Archive by Author

Have sanctions against Russia boomeranged?

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine now in its fifth month, Western leaders are beginning to recognize, if not openly acknowledge, that their unprecedented sanctions against Moscow are hurting their own countries’ economies without significantly crimping the Kremlin’s war machine. As the recent back-to-back Group of Seven and NATO summits underscored, Western leaders are straining to find new ways to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In fact, the fallout from the U.S.-led sanctions on Russia has ended the era of cheap oil and gas and contributed to surging inflation, supply-chain disruptions and a looming recession in the West. In poorer countries, by sending fuel and food prices higher, the sanctions are threatening livelihoods and political stability.

Sanctions historically have produced unintended and undesirable consequences, yet they have become the policy tool of choice for the United States.

U.S.-led sanctions on relatively small and economically vulnerable nations like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have essentially failed to change their behavior. But that reality did little to temper Western leaders’ strategic expectations when they launched a comprehensive, sanctions-centered hybrid war against Russia, a commodities powerhouse with the world’s largest nuclear-weapons arsenal. 

The greater the size and capability of the target country, the lesser is usually the deterrent effect of sanctions. As the West is now discovering, sanctions against a large, powerful state not only entail significant costs for the countries imposing them, but they also reward nations that refuse to enforce them. Indeed, the sanctions have delivered Russia a windfall from high-price energy exports that no Western-sponsored price cap can significantly roll back.

Today, the increasingly apparent limits of the sanctions approach against Russia are highlighting the limits of Western power. With economic power moving east, the West needs a broad range of international partners more than ever to make a difference. But much of the non-Western world has not joined the West’s sanctions campaign, with all the major democracies in the Global South, Israel and the Gulf Arab states declining to take sides in the NATO-Russia conflict.

The principal lesson from the Russian aggression is that President Biden’s threats to inflict severe economic punishment failed to deter Putin from launching an all-out invasion. And that the Western imposition of sanctions has had little effect on Russia’s war effort.

Yet, ignoring that lesson, the clamor for more and more punitive actions has led to a steadily increasing number of sanctions against Russia and a greater flow of lethal aid to Ukraine, as if there is no threshold that would satiate the Western urge for reprisals or military involvement in the conflict.

Russia already occupies one-fifth of Ukraine, the largest country located entirely within Europe, as Avril D. Haines, the director of national intelligence, acknowledged last week. What Haines didn’t disclose is that Russia now controls Ukraine’s mineral-rich industrial heartland, more than 90 percent its energy resources (including all offshore oil) and much of its port and shipping infrastructure. Russia has also created a strategically important land bridge to Crimea and turned the Sea of Azov into its inland waters.

Biden boasted too soon in March that sanctions were “crushing the Russian economy” and that “the ruble is reduced to rubble.” The sanctions campaign against Russia has scarcely been effective, with Putin’s war machine showing no sign of easing up.

One key reason is that Russia’s finances remain strong. Despite Western governments freezing about $400 billion in Russian central bank assets and at least $240 billion in private wealth, Moscow has roughly $300 billion in foreign currency and gold reserves. The ruble has now hit a seven-year high against the dollar.

The Western discourse is finally beginning to face up to the unpalatable realities. Claims that “Russia is losing” and that “Putin is running out of options to avoid defeat” have given way to open concern that, despite the unparalleled sanctions on Moscow and the frenzied arming of Ukraine, Russia will end up gaining permanent control over sizable Ukrainian territories, thereby unambiguously demonstrating that aggression works.

This, in turn, is likely to encourage China to move on Taiwan, potentially embroiling the U.S. and its ally Japan in a conflict whose geopolitical fallout and economic and human toll could be greater than that from the Ukraine war. Just as Putin was clear about his plans for invading Ukraine, so has Chinese President Xi Jinping been clear about forcibly absorbing Taiwan — a development that would drive the final nail in the coffin of America’s global preeminence.

That the Western sanctions campaign against Russia has largely been ineffective will only embolden Xi’s expansionist agenda. Xi just took a victory lap in Hong Kong after rapidly turning one of Asia’s freest cities into a repressive police state. Like his expansionism in the South China Sea and the Himalayas, Xi brought Hong Kong to heel without incurring any international costs.

When sanctions have proved ineffectual in changing Russia’s behavior, any similar sanctions would fare even worse against China, whose economy is about 10 times larger than Russia’s. Indeed, the damage to Western economies from Russia-type sanctions against China would likely dwarf the current economic pain that the West is bearing from its sanctions on Moscow.

The West’s economic pain from sanctions that are doing little to hurt Russia’s war effort or push Putin to the negotiating table represents a classic example of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Western leaders clearly overestimated their capacity to undermine the Russian economy and Putin’s hold on power, while underestimating the resilience of a country that historically has endured extraordinary economic and human toll (including in World War II) to pursue strategic objectives.

Some of the West’s economic pain is self-inflicted. At a time when global supplies are already tight, Europe’s decision to switch from cheap Russian energy to alternative supplies has led to stratospheric international prices and a scramble to find new sources of supply, besides stoking a costly competition with the thriving economies of Asia, the world’s largest energy consumer.

The European Union (EU) has agreed on a time frame to wean itself off Russian oil and gas. But Moscow is intent on not letting the EU dictate the timetable for phasing out Russian supplies. With European gas prices already six times higher than a year ago, a possible Russian cutoff of gas supplies to punish the EU for sanctions will compound the already-grim European economic situation.

In the U.S., the soaring prices of gasoline, diesel and natural gas, which have fueled runaway inflation, are due to rising energy exports, with American energy producers seeking to profit from the skyrocketing global prices by selling their products to the highest bidders in international markets. The profits bonanza for the U.S. exporters of crude oil, gas and refined petroleum products is proving costly for American consumers.

Meanwhile, spiraling international food prices are contributing to an alarming hunger problem in poor countries. The Russian invasion has blocked shipment of Ukraine’s leading exports — sunflower oil, corn and wheat. But worse in global impact is the sanctions-linked disruption in supplies of fertilizers and wheat from the world’s No. 1 exporter of both, Russia.

In the face of the global food and energy crises, the West risks losing the international battle of narratives.

This may explain why the Biden administration, despite a wholly punitive approach toward Russia, is now offering to write “comfort letters” for international companies reassuring them that they won’t face penalties for importing Russian fertilizers and grains. But, given the sweeping sanctions against Moscow, such an offer may provide little comfort for Western importers, many of whom have reduced their exposure to Russian commodities because of the sanctions-related difficulty of making payments into Russia.

Having played all his major economic cards, Biden’s sanctions drive has run into a dead end, even as U.S. and European economic woes worsen.

This is redolent of how America’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, by substantially raising import duties and prompting other countries to retaliate, deepened the Great Depression and contributed to the rise of political extremism, which then enabled Adolf Hitler to gain power. The risk now is that, instead of the wished-for economic collapse and regime change in Russia, the Western sanctions campaign could transform global geopolitics by provoking a Russian nationalist backlash and cementing the Sino-Russian axis.

Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author of nine books, including the award-winning “Water: Asia’s New Battleground” (Georgetown University Press). Follow him on Twitter @Chellaney.

Source: TEST FEED1

Chicago White Sox pitcher on July Fourth shooting: 'Something needs to be done'

White Sox closer Liam Hendriks said “something needs to be done” after a shooting in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Ill. left six people dead on Monday 

“[I]n this day and age, it’s becoming all too commonplace. I think the access to the weaponry that is being kind of used in these things is that something needs to change. Something needs to be done. Something needs to happen because there’s way too many people losing their lives,” he said.

Hendriks, who is Australian, called it “stupid” that the United States has tighter restrictions on driving a car than buying a handgun.

“There’s a lot of things that are good over here, but you look at the negatives, and it’s just the complete kind of … I can walk into a store as a non-American and buy a handgun in certain states. And that baffles me because it takes longer,” he said. 

“I had to take a driving test when I was over here. I won’t have to take a test if I want to get a gun. That’s stupid. Whoever thought that was a great idea is an idiot,” he added. 

Hendriks’s remarks came hours after a Fourth of July parade became the scene of a mass shooting on Monday morning, leaving six people dead and dozens wounded. Robert E. Crimo III, who was identified as a person of interest in the shooting, is now in custody. 

Many nearby Chicago suburbs canceled their Independence Day parades out of caution, and the White Sox canceled their fireworks for the evening but played their game against the Minnesota Twins as scheduled. 

The development comes against the backdrop of recently signed bipartisan gun safety legislation passed in the wake of several high-profile shootings in Buffalo, N.Y. and Uvalde, Texas. 

Source: TEST FEED1

California reparations task force should tackle root of housing crisis

A house divided cannot stand, and at today’s prices, it can’t be afforded either. That is especially true in California, where the dream of homeownership has failed to materialize for individuals of all backgrounds. Home prices are undeniably prohibitive for many Golden State residents; California has the second-highest median home price and one of the lowest homeownership rates in the nation. But instead of focusing on policies to make homeownership affordable for all Californians, the state seeks to grow the divide with race-based solutions that fail to address the primary causes of today’s high home prices.

On June 1, the California Reparations Task Force, established in 2020 to study and develop reparations proposals for African Americans, released an interim report with recommendations on various issues affecting Black Californians, including homeownership. The report recognizes that the government at all levels historically enacted or enabled discriminatory practices such as racially restrictive covenants and redlining that prevented Black residents from owning homes. Even though many of these discriminatory practices ended, the report posits that these “badges of slavery” resulted in a wealth gap that has prompted Black Californians to leave unaffordable cities or move out of the state entirely.

While historic discriminatory housing policies may partially explain why many Californians cannot afford to own a home, the ongoing causes of home unaffordability are much closer than the task force acknowledges.  

California does not have enough homes, causing prices to skyrocket out of reach. The culprits are current government policies that hinder new construction, including stringent land-use regulations, exorbitant building fees, and protracted environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). New houses cannot be built fast enough because of these restraints, making the few homes in existence too expensive. If its goal is to increase homeownership among African Americans, the task force should be keen to resolve these impediments since all Californians feel their impact.

Instead, one of the task force’s solutions is to subsidize these costs, rather than reduce them. They recommend establishing a state-subsidized mortgage system that guarantees low-interest rates for Black mortgage applicants. This models other reparations efforts across the country that merely pay the housing costs instead of changing the policies that make those costs so high in the first place.

In Evanston, Ill., where the median home price is five times the median household income, eligible Black residents will receive vouchers for down payments, mortgage payments or home repairs but cost-increasing tax rates and restrictive zoning rules go unchanged. In Washington, D.C., a $10 million fund was unveiled to support Black homeownership investment, while zoning and other regulations limiting the housing supply linger. Like Evanston and D.C., California will throw more money at the symptoms of supply-killing policies. Having Black purchasers pay the same high prices as everyone else is not a solution.

California’s task force does not have to continue this trend of accepting high housing costs. Their report recommends eliminating anti-Black housing policies and practices, but expanding this effort to all anti-housing policies would help all residents, including Black Californians. The California Building Industry Association has some suggestions on where they can start. The group identified several pending “housing killer” bills that would further restrict the home supply. They include AB 1001 and SB 1404, which expands CEQA, and AB 1771, which imposes an additional tax on home sales. Such policies cannot be good for anyone in California trying to own a home, no matter their skin color or ancestry.

Housing policies that expand opportunities for all Californians do not exclude Black residents. The state can still raise awareness of past discrimination while advancing solutions that benefit every Californian, but neither will happen if it continues indulging the Reparations Task Force’s divisive and recycled policies. 

California’s diverse residents, many of whom probably also could claim the impact of past discrimination, will not accept being saddled with remedying those past wrongs while being excluded from policies designed only for some. Solutions for all Californians is the better way forward, as we cannot afford a housing crisis divided.

Andrew Quinio is an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse.

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans scoff as Dems try to close Gitmo again

Democrats are reviving their efforts to shutter the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, but the push faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where Republicans are already writing it off as doomed.

In the past month, House Democrats have advanced legislation seeking to close the facility in Cuba as part of a larger annual defense spending bill leaders are expected to bring to a vote in the full chamber, where the party holds narrow control, in the coming weeks. 

But in the Senate, where Democrats will need GOP support to pass the defense funding bill, the move faces a wall of opposition from Republicans.

“I’m sure it’s not going to happen,” Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told The Hill, adding “no rational person’s going to support that. It’s an absolutely vital institution.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, also cast doubt on closing Gitmo, pointing to Democrats’ thin margins in both chambers.

“They have such slim majorities right now. It’s difficult for them to do anything … So, getting something that controversial done is just, as a practical matter, not going to happen,” Rogers said.

Democrats behind the push, however, say they see it as one worth the fight, despite the staunch opposition from Republicans, as well as some Democrats.

“I’m gonna work hard in conference committee,” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said on the matter. “It’s not a good use of taxpayers’ money, and if we need more money for defense, it should go to things that are going to make a difference in our national security.”

McCollum’s comments echo criticisms that have long been leveled against a facility that has reportedly cost taxpayers hundreds of millions since its opening two decades ago and has been the source of troubling accounts of torture and accusations of judicial violations.

But, while both Republican and Democratic presidents have pushed for its closure in the past, finding a bipartisan agreement on a path forward on the issue has remained elusive to Congress. 

“We should’ve closed it years ago,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I agreed with President Bush on that. I agreed with President Obama.”

“I would vote for anything to close Guantanamo Bay,” Leahy added, though he noted, “You have to have the votes, and we’ve tried before and they haven’t been able to get it.”

And on the other side of the aisle, a number of Republicans have pointed to long-held fears surrounding the facility and what would happen if it were to be emptied out.

“Too many folks are afraid of the rights that would attach to those people when they get into this country and they got into our legal system, and that’s the main reason, I think, that they would keep them there,” Rogers said.

Rep. Kay Granger (Texas), top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said, “These detainees are the worst of the worst, and we need assurance that they will never be moved to the United States.”

But advocates have pushed back on such comments.

“The thing to keep in mind about all the rhetoric right now is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of the men who are actually held there right now,” said Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented Guantanamo detainees. 

“We have had years and years to think about who was worthy of being charged, and that set has not changed at all since about 2012,” Kadidal said, adding that, this month, “the average age at Gitmo is going to tick over 50 for the men who are left.”

Figures gathered by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) show that nearly 800 people have been detained at the prison since former President George W. Bush opened it in 2002, months after the 9/11 terror attacks.

And since then, more than 700 inmates have been released, including over 500 under the Bush administration and about 200 under former Obama.

There are three-dozen detainees being held in Guantanamo Bay, a National Security Council (NSC) spokesperson told The Hill. 

Of those, 19 are eligible for transfer, five are eligible for a periodic review board, nine are involved in the military commissions process and three have been convicted in military commissions. 

“Admittedly, they are the hardest cases, which no previous administration has been able to resolve in the last 20 years,” the NSC spokesperson said. 

The Biden administration has been working to decrease the number of detainees held in the facility. But Kadidal expressed concern about the pace at which it is moving.

The administration transferred its first detainee from Guantanamo in July 2021, moving Abdul Latif Nasir to Morocco. Since then, the administration has transferred two more: Mohammad Mani Amad al-Qahtani to Saudi Arabia on March 7 and Sufiyan Barhoumi to Algeria on April 2.

Most recently, the Department of Defense announced on June 24 that it transferred Asadullah Haroon al-Afghani, also known as “Gul,” from Guantanamo to his home country of Afghanistan.

Gul, who arrived at Gitmo in 2007, was accused of being a commander for the Hezb e Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), a militant group that organized attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan. He was also accused of being a courier for al Qaeda military commander Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, which he denies. 

“The Biden administration remains dedicated to a deliberate and thorough process focused on responsibly reducing the detainee population and ultimately closing the Guantanamo facility,” the NSC spokesperson said. 

“We have reviewed the status of everyone who is eligible for [a Periodic Review Board] and are actively working to transfer everyone deemed eligible for transfer,” the spokesperson added. 

But although more Democrats have pushed for the facility’s closure over the years, not all members of the party in the current Congress are on board with the idea.

The $761 billion defense funding bill advanced recently by the House Appropriations Committee explicitly prohibits funds from being used to operate the facility after Sept. 30, 2023. But, at a markup session on the bill last month, two Democrats joined Republicans in voting in favor of an amendment offered by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) to revoke that provision, ultimately failing in a largely party-line vote.

Legislation currently advanced by the House and Senate Armed Services committees in mid-June has also sent mixed signals on the fate of Guantanamo Bay.  

The House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed on June 23, limits the Pentagon’s ability to transfer detainees to Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. But it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the administration from closing the facility, a departure from past precedent. 

Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the legislation, which passed a week prior, extends longstanding restrictions related to Guantanamo Bay through Dec. 31, 2023. This includes the bans on transferring detainees to the U.S and constructing facilities in the U.S. to house detainees. 

The Senate legislation also extends through fiscal year 2023 the ban on the U.S. closing the facility outright or relinquishing control over it.

Though Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a recent interview that there are “many, many reasons” the facility should be closed, he acknowledged the issue has “been a contentious” one.

“I think trying is useful,” Reed said of the effort being led in the House, though he noted “it’s gonna face lots of” opposition.

Source: TEST FEED1

Battle over Big Tech bills goes down to the wire

Lobbying both for and against legislation to crack down on U.S. tech giants is intensifying as the Senate enters a critical month for the antitrust bills. 

All eyes are on Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who will need to decide whether to prioritize measures to regulate Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta over other key bills prior to the August recess.

Much of the lobbying in recent weeks has centered around the Senate’s limited floor time before lawmakers leave town next month. Congress isn’t expected to make much progress on major legislation after returning from their break, when lawmakers typically shift their attention to the November election.

In an effort to run out the clock, the big four tech firms and their Washington allies are warning Senate Democrats that their voters expect progress on other pressing issues entering November’s elections. 

Smaller companies that support the bills, however, are making the case that regulating Big Tech is a winning midterm issue.

“It’s basically a fourth and one situation right now,” said Matt Fossen, the U.S. communications manager for Proton, a privacy-focused email service that supports the legislation.

“We’re incredibly close, we think, to getting this over the goal line, but it’s still a really tight window of opportunity,” Fossen said. “We simultaneously feel optimism and urgency.” 

The two bills, expected to be packaged together, take aim at the gatekeeper power of dominant tech companies.

The American Innovation and Choice Online (AICO) Act would bar tech giants — most likely only those big four firms — from giving preferential treatment to their own products and services on the platforms they operate.

The Open App Markets Act is more narrowly focused on mobile application stores. It would bar Apple and Google from favoring their own apps in stores, requiring developers to use their payment services or preventing users from downloading apps from third-party distributors.

Both measures advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, but momentum has stalled as industry lobbyists have bombarded senators with emails, calls, meetings and Washington-centric ad blitzes opposing them.  

The coalition of medium and small businesses, civil society groups and pro-competition think tanks pushing the pair of bills have been arguing that they would result in both positive policy results and helping candidates going into the midterms. 

Supporters argue that the legislation would get Big Tech off the back of American businesses and boost competition, ultimately improving the cost and quality of services available to consumers. 

“There’s a policy argument to be made that this is good policy — it will unleash innovation, it will give a benefit [to] developers and consumers — but there’s also a political argument to be made, and we’re pushing that as well: Good policy makes good politics,” said Rick VanMeter, executive of the Coalition for App Fairness.

Much of the focus in the home stretch has been on Schumer, given his ultimate say in bringing the bills to a floor vote.

The digital rights group Fight for the Future has had two mobile billboard trucks at the Senate leader’s New York and D.C. residences all week playing a John Oliver segment about the antitrust bills.

“That was our tongue-in-cheek idea to try to get his attention,” said Evan Greer, the group’s director. “And I’m sure it has gotten his attention.”

Some proponents have been focusing their efforts on senators outside of the Judiciary and Commerce committees who are less well-versed on antitrust issues and therefore more susceptible to industry talking points.

“When we meet with them, we’re often talking about really basic things about how we’re being affected,” said Kate McInnis, senior public policy manager at the search engine DuckDuckGo. “Then we get to the bills and they often are very, very surprised and interested to learn how we and other tech companies like ours have been affected by Big Tech’s encumbrances to competition and to user choice.”

Big Tech allies argue that the bills would harm data security and privacy, limit access to popular features such as Amazon Prime, constrain content moderation efforts and undermine U.S. competitiveness and national security by weakening the nation’s tech giants.

“As we’re talking with legislators and their teams and helping them better grasp the ramifications of this legislation, they’re realizing it’s not ready for prime-time,” Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, an advocacy group backed by the big four tech giants that spent more than $10 million on ads opposing AICO. 

Competing forces are seeking to influence Schumer’s priorities as the majority leader confronts a packed agenda that includes a bipartisan measure to boost U.S. competitiveness with China, the annual Pentagon spending bill and a party-line budget reconciliation package that aims to lower drug prices and potentially address climate change.  

A recent poll from the Coalition for App Fairness found that 79 percent of swing state voters support the Open App Markets Act, and 68 percent said that Big Tech firms have too much power. 

That came after the tech-backed Chamber of Progress released a poll finding that tech regulation is toward the bottom of the priority list for voters compared to other issues such as controlling inflation and lowering prescription drug prices.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a top proponent of tech regulation, has said that both bills would win the support of 60 senators if they were to receive a floor vote. 

Still, lobbyists with tech clients say that some senators would push for amendments to earn their vote, likely complicating the process. While Senate Republican leaders haven’t been rallying their ranks to oppose the antitrust bills, they would likely take advantage of the deliberative process to slow down other Democratic priorities, they say. 

“Leader Schumer supports the legislation and is working with Senator Klobuchar and others to get the necessary support to pass it,” a Schumer spokesperson said in an email, referring to the antitrust bills.

Tech giants ramped up their lobbying spending to record levels as the antitrust bills gained traction earlier this year. Apple shelled out more than $2.5 million on lobbying in the first three months of 2022, up 71 percent from the same period last year. Meta and Amazon spent $5.4 million and $5 million, respectively, both first-quarter highs.

Dozens of Washington advocacy groups and think tanks that receive funding from tech giants, including liberal and conservative organizations, have spoken out against the antitrust bills. Former national security officials with ties to Big Tech are urging lawmakers to delay AICO to examine its impact on U.S. security. 

Chief executives of Google, Amazon and Apple have personally met with Senate leaders to discuss their issues with the bills and suggest potential changes in the event that Schumer moves forward with them.

Tech executives are also writing large checks. Schumer’s campaign is the top recipient of donations from Apple employees, bringing in nearly $102,000 during the 2022 election cycle, according to research group OpenSecrets. His campaign received $170,000 from Google employees and its PAC. Most of those funds came from the tech firms’ executives and lobbyists.

Although they may not have the same financial muscle to flex, CEOs of smaller supportive tech firms have also been holding numerous meetings in Washington. Proton CEO Andy Yen, for example, will be returning for a second visit to the nation’s capital later this month in an effort to push the bills across the finish line.

“There’s overwhelming consensus that people want these big tech companies reined in,” Greer said. “The feeling here is that this should be inevitable and if it doesn’t happen in the coming weeks it’s going to be because of the corrupting influence of corporate lobbying and money in Washington, D.C.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Seven close races that could decide control of the House

The battle for control of the House is heating up as more and more general election matchups are set.

Republicans are favored to win back the majority in the lower chamber given both the national mood and historical precedent of a first-term president’s party losing seats in the administration’s first midterm election. 

However, a Morning Consult-Politico poll released this week found that Democrats and Republicans are deadlocked on the generic congressional ballot at 42 percent support each. 

With redistricting steadily decreasing the number of true swing districts, the battle for the majority could come down to a relatively small number of districts deemed toss-ups.

Here are seven to watch:

Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District 

Last month, Virginia state Sen. Jen Kiggans defeated three other Republicans in the party’s primary to take on Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) in the state’s 2nd Congressional District. 

The 2^nd District includes Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Isle of Wight County, Southampton County and the Eastern Shore, and it has a sizeable military population given its proximity to Naval Station Norfolk. Luria and Kiggans both served in the Navy. Luria was first elected to Congress in 2018, defeating Rep. Scott Taylor (R-Va.) and flipping the district to Democrats. 

Republicans view the district as a major pickup opportunity and it was redistricted in a way that could favor the GOP. The non-partisan Cook Political Report has rated the race as a “toss-up,” while FiveThirtyEight has moved the district from a lean of R+2 to R+6. 

In the primary, Kiggans received the endorsement of the Congressional Leadership Fund and House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik’s (R-N.Y.) E-Pac. Additionally, the GOP group Winning for Women Action Fund launched a six-figure radio and television ad buy for Kiggans last week. 

Virginia’s 7th Congressional District 

Further north, in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) also got an official general election challenger a few weeks ago. 

Former police officer and Prince William County Supervisor Yesli Vega defeated five other Republicans in the primary. Vega garnered endorsements from notable conservative figures, including Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Like Luria, Spanberger was part of the 2018 blue wave that flipped Congress during former President Trump’s first term. Spanberger defeated Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) that year. 

While Vega served in public safety, Spanberger has a background in national security, previously serving as a CIA officer. Vega leaned heavily into her law enforcement background during the campaign, echoing national Republican messaging on crime. Spanberger has been a more moderate voice in the Democratic Party on crime, and has been vocally opposed to progressive calls to defund the police. 

Unlike Luria’s district, redistricting made Spanberger’s district slightly more favorable to Democrats. Prior to redistricting, the district was farther away from Washington and closer to central Virginia. However, the latest congressional map moved her district closer to Washington, D.C. FiveThirtyEight moved the district from R+5 to D+2 after the redistricting process. However, the race will still be competitive. The non-partisan Cook Political Report has classified it as a “toss-up.” 

Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District 

Last month, real estate attorney April Becker easily won the Republican nomination to take on Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.) in the state’s 3rd Congressional District. The district has been competitive in recent years, playing a deciding role in presidential elections going back to 2004. Former President Trump won the district by a point in 2016, while President Biden carried it by less than a point in 2020. The last Republican to represent the seat was former Rep. Joe Heck, who was ousted by now-Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in 2016. 

The 2020 redistricting process added Democrats to the district, but Republicans are still expressing optimism given Biden’s low approval ratings and the national mood. Polling has been scarce in the district, but a survey conducted by GOP pollster Dave Sacketton on behalf of Becker’s campaign and the National Republican Congressional Committee showed Lee trailing Becker 46 percent to 44 percent. However, the poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. The poll was reported by the Washington Examiner. 

Lee and Democrats are leaning into the fallout over the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in hopes of attracting voters. On Monday, Lee’s campaign rolled out a television ad hitting Becker over the issue. 

The Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss-up. 

Texas’ 28th Congressional District 

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) is facing a competitive general election battle after narrowly winning his Democratic primary battle against progressive Jessica Cisneros by only 289 votes. During the intraparty battle, Cuellar’s Texas home and campaign offices were raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into U.S. businessmen and their ties to Azerbaijan. Cuellar and his team have maintained that no wrongdoing was found on his part. Additionally, Cuellar, known as the most conservative Democrat in the House, grappled with attacks from Cisneros on many of his stances, including on abortion access. 

Cuellar, a Blue Dog Democrat, kept his focus on issues like the flow of migrants over the U.S. southern border and the economy, taking a more conservative stance than Cisneros. However, Cuellar is now facing Republican Cassy Garcia, a former staffer to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is zeroing on those same issues as the national mood continues to favor Republicans. 

Garcia is one of three Republican Latinas running in South Texas House districts this cycle, including Rep. Mayra Flores (R-Texas), who won the special election for Texas’ 34th Congressional District last month. Republicans argue that Flores’ win is evidence that the GOP continues to gain traction in districts along the U.S. southern border. 

The Cook Political Report rates the district as a “toss-up.” 

Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District 

Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District is up for grabs after Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.) left his seat to run for Senate in the state, ultimately losing his primary to Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D). 

Now, voting rights attorney and Iraq War veteran Chris Deluzio, a Democrat, is going head-to-head with Republican Jeremy Shaffer, a former Ross Township commissioner. Both easily won their respective primaries. 

Deluzio has campaigned on his pro-abortion access stance, his support for labor unions and fighting against big corporate power, among other issues. Shaffer zeroed in on issues like election integrity, border security, his anti-abortion stance and his support for gun rights. 

Shaffer is a part of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Gun” list, which offers campaign support for candidates. Deluzio, likewise, has been included in the House Democrats’ campaign arm’s “Red to Blue” program, demonstrating how both political parties are channeling resources in a bid over the competitive House seat.

The Cook Political Report rates the seat as a “toss up” for November; the data website FiveThirtyEight notes the partisan lean as one point Democrat in the 17th Congressional District.

Ohio’s 13th Congressional District

The Ohio House seat is sure to be a test of former President Trump’s influence. He endorsed conservative political commentator and attorney Madison Gesiotto Gilbert, who also notched high-profile endorsements from House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

Gilbert has also received support from the Republican women’s group Winning for Women PAC.

Gilbert takes on Ohio state Rep. Emilia Sykes (D), who ran unopposed in her primary and who has served in the state legislature since 2014. She served more recently as the state House minority leader, holding several other high-profile positions with the state legislature, including minority whip and assistant whip. 

Both her parents, Barbara and Vernon Sykes, had previously held the same state House seat she has. 

The data website FiveThirtyEight notes that under Ohio’s new congressional map, the 13th District has a partisan lean of plus two points Republican, and the Cook Political Report rates the seat as a “toss up” for November. 

Oregon’s 5th Congressional District 

Progressive challenger Jamie McLeod-Skinner made headlines in late May after she won her Democratic primary against seven-term incumbent Rep. Kurt Schrader (D). 

Schrader, who had received the endorsement of President Biden, drew ire from progressives after initially voting against a nearly $2 million coronavirus relief package in the lower chamber and after he and two other moderate Democrats voted against legislation in September that would have allowed drug prices to be negotiated by the Health and Human Services secretary.  

Meanwhile, McLeod-Skinner notched endorsements from groups like the Working Families Party and Progressive Democrats of America in addition to Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

McLeod-Skinner now takes on former Happy Valley Mayor Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R), who has been endorsed by House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). Chavez-DeRemer has focused her campaign platform on advocating for parents’ involvement in school curriculum, her opposition to critical race theory (CRT) and inflation, among others. 

FiveThirtyEight gives the 5th Congressional District a partisan lean of three points Democrat, and rates the seat as a “toss up.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump troubles open path for Senate GOP White House hopefuls

The political damage suffered by Donald Trump during the Jan. 6 hearings, which journalist Bob Woodward says has written the former president’s “political obituary,” is giving Senate Republicans eyeing the White House new hope for 2024.  

Presidential hopefuls including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have largely steered clear of defending Trump against the revelations of the Jan. 6 hearings, instead positioning themselves to capitalize if Trump is too compromised to run in 2024. 

Other Republican hopefuls have done the same. Former Vice President Mike Pence has stayed mum about the Jan. 6 hearings, instead focusing on criticizing President Biden’s handling of the economy.  

And while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) has dismissed the House hearings for “beating this dead horse,” he hasn’t gone out of his way to defend Trump. DeSantis now appears to be Trump’s most serious competition in 2024, beating him head-to-head in New Hampshire in a recent poll.   

A Senate Republican aide also identified Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as possible candidates for the White House in 2024, especially if Trump continues to fade politically.  

“The nomination is going to be very wide open, I think. I don’t see him sustaining his position as a majority leader of the party even if he wants to into 2024. There are too many people out there who want to run for president,” said former New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (R).  

Gregg said Trump’s “intense” following “will still be there,” giving the former president a chance to be influential in 2024. But the former Granite State governor and senator thinks Trump has damaged himself with many other Republican voters.  

“By that time, a lot of water will have flowed under the bridge. He will be to some degree history,” he predicted of the next presidential election cycle.  

A University of New Hampshire poll of 944 Granite State panel members conducted from June 16 to June 20 found that 39 percent of likely Republican primary voters said they would vote for DeSantis, while 37 percent said they would back Trump. The poll found that 18 percent of Republican voters and 68 percent of independents had an unfavorable view of Trump.  

A new Harvard CAPS-Harris poll of 1,308 voters nationwide found that Trump has a 50 percent unfavorable rating with 38 percent of respondents saying they have a “very unfavorable” view of the former president. The survey, however, showed Trump with a 42-percent favorable rating.  

And a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll of 1,630 adults nationwide showed DeSantis trailing Trump by only nine points in a head-to-head matchup.  

Cruz has been the most aggressive in positioning himself for another run for president, traveling around nation to campaign for conservative candidates in GOP primaries, and sometimes taking on Trump-backed candidates directly.  

Cruz backed former state treasurer Josh Mandel in the Ohio Senate primary and David McCormick in Pennsylvania Senate contest over Trump-endorsed candidates J.D. Vance and Mehmet Oz, coming up short both times.  

But Yesli Vega, whom Cruz endorsed in Virginia’s 7^th congressional district, won her June 21 primary, and Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C..), whom both Cruz and Trump endorsed in North Carolina, won his May 17 primary.  

Cruz also endorsed state Attorney General Eric Schmitt in the Missouri Senate Republican primary and Deborah Flora in the Colorado Senate GOP contest. Missouri voters will decide their nominee on Aug. 2. Flora narrowly missed making the GOP primary ballot in April.  

Cotton met with his biggest donors last month at the Hay-Adams hotel in Washington, where he discussed a possible presidential bid next cycle and said he wouldn’t let Trump keep him out of the race.  

Hawley took his turn in the national spotlight earlier this year when he led Republican opposition to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson in the Judiciary Committee. He was the first to shine a light on Jackson’s record sentencing child pornography offenders, which produced the most dramatic moments of her confirmation hearings. 

Tim Scott, who represents a key early Republican primary state, in May traveled to Iowa to attend a state Republican Party in Cedar Rapids, fueling speculation that he’s laying the groundwork for his own 2024 run.  

Scott has also forged a relationship with Oracle founder Larry Ellison, who has poured at least $15 million into a super PAC allied with the South Carolina Republican.  

Rick Scott has stirred speculation about his own White House ambitions with trips to New Hampshire though he insists he is running for re-election to the Senate in 2024 and has no plans to run for president.  

Yet the Florida senator is acting a lot like a presidential candidate, releasing his own 11-point “Rescue America” plan to the chagrin of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who did not sign off on the plan. Several Senate Republicans have complained that Scott’s ambitions could cloud Senate Republican messaging since he is also chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.  

The jockeying by Senate Republicans to set themselves up for White House bids in 2024 reflect a growing sense that Trump is losing political strength, something that has been exacerbated by the revelations of the Jan 6 committee.  

Some of the most damaging testimony came from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.  

Hutchinson told the panel that Trump lunged for the steering wheel of The Beast, the armored vehicle used to transport the president, and grabbed at his security detail Bobby Engel when told he could not go to the Capitol after delivering a speech at the Ellipse.  

She also testified to the former president throwing his meal against the wall, leaving shattered porcelain on the floor and smeared ketchup on the wall, after then-Attorney General William Barr told The Associated Press in December 2020 that there was no widespread fraud in the election.  

Legendary Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward later said the Jan. 6 testimony in effect has written Trump’s “political obituary” and some GOP strategists agree.    

“I think Bob is most likely right,” said Republican strategist Vin Weber.  

Weber said Republicans generally are “loath to praise the hearings” because many of them view it as a partisan exercise, even though two Republicans, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), sit on the committee.

Even so, Weber said there’s no doubt the hearings have inflicted major damage on Trump’s political future.   

“It’s now unquestionably clear if we nominate Donald Trump for president we’re going to spend the whole campaign talking about Jan. 6 and the stolen election which wasn’t,” he said, adding that Trump’s actions leading up to Jan. 6 and since have done “great, great damage” to his own political viability. 

He said while few Republicans are willing to praise the Jan. 6 committee’s work now, “they absorbed the information that came out of the committee and will remember it in the next presidential campaign.”  

An Associated Press-NORC poll conducted after the House Select Jan. 6 Committee held five hearings found that 48 percent of U.S. adults think Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in trying to overturn the election results while 31 percent think he shouldn’t be charged.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Federal judge rules in favor of pharmaceutical companies in West Virginia opioid case

A federal judge ruled in favor of three drug companies on Monday in a lawsuit accusing them of being responsible for the opioid epidemic in certain communities in West Virginia. 

Judge David Faber rejected arguments from the city of Huntington, W.Va., and the Cabel County Commission that AmerisourceBergen Drug Co., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp.’s distribution of prescription opioids in Huntington and Cabel County caused an opioid epidemic and a “public nuisance” in those areas. 

“The opioid crisis has taken a considerable toll on the citizens of Cabell County and the City of Huntington,” the ruling reads. “And while there is a natural tendency to assign blame in such cases, they must be decided not based on sympathy, but on the facts and the law. In view of the court’s findings and conclusions, the court finds that judgment should be entered in defendants’ favor.” 

Faber said the state’s law against public nuisances has only been applied to conduct interfering with public property or resources, not the distribution or sale of a product. He said extending the meaning would be “inconsistent” with the history and “traditional notions” of a nuisance. 

Representatives for the plaintiffs said in a joint statement that they are “deeply disappointed” personally and for the citizens of Huntington and Cabel County. 

“We felt the evidence that emerged from witness statements, company documents, and extensive datasets showed these defendants were responsible for creating and overseeing the infrastructure that flooded West Virginia with opioids,” they said. “Outcome aside, our appreciation goes out to the first responders, public officials, treatment professionals, researchers, and many others who gave their testimony to bring the truth to light.” 

Attorneys said they will discuss possible alternatives with their clients in the wake of the ruling. 

Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D) said in a statement that the case was about holding the distributors accountable and providing medical providers with resources to mitigate the opioid crisis. 

“We respect the Court and the judicial system through which we have sought remedy, but my disappointment cannot be measured,” Williams said. “The decision today is a blow to our city and community, but we remain resilient even in the face of adversity.” 

Williams said the drug companies are part of a “powerful industry” responsible for fueling the epidemic in the city and across the country. He said he will continue to fight for those who lost their “lives and livelihoods” to opioids. 

“The citizens of our city and county should not have to bear the principal responsibility of ensuring that an epidemic of this magnitude never occurs again,” he said. 

McKesson said in a statement to The Hill that it maintains and regularly enhances programs to detect and prevent opioid diversion in the pharmaceutical supply chain. It said the company only provides controlled substances to pharmacies that are state-licensed and registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

“We continue to be deeply concerned about the impact that the opioid crisis is having on families and communities across our nation,” the statement reads. “We see prescription drug diversion and abuse as an issue that needs to be addressed through a comprehensive approach that includes regulators, manufacturers, pharmacies, distributors, doctors and patients.” 

Lauren Esposito, the vice president of public relations for AmerisourceBergen, said in a statement to The Hill that the company is pleased with the court’s decision. She said AmerisourceBergen and other pharmaceutical distributors have needed to “walk a legal and ethical tightrope” between providing access to medication and preventing the diversion of controlled substances. 

“Today’s ruling will help enable our company to do what we do best — ensuring that health care facilities like hospitals and community pharmacies have access to the medications that patients and care providers need – ranging from blood pressure medications to chemotherapies to COVID-19 treatments and, as appropriate, prescription pain medications,” she said. 

She pointed to a section of the ruling that stated that the companies “substantially complied” with the Controlled Substances Act to have in place suspicious order monitoring systems. 

Cardinal Health did not immediately return a request for comment from The Hill.

Source: TEST FEED1

Illinois governor on mass shooting: 'A celebration of America was ripped apart by our uniquely American plague'

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) pointed to the “uniquely American” problem of gun violence in the wake of Monday’s deadly mass shooting at an Independence Day parade in his state, which left at least six people dead.

“It is devastating that a celebration of America was ripped apart by our uniquely American plague,” Pritzker said in a speech Monday evening from Highland Park. 

The governor said he is “furious” that more lives have been lost to gun violence and loved ones are “forever broken” and traumatized from the shooting.

“It’s the Fourth of July, a day for reflection on our freedoms,” he said. “Our founders carried muskets, not assault weapons, and I don’t think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine or that that is more important than the right of the people who attended this parade today to live.” 

A gunman killed at least six and injured at least two dozen more at the parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park on Monday. Police have a suspect in custody.

In response to potential arguments that the aftermath of such a shooting is not the time to talk about guns, Pritzker said there is no better time. 

He called on the public to pray for those who were killed and who remain in the hospital after being injured. 

President Biden signed into law last month a bipartisan gun reform bill that was crafted in the wake of the mass shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y. The law is the most significant gun legislation in decades, and includes measures cracking down on illegal gun sales, enhancing background checks for buyers under 21 years old and closing the so-called boyfriend loophole. 

Gun rights advocates, however, received a victory last month when the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms outside one’s home, striking down a New York law. 

Darren Bailey, Pritzker’s opponent for the Illinois governor’s race this year, apologized on Monday after he said to a group of supporters that people should “move on” from the shooting and celebrate Fourth of July festivities.

Source: TEST FEED1