Categories Uncategorized

White House signals willingness to 'reassess' US-Saudi relations

The Biden administration is rapidly shifting its rhetoric about relations with Saudi Arabia, indicating a willingness to “reassess” what is considered a strategic partnership with the Gulf nation in the wake of a decision by OPEC+, a group of oil producing nations, to cut supply.

Multiple White House officials said Tuesday the president is willing to reevaluate the U.S.-Saudi relationship, a potential repositioning that aligns with growing congressional calls to cut some ties with the kingdom. Officials have not outlined any specific changes that are on the table, nor did they put a timeline on when President Biden might come to a decision about how to execute such a change in policy.

“The president believes it’s time to look at that relationship and make sure it’s serving our interests,” John Kirby, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, told reporters on Tuesday.

Kirby said that Biden has “talked about the need to not be afraid to think anew about this bilateral relationship.” 

“Certainly, in light of recent developments and OPEC+’s decisions about oil production, the president believes that we should review the bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia and take a look to see if that relationship is where it needs to be and that it is serving our national security interests.”

Kirby did not elaborate, saying that he’s not in a position to preview what a reevaluation could look like. He also said that the president is willing to discuss the decision with members of Congress, but such discussions have not yet occurred.

Asked why the administration has zeroed in on Saudi Arabia when it is just one member of the larger OPEC+ coalition who opted in favor of cutting crucial oil supply, Kirby said the Kingdom “clearly… is the leader of that cartel.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that the administration would consult with members of Congress and international allies in the coming weeks and months, though she would not put a definitive timeline of any review of the relationship. She also wouldn’t say who will be leading the review, but said it will be an effort across the White House. 

“From the beginning, we have said we need to kind of reassess and have a different relationship with Saudi Arabia, especially after the decision made by OPEC+,” Jean-Pierre said, adding that the OPEC+ decision was “self-serving.”

Biden has not personally commented on whether he supports fundamentally altering or cutting ties with Saudi Arabia, but the president will be interviewed Tuesday by CNN’s Jake Tapper and could be asked about the situation then.

Much of the fallout stems from an announcement by OPEC+ to cut oil production by 2 million barrels per day at a time when rising gas prices are a top concern for many voters leading into the midterms. Administration officials also viewed the decision as strengthening Russia’s hand as the U.S. and allies are trying to isolate Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.

Last week, top White House economic official Brian Deese told reporters he did not have anything to announce about a potential shift in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, underscoring how the administration’s rhetoric has changed in a short time. 

The OPEC+ announcement last week has reignited calls from congressional Democrats for the U.S. to rethink its relationship with Saudi Arabia, specifically when it comes to weapons and defense technology sales.

And, members of Congress are pushing to pass the “NOPEC” bill, which would allow the Justice Department to bring lawsuits against the OPEC+ countries and their state-owned oil companies under U.S. antitrust laws.   

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign relations Committee, called Monday for freezing U.S. cooperation with Saudi Arabia. 

Kirby said he was not aware of any kind of heads up from Menendez to the White House about his move, but said Biden will talk to lawmakers about next steps towards the Saudis.

“He’s gonna take seriously the words of taking a look at this relationship as well as taking seriously the concerns by members of Congress,” Kirby said.

Biden traveled in July to Saudi Arabia, where he met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The trip was a source of controversy given Biden vowed to make Saudi Arabia a pariah during the 2020 presidential election following the 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and it came at a time when gas prices in the U.S. had surged.

Biden defended the trip after the OPEC+ announcement, saying the visit was “not essentially for oil. The trip was about the Middle East and about Israel and rationalization of positions.”

“But it is a disappointment, and it says that there are problems,” Biden said last week.

Source: TEST FEED1

DOJ asks SCOTUS to reject Trump plea for intervention on special master

The Justice Department on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to reject former President Trump’s plea to intervene in his legal battle and allow the special master to review the classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s request to the high court comes after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department, siphoning off some 100 classified records from the third party special master review of the document seized from his Florida home.

The motion from Trump largely hinged on procedural grounds, arguing the appeals court erred by granting a stay of a challenge to a Florida judge’s ruling appointing the special master that barred DOJ from accessing the classified records for its investigation.

But the Justice Department on Tuesday swiped back at Trump, arguing his legal team had done little to justify the need for the court’s intervention as he failed to show he would be harmed without their action.

Trump’s filing last week doesn’t seek to block DOJ from investigating the classified records, and instead would allow the ongoing special master review to include those 100 documents – a move that would offer limited benefit to the former president.

DOJ wrote that the 11th Circuit had jurisdiction to review the case of a lower court in its entirety.

“It follows that the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the entire order — including the portion directing that a ‘special master shall be appointed to review the seized property,’” they wrote.

The Justice Department also said Trump’s own actions before the 11th Circuit undercut his case. Trump’s legal team opposed a motion from DOJ seeking to expedite its case challenging the appointment of a special master.

“Indeed, because applicant has no plausible claims of ownership of or privilege in the documents bearing classification markings, he will suffer no harm at all from a temporary stay of the special master’s review of those materials while the government’s appeal proceeds. And applicant further undermined any claim that he is suffering irreparable injury from the stay by opposing the government’s motion to expedite the underlying appeal and urging that oral argument be deferred until ‘January 2023 or later,’” DOJ wrote.

Trump’s lawyers last week argued that the federal appeals court erred by allowing the Justice Department to appeal a move that was procedural in nature.

“Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit granted a stay of the Special Master Order, effectively compromising the integrity of the well-established policy against piecemeal appellate review and ignoring the District Court’s broad discretion without justification,” they wrote. “This unwarranted stay should be vacated as it impairs substantially the ongoing, time-sensitive work of the Special Master.”

The latest news comes after the 11th Circuit sided with the DOJ, agreeing to an expedited schedule as the Justice Department appeals a decision from federal district court Judge Aileen Cannon, who sided with Trump in appointing a special master to review the evidence collected at Mar-a-Lago.

While Trump has claimed some of the records from his presidency are either his personal property or protected by executive privilege, the DOJ has argued that former presidents are unable to assert executive privilege and that any presidential records created under Trump must be managed by the National Archives.

The Justice Department’s brief before the 11th Circuit is due Friday.

Updated 5:08 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden calls Putin a ‘rational actor who has miscalculated significantly’

President Biden called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “rational actor,” but said he miscalculated with his decision to invade Ukraine.

“I think he is a rational actor who has miscalculated significantly,” Biden told CNN’s Jake Tapper, according to an excerpt released ahead of an interview that will air on Tuesday. 

The president also called Putin’s speech just before Russian launched its invasion in February as irrational.

“You listen to what he says. If you listen to the speech he made…I mean, it’s just, I just think it’s irrational,” Biden said. “I think the speech, his objectives were not rational. I think he thought…he was going to be welcomed with open arms, that this was the home of Mother Russia in Kyiv, and that where he was going to be welcomed, and I think he just totally miscalculated.”

His comments come as Putin has launched dozens of missiles that landed in cities across Ukraine, including Kyiv, since Monday. 

Before the CNN interview on Tuesday, Biden met with Group of 7 leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The president and allies vowed in the virtual meeting to hold Russia accountable if it follows through on threats to use nuclear weapons amid the war in Ukraine 

Source: TEST FEED1

Archives pushes back on Trump claims that other presidents mishandled records

The National Archives, without naming former President Trump, pushed back Tuesday on claims he made over the weekend that other past presidents had mishandled their White House records with the help of the agency.

Trump had previously claimed his predecessor, former President Obama, had mishandled his own records, but expanded that claim during rallies in Arizona and New Mexico to include several prior presidents, including Republicans.

At one point Trump even claimed, without evidence, that records from President George H.W. Bush’s administration were stored in a Chinese restaurant and a bowling alley “with no security and a broken front door.”

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) said Tuesday that while records are transported to president’s libraries, any temporary storage has “met strict archival and security standards, and have been managed and staffed exclusively by NARA employees.” It added that any insinuations that records were stored in substandard conditions “are false and misleading.”

At another point during the rallies Trump also accused former President Clinton of losing nuclear codes and said that he kept classified recordings in his sock. While Clinton did store some tapes in his sock drawer while serving as president, he did not leave office with the recordings in tow.

The statement from Archives is the second in less than a month to address how it handles records as Trump makes a number of false claims about other presidents’ record handling amid legal trouble of his own.

During an Aug. 8 search of his Mar-a-Lago home, the FBI seized more than 100 classified records stored there along, with more than 10,000 government records.

The Archives noted that other presidents have not taken records, but rather coordinated with the agency to have relevant materials transported to their presidential library.

“The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, assumed physical and legal custody of the Presidential records from the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, when those Presidents left office,” the agency said Tuesday.

“NARA securely moved these records to temporary facilities that NARA leased from the General Services Administration (GSA), near the locations of the future Presidential Libraries that former Presidents built for NARA.”

Archives in September similarly explained the process for transporting Obama’s records following accusations from Trump his records were mishandled.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House press secretary shares her story for National Coming Out Day

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Tuesday shared her own story of coming out in recognition of National Coming Out Day, urging other Americans not to feel discouraged.

“Like so many in the LGBTQ+ community, coming out wasn’t an easy thing to do. My family was traditional and conservative. Being gay in my family wasn’t something that you mentioned out loud or celebrated,” Jean-Pierre said at the start of the White House press briefing.

“But my family, like many families, grew to accept who I was. Who I loved didn’t change who I was as a person. It didn’t change the things I liked to do, and it didn’t change the goals I had for my life,” she continued. “The beauty of America is its freedom and the promise that you can do anything you want regardless of your race, sex, country of origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Jean-Pierre expressed her appreciation for President Biden and first lady Jill Biden for being supportive of the LGBTQ+ community.

Jean-Pierre is the first openly gay woman and the first Black woman to serve as White House press secretary. She took over the role in May for Jen Psaki.

Tuesday marked National Coming Out Day, which was started more than 30 years ago in support of members of the LGBTQ+ community who have come out about their sexual orientation or who are struggling with the process of coming out.

“I celebrate our LGBTQI+ community this National Coming Out Day. Never doubt that you are loved and appreciated for being exactly who you are,” Vice President Harris tweeted.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why a big Social Security COLA hike is coming 

The Social Security Administration is about to announce its largest annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increase in 40 years.  

The hike, set to be announced on Thursday, is estimated at around 8.7 percent and will help those in the program meet rising costs driven by inflation. 

Between 2010 and 2020, average annual COLAs increased by just 1.7 percent each year, while COLAs have only risen above 8.7 percent three times — between 1979 and 1981 at 9.9 percent, 14.3 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively.  

The COLAs are based on the country’s current inflation rates. In 1980, inflation was above 14 percent yet declined to 3.5 percent in the latter half of the decade; the COLA followed suit, declining to 5.4 percent in 1990.  

Around 70 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. It is estimated that the COLA hike will increase the average monthly retiree check by around $144, according to the Senior Citizens League, a bipartisan advocacy group. 

How is the COLA rate determined? 

The automatic annual adjustments are based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) and have taken place every year since 1975. Prior to that, adjustments were approved by Congress.  

Because the CPI-W is such a broad measure of consumer prices, some have questioned whether the index is the best metric to determine beneficiaries’ needs, the majority of whom are retirees.  

The CPI-W is based on price changes for goods and services purchased by workers. Some experts have proposed replacing replacing the CPI-W with a different measure: the CPI-Elderly. But the CPI-E, which reflects spending patterns of the elderly, would not always result in a higher COLA. The difference between the two measures has also been shrinking in recent years. 

The annual adjustment has received criticism in the past for the lag period between the start of rising inflation and when beneficiaries receive the cushion payments. Others argue the automatic adjustment can result in COLAs larger than the rate of inflation.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

The purpose of the adjustments is to ensure Social Security beneficiaries retain buying power during times of inflation, so individuals with fixed incomes can keep up with rising rents, mortgages and grocery costs.  

However, the large COLA might push some recipients over an income threshold, requiring them to pay income taxes on part of their benefit. Single filers who have a combined income equal to or below $25,000 pay no taxes on their benefits. For joint filers, the threshold is $32,000. 

The majority of Social Security benefits is funded through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. Should a recession hit and unemployment rates rise, it could affect future COLAs. Following the 2008 recession, no COLAs were paid in 2010 and 2011.  

Why is it needed? 

The simple reason that a big COLA increase is needed now is the record inflation being experienced in the nation.  

“It’s the highest rate of inflation that retirees and disabled people today have really ever seen,” said Mary Johnson, a Social Security and Medicare policy analyst at The Senior Citizens League. 

The majority of Social Security beneficiaries are retirees and individuals aged 65 or older. 

“When people are retired, if they do not have much in the way of savings—and quite a large percentage don’t—that can make it very difficult when prices increase and they have nowhere to go to meet those rising costs,” Johnson said.  

Data from July show more than half of older women living alone are poor according to federal poverty standards or don’t have enough money to afford essential expenses. That total is lower for men, at 45 percent. 

A large proportion of older beneficiaries’ Social Security payments goes toward health care, housing and food costs.  

Because many medical problems worsen with age, increased costs of care put a strain on retirees’ purse strings.  

In general, older individuals tend to have higher health care utilization rates, while around two-thirds of older Americans consider health care costs a financial burden. 

Although more than 50 million older adults rely on Medicare to cover some or all of their health care expenses, the extra COLA cash coming in each month may not be sufficient to meet retirees’ expenses. 

“Social Security COLA will cushion the impact of inflation and put more money in seniors’ pockets. That’s not to say some won’t continue to struggle,” said Tricia Neuman, the executive director of the Medicare policy program at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

“Half of all people in Medicare live on incomes below about $30,000 per person. So even with a COLA that’s higher than normal this year, they may continue to struggle with high and rising prices for various things they need on a day-to-day basis, like gas for their cars, rent, food, and other basics, and of course healthcare expenses.”  

Medicare Part B premiums are deducted from Social Security checks, and this year, older beneficiaries on Medicare will see additional financial relief alongside the high COLA.

This is thanks to low uptake of the controversial and expensive Alzheimer’s drug aduhelm, which will lead to lower premiums for beneficiaries.  

Typically, Part B premiums have grown three times faster than the Social Security COLA and marks one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing costs in retirement, Johnson said.  

Older Americans struggling to pay for high drug prices will also see some respite due to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which requires Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower prices. It puts a cap on out-of-pocket drug costs starting in 2025 and a $35 monthly cap on insulin prices beginning in 2023.  

“But much of that is still to be phased in,” Johnson said. “The price negotiation is going to be only on a limited set of drugs. So there’s still a considerable amount of out-of-pocket spending that older Americans will probably have to encounter for prescription drugs.” 

“The COLA this year should help but doesn’t address more fundamental concerns for seniors living at or near the poverty level, which include a disproportionate share of people of color,” Neuman said.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Musk denies he talked to Putin ahead of controversial tweet

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is denying claims by Ian Bremmer, president of political risk research firm Eurasia Group, that he spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin before posting a controversial tweet implying that Ukraine should not retake more land from Russia than it has lost this year.

Musk had a “direct conversation” with Putin about the war, Bremmer wrote in a newsletter on Monday, and is convinced that the Russian dictator will use nuclear weapons against Ukraine if the smaller country does not back down.

Bremmer, a well-known foreign policy analyst, wrote that he had spoken to Musk two weeks ago and that Musk had told him of the conversation with Putin.

But a short time after a news story in Vice News about Bremmer’s newsletter was published, Musk tweeted a denial of the claims.

“I have spoken to Putin only once and that was about 18 months ago. The subject matter was space,” wrote Musk.

Bremmer said Putin told Musk he would accomplish certain goals “no matter what,” including Russia’s continued possession of Crimea, Ukraine’s acceptance of a formal status of neutrality, and Ukraine’s recognition of Putin’s annexations of Luhansk and Donetsk and control of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

Putin held widely contested referendums in late September to establish support by the residents of eastern regions of Ukraine for Russia’s annexation of the territory.

According to Bremmer, Musk told him that “everything needed to be done to avoid” a nuclear strike on Ukraine, which Putin allegedly said would occur if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky invaded Crimea.

The political scientist also accused Musk of disseminating “disinformation” about Ukraine when he said that some eastern regions of Ukraine “have Russian majorities and prefer Russia” and thus might legitimately vote to be annexed by Russia.

Musk added that “most of Ukraine unequivocally wants to be part of Ukraine,” including the areas that Russia invaded.

“I wasn’t planning on writing about this, but now that Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has gone public with his views on Russia/Ukraine, it feels important to write about what’s happening,” wrote Bremmer of the claims in his newsletter.

Source: TEST FEED1

Jordan signals Judiciary focus on school board memo under GOP rule

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has asked the Department of Justice to preserve documents tied to its school board directive, a sign of how House Judiciary Committee Republicans will direct their energy if the GOP regains control of the House.

Attorney General Merrick Garland signed the memo in October of last year, noting a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff” amid broader discussion over COVID-19 policies and how issues like race and gender are addressed at school.

The memo largely encouraged coordination, asking the FBI to convene meetings with local law enforcement in the following 30 days to discuss how to respond to threats of violence.

Though little resulted from the memo, Republicans have remained laser-focused on the directive, with House Judiciary Republicans by their own count sending more than 100 letters to the Justice Department on the matter.

In a Tuesday letter to Garland obtained by The Hill, Jordan, the panel’s ranking member, said the “anti-parent directive remains in effect, and as a result, the threat of federal law enforcement continues to chill the First Amendment rights of American parents.”

He asked the Justice Department to preserve any documents related to the numerous requests they’ve sent for information — a common request from minority leadership without subpoena power.

Jordan said that in response to the more than 100 requests, the Republicans had gotten just “two half-page letters” and no documents.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Jordan has repeatedly called the memo part of a “case study” for how the committee views its oversight role.

It would be one of a number of probes where Republicans have vowed to up the ante if they take over the House, along with a focus on the border, the Afghanistan withdrawal and Hunter Biden.

The memo has been a headache for the Justice Department and the National School Boards Association since shortly after its release.

The group sent a letter to the White House the week before Garland’s memo was released, laying out a spate of incidents at recent school board meetings, noting that some threats “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

The ensuing political storm caused the National School Boards Association to issue a statement saying its members “regret and apologize for the letter.”

“There was no justification for some of the language included in the letter. We should have had a better process in place to allow for consultation on a communication of this significance,” the group wrote later that month.

Jordan has suggested without evidence that the Biden administration coordinated with the National School Boards Association to craft the policy, accusing them during a recent Fox News appearance of encouraging a “pretext to go after parents.”

The initial letter from the National School Boards Association references a meeting with the White House and the Department of Education, and asks for the Justice Department to review whether the threats may violate a number of different federal laws.

The Justice Department memo fell far short of what the group was asking for, however, stressing “coordination and partnership” with local law enforcement over any legal review.

But Jordan’s letter said the Justice Department’s response has not “alleviate[d] our concerns.”

“We intend to continue to pursue this serious misuse of federal law-enforcement resources,” Jordan wrote.

While Jordan has said the policy has a chilling effect on free speech, a D.C.-based federal judge last month dismissed a suit from parents in Michigan and Virginia, saying the memo does not impact constitutionally protected conduct.

“The alleged AG Policy is not regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature because it does not impose any regulations, requirements, or enforcement actions on individuals. None of the documents that the plaintiffs allege establish the policy create an imminent threat of future legal actions against anyone, much less the plaintiffs,” Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in the September opinion.

“The Attorney General’s memorandum does not apply to the plaintiffs’ activities, and even if it did, the policy does not label anyone a domestic terrorist, as the plaintiffs suggest,” Friedrich added.

This story was updated at 1:51 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Millions of low-income Americans still eligible for COVID stimulus, watchdog says

As many as 10 million people may still be entitled to receive a COVID-19 stimulus payment, the government’s internal watchdog said Tuesday.

Americans with little or no income, who are not required to pay taxes, have until Nov. 15 to complete a simplified tax return in order to get their stimulus checks, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a blog post.

“Throughout the pandemic, IRS and Treasury struggled to get COVID-relief payments into the hands of some people — especially those with lower-incomes, limited internet access, or experiencing homelessness. Based on IRS and Treasury data, there could be between 9-10 million eligible individuals who have not yet received those payments,” the agency said.

The GAO found that people who don’t have to file tax returns, first-time filers, mixed immigrant status families and people experiencing homelessness were among those likely not to have received a payment owed to them.

Over the course of several payments delivered through legislation enacted under both the Trump and Biden administrations, $931 billion went out to Americans to help with the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

However, the GAO described this process as “challenging for the IRS and Treasury.”

Many in the tax world have come to the defense of the IRS over the course of the pandemic, saying it was beyond the call of duty for a tax collection agency to become the primary administrator of emergency economic stimulus payments.

Still, the added duties for the IRS have led to a backlog of tens of millions of unprocessed tax returns and unanswered phone calls that have left millions of Americans waiting for their annual refunds.

The extra pressure may also have resulted in the stimulus delivery shortage for up to 10 million Americans.

“Part of the challenge for the IRS and Treasury in 2020 was they only had data on taxpayers that had previously filed taxes,” the GAO said. “In May 2021, the Treasury Inspector General identified potentially 10 million individuals eligible for payments. As of June, IRS had no plans to conduct additional outreach.”

A recent spending package from Democrats is set to give the IRS its biggest funding boost in decades, with $80 billion going to the agency in the next 10 years.

While more than half of that will go toward increased enforcement efforts like audits, around $33 billion will go toward operational support, services for payers and systems modernization.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kirby: Biden willing to reevaluate relationship with Saudi Arabia 'right away'

White House national security spokesman John Kirby on Tuesday said President Biden is willing to immediately begin reevaluating the U.S.-Saudi alliance after the country and its oil-exporting allies announced production cuts of 2 million barrels per day.

The White House expressed disappointment after the announcement from OPEC+, which is comprised of the 13 OPEC nations and 11 nonmembers including Russia, and some Democratic lawmakers have since called for freezing American arms sales and military support to Saudi Arabia.

“I think the timeline is now, and I think he’s going to be willing to start to have those conversations right away,” Kirby told CNN’s Brianna Keilar on “New Day” of Biden’s plans to reevaluate the relationship.

The OPEC+ cut will reduce global oil supply by about 2 percent, putting upward pressure on gasoline and energy prices that are already elevated and contribute to high inflation. Those high prices have caused headaches as the winter approaches and residents increase demand by turning on their heating systems, especially in Europe.

“I don’t think this is anything that’s going to have to wait, or should wait quite frankly, for much longer,” Kirby continued. “You mention the winter coming, clearly that’s a factor here, but more importantly for the president, it’s really about our own national security.”

The U.S. has sold weapons to Saudi Arabia and stationed U.S. troops in the country for years. 

The longstanding military alliance has persisted through what has at times been a rocky relationship, including after the 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi. 

U.S. intelligence concluded Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman approved his killing, leading to an outcry from human rights advocates and Biden, who during his 2020 campaign said he would make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state.

But weeks after average gas prices peaked at more than $5 per gallon nationwide, Biden reversed course in July and traveled to Saudi Arabia to appeal to the crown prince. Saudi Arabia and its OPEC+ allies subsequently announced small oil production increases before implementing the latest cut.

“I think the president’s been very clear that this is a relationship that we need to continue to reevaluate, that we need to be willing to to revisit,” Kirby said on CNN. “And certainly in light of the OPEC decision, I think that’s where he is, and he’s willing to work with Congress to think through what that relationship ought to look like going forward.”

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Monday called for a freezing of U.S. cooperation with the Saudis, including arms sales and security assistance.

Menendez’s statement came one day after two other Democratic lawmakers, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.), similarly called for the U.S. to suspend its arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Source: TEST FEED1