Archive by Author

Here’s what the Supreme Court’s decision on Title 42 means

The Supreme Court has punted a brewing debate over immigration policy until the spring with its decision to keep a Trump administration border measure in place that restricts the flow of migrants into the United States.

The court ruled on Tuesday that Title 42, which for the last two years allowed the government to expel migrants who might otherwise qualify for asylum because of the COVID-19 pandemic, must remain in place.

The decision is a win for Republican officials who opposed lifting the rule, and is a reprieve of sorts for the Biden administration, which had faced growing questions from lawmakers about whether it was prepared to handle the influx of migrants that was expected to follow the end of the rule.

Here’s what you need to know about the rule and how the Supreme Court’s decision will affect what’s happening at the southern border.

A Trump and pandemic-era rule

Title 42 was first implemented by the Trump administration during the onset of the pandemic in early 2020, allowing for the rapid expulsion of migrants at the southern border. 

Officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations have described it as a public health measure, but immigration advocates have argued it is an immigration enforcement tool under the guise of a public health protocol that is keeping migrants fleeing violence and poverty from legally entering the U.S.

Title 42 specifically allows the government to turn away on public health grounds migrants requesting asylum without giving them a hearing. In practice, it has been used against migrants from a number of countries who might have real grounds for asylum, including people from Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Haiti, among other countries.

The Biden administration sought to lift the policy, and it was set to do so on Dec. 21. But the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on Dec. 19 to keep it in place. The court’s Tuesday ruling extends the stay at least until February, when it will hear arguments from 19 mostly GOP-led states that oppose the lifting of Title 42.

Buying time

The decision buys time for the White House, which had said for weeks it was preparing for the end of Title 42 but was facing pressure over its readiness for the expected surge of migrants at the southern border.

Officials had yet to release detailed plans about how it might handle an influx of people.

“The Supreme Court’s order today keeps the current Title 42 policy in place while the Court reviews the matter in 2023. We will, of course, comply with the order and prepare for the Court’s review,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

“At the same time, we are advancing our preparations to manage the border in a secure, orderly, and humane way when Title 42 eventually lifts and will continue expanding legal pathways for immigration,” Jean-Pierre added.

A surge is expected because without Title 42, thousands of people seeking asylum should under U.S. law be able to request and receive a hearing on their claims.

President Biden said a decision on Title 42 was overdue, and that his administration would continue to enforce the measure.

But the ruling does not solve Biden’s problems completely. Many of those who have been turned away have not simply returned to their home countries, and a final court decision to lift the policy could come in the early summer, when border apprehension numbers are often at their highest.

The White House did not criticize the court over the decision, however, and officials will now have several more weeks to prepare for the end of the policy at a time when Republicans are hammering the administration over its immigration policies.

Legislation

Biden has faced calls from Republicans to visit the border, which they say is at a point of crisis.

There have been a record number of apprehensions at the southern border in recent months. Customs and Border Patrol figures show authorities made 233,740 immigration arrests in November, one of the highest monthly totals recorded.

Officials have called on Congress to pass immigration reform that would provide needed funding for border officials and upgrade what the White House believes is a broken system. But such legislation is extremely unlikely to pass through a divided Congress in the coming months.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Tuesday that the border “is not open, and we will continue to fully enforce our immigration laws.”

“We will continue to manage the border, but we do so within the constraints of a decades-old immigration system that everyone agrees is broken,” DHS said. “We need Congress to pass the comprehensive immigration reform legislation President Biden proposed the day he took office.”

A blow to advocacy groups

In the meantime, the ruling is a blow to advocacy groups who have called for an end to Title 42 for years.

Activists and civil rights groups believe Title 42 was deployed by the Trump administration as a way to use the pandemic to curb immigration, and that the policy has left migrants who would qualify for asylum languishing as they flee violence, poverty and other harsh circumstances.

Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union leading a challenge to Title 42, called it a “horrific policy that has caused so much harm to asylum seekers and cannot plausibly be justified any longer as a public health measure.”

Patric Gaspard, head of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, an influential progressive think tank, blamed Republicans for politicizing the issue and blocking efforts on immigration reform.

Gaspard argued there is “no scientific or public health rationale to continue Title 42 because migrants are no more likely than any other travelers to spread COVID-19, making it an ineffective strategy for stopping the pandemic or enhancing border security.”

Source: TEST FEED1

US to impose new restrictions on travelers from China amid COVID outbreaks

The Biden administration is planning new coronavirus precautions on travelers arriving from China due to a surge in COVID-19 cases and concerns about the lack of transparent reporting data from the country, federal health officials said Wednesday.

Beginning Jan. 5, all air passengers at least 2 years old originating from China will be required to show a negative COVID-19 test no more than two days before their departure from China, Hong Kong or Macau.

The requirement will apply to all air passengers, regardless of nationality and vaccination status, officials said. They did not say how long the policy will be in place.

Airlines must confirm the COVID-19 test result or documentation of recovery from all passengers before they board. Passengers who tested positive more than 10 days before the flight can provide documentation of recovery from COVID-19 in lieu of a negative test result.

Passengers flying through Incheon International Airport in Seoul, Toronto Pearson International Airport and Vancouver International Airport on their way to the United States will be required to provide a negative COVID-19 test no more than two days before their departure to the United States if they’ve been in China in the last two days, officials said.

The move aims to decrease the number of infected passengers boarding airplanes, and could give public health authorities time to identify and understand any potential new variants that may emerge.

The new policy reflects the Biden administration’s concern over the situation in China, which is rapidly ending its strict “COVID Zero” policy in the face of protests.

As a result, infections are running wild without an adequate health infrastructure or enough vaccinations in place. 

But the Chinese government has virtually stopped reporting any outbreak data, and Biden administration health officials said they were concerned about potential new variants circulating without their knowledge. Officials said they do not know the true infection rate, or number of deaths and hospitalizations in China.

Officials said the United States has offered the Chinese government vaccines as well as other support for COVID-19, but have been rebuffed.

This story was updated at 3:38 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Southwest Airlines faces growing federal scrutiny after Christmas cancellations

The federal government is zeroing in on Southwest Airlines after it canceled thousands of flights over the Christmas holidays, stranding tens of thousands of travelers.   

Southwest’s problems can’t completely be blamed on winter storms. While other airlines had some weather-related cancellations, Southwest shut down more than 15,000 flights over the holidays and likely won’t resume normal operations until the new year.

Key figures ranging from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, are zeroing in on Southwest’s archaic scheduling system and whether the airline is reimbursing customers for costs incurred while they wait for another flight.

“At a minimum, there needs to be cash refunds for the canceled flights, and they need to be taking care of passengers where they got stuck with meals, hotel compensation,” Buttigieg, who has been in contact with Southwest leadership, said on NBC News Tuesday evening. 

“You’ve got passengers who are stranded. You’ve got passengers who can’t get a hold of customer service. It’s an unacceptable situation and Southwest needs to step up and again take care of their passengers and their employees, many of whom are in the same boat across the country,” he added.

Cantwell said that her committee, which deals with aviation issues, will investigate the cause of the meltdown and its impact on travelers. 

She indicated that the disaster could spawn tougher airline refund rules. Cantwell and other senators urged the Department of Transportation last month to strengthen a proposed refund rule by requiring airlines to cover travelers’ secondary costs such as food, lodging and transportation when they cancel or significantly delay a flight.

“Many airlines fail to adequately communicate with consumers during flight cancellations. Consumers deserve strong protections, including an updated consumer refund rule,” Cantwell said in a statement. 

Southwest CEO Bob Jordan issued a video apology Wednesday and said that the company would “go above and beyond” to provide customers with refunds and help those who took expensive detours. 

“We’re doing everything we can to return to a normal operation, and please also hear that I am truly sorry,” he said. 

The airline’s customer service plan states that Southwest will rebook travelers on the next available flight at no cost and reimburse customers’ food and lodging costs for delays and cancellations that are within the company’s control. 

Jordan also acknowledged Wednesday that the airline needed to update its decades-old scheduling software. Southwest employees this week said that their scheduling system failed to adjust to weather disruptions, making it difficult for the company to guide their pilots and flight attendants to the right plane. 

“The tools we use to recover from disruption serve us well, 99 percent of the time; but clearly, we need to double down on our already existing plans to upgrade systems for these extreme circumstances so that we never again face what’s happening right now,” Jordan said. 

Southwest is only operating around one-third of its flights in order to clear a backlog. Jordan said that he was optimistic the airline will be back on track before next week.   

Southwest canceled more than 2,500 flights Wednesday, making up most of the 2,800 U.S.-based cancellations, according to flight tracking website FlightAware. That comes after Southwest canceled 5,600 flights on Monday and Tuesday.  

Customers have struggled this week to reach Southwest representatives in order to get information about their next flight or access their luggage. 

“From what I can tell Southwest is unable to locate even where their own crews are, let alone their own passengers, let alone baggage,” Buttigieg told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday evening. 

Winter storms hit Southwest’s hubs in Chicago and Denver particularly hard, leading to thousands of cancellations that then prevented pilots and flight attendants from getting to their next flight. Workers also blame Southwest for scheduling too many flights with the knowledge that winter storms and sick workers would ensure that things wouldn’t go smoothly.  

“When you’re dealing with sub-zero temperatures, driving winds and ice storms you can’t expect to schedule planes as if every day is a sunny day with moderate temperatures and a gentle breeze,” Randy Barnes, president of Transport Workers Union of America Local 555, which represents over Southwest ground workers, said in a statement.

Barnes added that many Southwest ground workers have been forced to work 16- to 18-hour days during the holiday season and some “have experienced frostbite over the past week.”

That’s likely to anger lawmakers who provided Southwest and other airlines with billions of dollars in federal aid to keep their staff on the payroll at the height of the pandemic.  

Southwest was the first major airline to reinstate dividends this month after restrictions on dividends and investor buybacks attached to the federal aid expired. 

The Southwest meltdown ruins what had been a strong stretch for airlines in recent months. U.S. airlines canceled less than 300 flights over the Thanksgiving weekend, according to masFlight data.

It also overshadows a relatively strong performance from other U.S. airlines. Delta, United and American Airlines canceled just 44 flights combined on Wednesday, according to FlightAware.

Source: TEST FEED1

Hutchinson: Marjorie Taylor Greene discussed QAnon with Trump, Meadows

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) brought up QAnon several times with former President Trump and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to newly released transcripts of her depositions with the Jan. 6 committee.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene bringing QAnon up several times, though, in the presence of the president, privately with Mark,” Hutchinson said in a June 20 interview with the committee. 

“I remember Mark having a few conversations, too, about — more specific to QAnon stuff and more about the idea that they had with the election and, you know, not as much pertaining to the planning of the January 6th rally,” she added.

Hutchinson, whose testimony was central to the Jan. 6 committee’s public hearings this summer, met several times with the panel, including for the May and June depositions released on Tuesday.

The former White House aide testified in a May 17 interview that Greene approached Meadows while they were in Georgia and told him that her QAnon supporters were headed to the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, which ultimately preceded the riot at the Capitol.

“Ms. Greene came up and began talking to us about QAnon and QAnon going to the rally, and she had a lot of constituents that are QAnon, and they’ll all be there,” Hutchinson said. “And she was showing him pictures of them traveling up to Washington, D.C., for the rally on the 6th.”

The congresswoman also spoke with Trump about her QAnon supporters ahead of the Jan. 6 riot, Hutchinson testified.

“I heard him talk on the plane that night because Ms. Taylor Greene gave him a very similar spiel: These are my constituents. Look, one of them had a Q shirt on. They are on the plane,” Hutchinson said. “And she showed him a picture of them, saying: Those are all my people.”

Source: TEST FEED1

New Biden administration guidance closes 'ghost guns' loophole in federal rule

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an open letter to federal firearms dealers on Tuesday saying a rule that went into effect in August applies to certain partially completed pistol frames and parts kits, subjecting them to regulation. 

The August rule from the Department of Justice subjected gun kits to regulation and provided regulatory definitions for terms such as “complete weapon” and “readily.”

Tuesday’s letter stated that the “definition of ‘readily’ applies to each and every classification of a partially complete frame or receiver under this Rule, whether sold alone or as part of a kit. Therefore, even without any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials, these partially complete pistol frames are ‘frames’ and also ‘firearms’ as defined in the GCA [Gun Control Act] and its implementing regulations.”

The rule requires the relevant firearm frames to have serial numbers and to be sold by licensed dealers who run background checks.

“Today’s open letter is another important step in implementing the crucial public safety rule regarding privately made firearms, or Ghost Guns,” ATF Director Steven Dettelbach said in an ATF news release. “Ghost Guns can kill like other firearms if they are in the wrong hands, so they are treated as firearms under the law.” 

In October, 14 Democratic senators sent a letter to the Justice Department and ATF requesting they issue enforcement guidance for the August rule, saying that companies selling near-complete frames and receivers without tools or instructions for completion were considering their products outside the scope of the new rule.

According to the August rule, from the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2021, “there were approximately 45,240 suspected PMFs [privately made firearms] reported to ATF as having been recovered by law enforcement from potential crime scenes, including 692 homicides or attempted homicides (not including suicides), and which ATF attempted to trace.”

Congress passed major gun legislation in 2022 as well. In June, President Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which expanded background checks for people under 21, addressed the “boyfriend loophole” with a provision barring firearm possession for at least five years for those convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes against romantic partners and included funding for mental health treatment and the administration of red flag laws.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill's Morning Report — Santos faces growing criticism after revelations

Rep.-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) continues to face controversy after admitting Monday to fabricating pieces of his work and education background. 

In his campaign to represent Long Island in the House, Santos falsely claimed that he earned a college degree and worked directly with Goldman Sachs. Additionally, after he claimed on the campaign trail to have Jewish heritage and be “a proud American Jew,” Santos clarified Monday that he “never claimed to be Jewish.” After his inconsistent biography had drawn scrutiny, Santos confessed to the embellishment, resulting in criticism from Democrats, Jewish groups and a growing number of Republicans.

Santos, 34, campaigned with a professional history that included claims that he graduated from Baruch College in New York and worked with top firms Citigroup and Goldman Sachs (The Hill). 

Santos’ Democratic opponent, Robert Zimmerman, on Tuesday called for the Republican to resign and run in a new election.

“George, if that’s even your real name, if you’re so convinced that #NY3 voters still trust you — resign & run against me again in a special election,” Zimmerman wrote on Twitter. “Face the voters with your real past & answer questions about your criminal history. Let the voters decide.”

In Congress Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) are among those calling on Santos to resign — and for the House to expel him if he refuses. 

Castro argued that if Santos is allowed to serve, “there will be more who seek office up and down the ballot who will believe that they can completely fabricate credentials, personal features and accomplishments to win office.”

It’s unlikely, however, that House Republican leadership will refuse to seat Santos. While the House has the power to expel any member with a two-thirds vote, only five lawmakers have been expelled in the country’s history (CNN).

The Hill’s Emily Brooks has rounded up eight outstanding questions about Santos and his history.

▪ The Hill: The Republican Jewish Coalition says Santos is “not welcome” at future events.

▪ Roll Call: Fellow New York Republican calls for Santos ethics investigation.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, on Tuesday ordered the controversial Trump-era Title 42 border policy, which allows border officials to deny migrant asylum claims under a public health emergency, to remain in place. The policy was enacted in spring 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court’s 5-4 ruling comes in response to an emergency request filed by 19 Republican state attorneys general asking to maintain the policy, which was scheduled to expire this week. The Biden administration had been signaling its desire to end the policy, which has drawn fierce criticism from immigration activists, who say Title 42 is cruel and inhumane and no longer relevant as most pandemic restrictions have been lifted (The Hill and Bloomberg News).

“The current border crisis is not a COVID crisis,” Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch said in a dissent. “And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”

▪ The New York Times: What is Title 42?

▪ Reuters: Slipping over the Mexico border, some migrants get the jump on the Supreme Court ruling.

Related Articles

▪ The New York Times: Jan. 6 Committee transcripts shed new light on how former President Trump considered blanket pardons.

▪ The Atlantic: The great big Medicare rip-off. The government is leaving billions of dollars on the table — here’s how to fix it.

▪ Politico: These states tried an Obamacare public option. It hasn’t worked as planned.

▪ The Washington Post: Social Security denies disability benefits based on a list with jobs from 1977.

LEADING THE DAY

➤ MORE POLITICS

The rift became apparent in the weeks after the midterm elections: Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, which includes Fox News, was beginning to turn on Trump, The Hill’s Dominick Mastrangelo reports. Those in media circles and politics have been following the souring relationship closely, given the power of Murdoch’s media outlets — which include The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post — to potentially shape the race for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024. 

“Trump’s superpower is getting all the coverage. That’s not happening anymore. Fox is not covering him 24 hours a day,” Daniel Cassino, a media expert who wrote a 2016 book about Fox’s influence over American politics, told The Hill. “So, it seems that is leading to frustration that he’s not dominating Fox the way he did before.” 

In Arizona, a judge on Tuesday rejected a request to sanction Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake over her lawsuit challenging her loss. Maricopa County and Katie Hobbs (D), acting as both governor-elect and secretary of state, had asked the judge to require Lake and her legal team to pay all parties’ attorneys’ fees, arguing the suit was made in bad faith and groundless (The Hill).

Lake is appealing a judge’s decision to dismiss her lawsuit challenging her midterm defeat (The Hill).

Meanwhile in Michigan, the right-wing extremist who federal authorities say led the failed plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) has been sentenced to 16 years in prison. Adam Fox, 39, who in August was convicted of two conspiracy charges, dodged what could have been a life sentence that federal authorities had sought in the rare domestic terrorism case.

Fox has been identified by federal prosecutors as the “driving force” behind the plan to kidnap Whitmer and start a civil war in the leadup to the 2020 presidential election (The Hill).

ABC News: More than 6,000 children killed, hurt by gunfire in 2022, report shows.

Roughly half of Americans and a large majority of Republicans think the nation’s global influence is weakening, writes The Hill’s Daniel de Visé. A new Pew Research Center analysis shows 47 percent of respondents think the U.S.’s influence on the global stage is declining. The findings may come as a surprise to Democrats who had hoped replacing Trump with President Biden would improve the country’s standing around the world, as well as its national image domestically.

➤ TRANSPORTATION

Holiday travelers across the country have felt the impacts of winter weather and flight cancellations this past week, but Southwest Airlines customers have been hit especially hard. About 87 percent of Tuesday’s U.S. flight cancellations were Southwest, according to flight tracking website FlightAware, which translates to more than 2,500 flights. 

And things may only get worse from here for customers. The airline said Monday that it would operate just one-third of planned flights “for the next several days” in order to salvage its schedule. As The Hill’s Karl Evers-Hillstrom reports, a perfect storm of factors — from reliance on point-to-point service rather than hubs to decades-old communications systems — have contributed to the mass flight outages.

Biden said Tuesday that his administration will hold airlines accountable after flight cancellations snarled travel after Christmas Day, and the Department of Transportation has announced a probe into Southwest’s cancellations, which its own CEO Bob Jordan has described as the “largest scale event that I’ve ever seen” (The Hill and Politico).

▪ The New York Times: Southwest’s debacle, which stranded thousands, will be felt for days.

▪ The Wall Street Journal: Southwest airlines fliers contend with lost luggage along with canceled flights.

IN FOCUS/SHARP TAKES

➤ INTERNATIONAL

Russia on Tuesday announced it would ban oil sales to countries that abide by a Western-imposed price cap, giving a long-awaited response to the most dramatic step taken so far to limit Moscow’s ability to raise funds for its war in Ukraine.

Under the Dec. 5 price cap, oil traders must promise not to pay above $60 per barrel for Russian seaborne oil to retain access to Western financing for global shipping necessities, such as insurance. Russia is the world’s second-largest oil exporter, after Saudi Arabia (The Hill).

Bloomberg News: Germany is confident a key refinery will be fine without Russian oil.

Ukrainian forces are edging closer to Kreminna, a fiercely defended city in the east of the country that could help Kyiv recapture a key region that is currently almost entirely occupied by Russia. Serhiy Haidai, the Ukrainian regional governor of Luhansk, said in a Tuesday post on the Telegram messaging app that “the Russians understand that if they lose Kreminna, their entire line of defense will ‘fall.’” 

Moscow, meanwhile, on Wednesday increased mortar and artillery attacks on recently-liberated Kherson (The New York Times and Reuters).

Ukrainian officials are increasing their calls to establish a special tribunal to criminally prosecute Russian President Vladimir Putin and target the core group of advisers and military officials they say are responsible for carrying out the assault on their country, writes The Hill’s Laura Kelly. But Kyiv has yet to settle on the best way forward, and that raises tricky legal questions of jurisdiction, funding support and political will for Ukraine’s international partners. 

Anton Korynevych, the Ukrainian government’s point person on establishing such a tribunal, told The Hill that Kyiv is working to secure cooperation from the U.S. and European partners on establishing such a court — but said it was “impossible” to determine a timeline.

“There are legal challenges which are obvious. For instance, the issues of immunities, which is the obvious elephant in the room,” Korynevych said. “But I’m sure that all these legal challenges, we’re going to work out, whenever there’s political will to work it out.”

▪ CNN: Despite Putin’s claims, Ukraine peace talks look unlikely in near future.

▪ Reuters: Russia and China hold naval drills, practice submarine capture.

The U.S. has pledged to deploy so much firepower to the Indo-Pacific in 2023 that China won’t even consider invading Taiwan, Politico reports. But lawmakers and allies say it’s already too late.

▪ The New York Times: “Tragic battle”: On the front lines of China’s COVID-19 crisis.

▪ Reuters: The United Nations urges countries to help Rohingya at sea as hundreds land in Indonesia.

OPINION

■ Free and fair voting — or “rigging” elections? Supreme Court will decide, by Michael J. Dell, opinion contributor, The Hill. https://bit.ly/3hVuK7j  

■ Independent voters are more important than ever, by David Hopkins, contributor, Bloomberg Opinion. https://bloom.bg/3WNCuqU

WHERE AND WHEN

👉 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 convene on Tuesday, Jan. 3.

The Senate will convene on Friday at 9:30 a.m.

The president has no public schedule. He and first lady Jill Biden are in St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, with their family.

The vice president has no public schedule.

The first lady is in St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, with the president.

ELSEWHERE

➤ STATE WATCH

Severe weather over Christmas is exposing vulnerabilities in the nation’s electric grid, writes The Hill’s Rachel Frazin. The various outages throughout the country are being caused by a variety of factors — from high power demand to downed power lines from wind as well as power plants going offline or cutting production.

Varun Rai, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told The Hill that because this extreme weather event was so “unprecedented,” the country’s grid system may not have been prepared. 

“To be prepared, en masse, for a country as large and as heterogeneous in terms of weather conditions and human conditions …it’s pretty unprecedented,” Rai said.

Rai added that such extreme conditions “expose the gaps” in the system and inform what can be improved in a system that’s facing limited natural gas supplies and the unpredictability of solar and wind power (Bloomberg News). 

Vox reports how the events over Christmas show how utilities and regulators continue to overestimate the reliability of fossil fuels to deliver power in a winter storm.

Biden on Monday approved New York’s emergency declaration request in response to the winter storm that’s claimed at least 28 lives in its western region (Axios).

▪ The New York Times: “It was just a crying day”: Families mourn for those killed in the storm. 

▪ The Washington Post: Buffalo’s no stranger to snow. Why was the storm so deadly?

▪ Politico: Connecticut used Hurricane Sandy disaster aid to rebuild million-dollar homes.

Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Los Angeles rank among the nation’s 10 “neediest” cities, according to a report by the personal finance website WalletHub, which ranked 182 cities on 28 economic indicators, including child poverty, food insecurity and inadequate kitchens (The Hill).

➤ PANDEMIC & HEALTH 

Vaccine skepticism is on the rise in the U.S., and more than a third of parents with children under 18 — and 28 percent of all adults — now say parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children for measles, mumps and rubella to attend public schools, according to new polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation, even if remaining unvaccinated may create health risks for others.

Jen Kates, a Kaiser senior vice president, told The Washington Post that public sentiments against vaccine mandates have grown significantly since the pandemic. Pre-pandemic, a 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that less than a quarter of parents — and 16 percent of all adults — opposed vaccination requirements.

“The situation about increasing negative sentiment about childhood vaccination is concerning, but in absolute terms, vaccines remain the social norm,” Saad Omer, director of Yale’s Institute for Global Health and an infectious-disease expert who has studied vaccine hesitancy, told the Post.

A report by the global health strategy organization Resolve to Save Lives documented six possible epidemics that weren’t, The New York Times reports. All emerged in developing countries that have some of the most fragile health systems around the globe but show what measures can be taken to prevent a disease outbreak from ravaging communities.

▪ Reuters: COVID-19 vaccine patent battles continue into 2023.

▪ The Hill: FDA recalls blood pressure medication over cancer risks.

Information about COVID-19 vaccine and booster shot availability 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): 1,090,595. Current U.S. COVID-19 deaths are 2,952 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

The Tarantula Nebula star-forming region as captured by the James Webb Space Telescope.

And finally… 🔭 The James Webb Space Telescope, launched on Christmas Day a year ago, is just getting started. The images from the telescope — which, with a primary mirror 21 feet wide, is seven times as powerful as its predecessor, the Hubble Space Telescope — provide scientists with views of the universe no human can see. 

But the pictures are only the first layer of information. Scientists say the telescope is in its early stages of discovery and may very well provide answers to the universe’s most fundamental questions in years and decades to come. 

“The first images were just the beginning,” Nancy Levenson, the temporary director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which runs both Webb and the Hubble, told The New York Times. “More is needed to turn them into real science.”

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!

Putin in crosshairs as Ukraine pushes for prosecuting crime of aggression

Ukrainian officials are increasing their calls to establish a special tribunal to criminally prosecute Russian President Vladimir Putin and target the core group of advisers and military officials they say are responsible for carrying out the assault on their country. 

But Kyiv has yet to settle on the best way forward, and that decision raises tricky legal questions of jurisdiction, as well as funding support and political will from Ukraine’s international partners.

The end goal is to hold Putin accountable for the crime of aggression for invading Ukraine. 

The crime of aggression, which is described by Kyiv as the original sin, has only been prosecuted once, at the Nuremberg Trials in the aftermath of World War II. 

Kyiv hopes to use a special tribunal to bolster other efforts to pursue justice for tens of thousands of alleged war crimes being documented and investigated, including allegations of genocide. 

“The crime of aggression is the alpha and omega of the war,” Andriy Yermak, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said in an address to the U.S. Institute of Peace earlier this month.

“To start a criminal and unprovoked war is to open the door to thousands of crimes committed during hostilities and in the occupied territory,” he added.

Anton Korynevych, the Ukrainian government’s point person on establishing such a tribunal, told The Hill in an interview that Kyiv is working to secure buy-in from the U.S. and European partners on establishing such a court — in whichever form it takes. 

“We had conversations in capitals, in particular concerning the concrete models and options, we heard some feedback which options might be feasible, more efficient,” he said. “I do not want, still, to talk publicly about that.”

Two big issues are establishing a court of jurisdiction, and getting around Putin’s immunity from prosecution as head of state, known as “sovereign immunity.” 

It’s unclear if Ukrainian officials will seek to only go after Putin and other high-ranking officials, or the Russian state as a whole. 

“There are legal challenges which are obvious. For instance, the issues of immunities, which is the obvious elephant in the room,” Korynevych said. “But I’m sure that all these legal challenges, we’re going to work out, whenever there’s political will to work it out.”

Korynevych, who serves as ambassador-at-large for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said it is “impossible” to comment on the timeline of establishing such a court, saying it depends on the “readiness of our partners.” 

Ukraine is looking at three options for establishing a tribunal, he said.

One would be an agreement between Ukraine and the European Union to establish a tribunal in Europe, an idea endorsed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.   

The other two options would involve the United Nations General Assembly, either directing the U.N. secretary-general to enter into an agreement with Ukraine, or endorsing a multilateral treaty between Ukraine and a majority of member states to establish such a court. 

“All the options are on the table,” Korynevych said. “We are discovering, deliberating, trying to find the most feasible one. Whichever option we choose, it will need to get support from as big a majority of states as it will be possible, because obviously for reasons of legitimacy and credibility, such a tribunal must be backed by the international community.” 

Celeste Kmiotek, a staff lawyer at the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project, said that bilateral or multilateral treaties between states establishing an international court, and endorsed by an international body — such as the U.N. or European Union — can help get around sovereign immunity for individuals. 

“That would create a court that would most likely be considered international according to international law, such that Russian leaders, including Putin, would not be subject to personal immunities,” Kmiotek said. 

“This would be focused on the immunities of individual representatives of Russia rather than Russia as a state,” she added.

Supporters of this method say it gets around pitfalls with the International Criminal Court (ICC) that hamper Ukraine from going after Putin and other Russian leaders for the crime of aggression. 

While the ICC has a mandate to investigate the crime of aggression, it does not hold jurisdiction with respect to Russia and Ukraine — both states are not party to the courts founding document, the Rome Statute, nor the Kampala Amendments that established the ICC’s jurisdiction for the crime of aggression.

The ICC is already investigating alleged war crimes committed on Ukrainian territory, as Kyiv has accepted the court’s jurisdiction in this respect.  

And while the United Nations Security Council could vote to task the ICC with investigating the crime of aggression, Russia would block such an effort with its veto.

“There’s a quirk, and that is that the ICC simply cannot exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” David Scheffer, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and who led the U.S. delegation to the U.N. talks that established the ICC, said during the United States Institute of Peace event earlier this month. 

But ICC prosecutor Karim Khan is arguing against a special tribunal, saying the court has the ability to go after high-ranking Russian officials if the focus remains on war crimes and genocide.

It’s unclear where the U.S. falls on such a debate. 

A State Department spokesperson told The Hill that the administration is reviewing proposals for a special tribunal dedicated to the crime of aggression, seeking to “remain in lockstep with Kyiv’s strongest partners as we consider Ukraine’s proposal …  as well as all other options for holding Russia and its leaders to account.”

The U.S. is helping Ukrainian prosecutors investigate war crimes allegations on its territory — an estimated 50,000, according to the prosecutor’s office.

Focusing on those crimes could lead to holding Putin responsible, or other top officials, Beth Van Schaack, ambassador-at-large for Global Criminal Justice, told reporters in a briefing last month. 

“In terms of Putin, we know that there are doctrines that enable criminal responsibility to go all the way up the chain of command. This is the doctrine of superior responsibility,” she said. “I think it’s particularly relevant when we look at the kinds of patterns that we’re seeing of abuses across all areas where Russia’s forces are deployed. These are not the acts of individual units, necessarily.” 

Korynevych said he heard concern from lawmakers in Washington, Paris and Berlin that Ukraine’s push for a special tribunal should not undermine the work of the ICC. 

“We are very clear and frank that we do support the ICC. Our idea to establish a Special Tribunal for crime of aggression is not to impede, is not to hamper, is not to interfere with the ICC, it’s just to complement the International Criminal Court with a mechanism which would work with only one crime, crime of aggression against Ukraine,” he said.

“And in our particular case, in case of aggression against Ukraine, ad hoc tribunal, and it surely should be, not a large number of suspects in such a tribunal.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Eight outstanding questions surrounding George Santos

Rep.-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) is starting to emerge from days of silence following explosive reports in The New York Times and elsewhere detailing key elements of his background he apparently misrepresented.

In various interviews, Santos has admitted to “embellishing” his resume. 

He told the New York Post that he “didn’t graduate from any institution of higher learning” and that it was “poor choice of words” to previously say he worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. He worked for a company called LinkBridge, he said, which did business with both other companies and helped make “capital introductions” through “limited partnerships.”

But questions remain about the influx of personal wealth that he used to fund his campaign, an allegation of check fraud in Brazil that he has denied, his assertion about connections to victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, work with an animal rescue group and his heritage, among other issues.

Santos, who has given only limited statements to the press amid the fallout, did not respond to an email seeking clarification about these points.

These are some of the questions that remain:

Santos’s personal finances

Sizable personal loans from Santos to his campaign alongside a sharp jump in his reported personal wealth have led to questions about how he got his money.

Federal Election Commission filings show Santos loaned his campaign at least $580,000 during his 2022 run and nearly $80,000 during his 2020 run. In total, Santos brought in nearly $3 million from all sources during his 2022 campaign.

Financial disclosure forms filed with the House clerk in 2020 and 2022 show a sizable jump in Santos’s personal wealth during the intervening years. His 2020 financial disclosure said that he made $55,000 from LinkBridge Investors during the previous year and listed no other assets, income or liabilities.

But just two years later, Santos reported bringing in a $750,000 salary from his company, the Devolder Organization. He said in one interview that the loans to his campaign came from that salary.

He also reported holding between $1 million and $5 million in a savings account, between $100,001 and $250,000 in a checking account, and an apartment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, valued between $500,001 and $1,000,000.

Santos formed Devolder in May 2021, according to documents filed with the Florida secretary of state. His campaign website previously said that his company managed $80 million in assets, but that claim has since been removed. The Washington Post reported that financial data company Dun & Bradstreet estimated in July 2022 that Devolder had revenue of only about $43,688. Santos’s disclosures have not revealed any clients.

New York Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres has urged the House Ethics Committee to investigate how Santos made his money.

Rio apartment and property ownership

Santos’s financial disclosure of an apartment valued between $500,001 and $1 million in Rio de Janeiro contradicts his more recent statements that he does not own any property. 

The representative-elect’s previous statements that his family managed 13 properties came under scrutiny from The New York Times, which revealed eviction proceedings against him for unpaid rent.

Santos told the New York Post this week that he does not personally own any properties and currently lives with his sister.

Check fraud allegation in Brazil

The New York Times reported that in 2008 Santos was accused of stealing the checkbook of a man his mother was caring for in Brazil and was charged with making two fraudulent purchases. Santos was 19 at the time.

The report said Santos confessed to the crime but that, according to a local prosecutor and the court in Brazil, the case is unresolved.

Santos has been defiant about the allegation.

“I’m not a criminal. I committed absolutely no crimes. I’m not a wanted criminal in any jurisdiction,” Santos told City & State in an interview.

Connection to Pulse nightclub shooting victims

Santos said in a November WNYC interview that his company at the time “lost four employees” in the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016. A New York Times review found that none of the 49 victims appeared to have worked for any of the firms to which Santos was connected.

In response to a question from former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) on radio station WABC this week, Santos said that no one who died in the Pulse nightclub shooting worked for his company directly but that they were in the process of being hired.

“We did have people who were being hired to work for the company at the time. … We did look for people who were going to be coming to work for the company that I was starting up in Orlando,” Santos said.

It is still unclear which individuals Santos was referring to or if they were indeed in the process of being hired.

Animal rescue charity 

The New York Times investigation found that there is no record of Friends of Pets United, an animal rescue group with which Santos said he was involved, being a tax-exempt organization registered with the IRS. It also said that one person who was supposed to benefit from a fundraiser held by Friends of Pets United never received those funds and that Santos gave excuses for not sending the money.

Santos told City & State in an interview that he was part of a group of people involved in the effort and that he assisted with finding homes for the animals and cleaning up after them.

“I was the guy picking up poop cleaning, getting people doing campaigns online,” Santos said.

He also said that the efforts are being looked into and more on the animal charity is “TBA.” 

Family heritage and Jewish ancestry

Santos’s biography claimed that his maternal grandparents had “fled Jewish persecution in Ukraine, settled in Belgium, and again fled persecution during WWII” before his mother was born in Brazil.

But reports in the Forward, a Jewish publication, and CNN said genealogy records point to his grandparents being born in Brazil before World War II.

Santos told the New York Post this week that his grandmother told stories about being Jewish before converting to Catholicism. He also added he was not Jewish but a practicing Catholic who is “Jew-ish,” with a Jewish background.

And he told WABC that his understanding was that his grandparents were not born in Brazil as genealogy records indicate.

“My grandfather, Ukrainian descent, my grandmother, Belgian. So that’s the story. He goes from Ukraine to Belgium, they go to Brazil,” Santos said.

Earlier this year, Santos spoke at a Republican Jewish Coalition event. The organization has now condemned Santos.

“We are very disappointed in Congressman-elect Santos. He deceived us and misrepresented his heritage. In public comments and to us personally he previously claimed to be Jewish. He has begun his tenure in Congress on a very wrong note. He will not be welcome at any future RCJ event,” Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks said in a statement on Tuesday.

Previous marriage

Uproar about Santos’s background also led to the Daily Beast revealing a previous marriage to a woman. 

Santos was the first openly gay nonincumbent Republican to be elected to the House.

His first marriage ended just 12 days before he started his congressional campaign, the Daily Beast said. Santos also says he is currently married to a man and previously referenced him as a fiancé in campaign materials, but the Daily Beast could not find a record of that marriage. 

Santos addressed his previous marriage with City & State.

“I did marry young and I married a young woman at the time, and we pretty much were in love. And then we weren’t,” Santos said. “I decided after a long time, like many who don’t, to come out and say, ‘I’m gay, and I’m not going to lead you along, and this is toxic, and this relationship isn’t going to work.’ And I set myself free and I set her free.”

How Republican leaders respond

While Democrats have widely called for Santos to resign or not be sworn in, many top Republicans have been silent about his fabrications and embellishments.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did not respond to questions about Santos at the Capitol last week.

A trickle of Republican condemnation is starting to emerge, though.

Nassau County GOP Chairman Joseph Cairo said on Tuesday that he is ”deeply disappointed in Mr. Santos” and expects “more than just a blanket apology.”

Fellow New York Rep.-elect Nick LaLota (R) on Tuesday called for “a full investigation by the House Ethics Committee and, if necessary, law enforcement” into Santos. And Rep.-elect Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) said that Santos’s “fabrications regarding the Holocaust and his family’s history are particularly harmful.”

Santos has said he will not resign.

“I’m not resigning,” Santos told City & State, saying if he has to leave Congress, “it’s going to be by a pink slip by the voters, November of 2024.”

Source: TEST FEED1

How Murdoch’s media empire turned on Trump in 2022 

An increasingly sour relationship between former President Trump, Fox News and the rest of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire that has been building for months has come to a head in the weeks following the midterm elections.  

It is a rift that is being watched closely in political and media circles given the power of Fox News and other media entities owned by Murdoch in potentially shaping the race for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024.  

Trump has already mounted a new run for the presidency, but many of Murdoch’s press outlets are either outright criticizing Trump or flirting with other political leaders.  

And that could hurt Trump’s new bid for the White House, which is already off to a stumbling start amid criticism of him from other Republicans.  

“Trump’s superpower is getting all the coverage. That’s not happening anymore. Fox is not covering him 24 hours a day,” Daniel Cassino, a media expert who wrote a 2016 book about Fox’s influence over American politics, told The Hill earlier this year. “So, it seems that is leading to frustration that he’s not dominating Fox the way he did before.”   

Trump could typically count on several leading hosts at Fox News, and columnists at the New York Post and Wall Street Journal, all owned by Murdoch, during his presidency for supportive or at least sympathetic coverage of his administration and regular attacks on his political enemies.  

But as his first term drew to a close, Trump grew increasingly vocal about his frustrations with Murdoch.  

Things also came to a head on election night 2020 when Fox was the first network to call Arizona for Joe Biden, a decision that infuriated Trump and that led to an effort by officials with his campaign to get Fox to reverse its call.  

After Trump refused to concede, floating unfounded claims about electoral fraud, Murdoch reportedly reached a breaking point with Trump, who complained to the media mogul directly about the Arizona call.

Eventually, Murdoch came to distance himself from Trump in public.  

“It is crucial that conservatives play an active, forceful role in that debate, but that will not happen if President Trump stays focused on the past,” Murdoch said in remarks at an annual meeting of News Corp. stockholders days after the election. “The past is the past, and the country is now in a contest to define the future.”  

Two years later, media and political observers note the tone on Trump from outlets like the Journal and Post has shifted in a big way.  

Murdoch’s outlets in recent months have sent the message that they “see Trump as more of an anchor than a life preserver when it comes to the kind of politics they’d like to see,” said Tobe Berkovitz, associate professor of advertising emeritus at Boston University.  

“They all see that Trump is no longer the lunch bucket for them when it comes to ratings and readership,” Berkovitz said. “Ironically, MSNBC, CNN and some of the mainstream media are riding the Trump pony for all its worth.”  

Fox remains the top-rated network on cable, with one recent study showing it is watched by a larger portion of Democrats and independents than other networks, a byproduct of its outsized audience share.  

“There’s a good chance of Fox News maintaining, regardless of whatever its direct relationship with Trump, the view that its core consumer is one that wants to hear good things about Republicans and bad things about Democrats,” said Josh Pasek, associate professor of communications and media at the University of Michigan. “If you look at what’s on Fox News, it’s a lot of the same stuff that was on Fox News before Trump.”  

Murdoch has made other moves telegraphing an increasingly frosty view of the former president.  

In September of last year, he hired the bombastic British television host Piers Morgan, who has publicly sparred with the former president, to host a show on U.K.-based TalkTV and write regular columns for the Post.  

Fox News also stopped airing Trump rallies and speeches in full after his presidency came to an end. One exception came in November when the former president held an event at Mar-a-Lago announcing a bid for the White House in 2024.  

Also complicating Murdoch’s relationship with Trump is the emergence of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose sweeping gubernatorial victory this year sparked a screaming headline in the print edition of the New York Post the day after the midterms declaring DeSantis ‘DEFUTURE.’ 

Positive coverage of DeSantis in Murdoch’s media seems to be irking Trump.  

In July, the former president slammed Fox’s flagship morning program “Fox & Friends,” saying it had “gone to the dark side” after its hosts talked about a poll showing voters favoring DeSantis over Trump.  

Fox still employs a number of contributors and pundits who were either part of Trump’s administration or closely aligned with the former president, such as Kellyanne Conway, Kayleigh McEnany and Larry Kudlow.  

Some pundits on Fox who’ve been loyal supporters of the former president have stopped short of blaming him for the GOP’s recent string of losses, and instead have expressed frustration with Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. This echoes Trump, who has also criticized GOP leaders such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).  

“We have the same people in place in leadership. The same people in place, apparently, at the RNC [Republican National Committee], perhaps that’s not changing. We just keep doing the same thing over and over again. I’m pissed tonight, frankly. I’m mad,” longtime conservative pundit Laura Ingraham said on her show after Herschel Walker, a Trump-backed Senate candidate, lost in a run-off race to incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock (D).  

Some of the criticism of Trump on Fox has been more direct.   

“He seems to be losing what used to be his iron grip on the GOP, and he still has a hard core of supporters who will follow them regardless, but many of the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020 have been turned off,” Fox Business host Stuart Varney said on his show this month.  

“What this is really showing is that Trump was not using the media as much as the media was using him,” said Yphtach Lelkes, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. “And that he is no longer as useful to these media companies, so they’ve moved on.”  

Trump and Murdoch have feuded before, and Trump could see his political fortunes rise again. That leads some observers to believe the two could set their differences aside if doing so becomes mutually beneficial.  

“Once more candidates jump into the primary fray and split the anti-Trump vote, Trump’s front-runner status will solidify — and Fox News will remember why it crushed on Trump in the first place,” Thomas Gift, an associate professor and the director of the Centre on U.S. Politics at University College London wrote in a recent op-ed for The Hill.com. “The station’s already proven once that it prioritizes dating a winner.” 

Source: TEST FEED1