White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s final briefing with reporters quickly dissolved into chaos on Friday after one reporter repeatedly heckled over his colleagues, shouting his question about fair access in the room.
As Psaki began to take questions — and after fighting back tears as she thanked members of the administration and the press corps — Simon Ateba, the chief White House correspondent for Today News Africa, was heard yelling from the back of the press briefing room.
“Why don’t you take questions from across the room?” Ateba asked as Associated Press reporter Zeke Miller attempted to get things started with a query about the ongoing baby formula shortage.
“Why don’t you take questions from across the room? Because that’s not what you’ve done for the past 15 months,” Ateba shouted again.
Jen Psaki fought back tears as she thanked members of the administration and the press corps.APSimon Ateba is the chief White House correspondent for Today News Africa.Simon Ateba/Twitter
Psaki was not initially fazed by Ateba’s lack of decorum, but just minutes later, the Today News Africa reporter shouted over his colleagues again.
“Jen, can I ask you a question from the back?” he was heard saying. “Jen, can I ask you a question from the back?”
As he continued to speak over reporters in the front row attempting to question Psaki, NPR’s Tamara Keith turned around to urge Ateba to stop.
The room was crowded during Jen Psaki’s final briefing.Reuters
“Simon, please, stop,” she said.
Ateba did not oblige and continued to shout over other reporters in the room, until Psaki finally turned to him to say, “Simon, if you can respect your colleagues and other media and reporters in here, that would be greatly appreciated.”
Psaki has been criticized in the past for strictly sticking to answering questions from reporters in the first few rows of the briefing room, often missing out on questions from outlets such as The Post, the Washington Examiner, Al Jazeera and other foreign media.
Reporters asked Simon Ateba to stop shouting multiple times.Reuters
After the raucous protest, Peter Alexander of NBC News said he would voluntarily limit himself to two questions to allow more colleagues to have a turn. Front-row journalists routinely help themselves to a half-down, outraging fellow reporters who can go weeks or months without being called on.
Historically, reporters adhered to an informal norm of limiting exchanges to two questions.
Tesla CEO Elon MuskElon Reeve MuskOn The Money — Push to block Russian imports hits wall Elon Musk invites UAW to hold unionization vote at Tesla The Hill’s 12:30 Report – Sights and sounds from Biden’s State of the Union MORE urged the United States to increase its oil and gas production following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite the negative impact on his company.
“Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures,” Musk tweeted on Friday.
“Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil & gas exports,” he added.
Several Republicans responded to Musk, echoing their agreement.
“I couldn’t agree more,” Sen. Tim ScottTimothy (Tim) Eugene ScottThe Hill’s Morning Report – Russia’s war against Ukraine grinds on House passes bill making lynching a federal hate crime Iowa Gov. Reynolds to give GOP response to Biden State of the Union MORE (R-S.C.) tweeted in response.
“America is funding Russia’s war by buying Russian oil and gas rather than producing our own,” Rep. Lauren BoebertLauren BoebertPelosi says Boebert and Greene ‘should just shut up’ House passes bill to expand health benefits for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits The Memo: Boebert’s antics seen as new sign of politics’ decline MORE (R-Co.) also tweeted.
The tweets come against the backdrop of a bipartisan group of lawmakers signaling support for a ban on oil and energy imports from Russia. House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOn The Money — Job growth booms in February Russian oil company calls for peace in Ukraine in break with Putin 2024 Republicans eager to be seen as tough on Russia MORE (D-Calif.) said on Thursday that while she did not want the prices of gas to go up, she did support blocking oil imports.
“I’m all for that — ban it,” the House Speaker said. “Ban the oil coming from Russia.”
Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinOn The Money — Job growth booms in February Overnight Health Care — Presented by Alexion — Manchin pitch sparks Democratic exasperation Russian oil company calls for peace in Ukraine in break with Putin MORE (D-W.Va.) and Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann MurkowskiRussian oil company calls for peace in Ukraine in break with Putin Photos of the Week: State of the Union, Ukraine vigil and Batman On The Money — Push to block Russian imports hits wall MORE (R-Alaska) on Thursday proposed legislation to ban energy imports from Russia.
“The United States has the ability to backfill and help all of our allies around the world as they [Russia] use this energy as a weapon,” the West Virginia senator said during a Thursday press conference. “We have to make sure that we’re doing ours [energy production]. We do it cleaner than anybody else. We do it in a better fashion anybody else. And we have the ability with a reserve to do much more during this crisis.”
White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiZelensky slams NATO over refusing to implement no-fly zone over Ukraine Energy & Environment — Russian takeover sparks nuclear jitters On The Money — Job growth booms in February MORE said on Friday that the Biden administration was weighing cutting down on Russian oil imports to the United States while expressing concern over the likelihood of gas prices rising.
“We are looking at options we could take right now to cut U.S. consumption of Russian energy, but we are very focused on minimizing the impact to families,” Psaki said. “If you reduce supply in the global marketplace, you are going to raise gas prices.”
Russia has said it deployed extra personnel to its nuclear forces, upping the geopolitical stakes as its invasion of Ukraine entered its fifth day.
But Western nations aren’t taking the bait, with President BidenJoe BidenBiden approval near record low amid economic frustration: poll Barr says Trump ‘lost his grip’ in forthcoming memoir Capitol Police to reinstall fence for State of the Union address MORE telling Americans on Monday they should not fear nuclear war, a posture that experts say may help avoid a dangerous escalation of rhetoric.
Moscow’s defense ministry Monday said those overseeing its nuclear arsenal “began to carry out combat duty with reinforced personnel,” meaning the Kremlin’s nuclear weapons would be more ready to launch.
The escalatory move comes in the face of universal condemnation and painful sanctions against Russia from Western powers, as the Kremlin struggles to take the capital city of Kyiv.
U.S. officials, however, have played down the nuclear threats as posturing, with the White House noting that it was “not going to indulge in” the rhetoric.
“At this time, we see no reason to change our own alert levels,” press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiTexas governor asks retailers to remove Russian products Global reliance on Russian energy a hurdle to US pressure campaign on Putin World Bank president warns of global financial consequences from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine MORE told reporters at her daily press briefing, adding that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
“Neither the United States nor NATO has any desire or intention for conflict with Russia,” Psaki added.
State Department spokesman Ned Price echoed that sentiment earlier Monday, telling reporters, “We see no reason to change our own alert levels,” but adding “it adds to the risk of miscalculation.”
And the Pentagon again indicated that it had not seen any specific movements in response to Putin’s order.
“I have nothing to confirm these reports that they’ve changed their staffing,” Defense Department press secretary John KirbyJohn KirbyUS, NATO seek to shore up defenses as Russia-Ukraine conflict rages Overnight Defense & National Security — Ukraine hangs in the balance Pentagon mulling ways to get more lethal aid to Ukraine MORE said when asked if the United States has observed a shift in Russia’s nuclear forces.
“What I would tell you is we’ve seen Mr. Putin’s announcement. We believe it’s as unnecessary as it is escalatory, but we’re reviewing and analyzing that announcement,” Kirby said.
Putin, no stranger to saber-rattling, last week threatened Western nations with “consequences you have never seen,” should any interfere with Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, launched Thursday.
That bold threat, coupled with Monday’s move to ready Moscow’s nuclear arsenal, has sparked fears of another Cuban missile crisis — that should the situation escalate, the United States could be drawn into a direct conflict with the largest nuclear-armed state.
The Russian president in the past has hinted at such a scenario, saying in a 2018 documentary that should another nation decide to “annihilate Russia, we have the legal right to respond. Yes, it will be a catastrophe for humanity and for the world. But I’m a citizen of Russia and its head of state. Why do we need a world without Russia in it?”
And less than a week before Russian troops moved into Ukraine, the Kremlin held simulated nuclear weapon launches.
“Putin saber-rattling recalls some of the stuff that Khrushchev used to do,” said Daniel Fried, former U.S. ambassador to Poland, referring to Nikita Khrushchev, former premier of the Soviet Union. “You don’t panic and allow Putin to start dictating to us, but you don’t escalate. You don’t get into a spiral of threats. You handle it quietly.”
Rep. Tom MalinowskiThomas (Tom) MalinowskiLawmakers press Biden for tougher Russia sanctions over Ukraine invasion Defense & National Security: US, allies hit Russia with sanctions Sen. Capito tests positive for COVID-19 MORE (D-N.J.), a former diplomat and member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that regardless of the threats coming from Moscow, “we have a nuclear deterrent and Putin understands that perfectly well.”
“As far as the nuclear alert, I think we have to stay calm, not take the bait,” he said on CNN’s “New Day.” “I think this is designed to rattle us and perhaps to rally his own people in some sick way.”
The U.S. and Russia typically have their land-based nuclear forces — the intercontinental ballistic missiles kept in silos throughout the country — as well as their submarine-launched missiles always prepared for combat, but they don’t keep bomber aircraft loaded.
Western nations closely monitor Russia’s nuclear forces, and the U.S. may very well see Russia start shifting around its armaments in the coming days, said Mark Cancian, a former defense official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“The notion that [Putin] might start moving nuclear weapons around, start mating them maybe with launchers, it’s not impossible. I certainly hope he doesn’t do that,” said Cancian, who also worked on nuclear nonproliferation in the Department of Energy.
And while the notion of Putin using a nuclear weapon is inconceivable to many, “he’s done a lot of things that I didn’t think he was going to do. I can’t completely rule out the possibility that he might take another step of the nuclear forces,” he said.
Another worry is that Putin may use smaller, tactical nuclear weapons as a warning shot to the West or a way to break the Ukrainian resistance and topple its government.
“He doesn’t have many options left,” Moscow-based military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told the BBC, regarding Putin’s path forward as Russia’s economy suffers.
“One option for him is to cut gas supplies to Europe, hoping that will make the Europeans climb down. Another option is to explode a nuclear weapon somewhere over the North Sea between Britain and Denmark and see what happens,” he said.
While the United States and Russia currently have only one bilateral nuclear treaty known as New START — meant to limit the number of deployed strategic weapons in each country — the agreement does not include the tactical armaments.
Still, the fact that the United States remains firm on not adding to the tensions is a positive sign, James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said on Twitter.
“First off, the lack of change is a Good Thing! It doesn’t alter the fact Putin made an explicit nuclear threat on Sunday, but it does dial down the aggressiveness somewhat,” he said. “I don’t think Russian nuclear use is imminent. But I wouldn’t assume Putin has ruled it out. All his alternatives look bad right now. Basically, he can negotiate a ceasefire that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty or continue the bloodbath of a conventional war.”
Russia’s military incursion against Ukraine has raised questions about what would trigger a military response to the conflict from the U.S. and NATO.
Washington has bolstered NATO’s defense capabilities along the eastern flank, and the alliance recently decided to activate elements of the NATO response force for the first time in history.
But experts agree that the organization itself would need to be threatened in order to trigger a heavy military response from the alliance, which they say doesn’t seem likely at the moment.
“Putin very well understands the difference between being conducting aggression against a non-NATO nation,” said J.D. Williams, a senior defense policy researcher at the RAND Corporation.
“He’s obviously crossed a huge threshold and doing what he’s doing. But it would be another major type of escalation if he actually wants some kind of attack or aggression against the NATO nation,” he continued.
NATO operates as a defensive alliance and is guided by the North Atlantic Treaty, also known as the Washington Treaty, which was signed in 1949.
Article 5 of that treaty stipulates that the alliance is obligated to defend one of its members under attack. The only time that article has been invoked was after the U.S. was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
However, countries along the alliance’s eastern flank triggered Article 4, under which a member state can request consultations with the broader alliance if it feels threatened.
According to NATO, this has only occurred seven times since 1949, further signifying the eastern flank’s concerns about military spillover.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, therefore, there is no formal obligation from the U.S. or the alliance to come to its defense. But member states fear a Russian military incursion against Ukraine could threaten its eastern flank and moved to bolster its defenses in the region.
On Friday, the alliance activated some units of its NATO response force — a multinational coalition that can deploy on short notice.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Friday that the alliance has over 100 jets on high alert in 30 different locations and 120 ships from the High North to the Mediterranean.
“What’s going on in NATO right now is a reaction to what’s happening in Ukraine and a perception that actions being taken by Russia constitute a threat to NATO beyond what they’re doing in Ukraine,” Williams said.
Fighting has been nonstop since Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinTrudeau announces sanctions on Putin, Russian foreign minister Overnight Defense & National Security — Ukraine hangs in the balance Capitals’ Ovechkin calls for ‘no more war’ with Ukraine MORE announced an invasion in Ukraine early Thursday morning, and he has largely been focused on the eastern part of the country.
Russian forces have advanced toward Kyiv from Belarus, into an area around Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, and from Crimea toward Kerson, a senior Defense official told reporters on Friday.
The official also said there was a an “amphibious assault” coming from the Sea of Azov, indicating that they’re moving toward Mariupol and the Donbass region. The official added that the Russians were meeting more resistance from Ukraine than it expected.
The Biden administration has worked hard to fulfill its obligation to NATO’s collective defense —deploying roughly 15,000 troops to Europe over the past few weeks.
But the administration has made it clear that no American troops would go directly into Ukraine.
“I don’t know how many more times I can say it: There’s no scenario — the President is not sending U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine against Russia,” White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiTrudeau announces sanctions on Putin, Russian foreign minister Overnight Defense & National Security — Ukraine hangs in the balance On The Money — Inflation held firm in January as omicron raged MORE told reporters on Wednesday.
“We are taking a range of other steps…but, I would say, they’re quite significant,” she added.
Putin’s intentions are currently aimed at Ukraine, but whether he intends to push beyond the country’s borders remains, for now, unclear.
“It’s not entirely clear if Mr. Putin has desires beyond Ukraine,” Pentagon press secretary John KirbyJohn KirbyOvernight Defense & National Security — Ukraine hangs in the balance Pentagon mulling ways to get more lethal aid to Ukraine The Hill’s 12:30 Report – Presented by Facebook – Biden announces Supreme Court pick amid unfolding Ukrainian crisis MORE told reporters on Friday. “And it’s because that’s not perfectly clear that we continue to look for ways to bolster our NATO capabilities and to reassure our allies.”
Another expert told The Hill, that the possibility of conflict spilling into NATO territory looms large as fighting between Russia and the former Soviet state continues.
“When you have military forces operating relatively closely to one another, there are risks of you know, accidents, those kinds of things,” said Barry Pavel, senior vice president of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council.
“There’s a kind of a myth that that leads to massive war, but I do worry about all these forces operating near each other,” he continued.
Still, experts don’t believe Putin would intentionally venture outside of Ukraine.
“I don’t think anyone expects the Russians to move all the way to the western side of Ukraine, and then they keep going,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser for the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“As they moved further west and came close to NATO’s border and the countries involved would get increasingly nervous. I think you would see more troop deployments and, you know, in more firepower,” he continued. “But again, I can’t imagine the Russians crossing the border.”
President BidenJoe BidenAustin on potential Russian invasion into Ukraine: ‘I don’t believe it’s a bluff’ Overnight Energy & Environment — Russia situation may worsen gas prices On The Money — Fed puts strict limits on trades by top officials MORE will be convening a National Security Council meeting on Ukraine on Sunday, White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiOvernight Defense & National Security — Biden ‘convinced’ Russia will invade Ukraine Republicans slam Biden rejection of service members’ accounts of Afghan withdrawal Joe Biden’s tone-deaf presidency MORE said in a statement on Saturday.
“President Biden continues to monitor the evolving situation in Ukraine, and is being updated regularly about events on the ground by his national security team. They reaffirmed that Russia could launch an attack against Ukraine at any time,” she said.
Psaki also added that the president had received an update on Vice President Harris’s meetings at the Munich Security Conference.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tweeted earlier on Saturday that he had an “urgent conversation” with French President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronWhat the US can learn from France’s withdrawal from Mali US officials say Russia’s announced military rollback was deliberate ruse France recalling troops from Mali MORE.
“Informed about the aggravation on the frontline, our losses, the shelling of politicians & international journalists. Discussed the need and possible ways of immediate de-escalation & political-diplomatic settlement,” Zelensky said.
The development comes as officials estimate that up to 190,000 Russian troops have been amassed near the Ukrainian border. Earlier this week, Russia claimed that it had pulled back some of its troops, but NATO and U.S. officials said it appeared that Russia was doing the opposite.
During the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, U.S. officials reiterated that Russia would pay steep consequences if it invaded Ukraine.
“Let me be clear, I can say with absolute certainty if Russia further invades Ukraine the United States, together with our allies and partners, will impose significant, and unprecedented economic costs,” Harris said in prepared remarks.
“There is a price to pay,” House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOn The Money — Fed puts strict limits on trades by top officials Photos of the Week: Ukraine, Super Bowl LVI and penguins Congressional stock trading ban must include spouses, lawmakers say MORE (D-Calif.) said during a press briefing. “If he decides to [invade], it won’t be a long time for the Russian people, sadly, to feel the impact of the [sanctions because of] insecure decisions being made by their president.”
NBC Sports on Wednesday confirmed it will not be sending any announcing teams to the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games, citing COVID-19 concerns.
“The announce teams for these Olympics, including figure skating, will be calling events from our Stamford (Conn.) facility due to COVID concerns,” Greg Hughes, NBC Sports senior vice president communications, told USA Today.
“We’ll still have a large presence on the ground in Beijing and our coverage of everything will be first rate as usual, but our plans are evolving by the day as they are for most media companies covering the Olympics,” said Hughes.
NBC broadcasting teams had been scheduled to travel to Beijing in order to cover figure skating, Alpine skiing and snowboarding, but they will no longer be going. However, NBC’s Olympic host Mike Tirico will still be traveling to China to cover the first few days of the games before heading to Los Angeles to call the Super Bowl, USA Today reported.
The newspaper noted that NBC’s strategy of covering the Olympics from Stamford was also employed to cover the delayed 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics last year.
“The Beijing model is going to be very similar to Tokyo in that the heartbeat of our Olympic operation will actually be in Stamford, Conn., at our NBC Sports headquarters. We’ll have more personnel there than in the host city,” Molly Solomon, president of NBC Olympics Production, told the outlet.
“With COVID’s changing conditions and China’s zero-tolerance policy, it’s just added a layer of complexity to all of this so we need to make sure we can provide the same quality experience to the American viewers,” she added. “That’s why we are split between the two cities.”
While Team USA will be participating in the games this year, U.S. government officials will not be in attendance, with President BidenJoe BidenBiden says he didn’t ‘overpromise’ Finland PM pledges ‘extremely tough’ sanctions should Russia invade Ukraine Russia: Nothing less than NATO expansion ban is acceptable MORE having announced a diplomatic boycott last month in protest of China’s alleged human rights abuses in the Xinjiang province and other regions.
“The athletes on team USA have our full support, we will be behind them 100 percent as we cheer them on from home,” White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiRussia: Nothing less than NATO expansion ban is acceptable Biden huddles with group of senators on Ukraine-Russia tensions White House: Blood donation restrictions ‘painful’ amid mass shortage MORE said at the time. “We will not be contributing to the fanfare of the games. U.S. diplomatic or official representation would treat these games as business as usual in the face of the PRC’s egregious human rights abuses and atrocities in Xinjiang, and we simply can’t do that.”
Though no high-level U.S. officials will attend, some consular and security officers will travel to China to assist the athletes and coaches.
President BidenJoe BidenMadame Tussauds unveils new Biden and Harris figures US raises concerns about Russian troop movements to Belarus Putin tests a model for invading Ukraine, outwitting Biden’s diplomats MORE on Wednesday will host just his second solo press conference from the White House since taking office, offering reporters a rare opportunity to press him on news of the day in such a format.
The event comes at a precarious time for Biden’s agenda. His Build Back Better plan and voting rights legislation are stalled, the coronavirus pandemic has persisted months after he gave what amounted to a victory lap speech and his approval ratings have steadily declined over the past several months.
Here are some questions Biden may face from reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
Is Build Back Better dead? Are you willing to urge Democrats to pass pieces of it rather than the whole proposal?
Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinSenate Democrats eye talking filibuster NAACP president presses senators on voting rights: ‘You will decide who defines America’ Schumer tees up showdown on voting rights, filibuster MORE (D-W.Va.) appeared to deal a death knell to Biden’s signature policy proposal late last year when he said he could not support the roughly $2 trillion spending package with investments in child care, family care and for fighting climate change.
The White House has denied it is preparing a “skinny” version of Build Back Better, but perhaps the only path forward is to pass individual pieces of the legislation that can garner the support of all 50 Democratic caucus members in the Senate.
You have warned for several months that Republican laws like the one in Georgia represent an attack on democracy. Why then did you wait until last week to make a forceful push to alter the filibuster? And would you support reforming the Electoral Count Act if other efforts fail?
Biden’s forceful push for Democrats to alter the filibuster to pass voting rights bills won praise from advocates and civil rights leaders last week, but it was still regarded as a belated push for legislation to counteract Republican state voting laws.
Despite Biden’s push, the effort is expected to fail this week because Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaSenate Democrats eye talking filibuster NAACP president presses senators on voting rights: ‘You will decide who defines America’ Schumer tees up showdown on voting rights, filibuster MORE (D-Ariz.) do not support changing the filibuster. Bipartisan lawmakers have opened the door to reforming the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which sets out how Congress counts Electoral College votes that determine the winner of a presidential election. The White House dismissed the idea of reforming the law as a “substitute” for passing the other voting rights bills.
What preventative measures is your administration looking at in order to prevent another test shortage and other pandemic-related measures should another variant arise? What do you say to criticism that your administration is reacting instead of being more proactive two years into the pandemic?
Democrats have called on Biden to step up his efforts to fight the pandemic, including purchasing more tests for Americans and providing high-quality masks to everyone. Five Democratic senators last week wrote to the president to express their concern with the pandemic response and said it has often been “reactive, rather than proactive.”
The Biden administration is launching a new website this week, through which 500 million tests will be distributed to Americans free of charge and onWednesday it announced it will make 400 million non-surgical N95 masks from the national stockpile free to Americans and the administration is launching a website through which 500 million tests will be distributed free of charge.
Have you been satisfied with the messaging coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? Can your administration improve the way it communicates about the pandemic to the American public?
The Biden administration has had a number of messaging missteps as the coronavirus pandemic ebbs and flows, with much of the criticism falling on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The agency was criticized for its mixed messages on masking in the spring as millions of Americans were getting vaccinated. More recently, it came under the microscope for its messy guidance on when individuals who had COVID-19 could come out of isolation and whether it required a negative test.
The messaging troubles have contributed to a slow but steady drop in Biden’s approval rating on handling the pandemic.
You and your advisers have predicted that inflation will be transitory, but with the costs of food, housing and other essential goods rising, how can you assure Americans that your administration is focused on addressing surging inflation?
Consumer prices increased 7 percent in December from the same month the previous year, which is dismal news for a White House struggling to get surging prices under control. The price increase is the fastest in almost 40 years, but economists generally believe that inflation will decline substantially over the next year.
High inflation is a huge political challenge for Biden and Democrats going into the midterm elections, and the White House has tried to ease concerns by stressing Biden’s plan to reduce prices by going after meat processors and directing the biggest oil reserve release in history.
Last week, the Supreme Court struck down your sweeping vaccine-or-test mandate for large private businesses. Will that be the end of your efforts to mandate vaccines or are more actions on the table?
The Supreme Court last week ruled 6-3 against Biden’s vaccine-or-test mandate for employers with at least 100 employees, blocking it from taking effect while other legal challenges play out. In response, the president called on companies to require people to get vaccinated and vowed to put pressure on them to voluntarily create their own requirements.
Labor Secretary Marty WalshMarty WalshBiden endures up-and-down first year on labor issues Biden calls on employers to mandate vaccines despite Supreme Court ruling Renewed support for unions belies anti-labor laws in most states MORE left the door open to more efforts from the administration to impose mandates on private companies. He said the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will evaluate all options to keep workers safe in response to the high court ruling.
You recently called the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol an “insurrection” and an attempted “coup.” Do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump lawyers to Supreme Court: Jan. 6 committee ‘will not be harmed by delay’ Two House Democrats announce they won’t seek reelection DiCaprio on climate change: ‘Vote for people that are sane’ MORE for his role in the Jan. 6 riot?
Biden has been adamant that he wants to keep his Justice Department independent and free of political influence, but that has not stopped him from weighing in on proceedings around the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
One of the major outstanding questions is whether former President Trump will face charges for his role in the riot, specifically for his weeks of false claims that preceded it and his speech urging supporters to march over to the Capitol.
Can you commit unequivocally to running for reelection? Will Vice President Harris be your running mate? If you can’t commit unequivocally, who do you think should be the nominee if circumstances ultimately cause you to decide against running?
Biden and his aides have repeatedly said the president plans to run for reelection in 2024, but Biden himself offered a qualifier when asked about the prospect last month.
“If I’m in the health I’m in now, if I’m in good health, then in fact, I would run again,” Biden told ABC News.
Biden, at 79 years old, is the oldest person ever to occupy the White House. His age and sinking approval ratings have fed the rumor mill about his 2024 plans.
Vice President Harris further added to the speculation about the next Democratic presidential nominee when she claimed to The Wall Street Journal last month that she and Biden had not even discussed the 2024 campaign.
Your press secretary, Jen PsakiJen PsakiBiden commends wireless giants for delaying 5G rollout near key airports Briefing in brief: Free COVID-19 test site in testing phase before launch Wednesday White House says Russia could launch attack in Ukraine ‘at any point’ MORE, said Tuesday that Russia could launch an attack on Ukraine “at any point.” What is your administration going to do to punish Russia if it does so? Are you doing everything you can to try to force Russia to pull troops back from the border with Ukraine?
Biden is confronting his latest pressing foreign policy crisis in Eastern Europe, where Russia has amassed 100,000 troops on the border with Ukraine and sent forces to Belarus to participate in joint drills in recent days.
The Biden administration has threatened economic sanctions on Russia should it further invade Ukraine, but officials have declined to detail the sanctions in public.
Later this week, Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenUS readying financial sanctions on pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine: report US sanctions Lebanese tourism company, Hezbollah members for ties to terrorism White House says Russia could launch attack in Ukraine ‘at any point’ MORE will meet with his Russian counterpart in Geneva to urge Russia to resolve the situation through diplomatic means.
Senate Democrats are signaling they plan to take more of a hardball approach to pressuring Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinOn The Money — Dems lay blame for Build Back Better blowup McConnell: Manchin’s opposition to Biden plan ‘great shot in the arm for the country’ Harris says ‘stakes are too high’ for Build Back Better to be about Manchin MORE (D-W.Va.) to support their climate and social spending agenda after months of kid-glove treatment failed to deliver his vote.
Democrats are threatening to drive a wedge between Manchin and his many lower-income constituents who stand to reap billions of dollars in federal benefits if Build Back Better passes, including an enhanced child tax credit, lower Medicare-negotiated prescription drug prices and subsidies to cover the cost of childcare.
Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerManchin says he will not vote for Build Back Better: ‘This is a no’ Senate confirms 40 judges during Biden’s first year in office, the most since Reagan Cruz to get Nord Stream 2 vote as part of deal on Biden nominees MORE (D-N.Y.) on Monday said Manchin will have to repeatedly defend his opposition to these popular programs by voting on the floor and took a subtle shot at his colleague for trying to dictate national policy through an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” over the weekend.
Democratic aides say that Manchin can expect more tough treatment from Schumer and other Democratic lawmakers who are now under new pressure from the party’s base for failing to deliver on the “big, bold” agenda they promised earlier this year.
“He has had absolutely no pressure,” said one Democratic aide, citing Manchin’s friendly meetings with the at the White House and at Biden’s home in Delaware this fall that failed to produce results.
“Biden’s got to grab him by the lapels and say, ‘Listen, this ends now,’” the aide added, warning there’s little prospect of passing another piece of major legislation before the 2022 midterms if Build Back Better fails to pass.
Democratic senators have said for months they were reluctant to apply too much pressure on Manchin for fear that it might backfire and only goad him to dig in his heels more firmly against progressive priorities such as major new investments for renewable energy and expanded Medicare benefits.
There was also the looming threat that Manchin might leave the caucus and declare himself an independent. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellMcConnell: Manchin’s opposition to Biden plan ‘great shot in the arm for the country’ Ocasio-Cortez: Democrats need to to ‘crack down’ on ‘old boys club’ in Senate The day democracy almost died MORE (R-Ky.) told reporters before the break that he would love to have Manchin join his caucus, though he acknowledged it wasn’t a likely possibility.
But now Biden, Schumer and other Democrats risk looking ineffective after Manchin flatly spurned their many entreaties with his bluntly stated opposition to Build Back Better on Fox News.
“He’s going to blow up the president’s agenda so I think you have to play hardball but there are different ways to play hardball,” said Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist who formerly advised the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
“He’s making them looking ineffective,” he added.
On Sunday, White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiStaffer who had contact with Biden tests positive for COVID-19 McConnell: Manchin’s opposition to Biden plan ‘great shot in the arm for the country’ Harris says ‘stakes are too high’ for Build Back Better to be about Manchin MORE released a blistering statement that took Manchin to task for backing out of a deal Biden thought he had agreed to in October.
She said Manchin would have to explain his opposition to the bill to “families paying $1,000 a month for insulin,” to “two million women who would get the affordable day care they need to return to work” and to the “millions of children who have been lifted out of poverty, in part due to the Child Tax credit,” which expired last week.
A day later, the White House was taking a much softer approach, with Psaki emphasizing Biden’s desire to work with Biden at the daily briefing.
Biden met with Manchin at the White House in late September and late October as well as at the president’s home in Wilmington, Delaware, but without having any major results to show for those meetings.
The White House said that Manchin signed off on a $1.75 trillion framework at the meeting in Delaware, which Schumer also attended, but Manchin this week disputed he had agreed to anything.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter circulated Monday, Schumer took at not-so-subtle jab at Manchin.
“Senators should be aware that the Senate will, in fact, consider the Build Back Better Act, very early in the new year so that every Member of this body has the opportunity to make their position known on the Senate floor, not just on television,” Schumer vowed.
The Democratic leader warned that he would force Manchin to vote multiple times against Biden’s top priorities to hammer home the message that the West Virginia centrist is standing in the way of reforms that are designed to help low-income people in his home state.
“We are going to vote on a revised version of the House-passed Build Back Better Act – and we will keep voting on it until we get something done,” Schumer wrote.
A second Democratic aide said Schumer’s threat was remarkable because only days ago he pushed back on members of his caucus such as Senate Majority Whip Dick DurbinDick DurbinBiden’s relationship with ‘Joe-Joe’ Manchin hits the rocks Democrats mull hardball tactics to leapfrog parliamentarian on immigration Democrats end year reopening old wounds MORE (D-Ill.) who were pushing to force Manchin to take a vote on Build Back Better before Christmas.
The aide said Schumer knows many progressives in his party are angry over the failure to deliver Manchin’s vote and doesn’t leave a potential challenger any openings ahead of his re-election campaign in New York next year.
“It’s performative,” said the aide. “It’s hard not to view this through the lens of his coming primary.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOn The Money — Dems lay blame for Build Back Better blowup Hillicon Valley — Dems press Amazon on warehouse collapse Democrats press Amazon about fatal warehouse collapse MORE (D-N.Y.), a leading House progressive who has often criticized Manchin, in August did not rule out a primary challenge against Schumer.
Ocasio-Cortez on Monday said Manchin committed “an egregious breach of the trust of the president” and said “it’s an outcome that we had warned about well over a month ago.”
“Of course we have every right to be furious with Joe Manchin but it’s really up to leadership in the Democratic Party who made the decision to get us to this juncture and how we’re going to move forward and I think right now that the Democratic leadership as a very large number of tools at their disposal,” she said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“And it’s really about time that we take the kid gloves off,” she added.
Senate progressives have also vented their frustration since Manchin told Fox host Bret Baier that he is a “no” on Build Back Better.
“I suspect that the people of West Virginia are like people in every other state. They want to lower prescription drug costs. They want Medicare to cover vision, hearing and dental. They want to continue $300 per child monthly payments. They want the wealthy to pay their fair share,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie SandersBernie SandersEquilibrium/Sustainability — Underground abortion network links to Mexico The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Manchin explains BBB opposition, slams Dems Republicans, ideology, and demise of the state and local tax deduction MORE (I-Vt.) tweeted Monday.
He reposted an interview he did with CNN’s “State of the Union” in which he called out Manchin for failing to meet his constituents needs.
“Mr. Manchin says he’s representing the people of West Virginia,” Sanders said. “I told Manchin, by the way, I’ll pay for the damn poll in West Virginia on those issues. See how the people of West Virginia feel.”
Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenThe politics of an independent Fed Hillicon Valley — Dems press Amazon on warehouse collapse Politicians and celebrities who have tested positive for COVID-19 ahead of the holidays MORE (D-Mass.), another leading Senate progressive, applauded Schumer’s promise to force Manchin to vote on Build Back Better, potentially multiple times, even though he told Fox: “I tried everything possible. I can’t get there.”
“The American people expect the Senate to deliver on the Build Back Better plan AND protect the right to vote. Inaction is not an option: our democracy is under assault and our economy is not working for working people. Enough talk. It’s time to vote,” she tweeted.
After a Taiwanese minister showed a map that labeled Taiwan in a different color than China during President BidenJoe BidenJosé Andrés to travel to Kentucky following devastating tornadoes Sunday shows preview: Officials, experts respond to omicron; Biden administration raises alarms about Russia, China Biden says he will visit area impacted by storms: ‘We’re going to get through this together’ MORE‘s Summit for Democracy last week, the video of her presentation was reportedly cut by the White House over diplomatic concerns.
Taiwanese Digital Minister Audrey Tang’s map was shown for about a minute on Friday before the video feed of her presentation was removed, people familiar with the situation told Reuters.
The video was replaced with an audio-only feed at the White House’s request, the news wire reported. The presentation showed a color-coded map that ranked global openness to civil rights. Taiwan was labeled as green or “open,” while other countries in Asia were marked as “closed,” “repressed,” “obstructed” or “narrowed.
When the video was cut, the screen showed a caption that said “Minister Audrey Tang Taiwan.” Later, a message appeared on the screen that said, “Any opinions expressed by individuals on this panel are those of the individual, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States government,” Reuters reported.
The U.S. adheres to a policy of “strategic ambiguity” around Taiwanese independence, meaning it does not take a position about whether Taiwan is part of China. However, it also recognizes the “one-China” policy, which asserts that the People’s Republic of China is the sole government of China.
The White House feared that showing Tang’s map at the conference, which Taiwan was invited to attend, could conflict with that policy, given the conference was hosted by the U.S., according to Reuters.
The State Department said that “confusion” with screen sharing caused the feed to drop in “an honest mistake,” the news service added. Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry attributed the video being cut to “technical problems,” and the White House did not offer a comment on the matter, Reuters noted.
The Hill has reached out to the White House and State Department for comment.
U.S. policy toward Taiwan has been repeatedly highlighted amid mounting tensions with China. Last month, the White House was forced to walk back comments Biden made during a CNN town hall about defending Taiwan should China invade the island.
“There has been no shift,” White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiThe Memo: Inflation delivers gut-punch as Biden tries to sell economic record White House on Smollett verdict: Lying about a hate crime is ‘shameful’ Biden says he will speak with Manchin next week MORE said the next day. “The president was not announcing any change in our policy, nor has he made a decision to change our policy.”
Washington is on edge as Russia’s military buildup threatens a confrontation, with fears escalating following reports that U.S. intelligence shows Russian forces preparing to push into Ukraine.
Even as the nation’s capital goes quiet for the Thanksgiving holiday, the Biden administration must contend with reports that nearly 100,000 Russian troops are stationed at various locations on the country’s western border, with no sign of those numbers waning.
Tensions have grown so high that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine on Wednesday warned of “unusual Russian military activity” near Ukraine’s eastern border and in the annexed peninsula of Crimea, telling U.S. citizens not to travel there.
“U.S. citizens are reminded the security conditions along the border may change with little or no notice,” the embassy said.
The new warnings come as Ukraine, a strategic U.S. ally, this week began to publicly trumpet that Russia could invade as soon as January or early February, much like when it annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and backed an insurgency in eastern parts of the country that continued on. More than 14,000 people have since been killed in that conflict.
A similar land grab, which would be the second in less than 10 years, has global implications and could trigger a massive military conflict as well as geopolitical strife between Russia and Western nations.
“Our concern is that Russia may make the serious mistake of attempting to rehash what it undertook back in 2014, when it amassed forces along the border, crossed into sovereign Ukrainian territory and did so claiming — falsely — that it was provoked,” Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenCIA director says there will be consequences if Russia is behind ‘Havana Syndrome’ attacks Buttigieg has high name recognition, favorability rating in Biden Cabinet: survey US considering sending military advisers, weaponry to Ukraine: report MORE said earlier this month.
But U.S. officials are determined not to be caught off-guard by such a military operation, with Blinken on Saturday indicating the administration was preparing for any aggressive Russian maneuver.
“We know the playbook of trying to cite some illusory provocation from Ukraine or any other country and using that as an excuse for what Russia plans to do all along,” Blinken said while traveling to Senegal.
Reports also emerged this week that the Biden administration is mulling its options to deter the Kremlin, including sending military advisers and new weapons to Kyiv.
Such an aid package could include helicopters, mortars, air defense systems such as stinger missiles and new Javelin anti-tank and anti-armor missiles.
U.S. officials have also reportedly talked with European allies about forming a new sanctions package that could go into effect should Russia invade.
State Department officials have not publicly mentioned any new weapons or sanctions package, but one official told The Hill on Tuesday that the administration has “demonstrated that the United States is willing to use a number of tools to address harmful Russian actions and we will not hesitate from making use of those and other tools in the future.”
Also in an effort not to be caught flat-footed, administration officials have shared intelligence with allied countries.
White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiBiden: Guilty verdicts in Arbery case ‘not enough’ Buttigieg has high name recognition, favorability rating in Biden Cabinet: survey Overnight Energy & Environment — Biden to release 50M barrels from oil reserve MORE on Monday told reporters that the administration has “had extensive interactions with our European allies and partners in recent weeks, including with Ukraine.”
She added that the U.S. has “also had held discussions with Russian officials about Ukraine and U.S.-Russian relations in general.”
Pentagon officials have also kept in close contact with their counterparts, with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark MilleyMark MilleyOvernight Defense & National Security — Russian military moves cause for concern Drones are a strategic liability for US US Embassy warns of ‘unusual Russian military activity’ near Ukraine’s border, in Crimea MORE speaking by phone with the Lt. Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhny, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s military, on Monday.
Milley also spoke via telephone on Tuesday with Russia’s top military officer, Gen. Valery Gerasimov.
The military leaders discussed “several security-related issues of concern,” Col. Dave Butler, Joint Staff spokesperson, said in a readout of the call.
In addition, the administration has sent U.S. Navy patrol boats to help theUkrainian navy counter Moscowin the Black Sea.
But even with its threatening stance, one that numerous NATO nations have publicly noted, Russia continues to deny it has any intention to invade its neighbor like it did nearly eight years ago.
Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Tuesday that its amassing of forces and equipment don’t “pose a threat to anyone and should not cause concern to anyone.”
He instead blamed a “targeted information campaign” from Western nations as the cause for “building up tension” and said should the U.S. send additional military assistance to Ukraine, it could lead “to a further aggravation of the situation on the border line.”
Western nations are not convinced, however, and even less so with Russia this week conducting further military exercises, according to a Wednesday report by Interfax.
Russia reportedly had fighter planes and ships practicing airstrikes and combating air attacks, including about 10 aircraft crews and ships of the Black Sea fleet’s Novorossiysk naval base, Interfax wrote.
Ukraine, for its part, is equally preparing for any military maneuver with its own drill this week.
