Democrats

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Hillary Clinton urges Democrats to ‘do a better job’ of telling voters of successes

      by

      Hillary Clinton urges Democrats to ‘do a better job’ of telling voters of successesFormer New York senator and secretary of state believes Democrats are holding themselves back by constant introspection Hillary Clinton has called on Democrats “to do a better job” of selling themselves to America’s voters to avoid humiliation in this year’s midterm elections where Republicans are widely expected to perform strongly and likely grab control of Congress.The former Democratic presidential candidate was speaking frankly on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, saying she thought last summer’s chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan was harmful to Joe Biden. The US president’s approval ratings have slumped in recent weeks to the lowest level since he took office.“I don’t think it helped, that is obviously the case,” Clinton, the former New York senator and secretary of state, told host Chuck Todd when asked if she thought Biden’s political troubles started with Afghanistan.“But there are a lot of good accomplishments to be putting up on the board. And the Democrats in office and out need to be doing a better job of making the case.”“The best politics is doing the best job that you can do. And there’s a lot that Democrats can talk about in these upcoming midterms. We’ve got a great story to tell. And we need to get out there and do a better job of telling it.”Clinton believes that Democrats are holding themselves back by constant introspection, which she said was “always the chorus in Democratic party politics.”“Hand wringing is part of the Democratic DNA. That seems to be in style whether we’re in or out of power. We’re in power and there still is hand wringing going on,” she said.“But from my perspective, President Biden is doing a very good job… his handling of Ukraine, passing the American rescue package, the huge infrastructure package.“I’m not quite sure what the disconnect is between the accomplishments of the administration, and this Congress, and the understanding of what’s been done, and the impact it will have on the American public, and some of the polling and the ongoing hand wringing.”Clinton also had criticism for Republicans, whom she said were experiencing “an even greater disconnect” than her own party.Democrats, she said, need to be “standing up to the other side with their craziness and their calls for impunity and nuttiness that we hear coming from them. I don’t think the average American, frankly, wants to be governed by people who live in a totally different reality.”Todd questioned Clinton about Russian president Vladimir Putin, who was hostile towards her when she was Barack Obama’s secretary of state, and whose support for her 2016 presidential opponent Donald Trump, some believe, was partly fueled by his hatred for her.“We are seeing very clearly the threat that he poses, not just to Ukraine, as we can watch every night on our news, but really, to Europe, to democracy, and the global stability that we thought we were building in the last 20 years,” she said.“I would not allow Russia back into the organizations it has been a part of. There is a G20 event later in the year. I would not permit Russia to attend, and if they insisted on literally showing up I would hope there would be a significant, if not total, boycott.”TopicsHillary ClintonUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Unpicking of Trump-era asylum curbs primes partisan powder keg

      by

      Unpicking of Trump-era asylum curbs primes partisan powder kegBiden administration belatedly reversed a hard-right assault but humanitarian concerns risk being swamped by politics As the Biden administration announced on Friday plans to end Covid-related restrictions for undocumented people arriving at the southern border, it guaranteed that irregular immigration will return as even more of a polarizing, point-scoring, policy debate.Biden ends Trump-era asylum curbs amid border-region Democrat backlash Read moreAnd as the US hurtles toward midterm elections, another prescient anniversary looms this week.April 6 marks four years since the Trump administration announced its “zero tolerance” policy, the mechanism through which it separated almost 4,000 children from their families in what was widely condemned as an inhumane deterrence effort. Since the practice ended a few months after it was rolled out amid outcry, border policy has lurched from one extreme strategy to another.From “Remain in Mexico”, which pushes asylum seekers back across the border while their cases are processed, to Title 42, the public health order that has allowed border officials to rapidly expel migrants due to the Covid-19 pandemic, before they could claim asylum.On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the policy will finally end on 23 May.It had been sanctioned by Donald Trump, amid lobbying from senior adviser Stephen Miller, but continued into the Biden era, with the majority of the 1.7 million expulsions under Title 42 occurring under the current president. Joe Biden only recently moved to exclude unaccompanied minors from the sweeping program.Child separation. Remain in Mexico. The use of Title 42. All separate policies born of the same administration and indicative of a profound, hard-right assault on the right to claim asylum in the US.“The end of the cruel and anti-immigrant policy of using Title 42 to expel vulnerable asylum seekers under public health provisions is long overdue,” said Allen Orr, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in a statement. “The thousands upon thousands of migrants, from babies to grandmothers, who were illegally expelled before being allowed to have a meaningful chance to claim protection under our laws merit an acknowledgment that the US got it wrong.”Before the announcement to end use of Title 42 was made by the Biden administration this week, the White House acknowledged that winding down the provisions would probably lead to an increase in arrivals at the southern border.“We are planning for multiple contingencies, and we have every expectation that when the CDC ultimately decides it’s appropriate to lift Title 42, there will be an influx of people to the border,” said the White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield, at a press briefing on Wednesday.The Department of Homeland Security has said it is preparing to manage as many as 18,000 encounters on the border a day and is preparing to surge staff to the region to assist with enforcement and detention.But, say advocates and lawyers operating in the region, such a rise in numbers is probably a direct consequence of the outgoing policy itself.They point to the fact that many of those expected arrivals will be from people seeking asylum who were previously barred from doing so over the past two years.“A post-Title 42 world at the border is simply a return to lawful processing under the asylum system that was set up by Congress decades ago,” said Shaw Drake, a staff attorney at the ACLU Texas, speaking to the Guardian shortly before the CDC announcement on Friday.“When you spend the first year or more of your administration expelling over a million people then you are setting yourself up for an increase in people arriving to the border once that policy is lifted,” Drake, who is based in El Paso, added. “Because … you expelled people who otherwise may have had protection claims that they need to continue in the US to protect themselves from ongoing persecution and danger.”Many of those expelled under the policy have returned to camps along the border where extortion, kidnapping and violence are routinely reported, according to lawyers.“In any given border city [in Mexico] there are thousands of migrants some of whom have been there for over a year, already returned under Title 42,” said immigration attorney Jodi Goodwin, who is based in Harlingen, Texas.She added: “I think the reality is that [Title 42] did nothing to help public health. There was still international movement into the US. I think it was a very thinly – veiled cover for racism, specifically targeted at Central Americans and Haitians.”Goodwin said she had recently spoken to one of her clients at a camp in the border city of Matamoros who informed her that her young daughter had recently been sexually assaulted there.“Where’s the justice? It’s not going to happen. And there are just … a lot of cases like that.”But the humanitarian consequences of Title 42 and policies such as Remain in Mexico, which Biden initially lifted but was reinstated by court order, along with the nuances around projected increases in crossings, appear to have already been lost in partisan rhetoric.As soon as the decision on Title 42 was announced on Friday, Republicans condemned the move, as the party gears up to force the issue as a wedge throughout the midterm election season.The Texas senator Ted Cruz argued the decision would “open the flood gates to more illegal crossings”. Florida Republican senator Rick Scott described it as an “unconscionable plan”.Centrist Democrats too, had begun publicly urging the president not to revoke the directive. On Friday, the West Virginia senator Joe Manchin described the announcement as a “frightening decision”. He described the Trump-era policy as “an essential tool in combatting the spread of Covid-19 and controlling the influx of migrants at our southern border”.Those on the ground, too, say there is, as yet, no clear guidance for how exactly the processing of asylum claims might change when the order is lifted.Last week, the Biden administration finalized plans to streamline the asylum application process, meaning applicants could have their claims of credible fear of returning to their countries of origin assessed by customs and border officials rather than immigration judges, due to chronic and growing backlogs in the immigration courts.US immigration courts struggle amid understaffing and backlog of casesRead moreBut a continued rise in border arrivals will require greater humanitarian assistance in the region too.“Humanitarian, on-the-ground NGOs have been preparing for this for two years,” said Karla Vargas, a senior attorney with the Texas Civil Rights project, “but whenever DHS talks about preparation [for a rise in border arrivals] there tends to be a focus on enforcement only. But there really does need to be more focus on the processing of these individuals.“Most of the folks who are waiting that we have spoken to are just regular people, wanting to ask for asylum. To access that right.”TopicsUS immigrationUS-Mexico borderBiden administrationUS politicsTrump administrationDemocratsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s record defense budget draws progressive ire over spending priorities

      by

      Biden’s record defense budget draws progressive ire over spending prioritiesPresident’s $813bn proposal is a 4% increase for the Pentagon which already spends more than the next 11 countries combined When Joe Biden released his annual budget proposal last week, one number in particular jumped out to progressives: $813bn. That is how much Biden is calling to spend on national defense in the US in the coming fiscal year. If approved, that number would represent the largest defense budget that America has ever seen.US presidents’ budget proposals are generally considered to be reflections of their policy priorities rather than realistic estimates of final spending allocations. If Biden’s call for a 4% increase in defense spending was meant to signal his policy priorities, progressives wasted no time in telling the president that his priorities are backwards.The US should cut the Pentagon budget to fund social | Emma Claire FoleyRead moreProgressive lawmakers have fiercely criticized the proposed defense budget, arguing that the US already spends far too much on its military and needs to invest more in domestic programs. But the war in Ukraine has complicated progressives’ arguments and given Republicans an opening to demand even more money for the military.Just hours after the White House announced its budget proposal on Monday, leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a statement attacking Biden’s plan to increase defense spending and opening up a familiar split in the party.“It is simply unacceptable that after the conclusion of our longest war and during a period of Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, the president is proposing record high military spending,” said the CPC chair, Pramila Jayapal, and former chairs Mark Pocan and Barbara Lee.“Appropriators and advocates are constantly called to answer for how we will afford spending on lowering costs and expanding access to healthcare, housing, childcare services, on fighting the Covid-19 pandemic, and on combating climate change – but such concerns evaporate when it comes to the Pentagon’s endlessly growing, unaudited budget.”We do not need to raise the defense budget by another $31 billion. It’s time to make investments into our communities — not into a defense budget that is already larger than the next 11 countries combined. pic.twitter.com/2nUpMpNt6E— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) March 28, 2022
      Bernie Sanders, who chairs the Senate budget committee, echoed the CPC’s concerns, saying on Monday, “At a time when we are already spending more on the military than the next 11 countries combined, no we do not need a massive increase in the defense budget.”So far, the White House has stood by its request, insisting the increased funding will allow the US to better defend its international interests and assist Ukraine’s battle against Russia’s military assault.“As I have said many times, we need resources matched to strategy, strategy matched to policy and policy matched to the will of the American people,” the defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, said. “This budget gives us the resources we need to deliver on that promise.”And even as progressives urge Biden to curb funding for the military, the president is simultaneously facing criticism from the right for not proposing an even higher defense spending hike in response to the war in Ukraine.“The world is a dangerous place and growing more dangerous by the day,” the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said on Monday. “Amid all this, the White House has proposed no meaningful increase in resources for protecting innocent Americans, promoting our interests, supporting our partners, assisting Ukraine, or replenishing our stockpiles.”Progressives have pushed for years to lower US defense spending, but the devastation in Ukraine has added a new challenge to their efforts. Polling indicates that a majority of Americans believe Biden has not been tough enough in his response to Russia’s aggression, which has added fuel to Republicans’ demands for more military funding.But progressives are not abandoning their campaign, instead arguing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrates how US military dollars would be better spent elsewhere.“I think it’s a political challenge, but it’s not an actual budgetary challenge. This increase in money is not about Ukraine. This is about spending more on the US military-industrial complex,” said Robert Weissman, president of the progressive group Public Citizen. “The United States already spends more than 10 times what Russia does on its military. And that expenditure, obviously, didn’t deter Russia from invading Ukraine.”Even as Republicans point to the war in Ukraine to advocate for more defense spending, it is worth remembering that most of Biden’s budget proposal was crafted before the Russian invasion.Dr Travis Sharp, budget studies director at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the requested funding increase is more a reflection of how record-high US inflation has affected government agencies’ finances rather than the impact of the crisis in Ukraine.“Providing a higher level of defense spending does help to correct for some of the decreasing buying power as a result of inflation,” Sharp said. “If you didn’t provide a higher level of defense spending, then you would be trying to support the same-sized military with less money, so that would force you to make some hard trade-offs.”However, progressives reject inflation-based arguments for increasing the Pentagon’s budget, saying the Pentagon has consistently failed to account for how it spends its funds and should not be trusted with even more money.“An agency that can’t pass an audit needs to do a little bit more homework before we can be honest about what the impacts of inflation are,” said Stephen Miles, president of the progressive group Win Without War. He added, “Republicans don’t seem particularly concerned about the impacts of inflation on any other part of the budget, besides the military.”As the number of US coronavirus deaths nears 1 million and the world faces the grim realities of climate change, it was “unconscionable” to demand more funding for the military, Miles said.“The threats we face in the 21st century are primarily not going to be solved by spending more money at the Pentagon,” he told the Guardian.For Sharp, the Pentagon’s significant budget is a reflection of America’s military commitments around the world and its strategy to maintain strong alliances with key foreign partners. He suggested that, in order for progressives to be successful in their push to lower defense spending, they need to make a pitch for a new kind of American foreign policy.“If you really want to reduce the size of US defense spending, then you need to go after the strategy,” Sharp said. “If you pare back the strategy, reduce the operational tempo, then the dollars will decline proportionately.”TopicsUS militaryBiden administrationUS politicsDemocratsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Hillary Clinton and Democrats settle Steele dossier electoral case for $113,000

      by

      Hillary Clinton and Democrats settle Steele dossier electoral case for $113,000Federal Election Commission had investigated alleged misreporting of expenditure by campaign during 2016 election Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.That is according to documents sent on Tuesday to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which had filed an administrative complaint in 2018 accusing the Democrats of misreporting payments made to a law firm during the 2016 campaign to obscure the spending. Trump sues Hillary Clinton, alleging ‘plot’ to rig 2016 election against himRead moreThe Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. But on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.“By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read.The Clinton campaign and DNC had argued that the payments had been described accurately, but agreed, according to the documents, to settle without conceding to avoid further legal costs.The Clinton campaign agreed to a civil penalty of $8,000 and the DNC $105,000, according to a pair of conciliatory agreements that were attached to the letter sent to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation.The documents have not yet been made public and an FEC spokeswoman, Judith Ingram, said the FEC had 30 days after parties are notified about enforcement matters to release them.The Steele dossier was a report compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele and financed by Democrats that included salacious allegations about Trump’s conduct in Russia and allegations about ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.Documents have shown the FBI invested significant resources attempting to corroborate the dossier and relied substantially on it to obtain surveillance warrants targeting the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.But since its publication, core aspects of the dossier have been exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors. A special counsel assigned to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation charged one of Steele’s sources with lying to the FBI and charged a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for Clinton’s campaign with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting in which he relayed concerns about the Russia-based Alfa Bank.Trump, who has railed against the dossier for years, released a statement celebrating the agreement and once again denouncing the dossier as “a Hoax funded by the DNC and the Clinton Campaign”.Graham Wilson, the lawyer representing the campaign and the DNC, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The letter was first reported by the Washington Examiner. TopicsHillary ClintonDemocratsUS elections 2016US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Pelosi says she ‘fears for democracy’ if Republicans retake Congress

      by

      Pelosi says she ‘fears for democracy’ if Republicans retake Congress‘It is absolutely essential for our democracy that we win,’ speaker of the House says in interview The Democratic speaker of the US House, Nancy Pelosi, said she “fears for democracy” if Republicans retake the chamber in November.‘Clank, into the hole’: Trump claims hole-in-one at Florida golf club Read more“It is absolutely essential for our democracy that we win,” Pelosi said in an interview during the 2022 Toner Prizes for political journalism on Monday night.“I fear for our democracy if the Republicans were ever to get the gavel. We can’t let that happen. Democracy is on the ballot in November.”Parties that control the White House usually receive a rebuke from voters in the first midterms after a presidential election. With Joe Biden’s poll numbers in the gutter and his administration facing strong economic headwinds and grappling with the crisis in Ukraine, Republicans are widely favored to win back the House and perhaps the Senate this year.Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, told Punchbowl News last week: “We’re going to win the majority, and it’s not going to be a five-seat majority.”In the Senate, Ron Johnson, from Wisconsin, has indicated how Republicans are looking forward to controlling committees and wielding subpoena power. The GOP, Johnson said, will be “like a mosquito in a nudist colony, it’s a target-rich environment”.Johnson indicated a desire to investigate the federal coronavirus response and the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the president’s son. Most observers expect House Republicans to scrap the committee investigating Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn his election defeat and the Capitol attack that followed.But Pelosi said: “I don’t have any intention of the Democrats losing the Congress in November.”Rejecting “so-called conventional wisdom” about midterm elections, the speaker said: “There’s nothing conventional anymore, because of the way people communicate with social media and how they receive their information, how they are called to action, how they’re called to meetings and the rest is quite different. So any past assumptions about elections are obsolete.”“We do have a plan,” she added. “We have a vision of the victory. We will plan to get it done and we’re going to own the ground.”Pelosi also cast doubt on the accuracy of polling about Biden’s favourability and said redistricting, a process widely thought to favour Republicans, who control more state governments, would not necessarily leave Democrats at a disadvantage.“Everybody said redistricting was going to be horrible for the Democrats,” Pelosi said. “Remember that? Not so. Not so. If anything, we’ll pick up seats rather than lose 10 to 15, which conventional wisdom said that we would. There’s nothing conventional anymore, and it certainly ain’t wisdom.“And nobody’s going to be rejecting the president.”TopicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS SenateUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Progressives push Biden to act with Democrats’ midterm hopes in balance

      by

      Progressives push Biden to act with Democrats’ midterm hopes in balanceCongressional groups have drawn up lists of executive actions to further the Biden agenda while not giving up on legislation When Senator Joe Manchin announced in December that he would not support the Build Back Better Act, House progressives immediately got to work. As the Congressional Progressive Caucus continued to lobby for passing a social spending package, its members also started crafting a list of potential executive orders that Biden could sign to advance Democrats’ policy agenda.Progressive Democrats set out list of executive orders to push Biden agendaRead moreThat list was released in mid-March after months of deliberations, and it outlines a specific strategy for Biden to combat the climate crisis and lower costs for American families with the flick of his pen.The suggestions from the CPC demonstrate the increasing pressure that Biden faces from progressive Democrats to take more decisive action before the midterm elections in November, where many in his party fear they could get badly beaten.Progressives warn that, if Biden does not start signing more executive orders, Democrats’ failure to follow through on many of their campaign promises will result in severely depressed voter turnout among their supporters in November, probably allowing Republicans to regain control of the House and the Senate.If such a thing were to happen, it would represent a perhaps crippling blow to Biden’s first term and cement an unlikely recovery for a Republican party still beholden to its Trumpist base and where Donald Trump himself is considering a 2024 White House campaign.The CPC’s list of possible orders addresses everything from the climate crisis to immigration reform and healthcare costs, covering a broad array of issues that affect a large swath of the Democratic coalition.The suggestions include expanding Affordable Care Act insurance coverage for 5.1 million families and lowering the costs of essential drugs like insulin. To help families’ budgets, the CPC is also calling for canceling federal student loan debt and expanding eligibility for overtime pay. On the issue of the climate crisis, the list includes an order to declare a national climate emergency and reinstate a ban on US crude oil exports.“We have made important and significant progress as Democrats in the first year of the Biden presidency,” the CPC chair, Pramila Jayapal, said. “But our work is far from done. We have an ambitious agenda, and we want to make sure we continue building on this progress.”The CPC is not alone in turning its attention to the power of the executive pen, as other progressive elements of the Democratic party urge decisive action from Biden.Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have held meetings recently to discuss executive orders Biden could sign to advance voting rights and criminal justice reform. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus also expects to soon release its own suggestions for executive orders aimed at reforming the US immigration system, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus is similarly working on a letter to the White House about advancing its policy priorities.Progressive groups have been vocal advocates for Biden expanding his use of executive orders. Dozens of grassroots organizations consulted with the CPC as it crafted its list, and those groups have underscored the urgency of Biden signing the suggested orders, particularly as Democrats look ahead to the midterms.“I think young people came out in record numbers in 2020 because they felt that Democrats promised an alternative to what we’ve lived through our entire lives. We’re burdened by a planet in a state of emergency; we are burdened by crushing student loan debt,” said John Paul Mejia, chief spokesperson for the climate group Sunrise Movement, which worked with the CPC.Mejia argued that the executive orders represent Democrats’ best opportunity to motivate young voters enough to show up in November.“If young people want to be mobilized and energized and instilled with any form of inspiration to go out to the polls, I think President Biden’s going to really have to take executive action and deliver as much as he can as fast as he can,” Mejia said.The White House seems to be listening to progressives’ warnings. The Intercept reported on Thursday that the Biden administration is drafting an executive order to bolster manufacturing of clean energy technologies, a suggestion that was included in the CPC’s list.Despite the recent focus on executive action, progressives are careful to emphasize that they are not giving up on legislative efforts to enact Biden’s agenda.Carol Joyner, director of the labor project for working families at Family Values @ Work, said the CPC list was “very strong” but not a substitute for passing some version of the Build Back Better Act. After all, some crucial portions of the original $1.7tn spending package – including the expanded child tax credit and a national paid leave program – almost certainly cannot be enacted via executive action.“This is a fair start, and it reflects the limitations of what you can do and accomplish under executive order. However, we do know that the care infrastructure needs to be established and expanded in this country in order to support working people,” Joyner said. “That type of legislation is what’s going to have a more profound impact on everyone.”Senate Democrats continue to hold hearings on specific portions of Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, with the hope of crafting a new version of the bill that can attract Manchin’s support. In the past week alone, Senate committees have held hearings on lowering childcare costs, increasing homecare services to seniors and investing in clean energy. Manchin has also restarted negotiations with fellow Democrats with the climate portions of the Build Back Better Act, according to the Washington Post.“I feel cautiously optimistic,” Mejia said of the possibility of getting a spending package passed. “It would be stupid for Democrats not to pass climate provisions of Build Back Better at a time when they not only face the urgent timeline of a climate emergency, but also when young people are losing hope in the party.”But progressives have been burned by Manchin before, which is why they say Biden needs to pursue a two-prong strategy of signing executive orders while simultaneously trying to advance legislation.“I’m proud of us for pivoting but also being able to keep both tracks moving around a legislative solution and executive action solution,” said Natalia Salgado, director of federal affairs for the Working Families party. “The progressive movement in general is made up of a lot of organizers. And if you’re an organizer, one of the main lessons you learn at the beginning of your career is that there’s a couple ways to skin a cat.”One of the downsides of relying on executive orders is that they can be easily reversed whenever Republicans regain control of the White House. In the 14 months since he took office, Biden has already signed 85 executive orders. Many of them reversed Donald Trump’s policies on immigration, the climate crisis and the coronavirus pandemic. A future Republican president could do the same.But progressives remain convinced that executive orders are one of Biden’s best options to deliver immediate relief to the young Americans, women and people of color who helped get him elected.“I don’t think we should be concerned about what happens down the road. Right now, President Biden has the pen,” Joyner said. “And if he can pass executive orders that support working people and help create jobs and help to rebuild our economy and make it stronger and more equitable, then he should do it.”TopicsDemocratsJoe BidenUS midterm elections 2022US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More