Trump’s claims on crime rates clash with police data



Surging crime levels, out-of-control Democratic cities and “migrant crime.”

Former President Donald Trump regularly cites all three at his campaign rallies, in news releases and on Truth Social, often saying President Joe Biden and Democrats are to blame.

But the crime picture Trump paints contrasts sharply with years of police and government data at both the local and national levels.

FBI statistics released this year suggested a steep drop in crime across the country last year. It’s a similar story across major cities, with violent crime down year over year in Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C.

NBC News analyzed crime data to evaluate Trump’s assertions about the topic.

U.S. and big city crime rates

Trump’s campaign often refers to crime levels, regularly pointing the finger at Biden.

“On Joe Biden’s watch, violent crime has skyrocketed in virtually every American city,” the campaign said in a news release published this month on its site.

Trump himself has made similar remarks.

“Four years ago, I told you that if crooked Joe Biden got to the White House, our borders would be abolished, our middle class would be decimated and our communities would be plagued by bloodshed, chaos and violent crime,” Trump said in a speech last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “We were right about everything.”

Government figures don’t support that characterization.

Reported violent crime dropped 6% across the board when comparing the last three months of 2022 to the same period in 2023, the FBI reported.

The reported drops were especially pronounced in the big cities that Trump often assails, many of which have Democratic mayors. Violent crime dropped by 11% in cities with populations of 1 million or more, according to FBI data, while murders dropped by 20%, rape was down 16%, and aggravated assault fell by 11%.

Reached for comment, the Trump campaign pointed to other reports indicating that certain types of crimes increased in specific cities.

At the national level, the reported rate of violent crime in 2022, the most recent full year with comprehensive FBI data, was 380.7 offenses per 100,000 people. That’s lower than the overall reported violent crime rate from 2020 — the last full year Trump was in office — when the figure was at 398.5.

The lowest reported violent crime rate of Trump’s presidency was in 2019, when the metric was at 380.8 — in line with the 2022 rate.

The FBI said it will release more comprehensive 2023 crime data in October, just before the election.

The Trump campaign, reached for comment, cited certain categories of violent crime, such as motor vehicle theft, as having increased during the Biden administration, according to FBI figures.

“Joe Biden is trying to convince Americans not to believe their own eyes,” campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, adding that “Democrats have turned great American cities into cesspools of bloodshed and crime.”

New York City crime

Trump, who was born and raised in New York but now lives in Florida, often rails against what he portrays as an increasing crime rate in his former hometown.

Those references to soaring violence have only increased as he faces criminal charges in New York accusing him of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty in that case, must also post a $175 million bond to prevent state Attorney General Letitia James from collecting the judgment from a New York civil fraud case.

“I did nothing wrong, and New York should never be put in a position like this again,” Trump posted on Truth Social about the civil judgment in all capital letters. “Businesses are fleeing, violent crime is flourishing, and it is very important that this be resolved in its totality as soon as possible.”

In a separate post, he claimed that “murders & violent crime hit unimaginable records” in the city.

However, major crimes in New York City are down this year by 2.3%, according to police department data comparing year-to-date figures to the same period in 2023.

Those figures for last year were also far below the highs from recent decades. In 1990, more than 527,000 major crimes were reported, compared to more than 126,000 last year, according to New York police data — a drop of more than 75%.

In 2001, more than 162,000 major crimes were reported in New York. The figure dropped by more than 20% over the next two decades.

At the same time, New York City data indicates that the number of major crimes increased in the past few years, though reported violent crimes like murder and rape were down last year from previous years.

‘Migrant crime’

Trump’s dehumanizing language about migrants has become a mainstay of his political speeches since he first sought office in 2015.

In a news release this month, his campaign said the “border Crisis has created a tragic surge in violent crime against innocent American citizens at the hands of some of the world’s most violent criminals.”

Trump has also focused his energy on high-profile cases such as the death of Laken Riley, who was killed in Georgia while jogging. The suspect is a Venezuelan citizen who entered the U.S. illegally in 2022.

“Every day, innocent citizens are being killed, stabbed, shot, raped and murdered because of Biden migrant crime,” Trump said in a video posted to his campaign’s X account last week.

However, there is no evidence of a migrant-driven crime wave in the U.S., according to local police department data.

Crime reports have decreased in several major cities targeted by Texas’ Operation Lone Star, a program backed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott that flies or buses migrants from the state to Democratic-run cities across the U.S.

Several of those cities — New York, Chicago, Washington and Philadelphia — have had decreases in year-to-date reported crime totals compared to the same period last year.






Source link

Greek police clash with demonstrators protesting concert by U.S. military cadets



Police in Greece clashed late Wednesday with Communist-backed demonstrators who tried to prevent a concert by U.S. military cadets.

The violent protest occurred in the central Greek city of Larissa ahead of a concert by members of the West Point Glee Club, a musical group of the U.S. Military Academy which is currently on tour in Greece.

Videos and photos shared on social media show police firing tear gas to hold back the demonstrators outside a municipal theater, while officers also clashed with a smaller number of protesters as they entered the building.

It was not immediately clear if the concert took place. Authorities and the venue couldn’t be reached for comment.

Protest organizers from the Greek Communist Party oppose the presence of U.S. troops in Greece as well as Greek military support for Ukraine and involvement in international maritime security missions in the Red Sea.

There were no reports of arrests or injuries.



Source link

Obamacare wars heat up as Biden and Trump clash over subsidies



President Joe Biden on Tuesday called for extending a subsidy boost under the Affordable Care Act that is set to expire after 2025, underscoring one of the most immediate health care policy implications of the upcoming election.

The president boasted that he made the ACA — also known as “Obamacare” — “stronger than ever before” by signing into law enhanced subsidies under the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act. That has helped push ACA enrollment to an all-time high of 45 million people, according to government figures.

“I enacted tax credits to save an average of $800 per person per year, reducing health care premiums for millions of working families under the ACA. Those tax credits expire next year,” Biden said during a campaign event in North Carolina. “I’m calling on Congress to make that $800 expanded affordable health care tax credit permanent. Otherwise, millions of Americans with that coverage could lose that coverage.”

Whoever wins in November will have a major say on whether that funding is extended. Biden sees it as a legacy to protect. His Republican rival, Donald Trump, an avowed opponent of the ACA, has not discussed that funding or offered a health care alternative.

Asked how he would handle those subsidies, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday said only that he’s “running to make health care actually affordable, in addition to bringing down inflation, cutting taxes and reducing regulations to put more money back in the pockets of all Americans who have been robbed by Joe Biden’s disastrous economic policies.”

The ACA, signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010, includes tax subsidies for people up to 400% of the federal poverty level to obtain coverage. In 2021, Biden and the Democratic-controlled Congress added a provision that assisted people above that level, capping premiums at 8.5% of an individual’s income. The policy has helped millions of people buy insurance and lowered premiums for others who already have it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has previously estimated that the cap costs about $25 billion per year.

Biden noted Tuesday that “not a single solitary Republican in the Congress voted for” the American Rescue Plan that established the enhanced subsidies for two years, nor the Inflation Reduction Act, which extended them for three years. Republicans objected to many domestic spending provisions in the two measures.

In North Carolina, Biden told a crowd of supporters to assume that if Trump and Republicans win, they will reignite the fight against ACA.

“Trump and his MAGA friends in Congress want to get rid of the ACA and kick these Americans off their health insurance. It’s sick. Now they want to, quote — his word — ‘terminate’ the ACA, as my predecessor says. If that ever happened, we’d also terminate a lot of lives as well,” Biden said. “But we’re not going to let that happen.”

Trump fought during his four years in office to roll back the ACA through executive action, legislation and the courts. He succeeded at zeroing out the penalty for failing to carry insurance, but failed to repeal the law’s insurance regulations and subsidies.

In November 2023, as a presidential candidate, Trump revived his calls for replacing the ACA, criticizing Republicans who voted not to “terminate” it in 2017 when the party fell short in Congress. “It was a low point for the Republican Party, but we should never give up!” he wrote at the time on his social media platform Truth Social. A few days later, after pushback, Trump doubled down, saying: “I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!”

Ahead of Biden’s speech Tuesday, Trump took aim at his rival: “I’m not running to terminate the ACA, AS CROOKED JOE BUDEN DISINFORMATES AND MISINFORMATES ALL THE TIME,” he wrote on social media, adding in all caps that he wants to “make the ACA, or Obamacare, as it is known, much better, stronger, and far less expensive.”

Trump has not offered a plan to do that, and his campaign didn’t detail one when asked. His party has struggled to come up with health care proposals that maintain the ACA’s benefits — including the protections for pre-existing conditions and the tax credits that extended coverage — at a lower cost.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who fought for years to repeal the ACA, said this month that Trump needs to make his case if he wants Republicans to reopen the issue.

“We had a big fight over that a few years ago,” McConnell told reporters on March 12. “And if he can develop a base for revisiting that issue, obviously we’d take a look at it. But it seems to me that’s largely over.”



Source link

Pence, Trump attorney clash over what Trump told his VP ahead of Jan. 6, 2021


WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s defense attorney says the former president never asked Mike Pence to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 election, but only wanted the former vice president to “pause” the certification of votes to allow states to investigate his claims of election fraud. Those baseless claims had already been rejected by numerous courts.

Speaking on several Sunday morning news shows, Trump attorney John Lauro said Trump was within his First Amendment rights when he petitioned Pence to delay the certification on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the counts and allow the states to weigh in,” Lauro said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” He added that Trump was convinced there were irregularities in the election that needed to be investigated by state authorities before the election could be certified.

Pence, who like Trump is seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2024, flatly rejected that account during an interview Sunday, saying Trump seemed “convinced” as early as December that Pence had the right to reject or return votes and that on Jan. 5, Trump’s attorneys told him “’We want you to reject votes outright.”

“They were asking me to overturn the election. I had no right to overturn the election,” Pence said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Pence’s role in certifying Joe Biden’s win over Trump in the 2020 election makes him a central figure in the prosecution against Trump on charges that he sought to overturn the will of the voters and remain in office even after the courts had roundly rejected his claims of electoral fraud. Federal and state election officials and Trump’s own attorney general also had said there were was no credible evidence the election was tainted.

Last week’s indictment chronicles how Trump and his allies, in what special counsel Jack Smith described as an attack on a “bedrock function of the U.S. government,” repeatedly lied about the results in the two months after he lost the election and pressured Pence and state election officials to take action to help him cling to power. Those efforts culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump supporters violently stormed the Capitol in an effort to stop the certification.

Trump pleaded not guilty to those charges. Separately, he also faces charges that he falsified business records relating to hush money payments to a porn actor in New York and improperly kept classified documents at his Palm Beach, Florida, resort and obstructed an investigation into their handling.

Speaking on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Lauro said Pence’s testimony will show Trump believed the election was rigged and that he was listening to the advice of his attorneys when he sought to delay the certification. Pence, who appeared before the grand jury that indicted Trump, said he will comply with the law if asked to testify.

“I cannot wait until I have the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Pence,” Lauro said. “He will completely eliminate any doubt that President Trump firmly believed that the election irregularities had led to an inappropriate result.”

The 45-page indictment details how people close to Trump repeatedly told him he had lost and that there was no truth to his claims of fraud. In one encounter days before the riot, Trump told Pence he was “too honest” after the vice president said he didn’t have the authority to reject electoral votes, the indictment says.

Former allies of Trump have said Trump knew he lost but spread false claims about fraud anyway. After he failed to convince state officials to illegally swing the election, Trump and his allies recruited fake electors in swing states to sign certificates falsely stating Trump had prevailed.

“He knew well that he had lost the election,” Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr told CNN last week.

Lauro said Trump’s defense team will seek to move the case from Washington because it wants a more diverse jury. He said he would support televising the trial, and dismissed speculation that it could wrap up before the 2024 election.

“In 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two to three years,” Lauro said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Responding to questions about whether Trump can get a fair trial in the nation’s capital, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a former federal prosecutor and a Republican, said he can.

“Yes, I believe jurors can be fair. I believe in the American people,” Christie said Sunday on CNN.

A slew of people charged in the Jan. 6 riot have tried to get their trials moved out of Washington. Yet judges have rejected those motions in every case, saying fair jurors can be found with proper questioning.

Trump’s legal team has until 5 p.m. Monday to respond to the prosecution’s request for a protective order limiting Trump’s ability to publicly disclose information about the case. The decision is up to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it’s “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”

Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform from Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”



Source link

Tension intensifies between College Board and Florida with clash over AP psychology course


The College Board dispute with Florida over Advanced Placement courses escalated on Thursday as the education nonprofit accused Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration of having “effectively banned” a high school psychology course.

The academic clash began when Florida in January blocked the introduction of a new AP course for high school students that focuses on African American studies, saying it lacked educational value and was contrary to state law. The class, which began as a pilot at 60 schools and will expand to 800 schools nationwide in the coming year, is still barred in Florida, according to
USA Today. The current controversy over AP psychology classes revolves around lessons on sexual orientation and identity. 

The College Board said on Thursday going forward, any classes labeled as AP Psychology in Florida will violate either Florida law or college requirements.  “Therefore, we advise Florida districts not to offer AP Psychology until Florida reverses their decision and allows parents and students to choose to take the full course.”

Florida’s Department of Education responded that the College Board is trying to force school districts to “prevent students from taking the AP Psychology Course” just one week before the start of school.

“The Department didn’t ‘ban’ the course. The course remains listed in Florida’s Course Code Directory for the 2023-24 school year,” a department spokesperson told CBS News. “We encourage the College Board to stop playing games with Florida students and continue to offer the course and allow teachers to operate accordingly. The other advanced course providers (including the International Baccalaureate program) had no issue providing the college credit psychology course.”

The state’s controversial Parental Rights in Education Act, widely known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, prohibits classroom discussion or instruction on sexual orientation and identity in kindergarten to third grade or in older grades in “a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate.”

In a May letter to the College Board, Florida’s Department of Education Office of Articulation asked the organization “to immediately conduct a thorough review of all College Board courses (Advanced Placement and Pre-Advanced Placement) and inform the Office of Articulation, by June 16, 2023, whether these courses need modification to ensure compliance. Some courses may contain content or topics prohibited by State Board of Education rule and Florida law.”

The College Board would not modify the course.

“Doing so would break the fundamental promise of AP: colleges wouldn’t broadly accept that course for credit and that course wouldn’t prepare students for careers in the discipline,” the organization wrote in a letter to Florida officials. “The learning objective within AP Psychology that covers gender and sexual orientation has specifically been raised by some Florida districts relative to these recent regulations. That learning objective must remain a required topic, just as it has been in Florida for many years. As with all AP courses, required topics must be included for a course to be designated as AP.”

The American Psychological Association has backed the College Board’s decision. In a June statement, APA CEO Arthur C. Evans Jr. said understanding human sexuality is a fundamental part of psychology. 

“Educators cannot teach psychology and exclude an entire group of people from the curriculum,” Evans said, referring to
LGBTQ+ individuals.  

The AP course in psychology asks students to “describe how sex and gender influence socialization and other aspects of development,” which the College Board said has been part of the curriculum since the course was launched 30 years ago. 

More than 28,000 Florida students took AP Psychology in the 2022-23 academic year, according to the College Board. Tens of thousands of students will be impacted in the upcoming academic year. 

“The AP Program will do all we can do to support schools in their plans for responding to this late change,” the College Board said. 

Education in Florida has also been impacted by the “Stop WOKE Act,” which prohibits the teaching of critical race theory in Florida schools. In February, DeSantis characterized the AP African American course’s proposed syllabus as “indoctrination that runs afoul of our standards.”

“Why don’t we just do and teach the things that matter? Why is it always someone has to try and jam their agenda down our throats,” he said at the time.



Source link

National Latino museum’s funding threatened by congressional clash


A funding dispute between lawmakers who’ve been working for decades in a bipartisan effort to create a national Latino museum underscores the challenges around defining U.S. Latino history amid increasingly partisan culture wars.

Republicans who pushed to defund the Smithsonian’s upcoming National Museum of the American Latino and the Molina Family Latino Gallery — a small space inside the National Museum of American History used for temporary exhibits featuring Latino history— may be having a change of heart after seemingly reaching some common ground with Smithsonian leadership this week.

Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, R-Fla., and Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, co-chairs of the Congressional Hispanic Conference, led a meeting Tuesday with Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III and his staff after feeling “deeply disappointed and offended” by a bilingual exhibit titled “¡Presente! A Latino History of the United States,” they said in a joint statement Wednesday evening.

The exhibit in question was promoted as “a preview” of the national Latino museum’s potential when it opened last year at the Molina Family Latino Gallery.

But shortly after its debut, conservative Latinos criticized the exhibit for elevating leftist ideologues, celebrating LGBTQ Latinos and advancing “the classic oppressor-oppressed agenda,” among other concerns. They called for the national Latino museum’s defunding.

These concerns reached the House Appropriations Committee this month. In a mostly party-line vote, the committee approved a Republican bill that included zeroing out federal funding for the “planning, design, or construction” of the national Latino museum and the operation of the Molina Family Latino Gallery.

“Defunding the museum now may mean that it may be delayed 10 more years,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said during a committee hearing last week.

But after Tuesday’s meeting, Díaz-Balart and Gonzales said the Smithsonian showed serious commitment to rectifying its actions. “Procedural changes in the review of content and leadership have been made,” effectively opening the door “to allow funding to go further,” they said in a statement.

The Molina gallery’s current exhibit features significant figures such as Indigenous freedom fighter Toypurina, Mexican American civil rights leader César Chávez, Puerto Rican baseball star Roberto Clemente, Guatemalan labor organizer Luisa Moreno, Colombian American drag queen José Sarria and Cuban American singer Celia Cruz, according to the Smithsonian.

It was specifically “designed to explore the rich history and culture, as well as the complexities and common threads, of U.S. Latino communities,” Jorge Zamanillo, director of the Smithsonian’s national Latino museum, told NBC News in a statement Thursday night.

The 4,500-square-foot gallery showcases historical artifacts, documents and personal stories. The elements are organized under four historical themes: “Colonial Legacies,” “War and U.S. Expansion,” “Immigration Stories” and “Shaping the Nation.”

According to the Smithsonian, the “¡Presente!” exhibit was developed based on conversations curators had with museum visitors about what they don’t know about Latino history.

Whose history?

When Congress approved legislation in 2020 to start the process of creating a national Latino museum, some federal funding was appropriated to the Smithsonian to get the ball rolling.

That legislation included language agreeing not to portray a single political ideology in the museum’s exhibits.

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, the current bill’s main sponsor, said he included the defunding language in support of his Republican Hispanic colleagues who expressed “serious concerns” about Smithsonian exhibits promoting socialism and depicting Latinos as victims. They pointed to some examples.

According to Republican committee members, the creators of the exhibit chose to highlight a convicted military deserter instead of “the thousands of courageous Latino military heroes that served our country proudly and honorably.”

After Díaz-Balart voiced some of these concerns during last week’s hearing, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., defended the exhibit, saying dissent can be patriotic.

“It’s at the very core of democracy,” he said. “To disagree when something is wrong, to right a wrong, is more American perhaps as much as the Constitution of this nation.”

Espaillat added that he can agree with some of the concerns, but “there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of parts to that exhibit” reflecting a wide range of Latino experiences from people with similar heritage, but distinct identities.

A scene from the inaugural exhibition at the Molina Family Latino Gallery, which opened to the public in June 2022 at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.
A scene from the inaugural exhibition at the Molina Family Latino Gallery, which opened to the public in June 2022 at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.Patricia Guadalupe for NBC News

“And just because we cannot agree, we disagree on one part of it, we’re going to drive a stake through the heart of what could be a major institution for the Latino community? I think that’s flawed and mistaken,” said Espaillat, who’s also deputy chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Another example cited by Republicans was “the lightness with which serious topics are portrayed, such as scented exhibits meant to simulate raft rides of those risking their lives to flee tyranny, romanticization of socialism, and failure to adequately document or portray the reality of totalitarianism.”

During last week’s committee hearing, Díaz-Balart said he first expressed these concerns to the Smithsonian back in December, but the institution responded with “lip service.” Republicans argued the only way to make the Smithsonian act on their concerns was to withhold funding.

Even though the fight over the museum’s funding has moved outside the committee’s reach following last week’s vote — making it harder for lawmakers to reverse course — Díaz-Balart and Gonzales said they’re engaging in discussions with Simpson and other members to provide federal funding for the national Latino museum following their meeting with the Smithsonian.

Zamanillo said the team at the national Latino museum is looking forward to “working with all members of Congress as we begin the long journey toward building and opening the National Museum of the American Latino.”

What’s next?

As of Thursday, it’s unclear how much more can lawmakers do to change the provision defunding the museum before Congress leaves for recess this weekend.

The museum’s funding dispute comes as the House gets ready to vote on a series of spending bills for fiscal year 2024. While the bills are part of a routine appropriations process to fund government agencies starting in October, Republican policy riders have included language on some of these must-pass bills targeting critical race theory, diversity efforts, drag shows and Pride flag displays.

A scene from the inaugural exhibition at the Molina Family Latino Gallery, which opened to the public in June 2022 at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.
A scene from the inaugural exhibition at the Molina Family Latino Gallery, which opened to the public in June 2022 at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.Patricia Guadalupe for NBC News

The national Latino museum is expected to cost $600 million to $800 million; half of the funding will come from Congress and the other half from private fundraising. That fundraising process could greatly benefit from having a permanent home for the museum selected, museum supporters have said.

Two sites by the National Mall are being considered. Both sites are property of the National Park Service; ownership would need to be transferred to the Smithsonian before any construction could begin, and the construction has to be approved by Congress. By law, a site for the museum has to be designated by Dec. 27, 2024.

It took the Smithsonian 10 to 15 years to create similar museums such as the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the National Museum of American History.

For the first time in its history, the Smithsonian is simultaneously creating two museums from scratch, the National Museum of the American Latino and the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum. Unlike the Latino museum, the women’s museum hasn’t endured any defunding or delays, according to the Smithsonian.





Source link

Senate passes defense bill with bipartisan support, but clash looms with House over social issues



WASHINGTON — The Senate has passed a massive annual defense bill that would deliver a 5.2% pay raise for service members and keep the nation’s military operating, avoiding partisan policy battles to move the bill forward with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

Senate passage, 86-11, sets up a clash with the House, which passed its own version of the annual defense bill along party lines after repeated clashes over social issues like abortion access and diversity initiatives. The partisan debate over the House legislation veered from a bipartisan tradition of finding consensus on national defense policy.

The strong bipartisan vote for the legislation in the Senate could give it momentum as the two chambers next look to settle their differences.

“I don’t think either party got exactly what they wanted,” said Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but he said the bipartisan bill would help the military improve recruitment and prevent conflict.

The two chambers will now have to write a final bill, a test of the deeply divided House, in particular, as the traditionally bipartisan legislation was swept up in the disputes over race, equity and women’s health care that have been political priorities for the Republican party.

Wicker said talks with the House would start “very soon” and he feels confident they will be able to pass legislation, as Congress has annually since 1961.

“We always have,” Wicker said.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., predicted the bipartisan Senate approach would prevail.

“The fact that we’re going to have a strong bipartisan approach on it says that we’re probably closer to where we’re going to end up than what the House has done on a partisan basis,” said Rounds.

The massive Senate defense bill would set defense spending levels at $886 billion for the coming year, in line with President Joe Biden’s budget request. Congress has to pass separate spending legislation to allocate the money, but the defense legislation lays out budget and policy for the Pentagon.

The House debate earlier this month was marked by amendments from hardline conservatives that pushed the bill to the right. In the Senate, where most amendments need 60 votes to pass, additions to the bill were bipartisan and more focused on military policy, with many focused on countering potential American adversaries like Russia and China.

A bipartisan group of senators, with an eye toward the potential for Donald Trump to return to the White House, included a provision to require two-thirds of the Senate to approve if a U.S. president tries to withdraw from NATO. Trump has been deeply critical of the military alliance and repeatedly questioned its value to the U.S.

Rounds also joined with Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana to successfully push an amendment to the bill that would prevent agents of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from purchasing agricultural land in the U.S. Another bipartisan duo, Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Bob Casey, D-Pa., pushed an amendment to increase Treasury Department oversight of U.S. investment into Russian and Chinese technology firms that work with “sensitive technology,” such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence.

Both Republicans and Democrats also supported the inclusion of a provision that would allow the Treasury Department to use sanctions against people and organizations involved in the international fentanyl trade.

Still unresolved is Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s refusal to allow hundreds of military nominations and promotions to speed through the Senate in protest of the Defense Department’s abortion policy, which covers the cost of travel for service members seeking abortion and reproductive care.

Tuberville has shown little interest in backing down even as some members of his own party have encouraged him to drop it. He is preventing quick action on over 260 nominations of senior military officers, including a commandant for the U.S. Marine Corps, frustrating leaders at the Pentagon and his own colleagues.

The House bill contains a provision that would end the Defense Department’s abortion policy. But that would not pass the Democratic-led Senate.



Source link