Tag Archives: Biden administration

Biden administration finalizes new rule tightening regulations on gun stabilizing braces

The Biden administration has finalized a new rule to tighten restrictions on stabilizing braces for firearms that can convert pistols into rifles. 

The Justice Department said in a release on Friday that it submitted its rule to the Federal Register, clarifying that manufacturers, dealers and individuals must comply with laws regulating rifles when they use stabilizing braces to convert pistols to rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, which are known as short-barreled rifles. 

The release states that Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to address stabilizing braces in April 2021. 

“Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements,” Garland said in the release. “Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.” 

The release states the National Firearms Act has placed certain restrictions on short-barreled rifles since the 1930s because they are easier to conceal than long-barreled rifles and have more destructive power than traditional handguns. 

The increased requirements include background checks for all transfers and additional taxation. 

“This rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago,” ATF Director Steven Dettelbach said. “In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns.” 

But Dettelbach said the stabilizing braces are designed to attach to a pistol to convert it to a short-barreled rifle to be fired from the shoulder. 

The release states that the rule allows a 120-day period for manufacturers, dealers and individuals to register any existing short-barreled rifles covered by the rule tax-free. They can also remove the stabilizing brace to restore the firearm to be a pistol, or turn over the converted short-barreled rifles to the ATF. 

The release notes that stabilizing braces are not banned under the rule, only that certain restrictions must apply when they are used to convert the pistols. 

The Justice Department initially proposed the rule in June 2021, and the ATF received more than 237,000 comments during the 90-day public comment period. 

The rule will go into effect on the date that the Federal Register publishes it, which Reuters reported will likely be next week.

Read original article here

Mike Lee, Title 42 drama holds up omnibus passage

An effort led by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to maintain Title 42 is threatening efforts to pass a sweeping government funding bill before a shutdown deadline later this week.

Congressional negotiators on both sides say the biggest holdup is ongoing negotiations to decide what the voting threshold would be to pass the amendment.

Lee’s amendment to the bipartisan deal would cut funding for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s office unless the Biden administration reinstates the border control policy known as Title 42, a Trump-era policy that allows for migrants to be quickly expelled at the border without asylum processing.

The administration may not be able to fully reinstate the policy, as its permanence is currently under review by the Supreme Court, after having been found illegal by a federal judge.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, took aim at the push, while raising concerns about its chances of passing a Democratic-led House.  

“We have a difference of opinion on immigration policy. We’re not going to solve that in this budget,” he told reporters late Wednesday. “And to let that disagreement take down aid to Ukraine to keep people alive during a cold winter, especially tonight, is pretty unthinkable.”

The hold-up scuttled tentative hopes the Senate would be able to vote on the government funding bill overnight, though late Wednesday Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said he thought the chamber may be able to move forward on the bill Thursday morning.

“There’s been some progress made. … I wouldn’t say breakthrough yet,” he said.

Title 42 was due to end Wednesday, but a group of GOP-led states successfully got Chief Justice John Roberts to delay that sunset on Monday.

On Tuesday, the Biden administration, which had appealed the federal judge’s order to end Title 42, asked Roberts to go ahead with ending the policy, which was based on an expired public health order issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Title 42 was originally put in place in 2020 by the Trump administration under the guise of pandemic public health protections, but subsequent reports have revealed that the CDC was pressured politically to issue the public health order by then-White House advisor Stephen Miller.

Under the policy, many migrants who arrive at the border can be summarily expelled without being screened for asylum claims.

U.S. officials have carried out around 2.5 million expulsions under the policy, nearly two million of which have been carried out by the Biden administration.

While Title 42 allowed for speedy expulsions, the regular border protocol known as Title 8 allows for expedited removals of certain migrants, and also allows for border officials to refer migrants for criminal prosecution for repeat illegal entries.

The Biden administration had staunchly implemented and defended Title 42 until Tuesday, when it asked Roberts to lift his stay, but Republicans have nonetheless consistently used the policy to attack the administration.

A Senate Democratic aide said conversations are still ongoing with Republicans, while claiming Lee’s “goal is to kill” the omnibus amid speculation such an amendment couldn’t pass the House.

Lee’s latest push comes as Republicans have once again pulled attention to the border, and as Lee and a group of Senate Republicans look to sidetrack the long term budget deal.

GOP backers behind the push say the delay is necessary to allow the incoming GOP-led House more sway in government funding talks. However, there are many Republicans in the Senate who are pushing instead for Congress to pass an omnibus before year’s end, citing concerns about funding for areas like defense. 

Updated at 10:58 p.m.

Read original article here

Biden official tells Congress Ukraine could take back Crimea: report

A Biden administration official told several members of Congress at a briefing last month that Ukraine now has the military capability to retake Crimea from Russia, NBC News reported on Friday.

The official was reportedly asked whether Ukraine would try to retake the peninsula, which Russia has held since 2014, and responded that it has the ability to do so. 

However, another U.S. official told NBC that they do not believe a Ukrainian offensive in Crimea is imminent.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has previously indicated that he hopes to take back the Crimean Peninsula, in addition the four Ukrainian regions that Russian President Vladimir Putin formally annexed earlier this year.

“We will definitely liberate Crimea,” Zelensky said in a late October address, adding, “The return of the Ukrainian flag to Crimea is the return of the normality familiar to all Europeans, as it is available in each of your countries.”

Zelensky’s remarks came in the wake of a series of Ukrainian successes on the battlefield, particularly in the annexed regions.

However, another U.S. official warned that a Ukrainian effort in Crimea could trigger Putin to use nuclear weapons, as he has previously threatened to do, according to NBC.

Russia launched another barrage of missile strikes at Ukraine on Friday, killing at least two people in a residential building in the central city of Kryvyi Rih and knocking out power to the northeastern city of Kharkiv. Ukraine’s capital city of Kyiv was also targeted.

The strikes follow Russia’s warning to the U.S. on Thursday that the delivery of the Patriot air defense system to Ukraine would be viewed as “provocative.” The U.S. is reportedly considering sending the advanced weapons system to Ukraine to help the nation fend off Russian air strikes.

Read original article here

Biden accepts resignation of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus

Washington — President Biden on Saturday accepted the resignation of his administration’s Senate-confirmed Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, Chris Magnus, who had been asked to step down by Department of Homeland Security leaders frustrated with his leadership.

In a brief resignation letter to Mr. Biden, Magnus, who had earned a reputation as a progressive law enforcement reformer while serving as police chief in Tucson, Arizona, Richmond, California, and Fargo, North Dakota, said it had been a “privilege and honor” to serve in the administration.

“I am submitting my resignation effective immediately but wish you and your administration the very best going forward. Thank you again for this tremendous opportunity,” Magnus wrote.

FILE — Chris Magnus, then nominee for commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, speaks during a Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office building in Washington D.C. on Oct. 19, 2021.

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 19: Chris Magnus, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection nominee for U.S. President Joe Biden, speaks during a Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office building in Washington DC on Oct


White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed the president had accepted Magnus’ resignation, which marks one of the most high-profile departures of the Biden administration, and will again leave the largest federal law enforcement agency without Senate-confirmed leadership.

“President Biden appreciates Commissioner Magnus’ nearly forty years of service and the contributions he made to police reform during his tenure as police chief in three U.S. cities,” Jean-Pierre said in her statement. “The President thanks Mr. Magnus for his service at CBP and wishes him well.”

Magnus’ resignation comes just a day after it was revealed that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had lost confidence in his ability to lead CBP at a time when the agency has struggled to respond to record numbers of migrant apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Magnus, however, indicated to several news outlets on Friday that he had no intention of resigning, saying he was focused on reforming CBP, which for years has attracted progressive criticism over its treatment of migrants and asylum-seekers.

Prior to the internal clash becoming public, Magnus had already been sidelined at CBP, with Troy Miller, a career official, charged with leading day-to-day operations at the agency, according to a senior DHS official who requested anonymity to discuss internal matters.

While there were several concerns among DHS leaders about Magnus and his ability to lead CBP, the senior department official cited Magnus’ fraught relationship with Border Patrol, the agency responsible for apprehending and processing migrants who cross into the U.S. unlawfully.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times on Friday, Magnus defended his leadership, saying his attempts to reform Border Patrol were met with resistance.

“At one point, it became so clear to me that some in the top leadership at DHS did not understand what reform even looked like within a law enforcement organization,” Magnus told the newspaper.

In a message late Saturday notifying CBP employees that Magnus had left the department, Mayorkas said that Miller, the career agency official, would become acting commissioner, a position he previously held during the early days of the Biden administration. 

“We are thankful to Commissioner Magnus for his contributions over the past year and wish him well,” Mayorkas said in the message obtained by CBS News.

With more 60,000 employees, CBP is responsible for stopping migrants who enter the U.S. illegally, facilitating legal trade and travel, preventing illicit drugs and goods from entering the country and disrupting terrorists plots.

Over the past two years, the agency’s resources have been severely strained by a sharp increase in unauthorized migration along the southern border. In fiscal year 2022, a 12-month period that ended on Sept. 30, CBP officials along the Mexican border processed migrants nearly 2.4 million times, an all-time high.

The record high tally included a significant number of repeat crossings by migrants expelled to Mexico, as well as over 1 million rapid expulsions of migrants processed under a Trump-era public health restriction known as Title 42. But the unprecedented migration episode has nevertheless posed dire humanitarian and operational challenges for CBP, as well as a political headache for Mr. Biden’s administration.

Republican lawmakers have faulted the Biden administration for the migrant crisis, saying harsher Trump administration policies reversed over the past two years should be reinstated to deter migrants from coming to the U.S.

While migration flows can be influenced by U.S. policy, or perceptions of it, pandemic-era economic woes in Latin America, a mass exodus from countries like Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua with authoritarian governments and labor demands in the U.S. have also contributed to the unprecedented number of migrant arrivals along the U.S. border in recent months.

In an interview with CBS News in August, Magnus said crises across the globe had been prompting desperate migrants to journey to the U.S. border in record numbers.

“There’s unprecedented levels of cartel and gang violence in other countries, political upheaval. People are at real risk. Some of them really (face) such danger for their families, themselves, that they see no alternative but to flee,” he said.

Read original article here

Appeals court temporarily pauses student loan forgiveness plan

A federal appeals court Friday is blocking President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay in response to an emergency motion brought by attorneys for several Republican-led states after a lower court ruled that their September lawsuit to stop the debt forgiveness program lacked standing.

In their appeal, the plaintiffs — which include Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina and Arkansas — said the forgiveness program will irreparably harm their states’ student loan programs.

“Missouri is harmed from the financial losses that the cancellation inflicts,” the motion read.  

They stay is not based on the merits, but allows for further briefings on the issue next week.

This also comes after the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday declined an emergency appeal by a group of Wisconsin taxpayers who had also challenged the plan in a separate lawsuit.

President Biden announced in August that his administration is canceling up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of Americans. Nearly 20 million people will be eligible to have their debt fully canceled under the new plan.


Biden touts student loan forgiveness program ahead of midterm election

04:12

Borrowers who received Pell Grants, which are for low- and middle-income families, can get as much as $20,000 in debt forgiven, while other borrowers can get relief of up to $10,000.

Only individuals who earned less than $125,000 in 2020 or 2021 and married couples with total annual income below $250,000 are eligible for loan relief under the program.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education formally launched its debt relief application website. It’s unclear how Friday’s ruling will affect the site or the application process. However, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Friday evening that the “temporary order does not prevent borrowers from applying for student debt relief.”

“It also does not prevent us from reviewing these applications and preparing them for transmission to loan servicers,” Jean-Pierre  said. “It is also important to note that the order does not reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the case, or suggest that the case has merit. It merely prevents debt from being discharged until the court makes a decision.”

U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona reiterated that sentiment in his own statement, saying: “today’s temporary decision does not stop the Biden Administration’s efforts to provide borrowers the opportunity to apply for debt relief, nor does it prevent us from reviewing the millions of applications we have received.”

— Robert Legare contributed reporting. 

Read original article here

Appeals court temporarily pauses student loan forgiveness plan

A federal appeals court Friday is blocking President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay in response to an emergency motion brought by attorneys for several Republican-led states after a lower court ruled that their September lawsuit to stop the debt forgiveness program lacked standing.

In their appeal, the plaintiffs — which include Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina and Arkansas — said the forgiveness program will irreparably harm their states’ student loan programs.

“Missouri is harmed from the financial losses that the cancellation inflicts,” the motion read.  

They stay is not based on the merits, but allows for further briefings on the issue next week.

This also comes after the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday declined an emergency appeal by a group of Wisconsin taxpayers who had also challenged the plan in a separate lawsuit.

President Biden announced in August that his administration is canceling up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of Americans. Nearly 20 million people will be eligible to have their debt fully canceled under the new plan.


Biden touts student loan forgiveness program ahead of midterm election

04:12

Borrowers who received Pell Grants, which are for low- and middle-income families, can get as much as $20,000 in debt forgiven, while other borrowers can get relief of up to $10,000.

Only individuals who earned less than $125,000 in 2020 or 2021 and married couples with total annual income below $250,000 are eligible for loan relief under the program.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education formally launched its debt relief application website. It’s unclear how Friday’s ruling will affect the site or the application process. However, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Friday evening that the “temporary order does not prevent borrowers from applying for student debt relief.”

“It also does not prevent us from reviewing these applications and preparing them for transmission to loan servicers,” Jean-Pierre  said. “It is also important to note that the order does not reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the case, or suggest that the case has merit. It merely prevents debt from being discharged until the court makes a decision.”

U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona reiterated that sentiment in his own statement, saying: “today’s temporary decision does not stop the Biden Administration’s efforts to provide borrowers the opportunity to apply for debt relief, nor does it prevent us from reviewing the millions of applications we have received.”

— Robert Legare contributed reporting. 

Read original article here

Here’s what the White House is expecting tomorrow’s Social Security COLA increase to be

The White House predicted that Americans on Social Security will see a $140 per month increase ahead of Thursday, when the Social Security Administration is expected to announce a cost of living adjustment (COLA).

“Tomorrow, seniors and other Americans on Social Security are will learn precisely how much their monthly checks will increase – but experts forecast it will be $140 per month, on average, starting in January. For the first time in over a decade, seniors’ Medicare premiums will decrease even as their Social Security checks increase,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

The COLA is expected to change by at least 8 percent, which would be the largest increase in four decades. The annual adjustment is determined by inflation, which fell to 9.1 percent and 8.6 percent in July and August, respectively.

The Labor Department is set to release data on consumer prices from September on Thursday.

Jean-Pierre said a COLA increase would allow Americans on Social Security to get ahead of inflation.

“This means that seniors will have a chance to get ahead of inflation, due to the rare combination of rising benefits and falling premiums.  We will put more money in their pockets and provide them with a little extra breathing room,” she said.

She also took a stab at Republicans, mentioning Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) tax plan that includes sunset provisions to such programs. Scott’s plan is not widely endorsed by other Republicans.

“MAGA Republicans in Congress continue to threaten Social Security and Medicare – proposing to put them on the chopping block every five years, threatening benefits, and to change eligibility,” Jean-Pierre said.

“If Republicans in Congress have their way, seniors will pay more for prescription drugs and their Social Security benefits will never be secure. The President has a different approach – one that continues the progress we’ve made and saves seniors money,” she added.

Persistently high inflation has plagued Democrats and affected President Biden’s approval rating, and economists are expecting the consumer price index to have increased by 0.2 percent in September.

Read original article here

Vladimir Putin Just Seized One-Fifth of Ukraine But Biden’s Still Betting Sanctions Can Stop Him

Faced with mounting economic costs from sanctions on the Russian government and increasingly explicit nuclear threats from the Kremlin, the Biden administration still believes that a war of attrition is the only way to beat Vladimir Putin.

The newest tranche of sanctions punishing Russia for its illegal annexation of four Ukrainian provinces won’t turn the tide in the war, administration officials said on Friday, but are the safest way to continue backing the Ukrainian resistance without risking direct American involvement.

“The sanctions element of our strategy, the economic pressure that we are placing on Russia, and the denial of their ability to gather what they need to be able to regenerate their war machine, this has been a critical element to how we have prosecuted our strategy so far,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters in the White House briefing room. “The impacts of it will continue to be felt month on month as we go forward and put us in a stronger position, and Russia in a more disadvantaged position.”

Sullivan’s remarks came hours after the Commerce, State and Treasury departments announced new economic, diplomatic and financial actions against Russia and its leadership in response to Putin’s announcement on Friday morning that four Ukrainian provinces are now Russian territory.

“People living in Luhansk and Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are becoming our citizens. Forever,” Putin said in a speech from the Kremlin on Friday morning, naming the four Ukrainian provinces, which make up nearly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory. The annexation—which is illegal under international law and was met with a range of sanctions, visa restrictions and other economic measures by allied governments around the world—was widely expected by U.S. officials in the months leading up to Putin’s announcement, though the debate over the Biden administration’s response was a matter of internal dispute.

That’s a B.S. answer. There is no more apt time to support fast-tracking NATO membership than when half the country has been stolen.

“What is a proportionate response to the illegal seizure of one-fifth of an ally’s territory?” one senior U.S. official told The Daily Beast before a series of sham elections in the occupied provinces that were used to justify Putin’s annexation address. “Russia waited seven years after annexing Crimea to mount another pretext-less invasion of Ukraine—without a proportionate response, whatever that looks like, there is no disincentive to discourage them from another invasion seven years from now.”

In the first hours after the annexation, the administration’s counteroffensive was focused primarily on the economic front: sanctions against the head of Russia’s central bank, more than two hundred members of Russia’s Federal Assembly, and on companies that feed Russia’s military supply chains.

“These sanctions will impose costs on individuals and entities—inside and outside of Russia—that provide political or economic support to illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “We will rally the international community to both denounce these moves and to hold Russia accountable.”

Despite those measures, the debate over a proportionate response continues, with some senior State Department officials pushing for the U.S. to more aggressively back Ukraine’s bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a proposal Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called for and which Sullivan sidestepped.

“The best way for us to support Ukraine is through practical on-the-ground support in Ukraine,” Sullivan said, adding that the question of hastening Ukraine’s entry into NATO’s mutual-defense pact “should be taken up at a different time.”

“That’s a B.S. answer,” one senior U.S. diplomat told The Daily Beast when sent a transcript of Sullivan’s remarks. “There is no more apt time to support fast-tracking NATO membership than when half the country has been stolen.”

The U.S. support for Ukraine’s resistance is not entirely in the form of punitive measures taken against the Kremlin, of course. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced an additional $1.1 billion in additional security assistance for the country, which includes artillery rocket systems, armored vehicles, drones and body armor, and Biden on Friday signed a stopgap spending bill that included nearly $12 billion in additional aid for Ukraine.

But while limited military assistance for Ukraine has helped Kyiv make major gains in Eastern Ukraine against Russian forces, one national security official said, the White House and National Security Council are constantly aware that backing Putin into too tight a corner risks provoking increasingly desperate counter-responses.

“There are two apex priorities: 1) support Ukraine’s attempts to expel Russian forces and reclaim its occupied territory; and 2) do not do so in a way that sparks World War III,” the official said. “Those two priorities are not in definitional conflict, but the margin is narrowing.”

One need only look at the apparent sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, the official said, as an indicator of how far Putin may go as the invasion falters and inexperienced Russian conscripts replace tens of thousands of dead soldiers on the front. The pipelines, which were discovered on Monday to have massive leaks of methane gas following underwater explosions, supplied nearly 20 percent of Europe’s natural gas before the invasion.

The threat of continued implausibly deniable sabotage is far from the topmost concern, however. That would be Putin’s increasingly explicit threats of nuclear war in the event that Russian territory—which now includes much of Eastern Ukraine, at least in the Kremlin’s eyes—is threatened.

Biden called the leaks a “deliberate act of sabotage,” although he later hedged on directly blaming the Russian government for an attack on the pipeline. “At the appropriate moment when things calm down, we’re gonna send the divers down to find out exactly what happened.”

Read original article here

Biden administration cancels Alaska oil and gas lease sale

The Biden administration has canceled one of the most high-profile oil and gas lease opportunities pending before the Interior Department. The decision, which halts the potential to drill for oil in over 1 million acres in the Cook Inlet in Alaska, comes at a challenging political moment, when gas prices are hitting painful new highs.

In a statement shared first with CBS News, the Department of the Interior cited a “lack of industry interest in leasing in the area” for the decision to “not move forward” with the Cook Inlet lease sale. The department also halted two leases under consideration for the Gulf of Mexico region because of “conflicting court rulings that impacted work on these proposed lease sales.”

Federal law requires the Department of the Interior to stick to a five-year leasing plan for auctioning offshore leases. The administration had until the end of the current five-year plan — set to expire at the end of next month — to complete these lease sales.

The sun sets behind an oil drilling rig in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska on March 17, 2011.

Lucas Jackson / REUTERS


Until now, the White House had remained silent about the massive Alaska lease. However, canceling the sale would be in keeping with political promises President Joe Biden made in the name of halting global warming. But those promises have become a political challenge in the face of prices at the pump.

“They don’t want to get hit by the Republicans in light of the high gas prices,” one environmental advocate told CBS News, speaking on the condition he not be named because of the sensitivity of the topic. “They’re getting killed on attacks based on inflation. The most visible sign of inflation is high gas prices.”

The delicate political situation was evident after a top environmental official showed her hand in an email that copied a CBS News reporter. Gina McCarthy, the White House National Climate Advisor, wrote that “the Cook inlet sale was canceled. It is not proceeding.”

Almost immediately, another White House official jumped in to declare that McCarthy got ahead of herself. Interior Department officials said a final decision had not been made. On Wednesday, though, with time running out, the department made its announcement.

Frank Macchairola, a top official with the American Petroleum Institute, the country’s largest oil and gas trade association, called the cancellation of the Cook Inlet lease “another example of the administration’s lack of commitment to oil and gas development in the US.”

“The President has spoken about the need for additional supplies in the market, but his administration has failed to take action to match that rhetoric,” Macchairola said, adding that politically it would play “not well.”

“In the kind of price environment that we’re seeing, there are negative consequences to shutting off oil and gas development, both politically and practically,” he said. 

On Wednesday, the national average price of regular gas hit an all-time high of $4.40, according to AAA.

For environmental groups, the decision was welcome news. The Alaska offshore lease arrangement would have opened drilling opportunities over a span of more than 1 million acres for 40 or more years of production. The new activity would have led to new underwater pipelines and platforms in the environmentally-sensitive area. 

Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans for the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, said more than a decade would pass before those leases could have had an impact on gas prices. 

“It’s good for the climate, which can’t handle new oil and gas development,” Caputo said. “It’s good for Cook Inlet because offshore drilling is dangerous and disruptive. And it’s good for the people of Cook Inlet, including native people, who cherish the inlet in its natural state. So it’s a really good thing.”

Still, any decision that worked against the interests of oil and gas involves political trade-offs. According to a recent CBS News poll, Mr. Biden’s approval rating is lowest when it comes to the economy and inflation, with 69% of those surveyed disapproving of his handling of inflation. Sixty-five percent of respondents said they believed the president “could do more” to lower gas prices.

American Petroleum Institute senior vice president Frank Macchiarola said in a statement, “Unfortunately, this is becoming a pattern – the administration talks about the need for more supply and acts to restrict it.  As geopolitical volatility and global energy prices continue to rise, we again urge the administration to end the uncertainty and immediately act on a new five-year program for federal offshore leasing.”

But environmentalists argue the climate issue is too important to get caught up in political battles.

“The scientists are telling us the time to shift from fossil fuel energy is not years from now,” Caputo said. “It’s today. We need to end offshore oil leasing.”

Read original article here

Vladimir Putin Must Be Stopped Once and for All

Defending Ukraine is not enough. Defeating Russia on the battlefield is not enough. We must ensure—using every means at our disposal—that Vladimir Putin may never again commit the kinds of atrocities that have marked his two decades in power.

Fortunately, this week, it was made absolutely clear that the Biden administration recognizes that necessity and has made it a strategic centerpiece of their foreign and national security policy efforts.

On Monday, after visiting Ukraine with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said, “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

Although one senior U.S. official admitted to me (somewhat uneasily) that “Austin said the quiet part out loud,” it soon became clear that the U.S. was publicly willing to own the new goal of turning Russia’s unprovoked, brutal escalation of its ongoing eight-year war in Ukraine into a lasting and meaningful defeat for the Kremlin.

On Tuesday in Germany—at a meeting of the “Ukraine Defense Consultative Group” (a gathering of the countries from around the world that have pledged to support Ukraine’s war effort)—Secretary Austin said it was the U.S. belief that Ukraine can win the war with Russia. Austin’s spokesperson, John Kirby, stated: “We don’t want a Russia that’s capable of exerting that kind of malign influence in Europe or anywhere in the world.”

Secretary Blinken—who a month ago said the Ukraine war would lead to a “strategic defeat” for Russia, and earlier this month said Russia had already experienced such a defeat—argued before Congress on Tuesday that it must fully fund the State Department’s budget in order to ensure a “strategic failure” for Russia. Senior National Security Council (NSC) officials have echoed that this is a new, explicit goal of the U.S. and its allies.

The statements by the U.S. are not mere rhetoric. Conversations with senior U.S. officials in the State Department, Pentagon, and White House underscore that these goals are being supported by a many-layered, intensive effort by senior officials.

Providing Ukraine all the support it needs lies at the heart of the West’s efforts, and coordinating that effort will be the goal of the multi-nation consultative group, which will meet on a monthly basis going forward.

The effort is helped, of course, by the fact that Russia continues to make decisions that are not only morally reprehensible but also disastrous for its military and country.

The losses sustained by Russian forces are catastrophic. Estimates of those killed in the first two months in the war range from 15,000 to more than 20,000—with tens of thousands more wounded or having deserted. The U.K.’s defense secretary, Ben Wallace, estimated those figures represent a 25 percent reduction in the Russian invasion combat capability.

Russia’s economy has been hit hard by sanctions. Estimates suggest the crisis will wipe out more than a decade and a half of Russian growth. Russia’s own economy ministry predicts the economy could contract this year by between 8.8 percent and 12.4 percent.

Senior U.S. officials noted that Russia is suffering profound self-inflicted wounds in other ways. Its battlefield failures and its clear commission of war crimes have made it increasingly difficult—even for those countries with which it has close ties or which sought to remain neutral at the start of this war—to win any meaningful international support.

One senior U.S. national security official said that Russia’s calamitous performance to date had taken a toll on Moscow’s relations with China, India, Turkey, and Israel. The official added that, as indicated by Russia-backed far-right French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen’s defeat, those “who have been associated with Russia” have not been helped politically by Russia’s actions.

This did not, it should be noted, stop Sen. Rand Paul from parroting Russian talking points in Tuesday Senate hearings with Secretary Blinken. Paul asserted the explanation for Russia’s invasion was tied to a Biden administration push to admit Ukraine into NATO (a lie) and to the fact that Ukraine was “part of Russia.”

Russia amplified the damage done to its international standing and its own economy this week by cutting off gas supplies to two European NATO countries—Poland and Bulgaria—because they refused to pay for the energy shipments in rubles, as demanded by Moscow.

Vladimir Putin started this war. He did so because, in the past, world leaders were too weak, gullible, or corrupted to stand up to him—to deny him the chance to compound past aggression with further brutality.

At the same time, the Biden administration is actively working diplomatically to strengthen its ties with both its allies and with those nations that have been uncomfortable choosing sides in the Ukraine conflict. The president, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary Austin and their deputies are holding regular, frequent meetings (virtual and live) with their counterparts in the G7, NATO, the EU, the Quad (the Indo-Pacific partnership including India, Japan, Australia and the US), and via mechanisms like the consultative group mentioned above. These efforts will be continued in the next six weeks with a flurry of high-level events including an ASEAN Summit in Washington, a trip to Japan and South Korea, and a NATO Summit and meetings with European leaders in Spain in June.

The U.S. has been coordinating closely with Finland and Sweden, and with NATO partners, to help ensure those two Nordic countries can join the alliance swiftly—if that is what they ultimately choose to do. The U.S. is also working to upgrade NATO capacities along the frontier with Russia.

Notably, a special initiative has been made to find areas of common interest with “new non-aligned” countries.

This effort has been marked, according to officials involved, not by a desire to make an issue of certain countries’ decision to not support Ukraine’s war effort, but instead to focus on ways the U.S. can provide assistance or address specific bilateral issues. This not only would strengthen U.S. ties, but help gain an edge in what is emerging as an era of strategic rivalry—not only with Russia, but with China.

These imperatives—consolidating Russia’s defeat in Ukraine and strengthening American alliances and friendships for a coming period of potential competition and periodic tension—are supplanting the largely counterterrorism focused-U.S. diplomatic priorities of the past two decades.

Thanks to Russia’s own blunders, and the efforts of the U.S. and its allies, the picture for Moscow and Putin is looking bleaker by the day—regardless of the final settlement of the war in Ukraine, and without an American or NATO soldier firing a shot.

When this war is over NATO will be larger. Russia’s frontier with NATO would grow by nearly 1,000 miles and, should Finland and Sweden join NATO, its position vis a vis the Baltic Sea and the Arctic would be significantly weakened. NATO’s investment in defense is sure to rise and NATO resources deployed closer to the Russian border are certain to grow. The U.S. alone has already committed over $4 billion in security to Ukraine since President Biden took office, and a major new funding initiative is expected “very soon” according to a senior State Department official.

Russia’s economy is a shambles and its future looks bleak, as Europe seeks to end dependency on Russian energy. Even sometime-laggard Germany is picking up its pace substantially.

Ukraine will surely emerge stronger with major pledges of assistance, and a fast-tracked EU entry is already in the offing.

Vladimir Putin started this war. He did so because, in the past, world leaders were too weak, gullible, or corrupted to stand up to him—to deny him the chance to compound past aggression with further brutality. Now, finally, he has encountered opposition from Ukraine to Brussels to Washington that has resolved not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Their goal is as ambitious as it is worthy. But it deserves our support because it is the only path to lasting peace along Europe’s borders with Russia.

Read original article here