Archive by Author

Biden declines to veto Apple Watch ban, company says

President Biden has upheld an International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that could result in an import ban on the Apple Watch, according to AliveCor, a medical device company that has accused Apple of patent infringement.

The California startup said it was informed of Biden’s decision by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Tuesday. It’s the first ITC ruling against Apple to clear presidential review.

The Hill has reached out to the White House and Apple for comment.

Biden’s decision to uphold a potential ban on imports of the tech product sets the stage for a high-stakes legal battle.

The ITC ruled in December that Apple infringed on AliveCor’s wearable electrocardiogram patents. While the commission called for a ban on Apple Watch imports, the order is on hold amid a dispute before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which recently ruled that AliveCor’s patents were invalid. 

“This decision goes beyond AliveCor and sends a clear message to innovators that the U.S. will protect patents to build and scale new technologies that benefit consumers,” AliveCor CEO Priya Abani said in a statement. 

AliveCor hopes to bring all of the legal issues before an appeals court. 

Presidents don’t typically veto ITC decisions. But in 2013, then-President Obama vetoed a potential ban on iPhone and iPad imports after the ITC ruled that Apple infringed on Samsung’s patents. 

Following the most recent ITC ruling, Apple hired the former chairwoman of the ITC to lobby on its behalf, in an apparent effort to secure a presidential veto. The tech giant, along with its allies in Congress, warned that a ban would undermine public health. 

“The patents on which AliveCor’s case rest have been found invalid, and for that reason, we should ultimately prevail in this matter,” Apple said in a December statement. 

The dispute dates back to 2018, when Apple launched Apple Watch models with built-in electrocardiogram sensors, forcing AliveCor to cancel sales of its heart monitoring accessory. AliveCor said that it first shared its technology with Apple in 2015 in an effort to secure a partnership.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democratic Rep. Cicilline to leave Congress in June

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) will leave Congress in June to take over as the president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation, his office announced on Tuesday.

“Serving the people of Rhode Island’s First Congressional District has been the honor of my lifetime,” Cicilline said in a statement. “As President and CEO of one of the largest and oldest community foundations in the nation, I look forward to expanding on the work I have led for nearly thirty years in helping to improve the lives of all Rhode Islanders.”

Cicilline, who has represented Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District since 2011, will officially step down on June 1. Cicilline’s staff will continue to operate the district’s Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., offices until a new representative is chosen in a special election, his office said.

“The chance to lead the Rhode Island Foundation was unexpected, but it is an extraordinary opportunity to have an even more direct and meaningful impact on the lives of residents of our state,” he added.

Cicilline easily sailed to reelection in his solidly blue Rhode Island district in November’s midterm elections, securing about 64 percent of the vote.

His decision to leave Congress comes after longtime Rhode Island Rep. James Langevin (D) stepped down from the state’s only other congressional seat last year, after more than 20 years in office. He was replaced by Rep. Seth Magaziner (D) in the state’s first open congressional race since 2010.

A special election for Cicilline’s seat cannot be scheduled until he officially resigns from office, according to The Boston Globe.

Updated at 10:02 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill's Morning Report — Biden, Putin frame year of war in dueling speeches

Editor’s note: The Hill’s Morning Report is our daily newsletter that dives deep into Washington’s agenda. To subscribe, click here or fill out the box below.

President Biden has not been shy in the past year about personalizing Russia’s war with Ukraine. He has called President Vladimir Putin a killer, levied sanctions on Putin’s friends and relatives, described him as tactically wrong to believe Russia could easily crush its neighbor and delusional for craving a revival of Russia’s autocratic past.

The vastly different world views of Biden and Putin are vividly apparent today amid an increasingly direct contest, The New York Times reports. With high stakes and an unclear path to victory, Putin used a state-of-the-nation address in Moscow at noon local time to accuse the West of trying to destroy Russia by stoking war (Reuters).

Biden is set to speak later today from the Royal Castle in Warsaw. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the president will deliver an “affirmative statement of values,” not a head-to-head rebuttal to Putin’s grievances. “There’s a kind of absurdity in the notion that Russia was under some form of military threat from Ukraine or anyone else,” Sullivan added (CNN). 

The Russian president said his country’s economy has withstood sanctions, accusing Western nations of seeking to set post-Soviet countries on fire through means of economic suppression (FirstPost live blog).

Speaking in an enormous hall in front of an audience of parliamentary and military leaders, Putin said Russia will continue its war with Ukraine while seeking to defeat what he claimed is the West’s determination to crush his country. Putin said the Russian people support opposition to aggressors in the West and he railed against same-sex marriage and “corrupt” values.

“Even paedophilia is announced as a normal thing” in the West, he remarked (Independent).   

▪ CNN: Russian forces have made incremental gains in eastern Ukraine, analysis from the Institute for the Study of War suggests.

▪ The Wall Street Journal: During one year of war with Ukraine, Russia’s armed forces have sustained up to 60,000 fatalities and up to 200,000 combined dead and injured, including military and paramilitary, according to estimates by the United Kingdom’s Defense Ministry.

▪ The New York Times: Moscow sends poorly trained recruits, including convicts, to the front lines in eastern Ukraine with a strategy to pave the way for more seasoned fighters, U.S. and allied officials say.

After Biden’s five hours on the ground in Ukraine, which Russian state television presented as a publicity stunt, Putin had been expected to flip the global script, portraying Russia as the West’s intended victim and war with Ukraine as a valiant, patriotic cause.

▪ The Hill’s Niall Stanage, The Memo: Five takeaways from Biden’s trip to Ukraine.

▪ The Atlantic, by Eliot A. Cohen: The president’s visit to Ukraine was a gut punch to the Russian leader.

▪ The Guardian: Biden’s Ukraine trip undercuts Kremlin narrative of waning support among western allies.

After making his way from Poland on Monday to Kyiv under the cloak of darkness to stand under a blue sky with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky without the protection of a military base, Biden retraced his steps to Poland where he will deliver remarks this evening. He and Polish President Andrzej Duda will meet before flying back to Washington. Other allied leaders, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, were also scheduled to visit Kyiv (Reuters).

The U.S. announced another $460 million in weapons and ammunition for Ukraine but made no mention of the advanced arms that Zelensky has asked for, including long-range weapons and fighter jets as it attempts to hold off a Russian offensive in the east.

▪ Politico Europe: The European Union wants to buy ammunition for Ukraine. Doing it will be harder.

▪ EU Observer: A new EU blacklist designed to mark a year of war names Russians accused of organizing mass abductions of Ukrainian children. 

Biden’s message remains that the United States and European allies will stand with Ukraine “as long as it takes,” even as definitions of that timeline and military commitments vary among world leaders.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who speaks with Putin periodically, said during Saturday media interviews that Russia must be defeated in Ukraine but warned against “crushing” Russia (France 24). Macron favors a diplomatic solution, the shape of which is gossamer, while Zelensky pushes for the defeat and withdrawal of Russian forces from all regions of his country.

“I am convinced that, in the end, this will not conclude militarily,” Macron told two French newspapers and broadcaster France Inter. “I do not think, as some people do, that we must aim for a total defeat of Russia, attacking Russia on its own soil. Those observers want to, above all else, crush Russia. That has never been the position of France and it will never be our position,” he continued.

Zelensky, dressed in his customary khaki attire, lauded Biden for his clandestine trek to Kyiv, saluting him on Monday for championing “the liberty and democracy in the world.”

“This will be remembered eternally. And Ukraine is grateful to you, Mr. President, to all the U.S. citizens, to all those who cherish freedom just as we cherish them. Glory to our warriors. Glory to our allies. And glory to Ukraine.” — Ukrainian President Zelensky

Meanwhile, China on Monday bristled at the U.S. claim that Beijing is mulling sending “lethal support” to help Russia in its war with Ukraine. China accused the Biden administration of spreading lies and defended its close partnership with Russia (The New York Times).

Wang Yi, China’s top foreign policy official, arrived in Moscow on Monday, according to Russian state media. He met briefly last week in Munich with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who warned against China’s involvement in helping Moscow’s war effort. Wang reportedly responded vaguely that China supports dialogue and an end to the war. A Kremlin spokesman said Wang may meet with Putin. 

▪ Vox: The U.S.-China relationship is still a mess.

▪ PBS Frontline: Putin and the presidents (program transcript HERE).

Related Articles

▪ BNN Bloomberg: The Pentagon announced a package of $460 million in additional weapons and lethal assistance for Ukraine, including HIMARS ammunition, artillery rounds, about 2,000 anti-armor rockets, more Javelin anti-armor systems, air surveillance radars, four Bradley Infantry Fire Support Team vehicles, night-vision devices and other gear.

▪ Bloomberg News: The U.S. will impose new export controls and a fresh round of sanctions on Russia, targeting key industries a year after the invasion of Ukraine.

▪ The New York Times: Russian ally Belarus on Monday expelled Polish diplomats as the rift widens between neighbors.

▪ NBC News: Conservative House Republicans on Monday criticized Biden’s trip to Ukraine, arguing the president is neglecting domestic issues while abroad on Monday and Tuesday.

▪ The New York Times: As quickly as the national craziness over three downed objects began, the U.S. called off the search, leaving answers encased in Arctic ice and under the whitecaps of Lake Huron.

LEADING THE DAY

➤ POLITICS

The culture wars have entered the budget battle, as GOP leaders take aim at “woke” spending and Democrats push back with charges of bigotry, write The Hill’s Aris Folley and Mike Lillis. Republicans are beginning to sharpen the focus around areas of so-called “woke-waste” to target in the federal budget, ranging from funds for transgender immigrants in Los Angeles to a nature trail named for former first lady Michelle Obama in Georgia. 

The items were included in a list unveiled earlier this month by Republicans on the House Budget Committee, which identified areas of “wasteful” spending GOP leaders are hoping to eliminate, saying they’re working to safeguard taxpayers from a federal government that’s abused its authority with efforts to promote “equity” and “inclusion,” typically on issues of race, gender and sexuality. Democrats are accusing GOP leaders of targeting minority benefit programs, not because they’re expensive, but because the fight energizes their conservative base.

“It’s very exemplary of their approach, which is a blend of cutting support to working-class families while also lacing in bigotry and racism,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), adding the real goal is “to distract from the actual economic impact, negative economic impact, that they’re having on working families.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) left the Sunshine State and traveled to Staten Island to give a speech on Monday about New York’s crime (ABC News) while simultaneously criticizing Biden for “neglecting” domestic issues while traveling to Ukraine and Poland Monday and Tuesday (The Hill). DeSantis on Monday took aim at New York City Mayor Eric Adams over New York City crime (Fox News).

DeSantis, a frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination, hinted on Fox & Friends Monday that he will decide on a presidential bid after the Florida legislative session ends this summer (The Hill).

The Hill: DeSantis hits back at 2024 Republicans who criticized him.

Ahead of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court primary today, The Hill’s Caroline Vakil has rounded up five key things to know, including candidates, turnout and issues — such as abortion and redistricting. The race may act as a bellwether for the 2024 elections.

▪ Wisconsin Public Radio: Money pours into Wisconsin Supreme Court race ahead of Feb. 21 primary.

▪ NBC News: Democrats see a prime chance to take control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

▪ Politico: He was once an illiterate teen running the streets. Now he’s running for a seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.

Three key figures connected to former President Trump are at the intersection of two accelerating Justice Department probes seen as the most viable pathways for a prosecution against the former president, The Hill’s Rebecca Betisch reports. Special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing what began as two entirely separate cases: the mishandling of classified records at Mar-a-Lago and the effort to influence the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

But several Trump-world figures straddle both events, providing prosecutors with what experts say is a potent opportunity to advance both investigations. Alex Cannon, Christina Bobb, and Kash Patel played different roles in the two sagas, but each has been contacted by the Justice Department in the documents dispute and has also been called in by the special House committee, now disbanded, that investigated the Jan. 6 riot.  

Des Moines Register: Trump announces 2024 Iowa caucuses campaign staff with some familiar names.

➤ CONGRESS

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said ties between the U.S. and India are a “crucial counterweight to outcompete China” as he led a congressional delegation to New Delhi that met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “India is one of the leading powers of the world and a strong U.S.-India relationship is a must for democracy, technology advancement, and a strong world economy,” Schumer said in a statement. Among the countries’ shared strategic interests, he listed “outcompeting China, combating climate change, increasing trade and deepening bonds between our two countries.”

He was joined on the trip by fellow Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden (Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), among others. Modi said that it was “wonderful” to meet with the delegation and expressed appreciation for bipartisan congressional support on “deepening India-US ties anchored in shared democratic values and strong people-to-people ties.”

Schumer’s trip and comments about out-competing Beijing come amid heightened U.S.-China tensions; the Biden administration has made out-competing China a priority, emphasizing the importance of strengthening international alliances to make that happen (The Hill).

Meanwhile, a House delegation met with the head of Taiwan’s legislature on Monday as part of a five-day visit to the self-ruled island. The delegation, which arrived Sunday, includes Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) and Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), and is expected to meet President Tsai Ing-wen as well as business leaders. On Monday, they held talks with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s founder Morris Chang, considered the father of the island’s chip industry (ABC News).

“Our efforts to come here are in no way provocative of China, but consistent with the president’s foreign policy that recognizes the importance of the relationship like Taiwan, while still seeking ultimately, peace in the region,” Khanna said.

▪ Bloomberg News: Republican delegation led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to meet with the president of the United Arab Emirates.

▪ Politico: What Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) tells world leaders about Biden.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has given Fox News host Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 41,000 hours of Capitol surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 riot, Axios reports. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks on programs hosted by Carlson, who has repeatedly questioned official accounts of Jan. 6, downplaying the insurrection as “vandalism.” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the former chairman of the select committee investigating the insurrection, on Monday criticized McCarthy for the decision.

“When the Select Committee obtained access to U.S. Capitol Police video footage, it was treated with great sensitivity given concerns about the security of lawmakers, staff, and the Capitol complex,” Thompson said in a statement. “If Speaker McCarthy has indeed granted Tucker Carlson — a Fox host who routinely spreads misinformation and Putin’s poisonous propaganda — and his producers access to this sensitive footage, he owes the American people an explanation of why he has done so and what steps he has taken to address the significant security concerns at stake.”

The New Republic: Why Is the most powerful member of the House handing over Jan. 6 footage to Tucker Carlson?

IN FOCUS/SHARP TAKES

➤ INTERNATIONAL

A strong earthquake and its aftershocks struck southern Turkey and Syria on Monday, causing buildings to collapse and killing at least eight people. The quake came just weeks after the region was devastated earlier this month by its worst seismic event in decades — which killed more than 47,000 people and damaged or destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes. The new 6.4 magnitude earthquake shook the southern Turkish province of Hatay just after 8 p.m. local time, according to Turkey’s disaster management agency AFAD (Reuters and The Wall Street Journal). 

Blinken on Sunday visited Turkey, touring earthquake damage by helicopter and U.S. military relief efforts at the Incirlik Air Base near Adana before announcing another $100 million in American aid to supplement the already-sent elite search-and-rescue teams, heavy equipment, $85 million in humanitarian aid and at least another $80 million in private donations. When it was first planned, Blinken’s trip promised to be a difficult, even contentious diplomatic visit, as Washington and Ankara have been at odds on several important issues — from Turkey’s ties to Russia to its refusal to allow Sweden and Finland to join NATO and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s authoritarian drift. But the U.S.’s aid, as well as promises of support, have served to smooth over some of the more difficult parts of the countries’ relationship (The New York Times).

Nuclear inspectors in Iran have reportedly discovered uranium in the country that has been enriched to 84 percent purity — just below the level needed to develop nuclear weapons. Bloomberg News reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating how Iran managed to enrich uranium to that level, which the report says is the highest level found by inspectors to date. To create a nuclear weapon, uranium must be enriched to at least 90 percent. A nuclear official in Iran denied the claim that the country had enriched uranium above 60 percent purity “so far,” and said that the claim was “a smear and a distortion of the fact.”

“We are in close contact with our partners following reports that Iran may have enriched uranium to levels over 80 percent,” a senior European diplomat told The Wall Street Journal. “If confirmed this would be an unprecedented and extremely grave development.”

▪ Reuters: IAEA says it is in discussions with Iran after reports of enrichment.

▪ i24 News: Iran denies “slanderous” reports it enriched Uranium above 60 percent.

OPINION

■ Jimmy Carter’s presidency was not what you think, by Kai Bird, guest essayist, The New York Times. https://nyti.ms/3xEamvM 

■ Parsing Russian support for Putin’s war, by Ilan Berman, opinion contributor, The Hill. https://bit.ly/3SirTmD

WHERE AND WHEN

📲 Ask The Hill: Share a news query tied to an expert journalist’s insights: The Hill launched something new and (we hope) engaging via text with Editor-in-Chief Bob Cusack. Learn more and sign up HERE.

The House will hold a pro forma session at noon. 

The Senate meets in a pro forma session at 11 a.m. 

The president is in Warsaw, Poland, where he meets today with President Andrzej Duda at 1:30 p.m. CET. The president will deliver a speech at 5:30 p.m. CET about Ukraine and allied support for the Ukrainian people and NATO, speaking from Warsaw’s Castle Gardens. 

Vice President Harris is in Washington and has no public events.

The secretary of State is in Athens where he kicked off the U.S.-Greece Strategic Dialogue and met with Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias. Blinken held a joint press conference with Dendias and met with Greek opposition leader Alexis Tsipras. The secretary this afternoon will tour ancient Athens with Greek Minister of Culture and Sports Lina Mendoni and plans to meet with Greek earthquake rescue workers, accompanied by Dendias and Minister for the Climate Crisis and Civil Protection Christos Stylianides. Blinken at 2:30 p.m. local time will join a ribbon-cutting ceremony with Dendias, followed by greetings with employees and families of the U.S. embassy in Athens. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will travel to Bengaluru, India, to participate in the Group of 20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors.

Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo will speak at the Council on Foreign Relations at 10 a.m. ET and participate in a moderated conversation about sanctions against Russia. He will preview “additional steps the sanctions coalition will take” to counter evasion of restrictions aimed at Russia.

The Supreme Court at 10 a.m. will hear oral arguments in Reynaldo Gonzales et. al. v. Google LLC (SCOTUS blog and The Hill).

ELSEWHERE

➤ SPORTS

🏀 After being detained for 10 months in Russia, Brittney Griner fulfilled the promise she made to play for the Phoenix Mercury again in the 2023 season. Griner, a 32-year-old free agent, signed a one-year contract with the Mercury on Saturday, ESPN reports. She’ll return to the team that drafted her first overall in 2013 for a 10th season.

In addition to her career in the U.S., Griner played professional basketball in Russia. She was arrested at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport in February 2022 after Russian authorities said she was carrying vape canisters with cannabis oil. The State Department declared Griner to be “wrongfully detained.” After months of strained negotiations, Griner was released from Russian prison on Dec. 8 during a prisoner swap in which the WNBA star was exchanged in the United Arab Emirates for Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout.

⛳ Tiger Woods played his best golf over the weekend since the car crash in February 2021 that threatened to end his career. He finished tied-45th at the Genesis Invitational in his first competitive outing since The Open Championship in July 2022. The 15-time major winner has played sparingly since sustaining serious leg injuries in the crash. Following his final round, Woods said his goal from now on is to play the four majors every year, but he doesn’t expect “to play too much more than that” (CNN).

“My body and my leg and my back just won’t allow me to play much more than that anymore,” he told CBS. “So that was my goal last year and I was able to play three of the four, and this year, I can hopefully play all four. That is going to be my schedule going forward because of all of the limitations I have.”

➤ PANDEMIC & HEALTH 

⚕️In a January study from the American Nurses Foundation 57 percent of 12,581 surveyed nurses said they had felt “exhausted” over the past two weeks, and 43 percent said they felt “burned out.” Just 20 percent said they felt valued. While burnout has always been a part of nursing, an effect of long working hours in physically and often emotionally taxing environments, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated those factors and added some of its own: understaffing, a rise in violence and hostility toward health care workers over masking mandates and an increase in deaths. 

“Burnout and our current issues have been going on for decades,” said Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, the president of the American Nurses Association, the umbrella group for the foundation. “So what did we learn from the last couple of years? That we need to make sure that we implement programs and processes to decrease the burnout and to improve the work environment. Because Covid is not the last pandemic, or the last major issue to happen.”

But for some, those changes may not come soon enough, as 43 percent of those surveyed said they were at least thinking about switching jobs (The New York Times).

▪ The New York Times: Helping stroke patients regain movement in their hands.

▪ The Washington Post: To stay healthy in old age, research finds building muscles is key.

▪ Forbes: Fifth man cured of HIV after stem cell transplant.

▪ The New York Times: A fraught new frontier in telehealth: Ketamine can be mind altering and getting it has become much easier.

😴 Do you ever fall asleep mid-conversation? Abruptly wake up feeling like you’re gasping? Disturb your partner with your snores? All may be signs of sleep apnea — a disorder in which the throat muscles relax and block the airway, causing breathing to temporarily stop multiple times during sleep — and getting diagnosis is critical because it’s the first step toward treatment, and better sleep (The Washington Post).

▪ The Hill: Is Bell’s palsy a side effect of COVID-19?

▪ The Wall Street Journal: Why the COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. is still rising. The pandemic is less risky for most people, but America still sees hundreds of deaths daily.

Information about the availability of COVID-19 vaccine and booster shots can be found at Vaccines.gov. 

Total U.S. coronavirus deaths reported as of this morning, according to Johns Hopkins University (trackers all vary slightly): 1,117,564. Current U.S. COVID-19 deaths are 2,838 for the week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (The CDC shifted its tally of available data from daily to weekly, now reported on Fridays.)

THE CLOSER

And finally … Biden is not the only U.S. president who has traveled to dangerous war zones and battlefields while serving as commander in chief. Former President Obama surreptitiously flew to Kabul in Afghanistan in 2012 to mark the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death. 

CNN: How the media almost blew Obama’s secret trip to Afghanistan in May 2012.

In 2003, former President George W. Bush flew secretly to Iraq to meet with troops and share a Thanksgiving meal. 

In 1952, former President Eisenhower arrived in Korea and spent three days surveying troops there. To mask the outset of the trip for security reasons, the White House created the impression that Ike was in the country by unveiling Cabinet appointments from the president’s home. 

▪ Business Insider: Here are five presidents in addition to Biden who knew how to pull off secret trips.

▪ National Geographic TV special (YouTube): Bush’s secret trip to Iraq.

▪ The Hill: How Biden’s unannounced trip to Ukraine came together.

▪ The New York Times: Trains, planes and automobiles: Biden’s whirlwind trip to Ukraine.

Stay Engaged

We want to hear from you! Email: Alexis Simendinger and Kristina Karisch. Follow us on Twitter (@asimendinger and @kristinakarisch) and suggest this newsletter to friends!

Democrats pounce on GOP 'woke-waste' attacks

The culture wars have entered the budget battle, as GOP leaders take aim at “woke” spending and Democrats push back with charges of bigotry.

Democrats are pouncing as Republicans sharpen their focus on what they call “woke-waste” in the federal budget, targeting programs ranging from funds for transgender immigrants in Los Angeles to a nature trail named for Michelle Obama in Georgia.

The items were included in a list unveiled earlier this month by Republicans on the House Budget Committee, which identified areas of “wasteful” spending GOP leaders are hoping to eliminate as part of their broader goal of balancing the budget within a decade.

Republicans are defending the focus on “wokeness,” saying they’re working to safeguard taxpayers from a federal government that’s abused its authority with efforts to promote “equity” and “inclusion,” typically on issues of race, gender and sexuality. 

Yet Democrats see something more sinister, accusing GOP leaders of targeting minority benefit programs, not because they’re expensive, but because the fight energizes their conservative base. 

“It’s very exemplary of their approach, which is a blend of cutting support to working-class families while also lacing in bigotry and racism,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a member of the liberal “Squad,” said. The real goal, she added, is “to distract from the actual economic impact, negative economic impact, that they’re having on working families.”

The Republican attacks on so-called wokeism are hardly new. GOP leaders have, for years, accused Democrats in both the White House and Congress of pushing an agenda that both exaggerates the prevalence of racism in America and oversteps in employing governments at all levels to take it on. 

The criticism has targeted agencies as varied as the Pentagon, the IRS and the Department of Education, touching on issues as diverse as military readiness, financial literacy and the teaching of American history. Some charge that deep-state liberals are hellbent on indoctrinating students, soldiers and the public at large with the teachings of critical race theory — a legal theory that has become a shorthand of sorts for any education centered on race.

Since taking control of the House last month, Republicans have extended those arguments with a series of bills designed to combat a “wokeness that has swept our country,” in the words of Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.). 

The coming budget debate will be the next battleground in that fight, and Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) previewed the Republicans’ anti-woke strategy with the recent release of his spending cuts wish list.

Among the targeted items are about $6.6 million in funds under a section labeled “stop woke-waste,” which singles out a handful of programs on the chopping block, like $750,000 for “Transgender and Gender nonconforming and Intersex (TGI) immigrant women in Los Angeles,” $1.2 million for “LGBTQIA+ Pride Centers,” and $3.6 million to expand a hiking trail named after Michelle Obama in Decatur, Ga. The spending was greenlit by Congress as part of a $1.7 trillion bipartisan omnibus last year, a bill opposed by all but nine House Republicans. 

Republicans who support the cuts see the programs as a misuse of taxpayer dollars. Some Democrats, on the other hand, see those targets as a form of dog whistle as Republicans use their new majority to pass a series of messaging bills and galvanize conservatives ahead of the 2024 elections.

“I think they cut the line pretty close to — maybe cross the line — when it comes to trying to disguise racism with something else,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who serves on the House Budget Committee. “I think that’s what it is.” 

Arrington’s office did not respond to requests for comment. 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), as part of the marathon balloting that won him the gavel last month, had promised a group of far-right critics that House Republicans would seek to balance the budget within a decade. And the Budget Committee, charged with outlining the parameters of federal spending, will launch that process in the coming weeks with the release of its budget blueprint. 

They have their work cut out. 

The federal deficit for the current fiscal year is projected to be $1.4 trillion. And the “woke” projects Republicans are targeting are all relatively small-budget items. GOP leaders would have to cut roughly 389,000 Michelle Obama hiking trails, for instance, to bring the budget to balance — a dynamic that hasn’t been overlooked by Democrats critical of the Republicans budget strategy. 

“It’s absolutely not meaningful at all, except to the people and the agencies that are going to get cut, and I’m concerned about that,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), also a member of the House Budget Committee, said. “It’s not even budget dust, to take that kind of money away.”

The GOP’s focus on “wokeness” in the federal budget comes as Republicans face rising pressure to unify behind potential fiscal reforms amid larger funding talks around the debt limit.

Beyond calls for steep reductions to government spending, Republicans have been clashing over which items should be on the table for possible cuts in recent weeks amid a party-wide campaign to use the nation’s debt limit as leverage to extract concessions from Democrats.

The party has seen divisions in both chambers over where to cut, with different factions butting heads over proposals to scrutinize dollars for the Pentagon, as well as whether efforts to reform entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which account for a massive chunk of federal spending, should also be factored into talks.

But as Republican leaders work to get members on the same page, there has been some agreement to go after “woke” spending, even amid a larger conversation in the GOP around areas to potentially trim in the Pentagon budget.

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) signaled support for the push, while taking aim at what he called a “pretty aggressive approach” by the Pentagon in recent years to conduct “trainings that are more in line with diversity, equity and inclusion, which is the buzzword today.”

“I think that, obviously, a lot of that training is both not good for the military and also a waste of money,” he said. “So, I certainly think there are line items in the budget. I don’t know how much they add up to, but I think there’s certainly something to cut there.”

Democrats, though, have different ideas, accusing Republicans of throwing red meat to their base, for political reasons, while ignoring much more consequential issues. With Democrats controlling both the White House and the Senate, they’re warning that the GOP’s focus on “wokeness” is a dead-end. 

“It’s a distraction from the issues that the majority of Americans actually care about,” Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said. “This is a waste of time [that] will go absolutely nowhere in this Congress.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Three key Trump figures intersect two Justice Department probes 

Three key figures connected to Donald Trump are at the intersection of two accelerating Justice Department probes seen as the most viable pathways for a prosecution of the former president.    

Special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing what began as two entirely separate cases: the mishandling of classified records at Mar-a-Lago and the effort to influence the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.      

Several Trump World figures straddle both events, providing prosecutors with what experts say is a potent opportunity to advance both investigations.      

Alex Cannon, Christina Bobb and Kash Patel played different roles in the two sagas, but each has been sought by the Justice Department in the documents dispute and has also been called in by the special House committee, now disbanded, that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.    

Cannon, a longtime Trump Organization employee, was pulled into campaign efforts to assess voter fraud and then served as a liaison for Trump with the National Archives as officials there pushed for the recovery of presidential records.  

Bobb, a lawyer for Trump’s 2024 campaign, aided in the Trump 2020 campaign’s post-election lawsuits. She later shifted to doing legal work for Trump that culminated in her signing a statement asserting classified records stored at Mar-a-Lago had been returned.   

Patel was chief of staff to the secretary of Defense as the Pentagon was grappling with Jan. 6. Trump also named Patel as one of his representatives to the National Archives upon leaving office, and he was later one of Trump’s chief surrogates in pushing claims that the former president declassified the records in his Florida home.  

It’s unclear whether any of the trio faces significant legal exposure, but their unique positions could be valuable for Smith, who is racing forward with both cases. In recent weeks, Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, while securing another batch of materials from Mar-a-Lago.  

“Typically, you don’t have two separate investigations and two separate sets of possible crimes to work with as you’re negotiating. Smith does have that here,” said Norm Eisen, a counsel for Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment who has penned analyses of both cases.     

“For him, it’s like a two-for-one sale. If he cuts a cooperation deal with some of these individuals, he can advance multiple cases at the same time.”     

Patel was granted immunity by a judge and compelled to answer questions in the Mar-a-Lago case after being previously subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and repeatedly pleading the Fifth. Bobb has also spoken with prosecutors in relation to the case and testified before a grand jury. And the Justice Department is seeking to speak to Cannon about his dealings with the National Archives, The New York Times reported. 

“I think that is a potential fruitful avenue for the Justice Department in these cases,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney under President Obama. “Their overlap in the two cases is very interesting, because you could use criminal exposure in one case to flip them in the other case.”    

Attorneys for Cannon and Bobb did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story, while a spokesperson for Patel declined to comment. The Trump campaign also did not respond to request for comment.  

To be clear, other figures also may have insight into the two probes, including Meadows and former deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin. Former White House attorney Eric Herschmann is also reported to have warned Trump about holding onto records at Mar-a-Lago.     

Still, the trove of transcripts released by the House Jan. 6 committee offers a window into three figures who, despite diverging paths, became central in the Mar-a-Lago probe. 

Bobb and Patel, who now serves on the board of Trump’s social media enterprise, remain deeply enmeshed with the former president.      

Cannon was most recently employed by Michael Best, a law firm that in December severed its ties with several Trump-connected attorneys, including Stefan Passantino, who represented former aides before the Jan. 6 panel. The firm also allowed contracts with Cannon and former Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark to lapse, Bloomberg News reported. 

The firm did not respond to a request for comment.   

Cannon, who was initially hired to work on contracts for the Trump Organization, expressed hesitation during interviews with the Jan. 6 panel about being pulled into working on fraud issues for the campaign as the pandemic brought hotel operations to a trickle.    

“I believe that the only reason I was asked to do this is because others didn’t want to. I have no particular experience with election law or anything. I do vendor contracts,” he told the committee.     

When asked if he found that work undesirable he responded, “I’m sitting here right now. Yes, it’s undesirable.”      

The conversations show Cannon was tasked with evaluating a number of claims from “crazy people,” as he once described it, as well as other claims that dead people may have voted — something he was unable to verify given limitations in voter databases.  

He ultimately relayed those concerns to Pence, recounting to the committee in what would become a brief appearance in a hearing that, “I was not personally finding anything sufficient to alter the results of the election.”      

It was a stance that caught the eye of former Trump adviser Peter Navarro.  

“Mr. Navarro accused me of being an agent of the deep state working … against the president. And I never took another phone call from Mr. Navarro,” Cannon said.     

Bobb, in contrast, made clear in her interview that she believed there was suspicious activity on Election Day that merited review.     

Once a reporter for the far-right One America News, Bobb had come to the network after working as an attorney, including during stints with the Marine Corps. She would later get a master of laws degree from Georgetown, joining the Trump administration at the Department of Homeland Security after graduation.      

While an OAN employee, she volunteered her time to the Trump campaign immediately after the election. The arrangement was approved by the network, though the campaign required her to sign a nondisclosure agreement.     

“There was plenty of evidence to be concerned about fraud,” she said, even if the legal team wasn’t prepared to launch a case on Day 1 following the election. 

“I volunteered and I wanted to look into it because I was concerned about the integrity of my vote, of the country. I think that’s why we all got involved. So I don’t want you to take my statement and say, Christina Bobb said that in the beginning the legal team knew there was no fraud. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying there was plenty of reason to believe there could be fraud.”     

Bobb was present in the “war room” at the Willard Hotel on Jan. 6 and was listening in to Trump’s call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — a discussion she told the panel was “unremarkable.”    

The Jan. 6 committee transcripts indicate Cannon and Bobb had no interaction throughout the litigation process, with Bobb saying they did not connect until after President Biden was sworn in. Bobb told investigators she didn’t speak with Cannon until later, adding nothing more when investigators asked if it was on an unrelated matter.     

Bobb’s role with Trump on the Mar-a-Lago documents picks up where Cannon left off.     

Cannon in February of last year declined Trump’s request to sign a statement indicating all classified material at Mar-a-Lago had been returned because he wasn’t sure the statement was true, according to reporting from The Washington Post.      

Bobb would join the team later, agreeing to sign a declaration given to the Justice Department in June attesting that all sensitive government documents had been returned — with the stipulation that her attestation was “based upon the information that has been provided to me.”     

“The contrast between the two as lawyers speaks volumes,” said Josh Stanton, an attorney with Perry Guha who contributed to a model prosecution memo for the Mar-a-Lago case.  

“Alex Cannon refus[es] to sign a certification that everything had been turned over where he wasn’t able to do himself the diligent work to actually independently verify that, whereas Christina Bobb is in a position where she’s told to sign the certification, and is told that that’s correct, then just goes ahead and signs it anyway,” he said.  

“Whether or not you could actually make out, say, criminal charges against Christina Bobb for signing that certification … it certainly puts her ethically as a lawyer in really hot water,” he added.     

Patel, who spoke to the Jan. 6 committee after being subpoenaed, began his deposition with an opening statement expressing frustration the panel did not think he would be cooperative with its investigation.     

Patel later answered questions during a lengthy interview after noting privilege concerns, but investigators at times seemed baffled by details the former high-ranking Defense Department official could not remember. Patel struggled to recall specifics about some conversations with Trump and demurred when asked about reported plans near the end of the Trump presidency to install him as head of the CIA.    

“I know you guys try to think this is improbable, but I was in one of those positions for a 2-year period of time, approximately, where I had many conversations with the president impacting things that I would only read about or watch in movies,” he said.      

“So, after a certain period of time, they tend to stack up and you just do the mission.”     

Patel largely sidestepped questions on whether Trump should have done more to stop the chaos on Jan. 6, but spoke at length about the process for securing assistance from the National Guard and Trump’s approval for the use of as many as 20,000 troops that day.     

The committee panned Trump’s inaction as dereliction of duty, and Stanton said Patel’s comments could forecast a response should Trump or others face culpability for Jan. 6.  

“Some of the most powerful testimony in the hearings themselves was the sort of hours Trump seemed not to act. And so I think he’s previewing what they’re going to say, which is, ‘Oh, no, I actually did authorize 10,000 or 20,000 National Guard members to be able to respond,’” he said.     

In the Mar-a-Lago probe, Patel repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right during a first appearance before a grand jury.     

“Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves,” Patel told Breitbart News in May.     

“The White House counsel failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings, but that doesn’t mean the information wasn’t declassified,” Patel said. “I was there with President Trump when he said ‘We are declassifying this information.’”     

Trump’s attorneys have not directly backed that claim, though it would not be a bulletproof defense should he face Espionage Act charges, as the law deals with those who mishandle “national defense information.”     

The special counsel appears to be ratcheting up the probes in recent weeks, even seeking to pierce the attorney-client privilege of Evan Corcoran, one of Trump’s attorneys in the document dispute, arguing his legal advice may have been given in furtherance of a crime.  

It’s a move observers say should give warning to other attorneys involved in the probe.     

“Any lawyer associated with Donald Trump is at great risk,” Eisen said. “I mean, he’s like a neutron bomb for the legal profession.”  

Source: TEST FEED1

Five things to know ahead of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election

Wisconsinites will weigh in on a consequential state Supreme Court election on Tuesday in a race that will ultimately determine the partisan tilt of the high court and have significant implications on key issues such as abortion and redistricting.

Voters are heading to the polls to weigh in on four judicial candidates — two liberal candidates and two conservatives — for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Though the court has a 4-3 conservative tilt, the retirement of outgoing conservative Justice Patience Roggensack means that whoever wins the election will determine the partisan lean of the high court.

The top two vote-getters from Tuesday’s primary will proceed to an April 4 general election, meaning two conservative candidates or two liberals could move forward to the final race.

Here’s a look at five things to know about the race ahead of Tuesday’s election:

Two liberals are running against two conservatives

Tuesday’s race will feature two liberal candidates — Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz and Dane County Judge Everett Mitchell — and two conservative candidates — Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow and former state Supreme Court Judge Daniel Kelly.

Protasiewicz has been criticized for expressing her views on issues like abortion and the state’s legislative maps given that the race is nonpartisan and that, if elected, she could be weighing in on those issues if they came before the high court. 

Protasiewicz claimed earlier this year during a candidate forum that the state’s maps were “rigged” and said during a campaign ad, “I believe in a woman’s freedom to make her own decision on abortion.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year, Mitchell issued a statement saying that “as an ally, I will always use my male privilege to stand with and to stand up for women’s reproductive rights.”

But the race is seen as nonpartisan-in-name-only, as both Dorow, the judge who notably presided over the trial of a man who killed six people following a Waukesha Christmas parade in 2021, and Kelly are endorsed by anti-abortion groups. 

Given the nature of the race, the two top vote-getters will proceed to an April 4 runoff, meaning two conservatives or two liberals could ultimately face each other. 

Abortion and redistricting could be on the ballot

Among some of the issues that the new state Supreme Court majority could weigh in on are abortion, redistricting and even future election results. 

A contested 1849 abortion law, which only allows for exceptions when the life of the mother is at risk, is expected to wind up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A lawsuit was filed last year by state Attorney General Josh Kaul (D), who argued that the law was in conflict with another abortion law that offered broader exceptions. The new state Supreme Court majority could be poised to allow for broader exceptions for abortion or offer restrictive access to the medical procedure.

Groups on either side of the abortion issue, including anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin have said they’ll get involved in the race. 

There’s also the expectation that the legislative maps could be revisited in a lawsuit should a liberal candidate win the open seat. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Republican State Leadership Committee are among some of the groups expected to wade into the judicial race, according to Politico.

Outside groups are pouring money into the race

Millions of dollars are being spent to fill the seat, with much more expected following Tuesday’s race. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact reported as of Feb. 14 alone that $3.4 million had been spent to boost the conservative candidates while a separate $3.5 million had been spent boosting the liberal candidates. 

AdImpact noted at the time that among the top three candidates or groups doing the most advertising were the liberal A Better Wisconsin Together at $1.9 million, the conservative Fair Courts America at $1.8 million and Protasiewicz’s campaign at $1.6 million.

The race overall is expected to bring in tens of millions of dollars in spending. One strategist suggested to The Hill last month that the race could draw in $20 million, while The New York Times reported the elections were anticipated to spend more than $30 million. 

The race will test turnout in an off-year election

The election has received widespread national attention and will test how issues like abortion, redistricting and democracy impact voter turnout more than three months after the November midterms.

Off-year elections tend to see less voter turnout than during a midterm or presidential election year. But because of the sheer amount of coverage the judicial election has received and how the race comes less than a year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Tuesday’s primary could see higher-than-normal off-year election turnout.

Some local officials suggest we’re seeing this already. Eau Claire City Clerk Nicholas Koerner told Eau Claire, Wis.-based WEAU that “This election has been busier than we anticipated, busier than a usual February election.”

“We’ve had over 400 in-person absentee voters and over 1,500 people have returned their absentee ballots already,” he told the local broadcast station.

The race could point toward what to expect in 2024

The election is already being viewed as a litmus test of how salient certain issues will be among voters ahead of 2024. One of those issues will be abortion, and whether the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision handed down by the Supreme Court last year still sticks with voters several months after the midterms.

The election results could also reverberate in other statewide races in Wisconsin next year and beyond. Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s (D-Wis.) seat is up in 2024, where the implications of the state Supreme Court race are sure to be brought up during the election. 

Wisconsin is also a purple state known for helping make or break presidential elections. With another consequential presidential election around the corner, different political groups will use the Wisconsin Supreme Court election and its recent court decisions in the lead-up to the 2024 election as part of the fodder in energizing voter turnout on either side. 

Source: TEST FEED1

The average American tenant is rent-burdened. Here's what that means for the economy.

Story at a glance

• The symbolic threshold was reached as income growth lagged behind rent increases.

• A national housing shortage and rising mortgage rates also contributed to higher rent burdens.

• Experts say several factors like spells of higher unemployment or significant inventory boosts may be necessary for Americans to see widespread declines in rent. 

The average American renter is now paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing, as wages have failed to keep up with rent hikes and affordable units remain scarce, a new report shows.

The nation is falling short of the demand for affordable housing by at least a million homes in some estimates.

The federal government defines rent-burdened as paying more than that 30 percent threshold.

The typical American renter now falls in that category, according to a recent report from Moody’s Analytics. This marks the first time that’s occurred in the more than 20 years that the ratings agency has been tracking the metric.   

“If we’re looking at the low- to moderate-income families, they are taking 40 percent and above all of their income on the rent, even if the metro [area] itself hasn’t crossed that 30 percent line yet,” said Moody’s Analytics senior economist Lu Chen.

“This 30 percent is such a symbolic number … And I have to say we have been close to that 30 percent threshold for some time,” she added.

Three adults working full-time, still struggling with paying rent

While tenants in many U.S. cities have long spent at least 30 percent of their income on housing, the fact that this threshold has been passed at the national level marks a new milestone for housing affordability.

Jennifer Wells, a social worker in Bartholomew County, Indiana, told The Hill her rent has soared since 2016, while maintenance was scarce.

“In 2016, I moved into a two-bedroom, two-bath apartment and was paying $720 a month. And then the six years that I lived there, it was gradually raised to well over $1,000 a month,” Jennifer said.

Wells, a tenant leader with Hoosier Action, a housing advocacy group, said the problems with affordability continued.

“Absolutely no maintenance was done. The last year I lived there, there was no AC for two solid months and that was last year, we had a very hot summer,” she continued. “We were having to borrow AC units from friends, which was just causing my electric bill to skyrocket.”

Wells said she now rents a single-family home with her two adult sons who both have good jobs, but sky-high rents make living on their own impossible.

“None of us can do it by ourselves,” she said. “We kind of band together to try to make it happen.”

Rents are continuing to rise across the country

Rent growth has slowed in recent months, but median asking rents are still rising and jumped by 2.4 percent in January alone.

Some markets are seeing prices spike particularly sharply, with cities like Cleveland, Indianapolis and Raleigh, N.C., experiencing double-digit increases.

Fluctuating mortgage rates, incomes that fail to keep up with rent hikes, and a shortage of houses all contributed to reaching the threshold, though experts say the nation was nearing the mark for some time.

And the steady increase in housing costs has long been a more dire issue for lower-income families, even in areas where rent growth is relatively lower.

What’s behind rising rents?

Housing costs throughout the U.S. have risen steadily in the wake of the 2007-08 financial crisis and recession. Both rents and housing prices have been fueled by a long-term housing shortage, with home construction long lagging behind demand.

Although construction rates began to improve in 2021, the shortage has kept many would-be buyers as renters, putting more pressure on the rental market and driving up prices. 

“We haven’t been building enough homes in either market. And that has led to either record low vacancy rates like we’re seeing in the market for homeowners, or very close to all time low vacancy rates in the rental market,” said Danielle Hale, chief economist at Realtor.com.

“In order to compete to find a place to live, Americans are having to fork over more of their monthly budgets.”

Renters interviewed for this article echoed that trend.

Chris Onder, a city employee in Philadelphia, recently moved after a pipe burst in their apartment, causing utilities to go up. 

“Now I have to pay a higher rent just to have access to water,” Onder said. “When we had the pipe burst, we didn’t have access to water at all for a while.”

Rising rates set by the Federal Reserve are seeping into the rental market

High mortgage rates compound the problem, as those who want to transition to homeownership are locked out of that market, said Nicole Bachaud, a senior economist at Zillow.

The benchmark mortgage rate is ticking up again after falling below 6 percent in early February for the first time since September. New data released by Freddie Mac last week shows 30-year fixed mortgage rates increased for the second consecutive week, averaging 6.32 percent.

Near their peak, average rates drove up monthly mortgage payments by nearly 50 percent from 2019 levels. This brought the typical payment to more than $1,800 each month, according to a report from the National Association of Realtors.

“We’ve seen mortgage rates going way up, and now that mortgage payment is much higher than rent in most of the country,” Bachaud said.

Effects from the pandemic are lingering with renters

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, renters were more likely to be employed by industries impacted by job loss and financial instability, two factors that negatively impacted incomes, Bachaud said.

And the crisis intensified when those with resources left high-density areas for smaller markets with abundant space and less expensive homes.

However, when lockdowns began to ease and offices started requiring employees to return to in-person work, rental prices in more populated areas crept higher. 

“Nationwide, we were seeing rents grow faster for the first time in urban areas than we were seeing in suburban areas,” said Hale, the Realtor.com economist.

While the national average rent-to-income ratio reached 30 percent in the final months of 2022, Moody’s data shows the ratio topped 68 percent in the New York City metro area.

How rising incomes, inventory boosts could help

Bringing the rent-to-income ratio back beneath the 30 percent threshold will require changes to one or both sides of that equation: Rent prices or wage levels.

A spate of new building could also help drive down rent prices by supplying an increase in available housing.

As more families are priced out of home buying, builders are turning to construction of multi-family units that are more conducive to renting. A new record amount of multi-family units are under construction for the fourth month in a row, data from Realtor.com shows.

Experts also expect to see the shelter-based piece of inflation, or the government’s measure of housing costs as part of its measure of inflation, slow in the coming months. 

“Relief is on the horizon. But it’s not going to be immediate for most families,” Hale said. 

If incomes were to rise substantially, that growth could also play a role in pushing the typical American below that 30 percent rent-to-income ratio. A recent Zillow report found rent affordability is better in cities with minimum wages higher than the federal rate of $7.25 an hour.

In cities with minimum wages above $7.25 it takes an average of 2.5 full-time minimum wage workers to make the typical two-bedroom rental affordable, meaning renters would spend no more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

In cities with a $7.25 minimum wage, it takes an average of 3.5 full-time workers to meet this threshold.

“Income disparity does really play a big role and impact the affordability outlook for a lot of renters,” Bachaud said. 

And while higher incomes could drive up rents, they could also allow renters to better afford units.

Is any relief for renters in sight?

Several moves from the federal government could also help improve the situation.

In January, President Biden introduced a “Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights.” The initiative includes a set of principles aimed at making rents more affordable and strengthening tenant protections. 

As part of the blueprint, several agencies agreed to actions to improve housing affordability and access. These could include curbing rent hikes for certain properties or addressing practices that prevent consumers from retaining housing. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will also award $20 million to fund nonprofits and agencies providing legal assistance to low-income individuals at risk of eviction.

The release follows the Department of the Treasury’s reallocation of nearly $700 million to assist renters facing financial hardship in January. The allotment was made thanks to the 2020 Federal Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program, which has reallocated more than $3.5 billion to families since the program’s inception.   

Rents are expected to stabilize over the next year as new construction is expected to increase the number of available units. Some experts, however, are pessimistic that any of these initiatives will cause rents to fall, rather than just rise at a slower rate.

Rents will likely stay high for a while

Large-scale price drops are not likely on the horizon, said Thomas LaSalvia, director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics, in an interview with The Hill.

For the time being, the U.S. labor market is not undergoing such stress. It posted surprisingly strong numbers in January, adding 517,000 new jobs. This brought the nation’s unemployment rate to 3.4 percent.

A real drop in rents will take labor market stress like “spells of unemployment, as a strong economy supports rent growth and overall household formation,” he said.

“And without that, there is really no significant reason that we should see a substantial pullback in rent. The demand will be still strong enough. Even if this is going to be a record year of supply … it takes real labor market stress, significant labor market stress, to push rent down,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five things to know about the Supreme Court case that could change the internet 

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case that could upend protections internet companies have had throughout the roughly two-decade rise of social media. 

The case, Gonzalez v. Google, centers on allegations that Google subsidiary YouTube provided a platform for and used its algorithm to recommend terrorist content in a way that incited violence and led to the death of U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez during a 2015 terror attack in France. It targets the controversial Section 230 provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides a liability shield for internet providers over content posted by third parties. 

The tech industry argues that protection is critical, but the rule has been criticized on both sides of the aisle — albeit for different reasons. 

As Congress is largely at a stalemate on how to proceed with rules regulating content moderation, all eyes are on how the justices respond in the first Section 230 case to hit the highest court.  

“There is a potential, for the first time really, to very significantly change the way that Section 230, which is one of the pillars of internet law, has been interpreted going forward,” said Ashley Johnson, a senior policy analyst at the think tank Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).

Here are five things to know heading into Tuesday’s oral argument:

The outcome could impact how platforms recommend content

The case revolves around the core provision of Section 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

As interpreted to date, that protection has kept companies from being held legally responsible over content that is posted by third parties.  

Rather than focus on the hosting of content, however, the case considers if Google is responsible for its algorithmic recommendations that drives content to users. 

The dispute delves into a granular debate over what Congress meant by words like “publisher” and “information.” Google and its supporters argue that its recommendation algorithms are essential to operating the modern internet and that Congress envisioned the protections to apply.

“If anyone on the internet can’t use technical means, like a computer, to sort or to help display content, then how can a company really display millions and millions of new videos that are uploaded every week?” said John Morris, principal of U.S. internet policy and advocacy at the Internet Society, a nonprofit that includes Google as a member and filed an amicus brief in the case.

The tech industry says narrowing Section 230 could disproportionately impact small and mid-size companies

Unlike other issues facing the tech world, like revamping antitrust policy, mid-size firms have joined Google and other tech giants to take a broadly unified stance against gutting Section 230. 

Tech companies relatively smaller than Google, such as Yelp and Reddit, filed amicus briefs in the case arguing cuts to the provision would especially harm smaller firms. 

Yelp filed an amicus brief suggesting “deceptive reviews would flourish and consumers would be harmed” without the protections.

Reddit’s brief said narrowing Section 230 protections “risks devastating the internet,” and that smaller and startup platforms depend on it to “foster diverse approaches to content moderation and to challenge the dominant industry leaders.”

Google’s brief makes similar arguments as other tech companies. The search giant said weakening the protections to companies would make it more difficult to provide relevant and safe results. 

“Gutting Section 230 … would upend the internet and perversely encourage both wide-ranging suppression of speech and the proliferation of more offensive speech,” Google said in a filing in January. 

Morris contended that narrowing the protections would stymie innovation in the industry, because smaller businesses don’t have the resources to adjust to a narrower protection.

“What’s critical about Section 230 is that it enables a small innovator with a new idea about how people might communicate online to focus on developing their product and not necessarily focus initially on negotiating liability agreements,” said Morris.

This is the first time most justices will weigh in on the controversial provision

Most of the justices have not opined on Section 230 before, and Tuesday’s oral argument may give the first signs into their thinking.

The only exception is Justice Clarence Thomas, who has cast doubt on the breadth of the protections. 

On two previous occasions when the court declined to hear Section 230 cases, Thomas wrote accompanying statements about the law that no other justice joined.

“Extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences,” Thomas wrote in 2020.

In a case involving Facebook last March, Thomas wrote, “It is hard to see why the protection §230(c)(1) grants publishers against being held strictly liable for third parties’ content should protect Facebook from liability for its own ‘acts and omissions.’”

More cases are likely to follow

While Gonzalez v. Google is the first case centered on Section 230 to be heard before the Supreme Court, it probably won’t be the last. 

Steve Schwinn, a University of Illinois Chicago Law School professor and long-time court watcher, said the ruling’s implications for other platforms are “pretty dangerous territory” for the court and could lead to additional litigation.

“It’s just not at all clear to me that anybody has the sort of foresight to be able to see what that’s going to mean for other platforms,” said Schwinn.

As the court mulls Section 230, legal battles also are brewing over other social media laws.

The justices are considering reviewing Texas’s and Florida’s controversial social media laws that seek to ban tech companies from removing content or users based on political ideology, and the court has given multiple signals it is interested in the case.

Two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, are challenging the laws, arguing that they violate private companies’ First Amendment rights to decide what speech to host. 

The Biden administration and Congress are keeping close watch

Section 230 has brought the unique shared criticism from lawmakers across the aisle. Both President Biden and former President Trump called for it to be repealed in some fashion. In Congress, the protection has been slammed from the far-right to the left but with each side raising seemingly opposite concerns. 

Democrats say companies need to do a more aggressive job at removing hate speech and dangerous disinformation, and the provision protects them from being held accountable when they don’t. Republicans, however, accuse the companies of removing too much content in a way they allege censors content using an anti-conservative bias, and that the provision protects them from being held accountable. 

“The plaintiffs in the case, and even the government in the case and the amicus briefs, everybody seems to be struggling with how to draw a line when a platform adds value to third-party content,” said Schwinn.

Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.), one of the most outspoken GOP tech critics in Congress, filed a brief arguing the court should not interpret that Section 230 protects Google in this case. Hawley said the provision “allows platforms to escape any real accountability for their decision-making.” 

“Congress never intended that result, and the text Congress wrote does not compel it,” he wrote. 

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and former Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.), original co-authors of Section 230, however, filed a brief arguing the provision should protect Google in the case. 

“Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content curation and presentation. Any other interpretation would subvert Section 230’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content moderation and presentation,” they wrote. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief in December warning the Supreme Court against using an “overly broad” interpretation of the provision. 

“The Court should give Section 230(c)(1) a fair reading, with no thumb on the scale in favor of either a broad or a narrow construction,” the DOJ said in the brief.

Source: TEST FEED1

Cheney fires back at Greene's call for 'national divorce'

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) responded to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) call for a “national divorce” on Monday, suggesting that it was “unconstitutional.”

“Our country is governed by the Constitution. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Secession is unconstitutional. No member of Congress should advocate secession, Marjorie,” Cheney tweeted in response to Greene’s comments.

Cheney’s response comes after Greene once again called for a “national divorce” earlier on Monday, suggesting that Republican and Democratic states should be separated and that the federal government should be downsized.

“We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government,” Greene said on Monday. “From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done.”

Greene has previously mentioned a “national divorce” in comments made in 2021, and said that Democratic supporters were able to “ruin” California, and they should not be able to follow suit in Florida.

“All possible in a National Divorce scenario. After Democrat voters and big donors ruin a state like California, you would think it wise to stop them from doing it to another great state like Florida. Brainwashed people that move from CA and NY really need a cooling off period,” she wrote on Twitter at the time.

Greene’s comments on a national divorce on Monday came just after she criticized President Biden for visiting Ukraine on an unannounced trip.

“Biden didn’t go to East Palestine, Ohio on President’s Day. He went to Ukraine, a NON-NATO nation, whose leader is an actor and is apparently now commanding our United States military to world war. We must impeach this America Last fool before it’s too late,” she said in a tweet.

Source: TEST FEED1