Biden administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden under scrutiny as second batch of classified documents reportedly found

      by

      Biden under scrutiny as second batch of classified documents reportedly foundAnother set of materials discovered at a separate location, as White House addresses first discovery at Biden’s institute Joe Biden was facing fresh scrutiny over his handling of government secrets on Wednesday after a second batch of classified materials was reportedly found at a location linked to him.The White House was already on the defensive after revelations that classified documents were discovered last November in an office used by Biden after he served as US vice-president. On Tuesday he said he was “surprised to learn” of their existence.Then came a report from the NBC News network, followed by other media outlets, that said the president’s aides had found another set of classified documents at a separate location. The classification level, number and precise location of the material was not immediately clear, NBC News added.In the case of the classified documents, it’s more serious for Trump than BidenRead moreThe allegation handed fresh ammunition to Republicans seeking to draw a false equivalence with a justice department investigation into former president Donald Trump’s mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.Josh Hawley, a Republican senator for Missouri and ardent Trump defender, responded to the disclosure by tweeting: “Special counsel”.Biden maintained an office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, a thinktank in Washington, after he left the vice-presidency in 2017 until shortly before he launched his 2020 presidential campaign. It was affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania and continued to operate independently of the Biden administration.Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, has said “a small number of documents with classified markings” were discovered on 2 November 2022 in a locked closet at the centre as Biden’s personal lawyers were clearing out the offices. According to Sauber, the lawyers immediately alerted the White House counsel’s office, which notified the National Archives, which took custody of the documents the next day.But it remains unclear why the administration waited more than two months to acknowledge the discovery of the records and what exactly they contain. Trump weighed in on his social media site, demanding: “When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?”At a press conference in Mexico on Tuesday, Biden said he takes classified documents “seriously” and his team acted appropriately by quickly turning the documents over. “They did what they should have done. They immediately called the Archives.”But a day later his spokesperson, Karine Jean-Pierre, faced tough questioning from a White House press corps starved of scandal since the end of the Trump presidency. She declined to say how the documents came to be at the office or when Biden was informed of their existence or provide assurances that other materials would not come to light.“I know you all are going to have a lot of questions on this but at this time I’m not going to go beyond what the president said yesterday,” Jean-Pierre said. “I’m not going to go beyond what my colleagues from the White House counsel shared with many of you as well on Monday. I want to be prudent here and make sure that my colleagues really truly handle this issue.”Asked why it had taken so long for the existence of the document to be disclosed, she replied: “This is under review by the Department of Justice.”There was an unusually acrimonious exchange with Ed O’Keefe, senior White House correspondent of CBS News, who pointed out that Biden had started his tenure by acknowledging that he would make mistakes and be transparent about them. Jean-Pierre retorted: “We don’t need to have this kind of confrontation. Ask your question.”Attorney general Merrick Garland has reportedly asked US attorney for the northern district of Illinois John Lausch – one of the few US attorneys to be held over from Trump’s administration – to review the matter after the Archives referred the issue to the department.The situation contrasts sharply with that of Trump, who had around 300 documents with classification markings, including some that were recovered in an FBI search after his lawyers provided a sworn certification that all government records had been returned.In November Garland appointed Jack Smith, a veteran war crimes prosecutor with a background in public corruption cases, to lead investigations into Trump’s retention of classified documents, as well as key aspects of a separate investigation regarding the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.But such distinctions are likely to be lost for many voters, especially as Republicans and rightwing media capitalise on the apparent misstep and accuse the justice department of double standards. Reports of a second batch of documents are likely to add fuel to the fire.Congressman Jim Jordan, chair of the House of Representatives’ judiciary committee, said the American public deserved to know earlier about the revelation of Biden’s classified documents.“They knew about this a week before the election, maybe the American people should have known that,” he told reporters. “They certainly knew about the the raid on Mar-a-Lago 91 days before this election, but nice if on November 2, the country would have known that there were classified documents at the Biden Center.”Congressman Mike Turner of the House intelligence committee has requested that the US intelligence community conduct a “damage assessment” of the documents found at the Penn Center.The White House did not respond to a request for comment.TopicsJoe BidenBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      I survived Guantánamo. Why is it still open 21 years later? | Mansoor Adayfi

      by

      I survived Guantánamo. Why is it still open 21 years later?Mansoor AdayfiA generation was born and came of age since the prison opened. Four US presidents have served. Yet 35 men remain there The US prison at Guantánamo Bay opened 21 years ago this Wednesday. For 21 years, the extrajudicial detention facility has held a total of 779 men between eight known camps. In two decades, Guantánamo grew from a small, makeshift camp of chainlink cages into a maximum-security facility of cement bunker-like structures that costs close to $540m a year to operate.Twenty-one years is a long time – a generation was born and came of age in that time. Four American presidents have served. The World Trade Center was rebuilt.During that time, the US military, the CIA and other intelligence agencies experimented with torture and other human rights violations. Soldiers and even leaders committed war crimes. The US Congress researched, wrote and released a report documenting torture, abuse and inhumane treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo and at black sites around the world, while also making it impossible to close Guantánamo.Of those 779 prisoners held at Guantánamo, we know that nine died there; 706 have been released or transferred out; 20 have been recommended for transfer but remain there; 12 have been charged with crimes; two have been convicted; and three will be held in indefinite law-of-war detention until someone demands their release.I was 19 when I was sent to Guantánamo, I arrived on 9 February 2002, blindfolded, hooded, shackled, beaten. When soldiers removed my hood, all I saw were cages filled with orange figures. I had been tortured. I was lost and afraid and confused. I didn’t know where I was or why I had been taken there. I didn’t know how long I would be imprisoned or what would happen to me. No one knew where I was. I was given a number and became suspended between life and death.I didn’t know a lot about America. I knew it was supposed to be a land of laws and opportunity. Everyone wanted to live there. We all believed our detention would be short. We hadn’t done anything. They couldn’t keep us long without someone caring. I never could have imagined that I would spend eight years in solitary confinement, that I would be held for 15 years and released without ever being charged with a crime.I turned 40 recently, and even though I am a grown man I still feel like the 19-year-old who first arrived at Guantánamo. In one sense, I came of age there – learning how to protest my detention, how to use my body to hunger strike, how to resist. I think about my time there a lot. While my childhood friends went to university, married, got jobs and began their lives, I fought prison guards who harassed me while I tried to pray.In Guantánamo’s early days, when it was just an undeveloped prison, a baby really, we all had questions: when would we be released? Why were interrogations getting worse? Why didn’t anyone believe what we told them? But we weren’t the only ones with questions. Young guards wanted to know what they were doing there, who we were, and why some leaders said we were the “worst of the worst” terrorists while other leaders called us nobodies or dirt farmers.I think Guantánamo itself had the same questions. I think Guantánamo wanted to know what kind of place it would become, how long it would be used, if it would be useful.We all waited for those answers, year after year, as we grew older. I grew a beard and my hair turned gray. Guantánamo rusted, peeled, decayed; Camp X-Ray, the first camp, became overgrown with weeds and grass. Guards rotated out and so did camp leaders. Guards who were kind to us were often demoted or punished or left Guantánamo confused about the conflict between their official duty and what they knew was right and wrong. General Miller, the architect of what the US calls “enhanced interrogation” and everyone else calls torture, went to Iraq and Abu Ghraib. Some prisoners were released. Some – like Yassir (21 years old), Ali (26), and Mani (30) – died violently and mysteriously in custody.The years passed like chapters in a book, and with each new chapter we thought our questions would be answered or at least that the chapters would change. There were new beginnings and new phases, but the story remained the same: interrogations continued. So did our inhumane treatment and religious harassment.Each chapter grew darker as we lost touch with the stories of our lives before Guantánamo. When we were taken to Guantánamo, we were fathers, sons, brothers, and husbands; we had families, dreams, and lives in the outside world. But at Guantánamo we were just numbers, animals in cages, totally cut off from the world we knew; we were caught in an endless loop of interrogations trying to get us to admit that we were al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters. We lived Guantánamo’s lawlessness and abuses, we watched Guantánamo grow and evolve, while our story remained stuck.We became Guantánamo and so did our stories. We resisted and protested our arbitrary and indefinite detention, we fought and went on hunger strikes to make the world hear us, see our suffering, and know our humanity. We also had moments of happiness, creativity, and brotherhood. We sang, danced, joked and laughed. We created art. We became brothers and friends, even with some of the guards and camp staff who treated us like we were human. We gradually lost touch with our old selves until Guantánamo became our life, our world, our only story.As Guantánamo grew older, stronger, and more permanent, we grew older, too, but weaker, more fragile, still bound within its cages. We heard that some people around the world protested our imprisonment and our torture and campaigned to close Guantánamo. That gave us hope and made us feel that we had not been forgotten. But others, like politicians outside of Guantánamo, learned to use the prison to create their own false stories – stories that feasted on us to create fear. They kept Guantánamo open.Toward the end of my time, Guantánamo had grown, in some respects, more mature and more open. We had changed too; we had reconnected with the outside world. We tried to reclaim those parts of ourselves that had been taken away and lost. I took classes and created art. I learned English and wrote stories about Guantánamo. After 15 years, I worried that I wouldn’t survive in the world once I left. I had grown up there and become a man. Guantánamo is what I knew. It’s where my friends were.I thought that by leaving, I would finally be able to write new chapters, ones that changed and had a good ending. I would end the story the way I wanted to: Guantánamo would become just a memory; I would move on, go to school, get married, start my life. But the prison didn’t want to let go. It surprised me with a new story.Like me, hundreds of men have been released from Guantánamo. Some went home to their countries and to their families. Many were sent to places they don’t know – Uruguay, Kazakhstan, Slovakia. I was sent to Serbia, where I didn’t have friends or family and didn’t speak the language. We have tried to create our own stories in these new places, ones without Guantánamo. But Guantánamo won’t let us go. We live with the stigma of having been held there.Thirty-five men remain there. President Biden has quietly worked to wind down the prison camp, but without cooperation from the US Congress, Guantánamo will remain open.For years now, former prisoners, activists, lawyers and journalists have been working to write Guantánamo’s final chapter, one that ends with justice, accountability, reconciliation, and the closure of the prison. Let’s make that happen, so that in one year, we can write a new story about life after Guantánamo.
      Mansoor Adayfi is an artist, advocate, and former Guantánamo prisoner, released in 2016 after being detained without charge or trial for more than 15 years. He is the author of the memoir Don’t Forget Us Here: Lost and Found at Guantánamo
      TopicsGuantánamo BayOpinionUS politicsBiden administrationJoe BidencommentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden is throwing migrants under the bus to appease Republican fearmongering | Moustafa Bayoumi

      by

      Biden is throwing migrants under the bus to appease Republican fearmongeringMoustafa BayoumiThe Biden administration criticizes conservatives as anti-immigrant – yet pursues policies not so different from Trump’s Imagine for a moment you are a dissident citizen of Nicaragua. Forced out of bed in the middle of the night and hounded out of your homeland because of your political activities, you have been deprived of all chances to work, let alone live, in the country you’ve always called home. Your opposition to Daniel Ortega’s regime has put your life and your family’s lives in danger. You must find safety immediately.You know that, despite its long history of meddling in your country, the United States also has laws and traditions that enable people in your position to seek asylum. It may be far away, but the US is also the closest country where you believe you can truly feel safe. You must find a way there – any way at all – and it has to be quick.Biden visits border for first time as critics condemn his migrant crackdownRead moreNow, according to new rules just announced by the Biden administration, up to 30,000 Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians may soon be able to apply for “humanitarian parole” to the US, expanding a program that had previously been directed solely at Venezuelans. What a relief! you might think, until you discover more about the proposed program, which requires: a valid passport, a plane ticket, the ability and permission to travel to the US by plane, a US-based sponsor, a cell phone that can download a specific app that requires two-factor authentication, and a host of other requirements.This is a program obviously designed to favor those with means and pre-established connections in the US, and it’s hard to imagine it as anything but meaningless for those forced to flee for their lives without money or planning. As Human Rights Watch explains, Biden’s proposed program is “contrary to international refugee law and international human rights law which prohibits discrimination in accessing asylum, including based on financial means”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also stated that the new measures are “not in line with international standards”.Yet this problematic humanitarian parole provision is in fact the proverbial carrot of Biden’s proposed border program. The dreaded stick, found in how the administration now plans on processing asylum claims made at the border, is much worse. The opportunity to have your asylum claim heard if you’re a citizen from one of these four countries – all countries with deep legacies of American political interference, it should be pointed out – will now be severely curtailed, according to the proposed rules.For one thing, the administration will require these asylum seekers to request refuge in the first country they cross into, similar to Trump-era “transit ban” policies which led to widespread human rights abuses in countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador.If these asylum seekers somehow make it to the US’s southern border, they must claim asylum at an official port of entry at a previously scheduled time, even though, per US law, “you may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status”, as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website states. Those who try to cross the border would also be subject to “expedited removal”, with Mexico accepting 30,000 of them each month, and be subject to a five-year ban from re-entry to the US.The plan also expands the Biden administration’s use of Title 42, a rarely used clause of the 1944 Public Health Services Law that allows the government to take emergency action “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries.” Through their own anti-immigrant hocus-pocus, the Trump administration conjured Title 42 as a quick and easy way to deport people at the US’s southern border.Though Biden, as recently as last Thursday, has said that he doesn’t “like Title 42,” his administration continues to use the code to prevent people from entering the US. Since March 2020, almost 2.5 million people have been expelled, most of them during the Biden administration. And the new rules will translate into many more expulsions for asylum seekers from these four countries.Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey got it right. “The Biden administration’s decision to expand Title 42, a disastrous and inhumane relic of the Trump Administration’s racist immigration agenda, is an affront to restoring rule of law at the border,” he said in a statement. “Ultimately, this use of the parole authority is merely an attempt to replace our asylum laws, and thousands of asylum seekers waiting to present their cases will be hurt as a result.”What’s going on here? There’s no question that the current situation presents all kinds of challenges at the border. The US government recorded almost 2.4m encounters with migrants at the border last fiscal year, a record number. Extreme climate events, political corruption, and economic instability all play a role, and the US shares some responsibility in all those arenas. But it’s also clear that Biden feels compelled to get in front of the border issue ahead of Republican fearmongering (hence his visit Sunday to the border).“Immigration is a political issue that extreme Republicans are always going to run on,” the president said. “But now they have a choice: They can keep using immigration to try to score political points or they can help solve the problem.”But, in this terrible move rightward on the issue of border enforcement, Biden has proposed solutions that seem devised more to quell Republican objections (which, let’s face it, can never be mollified) rather than to take humanitarian and legal concerns to heart and turn them into workable policy. The proposed changes are also certain to bring greater chaos, confusion, and misery to the border.I’m all in favor of foregrounding Republican obstructionism when necessary, and Republicans halted Biden’s proposed comprehensive immigration reforms from the moment they were announced, almost two years ago. But Biden can’t accuse his Republican opponents of exploiting immigration and then turn around and lean on their misbegotten policies. Not only is that playing politics with people’s lives, but it’s also playing with fire. If Biden’s proposed rule changes go through, we should worry for all those – Biden included – who are about to get burned.
      Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of the award-winning books How Does It Feel to Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America and This Muslim American Life: Dispatches from the War on Terror. He is professor of English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionMigrationBiden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Finally, some modest good news for abortion rights in America | Moira Donegan

      by

      Finally, some modest good news for abortion rights in AmericaMoira DoneganThe Biden administration made two moves to protect medication abortion There have been so few victories for the pro-choice movement over the past year that women’s rights advocates can be forgiven for taking pleasure in two moves that the Biden administration made this week.The first, from the Department of Justice (DoJ), was a statement meant to push back against a legal absurdity that is gaining popularity on the anti-choice right: the idea that the 1873 Comstock Act, an archaic anti-obscenity law, prohibits the sending of abortion medication through the mail. The second was a move by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortions, to be distributed at retail pharmacies, rather than exclusively from doctors.Neither move by the Biden administration is likely to significantly improve abortion access, especially not for the millions of women living in the 13 states that have banned abortion outright, or the five that have severely limited the procedure, since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade last summer in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health. But the rule changes show a new willingness by the Biden administration to make at least some tepid and belated efforts to expand women’s rights as the crises created by Dobbs continue to worsen.The FDA’s move, frankly, is especially overdue. Since mifepristone, a medication that blocks the pregnancy hormone progesterone, was finally approved by the agency for use in America in 2000 (it had been in use in Europe since the 1980s), the drug has been subject to intense, labyrinthine and medically unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions.For years, doctors who want to provide abortions have had to stock mifepristone themselves. Unlike other drugs – including misoprostol, the other medication used in abortions – it had to be given out directly by the prescribing physician. Until the pandemic, the pill had to be administered by abortion providers in person, and could not be distributed remotely – a rule that was temporarily suspended during coronavirus lockdowns, and quietly lifted permanently by the FDA in December 2021. The new rule will allow mifepristone to be distributed by regular pharmacies, with a regular prescription.But the FDA’s new guidance still maintains distinctions around mifepristone that mark it as distinct from other medications – distinctions that have nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the drug, which have long been proven, and everything to do with the politics and stigma surrounding abortion. Some restrictions have been left in place.Not all healthcare providers, for instance, can prescribe mifepristone: those that do must first prove to agency satisfaction that they are competent to perform abortions. Patients, too, must still sign a consent form, something not required of other medicines. And there are new obligations for the pharmacies that want to distribute the drug. Each pharmacy must appoint and train a compliance officer who is in charge of ensuring that all the rules surrounding mifepristone are followed, for example; steps must be taken to conceal the names of prescribing doctors, including from internal company databases, to protect them from violence and harassment.The move does seem likely to marginally expand access to abortion pills, at least in Democratic-led states. On Thursday, CVS and Walgreens indicated that they would begin distributing mifepristone. The change is a small and important step toward removing the needless and bigoted bureaucratic obstacles that both stigmatize abortion care and place it out of reach, and towards placing these medications where they belong: over the counter.But it’s still unclear how the FDA rule change will affect the biggest battles over medication abortion – the ones playing out in the courts. Since the Dobbs decision, demand for the pills has exploded, and a growing number of abortion providers have set up online operations – based both overseas and in the more robustly protective Democratic states – that send abortion medications through the mail.These prescribers have opened a new era of abortion access in which abortion pills have become widely available even in states with strict bans, and women with internet connections, mailing addresses and a little bit of experience in covering up their digital tracks have found themselves able to terminate unwanted pregnancies safely, even in defiance of misogynist local laws. The anti-choice movement has succeeded in shuttering clinics across the south and midwest, but they haven’t managed to shut down the internet.Enter the Comstock Act, a long-obscure federal law which has enjoyed a revival in anti-choice legal thinking since Dobbs. Passed in 1878, in the midst of a misogynist moral panic, the Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of “obscene” materials, including any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion”. The first arrests under the act were meant to suppress the distribution of a feminist pro-contraception tract.The act has been largely defunct since the establishment of a right to contraception – and a right to privacy – in the 1965 supreme court ruling in Griswold v Connecticut. Recently, however, anti-choice forces have argued in court – repeatedly and aggressively – that since Roe has been overruled, Comstock applies, and sending abortion pills through the mail is once again illegal.On Tuesday, the DoJ disagreed, publishing a legal memo arguing that the drugs can be legally sent through the mail, including to states with abortion bans – that is, so long as the sender believes that the recipient will use them in accordance with local law. The DoJ opinion clears the US Postal Service to keep delivering the packages – and provides a bit of legal cover and plausible deniability to those who send abortion medications into conservative states.Will it hold up in court? Who knows. The memo issues one interpretation of current law, but the federal courts, packed with conservative ideologues and mealy-mouthed centrists who view hostility to women’s rights as a marker of their seriousness, might disagree.Still, the moves are encouraging signs from the Biden administration, whose response to Dobbs, and to the mounting civil rights and public health crises that it has unleashed, has tended to vacillate between incompetence, indifference and outright contempt. The Democratic party has long treated the left, and feminism in particular, as an annoying younger sibling that it needs to keep in line.But the midterms should have broken this spell: the Democrats performed much better than expected, and abortion was a big part of why. The elections should put to bed forever the dusty centrist conventional wisdom that support for abortion rights is electorally damaging to the Democrats – quite the opposite has proved to be the case. Hopefully, the Biden administration is listening.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionBiden administrationJoe BidencommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats controlled Congress for two years. What did they achieve?

      by

      AnalysisDemocrats controlled Congress for two years. What did they achieve?Lauren Gambino From same-sex marriage protections to veterans’ aid, Joe Biden’s party used its thin majority to deliver many campaign promisesIn January, Democrats will lose their unified control of Capitol Hill, ending a remarkable legislative streak that saw the party deliver on many of their campaign promises.Biden’s climate bill victory was hard won. Now, the real battle startsRead moreWhile Joe Biden and his party did not accomplish everything they set out to do, Democrats in Congress spent the last two years marshalling their thin majorities to pass consequential legislation that touches nearly every aspect of American life from water quality to marriage equality. Some of the most notable measures even earned Republican support.As a new era of divided government dawns in Washington, with Republicans set to take control of the House on 3 January, here’s a look at what Democrats accomplished during the 117th Congress.American Rescue Plan ActSeven weeks into his presidency, Biden signed into law a $1.9tn economic stimulus plan designed to combat the coronavirus pandemic and begin repairing the nation’s frayed social safety net. The bill, passed by Democrats on a party-line vote, sent $1,400 stimulus checks to tens of millions of Americans and temporarily extended unemployment benefits.It included billions in funding to speed up vaccination distribution and school reopenings and additional money to help state and local governments weather the pandemic-induced economic downturn. The legislation also temporarily increased the annual Child Tax Credit, a policy experts say helped halve child poverty in America before it ended.The uphill battle to resurrect the US child tax credit that lifted millions from poverty Read moreIn the months that followed, a debate flared over the legislation’s economic impact. Many economists credited the large-scale infusion of cash with spurring a rapid economic recovery while others argued that the plan, at least to some extent, contributed to inflation.Establish Juneteenth as a federal holidayIn June 2021, Congress passed legislation to make Juneteenth, or 19 June, a federal holiday.Juneteenth marks the events of 19 June 1865, when Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, to inform enslaved African Americans of their freedom, more than two months after the Confederacy surrendered. Calls grew to commemorate Juneteenth following nationwide social justice protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by police.Create a House committee to investigate the Capitol attackFormally titled the House select committee to investigate the January 6th attack, the nine-member panel was charged with investigating the events that led to the most grievous assault on the US Capitol in more than 200 years.Democrats preferred a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the attack, similar to the one Congress established in the aftermath of 9/11. But Republicans stonewalled those efforts and in the end the House voted to create a select committee composed of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, both of whom have been ostracized by their party for criticizing Trump.The committee held a summer of blockbuster public hearings that sought to chronicle what it charged to be a coordinated plot, instigated by Donald Trump, to subvert a free and fair election. With shocking testimony and slick video reels, the committee crafted a devastating portrait of a president willing to do anything to remain in power.The panel issued the findings of its 18-month inquiry in a report released in late December, the result of more than 1,000 interviews and hundreds of thousands of documents. They referred Trump to the justice department for violating at least four criminal statutes, as well as his ally, lawyer John Eastman, on a conspiracy charge. Four lawmakers were referred to the House ethics committee, including Kevin McCarthy, who is expected to run for speaker of the House next year.Bipartisan infrastructure lawSeveral presidents tried – and failed – to pass an infrastructure bill. But late last year, Biden signed into law the largest investment in US infrastructure in at least a generation.Far narrower in scope than the $2.3tn plan Biden initially proposed, the sweeping public works package was nevertheless a hard-won, bipartisan victory, with 19 Republican senators voting in favor, including the minority leader, Mitch McConnell.The infrastructure law provided for $550bn in new spending, investing in everything from the nation’s waterways and transit systems to its airports and electric grid. The bill also included funding for electric vehicle charging stations, as well as for zero- and low-emissions buses and ferries.Confirm a supreme court justiceWhen supreme court justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement, Biden had an opportunity to make good on his promise to nominate the first Black woman to the supreme court. His choice was Ketanji Brown Jackson.In April, Jackson faced a grueling confirmation hearing before a deeply polarized Senate. She ultimately won approval in a 53-to-47 vote that was met with tears of joy and celebration by Black women and girls across the country. Jackson officially joined the court in late June, just after its controversial decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.‘Force to be reckoned with’: Ketanji Brown Jackson shines in first weekRead moreBorn in Washington DC and raised in Miami, Jackson is a graduate of Harvard Law School and previously served as a clerk for her predecessor, Justice Breyer. She is the first public defender to serve as a justice on the nation’s highest court.Over the past two years, the Democratic-controlled Senate has confirmed a record-setting number of Biden’s judicial appointments, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and people of color. ​​Gun-control legislationAfter Congress’s failure to act in response to the killing of 26 children and educators at Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, a bipartisan solution to the ever-rising toll of gun violence in America seemed unreachable.But in June, following a spate of horrific mass shootings that included a racist attack on Black shoppers at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and the massacre of 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, lawmakers finally came together to pass the first major gun-control legislation in a generation.The bill toughens requirements for the youngest gun buyers, keeps firearms out of the hands of more domestic abusers and helps states implement “red flag” laws that make it easier for authorities to temporarily take away weapons from people deemed by a judge to be dangerous. It also includes funding for mental health and violence intervention programs as well as school safety initiatives.Biden said the legislation was a “historic achievement”. Gun control activists also celebrated its passage, but said it was only a first step and much more aggressive action was needed.The Chips and Science ActThe product of more than a year of negotiations between the House and the Senate, the so-called Chips and Science Act was designed to bolster US competitiveness with China by investing in the nation’s industrial and technological might.The sprawling $280bn bill contains more than $52bn to expand the US’s domestic semiconductor manufacturing industry, after pandemic-induced supply chain pressures exposed just how dependent the country was on chips manufactured abroad.The largest chunk of the money will go toward scientific research in areas like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and quantum computing. It would also create “regional innovation and technology hubs” with the aim of bringing jobs and economic growth to the most distressed parts of the country.The package passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law with great fanfare by the president, who has promoted the legislation at events around the country – and the world.Aid for veterans exposed to toxic burn pitsWith broad bipartisan support, Congress enacted legislation expanding access to healthcare and disability benefits for millions of veterans exposed to toxic burn pits during their military service.The law, known as the Pact Act, helps veterans get screened and receive services for possible toxic exposures, such as Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, or toxins from pits used to burn military waste in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also expands the Department of Veterans Affairs’ list of conditions related to burn pit and toxic exposure, removing administrative obstacles for veterans to obtain disability payments.The law was deeply personal for the president, who has suggested that exposure to burn pits in Iraq may have been responsible for the death from cancer of his elder son, Beau.Inflation Reduction ActBiden’s signature domestic achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act was a long-sought legislative pursuit that survived several overhauls and setbacks before finally becoming law in August 2022.‘We’re still struggling’: low unemployment can’t hide impact of low wages and rising inflationRead moreThe version that became law was far narrower than the expansive vision Biden initially outlined, a plan known as Build Back Better. Even so, the climate, healthcare and tax plan was a legacy-defining accomplishment for the president, delivering on many of his party’s long-sought policy ambitions.Taken together, the bill represents America’s largest ever investment in combating climate change. According to the White House, the climate initiatives contained in the plan put the US on track to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. The legislation also includes investments in environmental justice, conservation and resiliency programs.In an effort to reduce soaring healthcare costs, the Inflation Reduction Act allows the government to negotiate prescription drug prices for seniors on Medicare, extend federal health insurance subsidies and caps out-of-pocket costs for insulin at no more than $35 per month for Medicare beneficiaries.The law also imposes new taxes on big corporations, setting a minimum corporate tax of 15% and boosts funding for the Internal Revenue Service in an effort to crack down on tax evasion. It is estimated that the law will reduce the federal budget deficit by about $300bn over 10 years.At the signing ceremony, Biden hailed the measure as “one of the most significant laws in our history”. Now, as many of the law’s provisions begin to take effect, Democrats face the difficult task of explaining its many constituent parts to the public.At midday on New Year’s Eve he tweeted: “Just 12 hours until many of the cost-saving provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act kick in for millions.”Just 12 hours until many of the cost-saving provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act kick in for millions.— President Biden (@POTUS) December 31, 2022
      Protections for same-sex marriageWhen the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, the conservative justice Clarence Thomas raised the prospect that marriage equality could be next. The threat set in motion an unexpectedly bipartisan scramble on Capitol Hill that resulted in landmark legislation protecting same-sex marriage.House passes landmark legislation protecting same-sex marriageRead moreThe bill, known as the Respect for Marriage Act, provides a degree of relief to the hundreds of thousands of same-sex married couples in the United States by requiring federal and state governments to recognize lawfully performed unions regardless of sex, race or ethnicity.But should the supreme court overturn Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the measure does not require states to perform same-sex marriages nor does it prevent them from banning the unions. It also includes a clause exempting religious organizations from any obligation to provide goods, services or accommodations for a celebration of a same-sex marriage.Nevertheless, LGBTQ+ advocates and allies welcomed the legislation as a major step toward protecting a hard-won civil liberty. At a signing ceremony, Biden called the bill a step toward building a nation where “decency, dignity and love are recognized, honored and protected”.Government funding billDays before Christmas, with the threat of a shutdown looming, Congress hastily approved a 4,155-page, $1.7tn spending bill to fund the federal government and its various agencies through the remainder of the 2023 fiscal year. The product of a chaotic round of 11th-hour negotiations, led by two retiring appropriators determined to cement their legacy with one final deal, the funding measure includes more than $858bn in defense spending.Other big-ticket items in the measure included nearly $45bn in aid for Ukraine, a provision banning the use of TikTok on all government devices, a rewrite of the Electoral Count Act that was at the heart of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, $40bn in disaster relief for communities struck by hurricanes, wildfires, floods and other environmental calamities this year.After an agreement was reached, the bill was rushed through both chambers of Congress with unusual speed. It was approved with strong bipartisan support in the Senate but passed on a mostly party-line vote in the House, foreshadowing the brinksmanship to come when Republicans control the chamber next year.Ukraine aidSince the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the US has committed more than $100bn in security assistance and humanitarian aid to the country. During a historic visit to Washington last month, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, delivered an address to a join session of Congress in which he personally thanked Americans for their support.In total, Congress has passed four tranches of emergency aid, including most recently, a $45bn package that was notably more than Biden requested. It passed as part of the year-end spending bill.The funds have been used for a range of purposes, much of it military, economic or humanitarian in nature. That includes, for example, sending economic support for Ukrainian refugees as well as for security assistance to help train, equip and provide intelligence support to the Ukrainian military. A significant portion of the funds will be used to replenish stocks of US weapons sent to Ukraine.Aid to Ukraine has so far been approved with overwhelming bipartisan support. But a contingent of far-right House Republicans have threatened to block future aid to Ukraine.Reform the Electoral Count ActIn the wake of the assault on the US Capitol, a bipartisan coalition began working on an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, the 1887 law that governs how Congress counts presidential electors.Trump and his allies had sought to exploit ambiguities in the 135-year-old law to claim that the then vice-president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, could delay the count or even toss out legitimate electoral votes from states that voted for Biden.Pence dismissed the plan as unconstitutional. But the fringe theory flourished among Trump’s supporters, thousands of whom stormed the Capitol on 6 January in a failed attempt to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory.Under a rewrite of the law, the vice-president’s role in counting electors is defined as purely ceremonial. It also raises the threshold for considering a challenge to a state’s electoral votes, making it harder for lawmakers to interfere in the process. The measure was passed as part of an omnibus spending package, the final major act of a Congress that was sworn in on the eve of the Capitol attack.What Congress didn’t do:The party in power did not accomplish everything it promised. Stymied by the Senate filibuster, Democrats could not rally enough support to weaken the rule and pass their legislative priorities on a party-line vote.Biden promised to reform the police. Why has so little progress been made?Read moreDemocrats failed to codify Roe, after the supreme court ended the constitutional right to an abortion. Despite a streak of mass shootings, they could not find enough support in the Senate to ban assault weapons. A tide of restrictive voter laws went into effect without any response from Congress. Compromise eluded a bipartisan group working on police reform. Despite an 11th-hour push, there was no extension of the Child Tax Credit. And the 117th Congress adjourned without taking action to raise the debt limit, alarming analysts who have warned that Republican brinkmanship over the nation’s borrowing limit could lead to economic calamity.With a divided government, the outlook for major legislative accomplishments is far less likely. Instead, Democrats are bracing for an onslaught of Republican-led investigations into the president, his family and his administration.TopicsBiden administrationUS politicsDemocratsJoe BidenUS Capitol attackKetanji Brown JacksonUS gun controlanalysisReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I’ve got to get out and tell people’: Pete Buttigieg on his road ahead

      by

      Interview‘I’ve got to get out and tell people’: Pete Buttigieg on his road aheadDavid Smith in Washington Can the US revitalise its infrastructure? Is the US ready for a gay president? And does Buttigieg still plan to run one day?From Pete Buttigieg’s old office in South Bend, Indiana, you could see the hospital where he was born, churches built for Irish and Polish immigrants and a factory that made cabinets for Singer sewing machines. “This was the Silicon Valley of its day,” the then mayor told the Guardian in February 2019.Nearly four years later, Buttigieg is occupying a loftier perch. As America’s transportation secretary, his framed photograph sits alongside those of Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris in the lobby of the Department of Transportation. The building is located in Navy Yard, a neighbourhood on the Anacostia River that is home to the Washington Nationals baseball team.Too much, too young? Mayor could become the first millennial presidentRead moreButtigieg has gone from running a city of 100,000 people to a department whose budget is bigger than the gross domestic product of most countries. “As mayor, of course, I worked on a broad range of issues – anything that happened in the city was my concern,” he recalls in a pre-Christmas interview with the Guardian in Washington.“But here you work with a daunting scope and scale. The scope ranges from commercial space travel to the oversight of our Merchant Marine Academy, so not just planes, trains and automobiles, but everything in between.”The meteoric rise helps explain why Buttigieg is widely seen as potential presidential material in 2024, 2028 or beyond. He speaks eight languages, had spells at Harvard, Oxford and McKinsey, became a mayor before he turned 30 and did military service in Afghanistan. He won the Democratic presidential caucuses in Iowa in 2020 but, perhaps more importantly, knew when it was time to step aside so the party could unite around Biden.Now Biden is 80 and Buttigieg is 40, until his next birthday on 19 January. Some Democrats yearn to see generational change, especially if Republicans nominate Ron DeSantis, the 44-year-old governor of Florida, for president in 2024. The Politico website recently highlighted the activities of his allies in a “dark money” group and political action committee under the provocative headline “Pete’s campaign in waiting”.But part of Buttigieg’s formidable communication skills is a refusal to take such bait. He insists with AI-worthy precision: “I have my hands more than full with my day job and one job at a time is plenty. And it’s a great job and I have a great boss and I’m proud to be part of this team.”The day job undeniably offers a lot to chew on. American infrastructure ranked just 13th in the world in 2019, according to the World Economic Forum. This was the nation that erected the tallest and most beautiful skyscrapers, built an interstate highway system and put a man on the moon. But in recent decades there has been a sense of turning inward – of decline and neglect – as Asia and Europe raced ahead with gleaming airports and faster trains.Where did it all go wrong? One answer is President Ronald Reagan, an arch exponent of laissez-faire capitalism who memorably declared that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”Buttigieg, who is unapologetically from the government and here to help, says: “The beginning of the Reagan era brought about a vicious cycle of public trust, where resources were stripped away from the government. It became harder for government to deliver for people and then those policy failures reduced trust in government, which made people more reluctant to trust their taxpayer dollars to government, which meant even fewer resources and even worse results.“The cycle of disinvestment has been accumulating for essentially my entire lifetime and part of what’s so exciting about this moment is a chance to re-establish public trust by making big investments to get big results to build public confidence in the things we can do together through good public policy and good public investment.”Biden, openly critical of Reagan’s trickle-down economics, set about changing the paradigm. After long negotiations with Congress, including late-night phone calls and several declarations that the deal was dead, he last year signed a trillion-dollar bipartisan infrastructure law.‘Glad to have a president who can ride a bicycle’: Buttigieg dismisses Republican claims about Biden’s healthRead moreThe money is being – or will be – spent on rebuilding roads, bridges, ports and airports, upgrading public transit and rail systems, replacing lead pipes to provide clean water, cleaning up pollution, providing high-speed internet, delivering cheaper and cleaner energy – and creating thousands of jobs.One year in, the administration has announced more than $185bn (£154bn) in funding and more than 6,900 specific projects reaching more than 4,000 communities across the country. This includes 2,800 bridge repair and replacement projects and $3bn for 3,075 airport upgrades.The legislation handed the former “Mayor Pete” the biggest infusion of cash into the transport sector since the 1950s interstate highways. He understands how much is riding on it. “What’s at stake in this transportation legislation – and the president talks about it this way too – is more than just the nuts and bolts of it,” he says.“It really is a chance to vindicate the democratic system over some of the systems that are trying to challenge us right now in this century. It sounds a little bit cosmic but that really is part of what is on the table right now with our responsibility to deliver.”The bipartisan law allowed the White House to crow that while “infrastructure week” was a punchline under President Donald Trump, his successor is delivering an “infrastructure decade”. Buttigieg comments: “As you might imagine, I’m no fan of President Trump. I will say this is the one time I was fooled. I actually thought they were going to do it because he talked about it all the time.“It would have been good politics and everybody wanted it to happen, it would have benefited the economy, and they still couldn’t get it done. So after four years of chest thumping and big promises without results, this administration knew, this president knew, that it was long past time to do something and it turned out the public appetite was there, the deal space was there.”Even Republicans who voted against the law, branding it a “socialist wishlist”, are happy to reap the benefits. “It’s hard not to chuckle when I get a letter from some member of Congress, invariably a Republican member of Congress, who declared this legislation to be garbage or wasteful social spending or whatever now saying this is funding that really needs to come to my district for these needs. But at the end of the day, it vindicates our approach.”Buttigieg want to be “strategically shameless” in putting up signs on active projects to make sure that the law gets the credit it deserves. Infrastructure is not like tax policy where, at the stroke of a pen, people feel results instantly. “I often tell the team: part of what we’re doing is building cathedrals and the nature of cathedrals is the person who celebrates the opening may not have been there when the cornerstone was laid.“But because we’re doing so much at so many different scales and in so many different places, the truth is there’s a range of projects where we’ve already turned a spade, improvements that are going to be felt very quickly to some of the bigger cathedrals that will be years and years in the making.”Indeed, Democrats insist that some of the positive effects are being felt already. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia tweeted on 19 December: “Week after week, the infrastructure law is paying dividends. It’s expanding highways like I-64, upgrading airports, fixing crumbling bridges and building new bike paths. It’s revitalizing our communities and making every travel day better.The law’s provisions to tackle systemic racism have come under attack from Republicans and others on the right. Senator Ted Cruz tweeted with sarcasm: “The roads are racist. We must get rid of roads.” DeSantis remarked: “I heard some stuff, some weird stuff from the secretary of transportation trying to make this about social issues. To me, a road’s a road.”Buttigieg is ready to have that debate. He often notes that the phrase “on the wrong side of the tracks”, referring to the undesirable part of town, is indicative of how a railway or highway not only connects but also divides. “As I’ve had this conversation around the country, it’s striking how, wherever I am, I can see in the faces nodding when I bring this up that people are visualising their own community’s version of this.“I talk about this not to go around scolding anybody but precisely because we have the means to do better and that’s why it’s so perplexing to see the resistance to it, because, if you have a choice between having a place become more divided or less divided along racial lines through transportation infrastructure choices, why wouldn’t you want it to be less divided?”At least $1bn (£831m) will help reconnect cities and neighbourhoods that had been racially segregated or divided by road projects. But the legislation is also about including businesses and workers who have been left out in the past.“There’s some impressive – and sometimes moving – things taking place in the building trades, for example, that are in many places opening their doors to workers of colour and women who will make great skilled labourers and make good incomes to build their families around, who just never would have this opportunity in the last round of major infrastructure investment in this country.”Transport contributes more greenhouse gases to the US economy than any other sector; Buttigieg wants it to be part of the climate solution as the infrastructure law promises a national network of electric vehicle chargers. Road accidents kill about 40,000 people a year, comparable with gun violence and far worse than other countries; Buttigieg finds this unacceptable and hopes that self-driving cars might be part of the solution.The secretary, who speaks in paragraphs more polished than most people write, has been willing to make such arguments on Rupert Murdoch’s conservative Fox News network in a series of appearances that have gone viral. It is the kind of outreach to hostile territory that evokes comparisons with Biden’s spirit of bipartisanship – and fuels talk of a future White House run.He explains: “There are a lot of people who tune into ideological networks, as viewers in good faith who may never hear our administration’s perspective if we’re not out there. I’m not the only one doing it but I have been surprised to see it become something of a speciality.“You can’t blame somebody for rejecting our approach if they’ve literally never even heard us defend it, especially when it comes to transportation, where most of what we’re doing is actually broadly well-understood and popular but we’ve got to remind people of that.“It can be tough in a space – and Fox is an example – that tends to offer more coverage of some controversial angle around electric vehicles or racial justice than would offer any coverage of the thousands of specific projects that we’re investing in around the country. I’ve got to get out there and tell people. As long as they’ll have me, I’ll keep doing it.”Buttigieg recently moved from a red state, Indiana, to an increasingly blue one, Michigan, with his husband Chasten and their two young children. On 13 December the couple were on the White House south lawn to watch Biden sign the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects same-sex and interracial marriages under federal law.The secretary reflects: “To be sitting with Chasten and seeing the president make that into law was really moving and and reassuring. We shouldn’t have to depend on a one-vote margin on the supreme court to have something as important as millions of marriages be protected and I think Congress recognised that, and I think the American public recognised that.”The shift in public attitudes was illustrated in last month’s midterm elections, where for the first time LGBTQ+ candidates ran for election in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and where Oregon’s Tina Kotek and Massachusetts’ Maura Healey ensured that the US will have an out lesbian governor for the first time. Buttigieg himself was in demand as a campaign surrogate for various Democratic candidates.A New York Times article about him in June 2016 was headlined “The First Gay President?” So is America now ready? “I’m sure it’ll happen,” he says. “What we’re seeing right now is the good, the bad and the ugly. The good news is we have this progress on things like marriage and representation in senior leadership. The bad news is it’s coming in a climate of rights being withdrawn at the US supreme court, including potentially more of the hard-won rights of the LGBTQ+ community.“And the ugly is you see a level of targeting going on for political convenience, in my view, driven by a lot of figures who don’t want to talk about their lack of solutions on other issues, that can really be costly and even physically dangerous for vulnerable communities right now. You can connect the rhetoric we’ve seen, and some of the legislation we’ve seen in state legislatures, with the sometimes violent atmosphere -especially towards transgender youth but across the board for vulnerable people in this community.”The interview draws to a close in a meeting room where one wall is dominated by the faces of past transportation secretaries in neat rows. Biden’s Rooseveltian ambitions look set to make Buttigieg the most powerful holder of the office yet.“Good to see you – and different from the 14th floor in South Bend,” he says affably on his way out. “Who knows where I’ll see you next?”TopicsPete ButtigiegUS politicsInfrastructureBiden administrationUS domestic policyDemocratsinterviewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      US bans China-based TikTok app on all federal government devices

      by

      US bans China-based TikTok app on all federal government devicesMove follows House of Representatives ban, which TikTok called a ‘political measure that will do nothing’ for national security TikTok has been banned on all federal government devices in the US, with limited exceptions, after Joe Biden signed a $1.7tn (£1.4tn) spending bill on Thursday containing a provision that outlaws the China-based app over growing security concerns.The ban – which was approved by Congress in a vote last week – is a major step targeting the fastest-growing social media platform in the world as opponents express worry user data stored in China could be accessed by the government.Various government agencies will develop rules for implementing the ban over the next two months. It will mean that federal government employees are required to remove TikTok from their government-issued devices unless they are using the app for national security or law enforcement activities.TikTok banned on devices issued by US House of RepresentativesRead moreIt follows a flurry of legislative action against the platform in the US, after more than a dozen governors have issued similar orders prohibiting state employees from using TikTok on state-owned devices. Earlier this week, Congress passed legislation to ban TikTok on devices issued to members of the House of Representatives.TikTok did not immediately respond to request for comment. In a statement released after the initial House ban, TikTok said the move was a “political gesture that will do nothing to advance national security interests”.Meanwhile, there has been a push to ban TikTok outright in the US, with legislation introduced by Senator Marco Rubio earlier this month to “ban Beijing-controlled TikTok for good”. That bill echoes moves from the previous administration, after Donald Trump issued an executive order in August 2020 prohibiting US companies from doing business with TikTok’s parent company ByteDance.The order was later revoked by Biden in June 2021 under the condition that the US committee on foreign investment conducted a security review of the platform and suggested a path forward. That investigation has been ongoing for several years.Although ByteDance is based in China, the company has long claimed all US user data is stored in data centers in Virginia and backed up in Singapore.But political pressure began to build anew after BuzzFeed reported in June that China-based ByteDance employees had accessed US TikTok user data multiple times between September 2021 and January 2022.Legislators have expressed concern that the Chinese Communist party could manipulate young users with pro-China content on its algorithmic home page and access sensitive user data.“TikTok, their parent company ByteDance, and other China-based tech companies are required by Chinese law to share their information with the Communist party,” Senator Mark Warner said in July when calling for further investigation of the platform.“Allowing access to American data, down to biometrics such as face prints and voice prints, poses a great risk to not only individual privacy but to national security,” he added.The legislative pressure on TikTok comes as the app has exploded in popularity in recent years, amassing a user base of more than 1 billion after reporting a 45% increase in monthly active users between July 2020 and July 2022. In 2022 it became the most downloaded app in the world, quietly surpassing longstanding forebears Instagram and Twitter.With the meteoric rise has come broad concerns about the app’s impact on its relatively young users. Nearly half of people between 18 and 30 in the US use the platform, a recent Pew Research Center report showed – and 67% of users between the ages of 13 and 18 use the app daily.TopicsTikTokChinaUS politicsBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Who should pay?’: student debt relief in limbo as supreme court decides fate of millions

      by

      ‘Who should pay?’: student debt relief in limbo as supreme court decides fate of millions Over 26m student loan borrowers are waiting for the country’s highest court to decide if they can receive debt reliefDebt-laden borrowers will be nervously watching the US supreme court come February when the justices hear arguments for two cases that will ultimately decide the fate of over 26 million student loan borrowers who have applied for loan forgiveness.US student debt relief: borrowers in limbo as lawsuits halt cancellation programRead moreThough the future of student loan forgiveness is uncertain in the hands of a deeply conservative court, two researchers who have studied public opinion on student debt and college accessibility see room for optimism, even amid uncertainty around the issue.The millions of Americans who applied were set to get at least $10,000 (£8,320) in relief for their loans under a plan that Joe Biden released over the summer. But the plan’s rollout was halted in November by a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas, putting the possibility of forgiveness into question.“[Student loan forgiveness] is something that five years or 10 years ago, we wouldn’t have seen. It shows that there’s movement for politicians and the public to do something about student debt that has meaningful effects for a lot of people,” said Natasha Quadlin, a professor at University of California, Los Angeles who co-wrote a book this year, Who Should Pay?: Higher Education, Responsibility and the Public that documents the change in public opinion on how much the government should pay for higher education.Quadlin, along with her co-author Brian Powell, a professor at Indiana University, started administering surveys in 2010 asking people who should pay for college: parents, students or the government.In 2010, nearly 70% of respondents believed that only parents and students should be funding higher education. In 2019, the number dropped to 39%. Meanwhile, the percentage of people who believe the government, both federal and state, should primarily fund college rose from 9% in 2010 to 25% in 2019. All other respondents indicated that the government should help parents or students pay for college.When Quadlin and Powell set off to do this decades-long research in 2010, they did not realize how dramatically people’s perspectives on who should pay for college would change.“When we started working on the book and collecting data, the idea of loan forgiveness was not even really part of the American consciousness,” Powell said.The researchers note a few factors that went into this rapid shift. First, student debt nearly doubled in size between 2010 and 2015, reaching $1.3tn (£1tn) by the end of 2015. The cost of college was also rising, especially since states were slashing higher education budgets during the Great Recession.Fight against inflation raises spectre of global recessionRead more“It became apparent that the current generation that was going through higher education just wasn’t getting a very good deal in terms of the returns they were seeing,” Quadlin said.Some respondents also noted that the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, showed them that government can offer broad support for certain areas of life.“Several people said: ‘If we can do this for something as important as healthcare, and ensure health insurance, then we should be able to do that for education as well,’” Powell said.Sentiment had changed so much that some states were discussing the possibility of free college, a policy that Quadlin and Powell did not even consider putting on their survey in 2010. By 2019, over 20 states offered programs that either reduced or eliminated the cost of public college. Nearly 40% of respondents on the survey strongly and 32% somewhat agreed that public college should be free for those who are qualified to attend.Loan forgiveness and free college, while similarly addressing accessibility to higher education, are ultimately two different issues. While the researchers note that both should be pursued simultaneously, it appears that much of the current focus is on addressing debt forgiveness as the immediate problem.How quickly either will be addressed is unclear, but “the costs and burden [of student debt] is so high and so widespread”, Quadlin said.“There is a recognition that college is necessary for such a large percentage of the problem … and [its] not getting fixed,” she said.Throughout the book, Quadlin and Powell note how quickly public opinion had changed on same-sex marriage in a short amount of time. Powell, who has studied this change in opinion, noted that Congress just recently passed a bill protecting same-sex marriage with bipartisan support. In 2010, Gallup reported 28% of Republican support same-sex marriage. In 2021, the percentage rose to 55%.While Republicans have largely been against Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, there is some evidence that there could be Republican support one day. In 2014, Tennessee, under a Republican governor, created a scholarship program for free community college – an initiative that is still thought to be too radical at the federal level.“We’ve had examples of bipartisan support. Education is one of those areas that people believe in – the American Dream, that people can be able to have the education they need to have a fulfilling life and successful career,” Powell said. “It’s hard to envision the changes in the past year without the dramatic change in public opinion that occurred in a really short period of time.”TopicsUS student debtHigher educationUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsBiden administrationDebt relieffeaturesReuse this content More