Biden administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The Georgia runoff shows that Democrats have figured out a winning strategy | Andrew Gawthorpe

      by

      The Georgia runoff shows that Democrats have figured out a winning strategyAndrew GawthorpeThe midterms have been an endorsement of Biden’s formula: appeal to the middle by hammering at Republicans’ extremism For the third time in a row, Democrats have won a Senate election in Georgia. Raphael Warnock’s victory makes it clear that the party’s gains in the state in 2020 were not an anomaly. Although far from being a so-called blue state, Georgia is positioned well to remain competitive in 2024 and beyond. But in order for that to happen – and to build on their victories elsewhere – Democrats have to make the right choices.Taken as a whole, the midterms have provided a ringing endorsement of the approach to politics favored by President Joe Biden. From the first moment it looked like he would enter the 2020 Democratic primary, Biden was maligned and mocked for suggesting that the path to a Democratic victory lay through gains with independent and suburban voters. Critics argued that the country was so deeply polarized that swing voters no longer existed, and that appeals for bipartisanship would fall on deaf ears. In their view, the only viable strategy was to mobilize the Democratic base with leftwing appeals, even at the cost of losing voters in the center.Georgia’s runoff was a resounding rebuke of Trumpism. Will Republicans hear it? | Lloyd GreenRead moreOver two election cycles, however, Joe Biden has proven to have a much firmer grasp on American politics than some of his critics. His victory in 2020 was driven by flipping suburban and independent voters, as well as staunching Democratic losses among the non-college-educated white voters who make up Trump’s base. And even though commentators worried that this coalition was “precariously thin” and lacked durability, a broadly similar coalition came together in key midterm races to produce one of the best results for an incumbent president in modern American politics.Warnock’s victory in Georgia is just one of many examples. To be clear, Warnock is a formidable individual and campaigner in his own right and should take primary credit for his own victory. But he and many other candidates nationwide benefited from the way that Biden has shaped the Democratic party’s brand in more moderate directions and worked to rack up an impressive checklist of bipartisan legislative accomplishments.These moves have been met with hostility or indifference on the party’s left, but they give permission to disaffected Republican and independent voters to cross the aisle. This permission was gratefully received in Georgia, where Warnock’s opponent was the Trump-endorsed Herschel Walker, and a Democratic victory followed.As they look forward to 2024, Democrats should stick with Biden’s approach. One of the president’s key insights into today’s politics is that the flagrant extremism of the Republican party creates the space for precisely this sort of centrist approach to work. In 2020, naysayers charged that Biden hadn’t really created a durable new coalition, but merely capitalized on opposition to Trump. But with Trump still defining the Republican party, it will remain important for Democrats to continue to give right-leaning voters an excuse to defect.Even choosing an alternative presidential candidate would not soothe Republican woes or invalidate Biden’s approach. Any such candidate will have to win a primary in a Maga-fied party, which means saying and doing things that a substantial portion of the general electorate finds abhorrent.Nor is the party’s extremism just some new feature of the Trump era. Take its stance on abortion. Trump has tended to shy away from making abortion a central issue in his politics, and any replacement is more likely to represent the hardline restrictionism that is mainstream in the Republican party but anathema to the public. Dumping Trump would be extraordinarily hard for the party – and actually changing tack on abortion, rather than quietly deciding to publicly talk about it less, close to impossible.Trump’s march back to power has faltered. Now comes the real challenge for the global left | Martin KettleRead moreFor their part, the main question Democrats face is whether or not Biden continues to be the best person to put at the top of their ticket. This highlights a paradox, which is that Bidenism is more popular than Biden himself. Despite the key role that independents have played in Biden’s victories, three-quarters of them do not want Biden to run again in 2024, and the group as a whole views Biden only somewhat more favorably than Trump. This is a red flag for many Democrats, who worry that questions about Biden’s age and verbal gaffes could drag them down in 2024.But concerns about Biden as a candidate should not lead to concerns about Bidenism – if anything, the case for the latter is only strengthened by the weaknesses of the former. Biden’s coalition is not held together by a charismatic individual who will eventually pass from the scene, but by the structural forces shaping American politics today. It represents a path available to Democrats for as long as they continue to face a radicalized Republican party – something they are likely to do for a long time yet.Nor should the hidden strengths of the president himself be dismissed. Biden has long been dismissed by people who imagine themselves to be more politically sophisticated. Over the past few years, he has left their predictions in the dust again and again. Most crucially of all, he is the only Democrat who has beaten Trump in a one-on-one contest, the sort which allows him to highlight the contrast between Bidenism and the radicalized opposition most convincingly.As 2024 approaches, Biden’s message to doubters in his party should be simple: I’ve done it before. Now watch me do it again.
      Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States at Leiden University and host of the podcast America Explained
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsJoe BidenBiden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US immigration laws should be enforced with discretion. That’s common sense | Robert Reich

      by

      US immigration laws should be enforced with discretion. That’s common senseRobert ReichBiden ordered officials to focus on deporting immigrants convicted of felonies, rather than undocumented people en masse. I applaud that decision Texas has sued the Biden administration over its order to immigration agents to prioritize undocumented immigrants convicted of felonies rather than deport all undocumented immigrants.Texas argues that federal immigration law requires the government to deport every undocumented immigrant. The Biden administration says it doesn’t have the resources to deport the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, so it must develop priorities.The Crypto Crash: all Ponzi schemes topple eventually | Robert ReichRead moreThe controversy reminds me of something that happened 30 years ago.Child labor laws bar 14-year-olds from working past 7pm on school nights. Weeks before I became the US secretary of labor, in 1992, a vigilant labor department investigator discovered that the Savannah Cardinals, a Class A farm team of the Atlanta Braves, had hired 14-year-old Tommy McCoy to be their batboy. On balmy evenings extending beyond sunset, Tommy selected each player’s favorite bat and proudly delivered it to him in the batter’s box. Next morning, Tommy went to school.The investigator threatened the team with a stiff fine. The team did what it had to do: it fired little Tommy.Tommy liked being a batboy. His parents were proud of their son. The team was fond of him. The fans loved him. As long as anyone could remember, every kid in Savannah had coveted the job. Tommy did well in school.But now little Tommy was out of a job.Well, you can imagine the furor. It seemed as if the whole city of Savannah was up in arms. The Cardinals were staging a “Save Tommy’s Job Night” rally, featuring balloons, buttons, placards and a petition signed by the fans demanding that Tommy be rehired.ABC News was doing a story on the controversy, which is how I first heard about it. ABC wanted me to do an on-camera interview that evening, explaining why Tommy couldn’t be a batboy.What was I to do? ABC couldn’t wait to show America the stupidity of the government (and its new secretary of labor).The labor department’s chief inspectors, sitting around a large round table in my office, didn’t want me to back down. After all, they said, the law was clear: Children under 14 could not work past 7pm on school nights. Besides, child labor was a serious problem. Children were getting injured working long hours.“If you back down, it will look like you’re caving in to public opinion,” one of the chief inspectors told me.“But,” I asked, “isn’t it the public whom we’re here to serve?”“The Savannah team broke the law and it was our responsibility to enforce the law.”“But who says the law has to be enforced this way?” I asked. “Don’t we have some discretion over how we enforce the law? We have only a limited number of inspectors. Shouldn’t we have priorities? I can understand hitting a building contractor who’s hiring kids to put on roofing, but why are we going after batboys and girls?”They warned me that if I didn’t support the department’s investigators, the staff would become demoralized.“Good! If they become demoralized and stop enforcing the law nonsensically, so much the better,” I said.They warned that if I backed down, the labor department would lose credibility.“We’ll lose even more credibility if we stick with this outrageous decision,” I said.They said there was nothing we could do. The law was the law.“Nonsense,” I said. “We can change the regulation to make an exception for kids at sporting events.”But that would invite all sorts of abuses, they argued. Vendors would exploit young kids on school nights to sell peanuts and popcorn, stadiums would hire young children to clean the locker rooms, parking lots would use children to collect money.“OK,” I said, “so we draw the exemption tighter, and limit it to batboys and batgirls.”I was getting nowhere. In minutes I’d have to appear on World News Tonight and defend the indefensible.Then it hit me, like a fastball slamming into my thick head: I was secretary of labor. I could decide this by myself.“I’ve heard enough,” I said, standing.I turned to my assistant, “We’re going to tell the Savannah team they can keep Tommy. We’ll change the regulation to allow batboys and girls. Put out a press release right now. Call the producers for World News Tonight and tell them I’ve decided to let Tommy keep his batboy job. Tell them our investigator was way off base!”“But World News Tonight is already on the air!” my assistant said.“Call them now!”I turned on the TV in the corner of my office. Peter Jennings was reading the news from his monitor. Within moments he said:The United States Department of Labor has decided that a 14-year-old named Tommy McCoy cannot serve as batboy for the Atlanta Braves farm team in Savannah, Georgia. The decision has provoked outrage from the fans. Here’s more from …As he turned it over to ABC’s Atlanta correspondent, Jennings appeared to be smirking.I was dead, politically.I looked around the table at the inspectors. Did they understand that in 7m living rooms across America people were now saying to each other “How dumb can government get?”After two excruciating minutes during which ABC’s Atlanta correspondent detailed the story of little Tommy, it was back to Jennings:But this tale has a happy ending.My heart skipped a beat.The labor department reports that Tommy will get his job back. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has decided that the department was – quote – off-base in invoking child labor regulations under these circumstances.I was still alive, politically.But the inspectors sitting around my table were dismayed.I tried to explain to them exactly what the Biden administration is now trying to explain to the courts and to Republicans in Congress.Laws cannot be enforced without setting priorities for enforcement. Inevitably – intentionally or unintentionally – the people in charge of enforcing laws determine which cases merit their attention and resources.So enforcers must use common sense. Prioritize targeting employers who are hiring young children and putting them in dangerous jobs over, say, a farm team hiring a kid as a batboy.Prioritize undocumented immigrants convicted of felonies over, say, a Dreamer who was brought to America as an infant and has been hardworking and law-abiding for her whole life.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS immigrationBiden administrationJoe BidenMigrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why 51 is better than 50 in the Senate: Politics Weekly America podcast

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share via Email

      Raphael Warnock was re-elected to represent Georgia in the US Senate for the next six years. Jonathan Freedland speaks to Molly Reynolds of the Brookings Institution about the significance for Democrats of having an absolute majority in the upper chamber of Congress, rather than a 50/50 split

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archive: CNN, WALB 10, MSNBC Listen to Football Weekly and Pop Culture with Chanté Joseph Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Democrats to reportedly push banking reforms for cannabis industry

      by

      Senate Democrats to reportedly push banking reforms for cannabis industryJustice department is scrutinizing measures’ implications on law enforcement investigations and prosecutions Democrats in the Senate will push to liberalize banking access to the cannabis industry during the lame duck session, it was reported on Saturday, in moves being watched closely by the Department of Justice which is concerned that reforms could ‘complicate’ the industry’s legal status.New York issues first 36 dispensary licenses for recreational marijuanaRead moreA justice department memo, obtained earlier this week by Punchbowl News, outlines how implementation of a bill to reform the banking rules for cannabis companies “could significantly complicate law enforcement investigations and prosecutions”, though it also notes that the department believes that subject to minor changes “it can effectively implement the legislation”.The legislation, titled the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act, would provide a “safe harbor” for regulated banks to work with cannabis firms in states where it’s legal. While that would not legalize cannabis at a federal level, it would release the industry from a key limitation to its growth.The passage of the bill through the Senate has become a priority for Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer ahead of the new session in January, Axios reported on Saturday.In July, the New York democratic senator, along with Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Oregon’s Ron Wyden introduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act that would decriminalize cannabis at the federal level.The bill’s sponsors argued that the cannabis industry, which employs nearly 430,000 workers and generated over $25bn in sales last year, “presents a significant opportunity for entrepreneurship and economic empowerment”. By 2025, the bill said, “it is estimated that the cannabis industry could exceed $45bn in annual sales”.It said that nearly all Americans live in a state with some form of legal cannabis, including 19 states that have legalized adult-use cannabis – reaching over 40% of Americans – and that 91% of adult Americans believe that cannabis should be legal for either adult or medical use.“The ‘war on drugs’ has failed, and it’s time for lawmakers in Washington to respect the rights of states that have chosen to legalize cannabis,” they argued. Despite bi-partisan support, the bill stalled.Legalization of the industry’s access to the banking system is an incremental work-around to federal prohibition, which came into effect across the US a century ago.Most of the changes suggested by the justice department revolve around language relating to “cannabis-related legitimate businesses” that it said “could create an immunity shield around activities of cannabis businesses that involve other illicit drugs or activities”.Other potential complications in the wording could complicate enforcement of anti- money laundering efforts, the DoJ said. TopicsUS newsUS politicsCannabisBiden administrationLaw (US)Reuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Newt Gingrich warns Republicans that Joe Biden is winning the fight

      by

      Newt Gingrich warns Republicans that Joe Biden is winning the fightFormer speaker who led charge against Bill Clinton raises eyebrows with column heralding Democrat’s first-term success Republicans must “quit underestimating” Joe Biden, the former US House speaker Newt Gingrich said, because the president is winning the fight.Biden tells Democrats to revise primary calendar to boost Black voters’ voicesRead moreWriting on his own website, Gingrich said: “Conservatives’ hostility to the Biden administration on our terms tends to blind us to just how effective Biden has been on his terms.“… We dislike Biden so much, we pettily focus on his speaking difficulties, sometimes strange behavior, clear lapses of memory and other personal flaws. Our aversion to him and his policies makes us underestimate him and the Democrats.”Gingrich’s words pleased the White House – Ron Klain, Joe Biden’s chief of staff, tweeted a link with the message: “You don’t have to take my word for it, any more.”The column also caused consternation among Washington commentators, in part because, as Axios put it, “a leader of the GOP’s ’90s-era New Right [is] arguing that Joe Biden is not just a winner – but a role model”.Gingrich has been a fierce partisan warrior ever since he entered Congress, in 1979, then as speaker led the charge against Bill Clinton, culminating in a failed attempt to remove the Democrat via impeachment. In the conclusion to his column, he used the term “Defeat Big Government Socialism” – a version of the title of his latest book.Gingrich told Axios: “I was thinking about football and the clarity of winning and losing. It hit me that, measured by his goals, Biden has been much more successful than we have been willing to credit.”Biden recently turned 80. He has said he will use the Christmas holiday to decide if he will run for re-election.Gingrich, 79, compared Biden to Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, the latter previously the oldest president ever in office, having been 77 when he left the White House in 1989.Reagan and Eisenhower, Gingrich said, “preferred to be underestimated” and “wanted people to think of them as pleasant – but not dangerous”, and thereby enjoyed great success.“Biden has achieved something similar,” Gingrich continued, by taking “an amazingly narrow four-vote majority in the US House and a 50-50 tie in the Senate and turn[ing] it into trillions of dollars in spending – and a series of radical bills”.Gingrich also accused Biden of pursuing “a strategy of polarizing Americans against Donald Trump supporters” – more than 950 of whom have been charged over the deadly Capitol riot they staged after the former president’s defeat in 2020 – and “grossly exaggerat[ing] the threat to abortion rights”, after the supreme court removed the right this year.But Gingrich also gave Biden credit on the chief foreign policy challenge of his first term in power. The president, the former speaker said, had “carefully and cautiously waged war in Ukraine with no American troops … US weapons and financial aid [helping] cripple what most thought would be an easy victory for Russian president Vladimir Putin”.The result, Gingrich said, was that last month “the Biden team had one of the best first-term off-year elections in history. They were not repudiated.”Gingrich advised Republicans “to look much more deeply at what worked and what did not work in 2020 and 2022”, as they prepare to face “almost inevitable second-time Democrat presidential nominee Biden”.According to Axios, Biden is thought likely to run. Friends of the first couple, the site said, “think only two things could stop him: health or Jill”, the first lady.TopicsJoe BidenBiden administrationNewt GingrichDemocratsRepublicansUS midterm elections 2022US elections 2024newsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden just knifed labor unions in the back. They shouldn’t forget it | Hamilton Nolan

      by

      Biden just knifed labor unions in the back. They shouldn’t forget it Hamilton NolanUS railway workers threatened to strike until they got paid sick leave. The president’s administration chose political cowardice It’s sad, really. The beleaguered labor unions of America thought that they had finally found a true friend. In Joe Biden, they had a man who was the most pro-union president in my lifetime – a low bar to clear, but something. Yet this week we found out that when the fight got hard, Biden had the same thing to say to working people that his Democratic predecessors have for decades: “You’ll never get anything you want if I don’t win; but once I win, I can’t do the things you need, because then I wouldn’t be able to win again.”At the same time that thousands of union members are fanned out across the state of Georgia knocking on doors to get Raphael Warnock elected and solidify Democratic control of the Senate – to save the working class, of course! – Biden decided to sell out workers in the single biggest labor battle of his administration. Rather than allowing the nation’s railroad workers to exercise their right to strike, he used his power to intervene and force them to accept a deal that a majority of those workers found to be unacceptable.‘Joe Biden blew it’: rail unions decry plan to impose deal through CongressRead moreHis ability to do this rests on the vagaries of the Railway Labor Act, but all you really need to understand is this: nobody forced him to side with the railroad companies over the workers. That was a choice. The White House just weighed the political damage it anticipated from Republicans screaming about a Christmas-season rail strike against the fact that railroad workers have inhuman working conditions and would need to go on strike to change that, and chose the easier political route. This was a “Which side are you on?” moment, and Biden made his position clear.What were these railroad workers fighting for? Paid sick leave. The basic ability to call in sick or go see a doctor without being penalized, something that many of us – including members of Congress and railroad company executives – take for granted. It is also, by the way, a right that Joe Biden believes should be codified into federal law. But he must not believe in it all that much, since he just cut the legs out from under unions who were trying to secure it for their members.And why is it so difficult for railroad workers to win this basic right? Their industry, after all, is fantastically profitable. It has cut its workforce to the bone purely to enrich investors, and doesn’t want to spend the money it would take to staff properly so that its remaining workers could take sick days. Greed, and nothing more. The combined power of the railway unions could overcome this obstacle, but only if they have the ability to go on strike. Railroad companies are not stupid. They knew the White House would intervene to prevent a strike, so they felt no urgency to give in to their workers’ demands. Joe Biden, Mr I-Love-Unions, unilaterally disarmed the unions before their fight could begin. Without a credible strike threat, they never had a chance.People will point out that strikes are disruptive. Yes. That’s the point. A rail strike would be so disruptive that the rail companies probably would have given up the sick days to prevent it – and if they didn’t, the White House could have weighed in on the side of the workers to make them. Instead, it did the opposite, and rescuing hope for those workers fell to Bernie Sanders and to progressives in the House, who forced congressional leaders to move a separate bill to guarantee the sick leave they were asking for. As usual, it was the left that went to the trouble of fighting for labor after the party’s mainstream sold it out for the sake of convenience.Organized labor is in an abusive relationship with the Democratic party. For decades, Democratic administrations have failed to prioritize labor issues and stabbed unions in the back, and the union establishment has always showed up with a big check for them in the next election. I guarantee you that this will happen again after this betrayal by Joe Biden. (You may have already noticed that few union leaders have been brave enough to criticize the White House directly on this issue.)Breaking free from this dynamic does not mean getting friendly with the Republicans, who would happily bring back indentured servants and child labor if they could. It means going left, to the only part of the political spectrum that genuinely gives a damn about the interests of working people. Rather than pouring its considerable resources into the mainstream Democrats, the labor movement should be bankrolling the expansion of the progressive wing of the party, to permanently shift the internal balance of power. This is not some rarefied ideological prescription from a textbook; it is common sense. If you are a railroad worker – or anyone who understands the basic need for solidarity among all workers in the face of corporate power – where are your friends? They are all sitting on the left. If we keep running back to support those who just kicked sand in our faces, nothing will ever change.And instead of kissing and making up with Biden after this outrageous insult, labor should be putting the fear of God in him with the possibility that they will back a primary presidential challenge from the left in 2024. Biden is very old and not very popular. He has been a friend to unions, yes, but if he goes against them on the biggest fight of all, how much of a friend is he, really?Nothing has as much latent power as organized working people. We need to stop begging politicians for their support, and make them come beg for ours. Just because a strike is illegal, after all, doesn’t mean that it can’t happen.
      Hamilton Nolan is a writer at In These Times
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS unionsJoe BidenBiden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      White House health officials: up-to-date vaccines key to move on from Covid

      by

      White House health officials: up-to-date vaccines key to move on from CovidFauci and Jha comments come amid campaign to encourage public to get the new coronavirus boosters as well as flu shots White House public health officials offered cautious optimism that Americans could begin to move on from coronavirus, but cautioned that keeping immunity vaccination up-to-date and combating scientific disinformation remained key for the country to successfully emerge from the three-year Covid-19 pandemic.“If you look at where we were a year ago at this time, when [coronavirus variant] Omicron started to surge, we were having 800,000 to 900,000 infections and 3,000 to 4,000 deaths [a day]. Today, we had less than 300 deaths. Yesterday, we had 350 deaths, and…anywhere from 27,000 to 45,000 cases” Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the US president, said.“That is much, much better than we were a year ago. But if you look at it in a vacuum, it’s still not a great place to be,” Fauci told CBS Face the Nation on Sunday.But he acknowledged that “everybody’s got Covid fatigue…and people just want it behind us.”The infectious disease expert, who is retiring at the end of the year after many decades as a leading public health official, said Covid was still concerning and “it is not at a level low enough where we should feel we’re done with it completely because we’re not.”Separately, White House Covid response coordinator Ashish Jha, told ABC’s This Week that: “It’s been, obviously, a long 2.5 years for Americans, and we understand that people want to move on. The good news is people can move on if they keep their immunity up to date.”The officials’ comments comes as the White House undertakes a campaign to encourage the public to get the new Covid boosters, designed to combat Omicron, as well as flu shots. The low take-up of both this fall has disappointed health experts, with just 11% of the population accepting the latest Covid vaccine and 42 million Americans receiving this year’s flu vaccine.“We think it’s incredibly important as we head into the holidays for people to update their immunity, get the new Covid vaccine, get the flu shot,” Jha said.Both Fauci and Jha addressed concerns that Covid vaccine hesitancy had translated into flu vaccine hesitancy in some states even as a “tripledemic” of flu, Covid, and the respiratory virus, RSV – hitting children and the elderly hardest – is straining hospitals in some places.“We know these vaccines are incredibly effective. They’re very safe. That’s point number one,” Jha said. “Our strategy is get out into the community, talk to religious leaders, talk to civil society leaders, community-based organizations, have them get out to the community and talk to people.”Fauci said he had been “very troubled” by the divisive state of American politics and its effects on public health.Asked why he thought the anti-vaccine movement, which had long existed among a minority on the left, is now prevalent among some conservatives in the US, Fauci blamed an expansion and amplification of anti-science, anti-vaccine thinking.He said it was “something I’ve never seen in my 54 years in medicine at the NIH (National Institutes of Health) is that the acceptance or not of a life-saving intervention is steered very heavily by your political ideology”.“Why would you ever want to see that ‘red’ [Republican-voting] states are under-vaccinated and ‘blue’ [Democratic-leaning] states are pretty well vaccinated and there are more deaths among red state Republicans than there are among blue states Democrats?” he added. “Divisions of political ideology…shouldn’t be a reason why you get sick or you don’t get sick.”Meanwhile, Jha said that China’s aims for zero-Covid, where fresh outbreaks across the vast nation result in lockdowns and now protests and crackdowns, was unrealistic.Depressed, powerless, angry: why frustration at China’s zero-Covid is spilling overRead more“Obviously, that’s not our strategy. We don’t think that’s realistic, certainly not for the American people. Our strategy has been build up immunity in the population by getting people vaccinated,” he said.TopicsOmicron variantCoronavirusBiden administrationInfectious diseasesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden administration ‘dragged feet’ on Mohammed bin Salman immunity ruling

      by

      Biden administration ‘dragged feet’ on Mohammed bin Salman immunity rulingLegal experts raise questions about run-up to granting immunity in civil case involving murder of journalist When the Biden administration filed a legal brief last week calling for the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, to be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case involving the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, it said it was strictly a legal determination that did not reflect its views on the “heinous” killing.“In every case, we simply follow the law. And that’s what we did,” Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, later said.But a close examination of the Biden administration’s actions, including interviews with legal experts and people who closely followed the matter, suggest the controversial decision was anything but straightforward.Beginning last summer, the administration’s decision to delay action and seek months of legal extensions before submitting its views on the matter before a US judge offered Saudi Arabia an unprecedented opportunity to protect Prince Mohammed through a legal manoeuvre that put him above the law and out of the reach of the US legal system. Once this had happened, the Biden administration in effect said its hands were tied.“If you look at the sequence of events, it is hard not to see this was a battle between Biden and Mohammed bin Salman playing out,” said one close observer, who asked not to be named so they could speak candidly. “I would hate to imagine that there was bartering over our judicial system and that integrity was up for grabs.”The US government was first invited to get involved in the civil case against Prince Mohammed on 1 July by the US district court judge John Bates. At the centre of the request was a lawsuit filed in 2020 against the crown prince and his associates by Hatice Cengiz, Khashoggi’s fiancee, which accused Prince Mohammed and his associates of conspiring with premeditation to kidnap, torture and murder Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.Bates’s request was straightforward. He gave the administration 30 days – until 1 August – to submit a “statement of interest” and weigh in on whether the heir to the Saudi throne ought to be granted sovereign immunity in the case, or tell the court that it did not wish to make a statement. He also wanted the administration to weigh in on how the court might reconcile protections that are given to foreign leaders and those who are using a US law that allows victims of torture or extrajudicial killings to hold perpetrators accountable.At that time, Prince Mohammed was – clearly – not a sovereign. In Saudi Arabia, that distinction belonged at the time solely to his father, King Salman.Harold Koh, a former legal adviser to the state department during the Obama administration who is now a professor of international law at Yale Law School, said the US had competing interests at the time. On the one hand, the US asserts reciprocal principles of immunity so that its own head of state will be offered protection from legal courts. But that had to be weighed against Biden’s statements about human rights being at the centre of his administration’s foreign policy and “autocrats understanding that the president means what he says”.“All things considered, silence would have been the better way to balance those competing national interests,” Koh said, adding that there would have been “ample precedent” for the state department to stay silent.On 15 July, Joe Biden met Prince Mohammed in Jeddah, a meeting that started with a fist bump and was meant to “reset” his relationship with a leader he once called a pariah. It would later emerge that the meeting was also the start of a campaign by the administration to try to persuade the Saudis not to cut oil production before the US midterm elections.Back in Washington, just a few days later on 18 July, the US asked Judge Bates for an extension, saying it needed time to consult multiple entities within the administration with respect to “complex issues of international and domestic law”. The court agreed, giving the US until 3 October to respond.Weeks later, on 23 September, Brett McGurk, a Middle East policy coordinator for the US National Security Council (NSC), and Amos Hochstein, a US senior adviser for energy security, visited Jeddah again, ostensibly to discuss energy policies.Days later, on 27 September, the Saudi royal court announced that Prince Mohammed had been named prime minister, a role that had been and usually is held by the Saudi king. Observers noted that the apparent promotion did not confer any major new duties or powers to Mohammed bin Salman. Human rights defenders saw it as a ploy to influence the US recommendation on sovereign immunity, which was due about a week later.The US government, citing “changed circumstances”, requested a second extension to prepare its response and was granted one, until 17 November. A few days after it missed its 3 October deadline, Opec+ announced it was cutting oil production by 2m barrels a day, in what was seen by Democrats as an attempt by the kingdom to interfere with the US election and side with Russia over US interests.Biden promised that Saudi Arabia would face “consequences” for the decision, but has not articulated any specific actions he planned to take against the kingdom. On 17 November, just hours before a midnight deadline, the administration filed a notice that it believed Prince Mohammed, as prime minister, deserved to be treated as a sovereign as a standard matter of international law.An NSC spokesperson told the Guardian that the US president was briefed on the immunity decision, which was based on “well-established principles of common law”.When the Guardian asked the spokesperson if any US official ever suggested to Saudi Arabia that Prince Mohammed could be appointed prime minister before the matter was public, the spokesperson said: “This was an independent decision made by Saudi Arabia.”People familiar with the matter say legal questions about Prince Mohammed’s status were hotly debated inside the state department, where views about the best course of action differed.In debates within the administration, senior officials such as McGurk who have sought to promote the rehabilitation of the Saudi-US relationship have edged out policy objectives focused on human rights.“This administration made the decision it did because Mohammed bin Salman is prime minister. But they dragged their feet so much … This was clearly a policy decision in that they waited and stalled,” said one person who has advocated for human rights to have more prominence in decisions around policy.Leaders like Prince Mohammed were “legitimately worried” when Biden first came into office and vowed to make the Saudi heir accountable for human rights violations.“And when they got into office, the execution was not there,” the person said. Even when Biden made the decision to release a declassified intelligence report that found Prince Mohammed had likely ordered the murder, there were no sanctions against him.The person added: “That set the stage and indicated the rhetoric was not matched by substance.”TopicsMohammed bin SalmanSaudi ArabiaBiden administrationUS foreign policyUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More