we made in the last several years.”When asked if Mr. Biden was prepared for the jeers from Republicans, a senior administration official said the news media had underestimated him — a common refrain from Mr. Biden’s advisers.Jeff Nussbaum, a former Biden speechwriter, praised Mr. Biden for “doing a great job of seeking common ground and defining sacred ground.”Much of the president’s speech was vintage Biden, full of well-worn phrasing he has used since the beginning of his first campaigns a half-century ago. The familiar seemed to help his comfort in taking on the Republicans.“There are some good things about doing something for 50 years,” said Greg Schultz, Mr. Biden’s first 2020 campaign manager. “He’s got some riffs that are just not going to ever change.”When the president returned to the White House late Tuesday night, the staff stood and applauded him.Catie Edmondson More

The president’s speech contained no outright falsehoods, but at times omitted crucial context or exaggerated the facts.WASHINGTON — President Biden praised the economy as well as his legislative accomplishments and record on the world stage in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night.Mr. Biden’s speech contained no outright falsehoods, but at times omitted crucial context or exaggerated the facts. Here’s a fact check.What WAS Said“I stand here tonight, after we’ve created, with the help of many people in this room, 12 million new jobs — more jobs created in two years than any president has created in four years.”This needs context. The economy added 12.1 million jobs‌ ‌between January 2021, the month‌ when‌ Mr. Biden took office, and this January. By raw numbers, that is indeed a larger increase in new jobs over two years than the number added over other presidents’ full four-year terms since at least 1945. But by percentage, the job growth in Mr. Biden’s first two years still lags behind that of his predecessors’ full terms.Under Mr. Biden, jobs have increased by 8.5 percent since his term began. That jump is less than that in President Barack Obama’s first term (8.6 percent), President Bill Clinton’s first term (10.5 percent), President Ronald Reagan’s second term (11.2 percent) and President Jimmy Carter’s four years in office (12.8 percent).Mr. Biden is, of course, comparing his first two years in office with the entire term or presidencies of his predecessors, so the comparison is not equivalent. Moreover, Mr. Biden’s first two years in office followed historic job losses wrought by the coronavirus pandemic. Most important, presidents are not singularly responsible for the state of the economy. — Linda QiuWhat WAS Said“For too many decades, we imported products and exported jobs. Now, thanks to what you’ve all done, we’re exporting American products and creating American jobs.”This is misleading. Mr. Biden’s statement gives the impression that a decades-old trend has reversed, but the data tells a different story. American exports reached a new high in 2022, with exports of goods alone topping $2 trillion. But the United States also imported a record high last year, $3.3 trillion in goods — countering the notion that imports have slowed. As a result, the United States also recorded the highest ever trade deficit since 1970 of $950 billion, and a trade deficit in goods of $1.1 trillion. — Linda QiuWhat WAS Said“Inflation has been a global problem because the pandemic disrupted our supply chains and Putin’s unfair and brutal war in Ukraine disrupted energy supplies as well as food supplies.”This needs context. It is accurate that inflation has been global, and that supply chain issues tied to the pandemic have been a major driver of price increases. It is also true that food and energy disruptions tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exacerbated it. But those factors did not spur inflation on their own: Supply chains became clogged in the first place partly because American demand for goods was abnormally strong during the pandemic.Biden’s State of the Union AddressChallenging the G.O.P.: In the first State of the Union speech of a new era of divided government, President Biden called on Republicans to work with him to “finish the job” of repairing the unsettled economy.State of Uncertainty: Mr. Biden used his speech to portray the United States as a country in recovery. But what he did not emphasize was that America also faces a lot of uncertainty in 2023.Foreign Policy: Mr. Biden spends his days confronting Russia and China. So it was especially striking that in his address, he chose to spend relatively little time on America’s global role.A Tense Exchange: Before the speech, Senator Mitt Romney admonished Representative George Santos, a fellow Republican, telling him he “shouldn’t have been there.”That surge in demand came as stuck-at-home consumers shifted their spending away from services and toward things like new furniture. Their spending was also fueled partly by stimulus checks and other pandemic aid. Several studies by economists at the Federal Reserve have found that government spending contributed to some, but far from all, of the inflation. — Jeanna SmialekWhat WAS Said“Food inflation is coming down.”True. Food inflation is beginning to slow, though it remains very rapid. Compared with a year ago, food prices are 10.4 percent higher. But monthly food price increases have been slowing steadily in recent months, coming down from a very swift rate in May 2022.Of course, the current situation does not feel great to many consumers: Food prices are still climbing from already-high levels. And some specific food products are much more expensive than last year. Eggs, in particular, have been a pain point for consumers in recent months. — Jeanna SmialekWhat WAS Said“Inflation has fallen every month for the last six months, while take-home pay has gone up.”This needs context. It is true that inflation has slowed for the past six months: That means that prices are still increasing, but they are doing so more gradually. The Consumer Price Index ticked up by 6.5 percent in the year through December, which is notably slower than the 9 percent peak in June. That pace is still much more rapid than the roughly 2 percent that was typical before the pandemic.It is also true that wages are climbing sharply compared with the pace that would be normal. But for much of 2021 and 2022, wage gains struggled to keep up with rapid price increases. That has recently begun to change: Average hourly earnings increases exceeded consumer price increases on a monthly basis in both November and December 2022. — Jeanna Smialek.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.What WAS Said“We’re finally giving Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices.”This needs context. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Mr. Biden signed into law in August, does fulfill Democrats’ long-held goal of empowering Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs directly with pharmaceutical makers. But the law has limits. The negotiation provisions do not kick in until 2026, when the federal government may begin negotiating the price of up to 10 medicines. The number of drugs subject to negotiation will rise over time. — Sheryl Gay StolbergWhat WAS Said“In the last two years, my administration has cut the deficit by more than $1.7 trillion — the largest deficit reduction in American history.”This needs context. The federal deficit did decrease by $1.7 trillion, from $3.1 trillion in the 2020 fiscal year to $1.4 trillion in the 2022 fiscal year, though Mr. Biden’s fiscal policies are not the sole factor.In fact, much of that decline can be attributed to the expiration of pandemic-era spending, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates lower levels of spending. In February 2021, before the Biden administration enacted any fiscal legislation, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deficit would have reached $1.1 trillion in the 2022 fiscal year, less than what ended up happening.Coronavirus stimulus funding from 2021 added nearly $1.9 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, the budget office estimated. The budget agency also estimated that the infrastructure package added $256 billion to the deficit, though supporters disagreed with the analysis. The Inflation Reduction Act, which was the only significant piece of legislation to reduce the deficit, trimmed it by $238 billion over the next 10 years. — Linda QiuWhat WAS Said“Nearly 25 percent of the entire national debt that took over 200 years to accumulate was added by just one administration alone, the last one.”This needs context. Mr. Biden is correct that a quarter of the national debt was accumulated over the four years Mr. Trump was in office. But the former president did not unilaterally add to that amount. In fact, two major factors driving that increase were mandatory spending levels set long before Mr. Trump took office and bipartisan spending bills that were passed to address the pandemic.From the 2018 to 2021 fiscal years, the government collected $14.3 trillion in revenue, and spent $21.9 trillion, according to data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office. In that time, mandatory spending on programs such as Social Security and Medicare totaled $14.7 trillion alone. Discretionary spending totaled about $5.8 trillion.The budget estimated that Mr. Trump’s tax cuts — which passed in December 2017 with no Democrats in support — added roughly another $1 trillion to the federal deficit from 2018 to 2021, even after factoring in economic growth spurred by the tax cuts.But other drivers of the deficit include several sweeping measures that had bipartisan approval. The first coronavirus stimulus package, which received near unanimous support in Congress, added $2 trillion to the deficit over the next two fiscal years. Three additional spending measures contending with Covid-19 and its economic ramifications added another $1.4 trillion. — Linda QiuWhat WAS Said“Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m not saying it’s a majority.”This needs context. President Biden implied that the Republicans who wanted to allow Social Security and Medicare to sunset were tying those demands to the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.It is true that a couple of Republicans have suggested allowing those entitlement programs to sunset as mandatory spending, instead bringing them up for regular renewal. But Republicans have recently distanced themselves from such efforts. Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, has said that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are “off the table” in talks over raising the debt ceiling, which Congress must vote to do in the coming month or risk a default on the government’s bills. Likewise, President Donald J. Trump has warned Republicans to leave the programs alone in the negotiations. Mr. Biden, nodding to lawmakers responding to his speech, acknowledged that it seemed that cuts to the programs were “off the books now.” — Jeanna SmialekWhat WAS Said“While the virus is not gone, thanks to the resilience of the American people and the ingenuity of medicine, we have broken the Covid grip on us. Covid deaths are down by 90 percent.”This needs context. On average, about 450 people in the United States are dying each day of Covid-19, according to a New York Times database. That number is way down from the roughly 3,200 Americans who were dying each day in early 2021, when the Omicron variant was ripping through the country. But the current daily average of Covid-19 deaths is higher than it was in December 2022, when roughly 250 Americans were losing their lives each day to the virus. — Sheryl Gay StolbergWhat WAS Said“We united NATO. We built a global coalition.”True. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, President Biden led a huge political, economic and military response that has involved dozens of countries. Surprising many experts who predicted that the United States’ European allies would argue over strategy and lose their resolve, the 30-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization has shown a unity unseen since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and, a year after the Russian invasion, continues to supply vast amounts of weapons to Ukraine.That unity has not been perfect: NATO leaders have argued at times, including their recent tussle over whether and how to supply modern tanks to Ukraine. But many analysts believe it has surprised President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who did not anticipate such a strong degree of Western resolve.President Biden also successfully rallied dozens of nations beyond NATO to join in economic sanctions against Moscow, including Asian countries like South Korea and Japan. That coalition excludes major nations like India and China, which are supporting the Kremlin’s war machine through major purchases of Russian oil. But it remains among the broadest coalitions the United States has led against an adversary. — Michael CrowleyWhat WAS Said“But in the past two years, democracies have become stronger, not weaker. Autocracy has grown weaker, not stronger.”This lacks evidence. Experts say that President Biden took office after years of global gains for autocracy and deep problems for democracies — as illustrated by the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. According to the nonprofit group Freedom House, in every region of the world “democracy is under attack by populist leaders and groups that reject pluralism and demand unchecked power.”It is hard to say whether Mr. Biden has changed the situation. He has made the defense of democracies a core theme of his presidency and held a White House democracy summit in December 2021. He has worked to contain two major autocratic powers, building a coalition against Russia in defense of Ukraine — which has weakened its economy and isolated it diplomatically — and rallied allies to contest China’s political influence and technological gains. American voters rejected many election conspiracy theorists in the midterm elections last year.But Russia and, especially, China retain considerable foreign political influence. Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, had a far-right riot in the heart of its government last month. Italy elected a prime minister whose party has fascist roots. Huge crowds in Israel are protesting new right-wing government policies that opponents call an assault on democracy itself. Last February, The Economist magazine’s annual democracy index found that “global democracy continued its precipitous decline in 2021.” Mr. Biden’s rosier view is difficult to substantiate. — Michael Crowley More