Biden Administration and Senate News: Live Updates
[ad_1]
Here’s what you need to know:
On Wednesday night, Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, went on television to proclaim that the Biden administration was still “fighting our guts out” to get Neera Tanden confirmed as the head of the Office of Management and Budget.
It was a fight that Mr. Klain and others in the West Wing had not expected to have to wage.
After Democrats picked up two Senate seats in twin Georgia runoff elections in January, giving the party control of the Senate and the incoming Biden team more leeway in its nominations, Ms. Tanden was seen as a strong pick to serve as budget director. Mr. Klain pushed hard for Ms. Tanden, a longtime friend, even while some other aides worried picking her would create a distraction and require the White House to expend political capital best used to pass the relief bill.
Ms. Tanden was a longtime aide and loyalist to Hillary Clinton. But she was not in line to get a job in a potential Clinton administration in 2016, after emails in which she described Mrs. Clinton’s political instincts as “suboptimal” were published by WikiLeaks.
Still, the back-of-the-envelope math looked good for Ms. Tanden’s confirmation, even accounting for the concerns about her being seen as partisan and unstrategically belligerent in social media posts.
The White House did not have promised Republican votes, but officials were hearing encouraging rumblings. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, for instance, had told mutual contacts he was inclined to give the president his pick, according to two people involved in the process.
Democrats close to the administration said Ms. Tanden had been expecting a level of Republican support similar to Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, who was confirmed with six Republicans joining 50 Democrats to vote for his confirmation.
But by Thursday afternoon, the fight to confirm Ms. Tanden had come down to whether Mr. Biden’s team could scrounge up one lonely Republican to support her nomination. (With Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, in the “no” column, at least one Republican would be needed to join all Democrats in support.)
After Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he would not vote to confirm Ms. Tanden, there was only one option left on the table: Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska. Even Mr. Romney, who had been in the White House’s unofficial “likely” column, said he could not support a nominee “who has issued a thousand mean tweets.”
Ms. Murkowski could still vote to confirm Ms. Tanden. But even if she does, this is not how the Biden team expected the process to play out.
Of the Republicans who had generally been helpful and not totally oppositional to the Biden administration, only Senator Susan Collins of Maine was a locked-in “no” vote for Ms. Tanden, according to one official involved in the process.
With no overarching concerns over Ms. Tanden’s nomination, the White House focused its time and energy instead on preparing two appointees it had assessed to be its most vulnerable cabinet members: Representative Deb Haaland, who Mr. Biden nominated to serve as interior secretary; and Xavier Becerra, nominated to serve as secretary of health and human services.
White House officials said the dam seemed to break for Ms. Tanden after Mr. Manchin said he would not support her nomination. Republican opposition jumped after his vote, and some officials viewed those “no” votes as an opportunistic pile-on.
Biden allies involved in the process said Mr. Klain knew Ms. Tanden’s nomination would be somewhat contentious.
But he and others did not expect her tweets to make her more contentious than other potential nominees. Progressives like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, for example, were staging protests over the possibility of Bruce Reed, Mr. Biden’s former chief of staff, leading the budget department before the nomination went to Ms. Tanden. White House officials assumed nominees for other posts would face more opposition from Republicans.
White House officials conceded that Mr. Klain miscalculated the opposition to Ms. Tanden. But they also put the struggle over her nomination in context, noting that former President Barack Obama had 57 Democratic Senators and still lost three cabinet picks in his first year. The Biden administration, in contrast, has pushed through a historically diverse and progressive cabinet with less reliable Democratic support in the Senate.
On Thursday, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters that “The president nominated Neera Tanden because she is qualified, because she is experienced, because she has a record of working with people who agree and disagree with her.”
“We’re continuing to fight for her confirmation,” she said.
transcript
transcript
Rand Paul Lashes Out At Rachel Levine About ‘Genital Mutilation’
Dr. Rachel Levine, President Biden’s assistant secretary of health nominee, stands to be the first openly transgender federal official confirmed by the Senate. At a hearing on Thursday, Senator Rand Paul asked Dr. Levine about her stance on “genital mutilation” and minors.
-
“Most genital mutilation is not typically performed by force, but as W.H.O. notes, that by social convention, social norm, the social pressure to conform, to do what others do and have been doing, as well as the need to be accepted socially and the fear of being rejected by the community, American culture is now normalizing the idea that minors can be given hormones to prevent their biological development of their secondary sexual characteristics. Dr. Levine, you have supported both allowing minors to be given hormone blockers to prevent them from going through puberty, as well as surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia. Dr. Levine, do you believe that minors are capable of making such a life-changing decision as changing one’s sex?” “Well, Senator, thank you for your interest in this question, transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field with robust research and standards of care that have been developed. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as the assistant secretary of health, I will look forward to working with you and your office, and coming to your office and discussing the particulars of the standards of care for transgender —” “I’m alarmed that poor kids with no parents who are homeless and distraught, you would just go through this and allow that to happen to a minor.” “I would certainly be pleased to come to your office and talk with you and your staff about the standards of care and the complexity of this field.”
A culture war over transgender rights erupted on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as a Republican senator attacked President Biden’s nominee to a top health post, and two members of the House — one the mother of a transgender daughter — sparred over legislation that would extend civil rights protections to L.G.B.T.Q. people.
The nominee, Dr. Rachel Levine, a former Pennsylvania health secretary and Mr. Biden’s pick to be assistant secretary of health, stands to be the first openly transgender federal official confirmed by the Senate, and her nomination has been cheered by advocates for transgender rights.
But Dr. Levine’s confirmation hearing briefly turned combative on Thursday, when Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, opened his questioning with a tirade about “genital mutilation” and a demand to know whether the nominee supported gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for minors. (An earlier version of this post misstated the day of the hearing.)
“You’re willing to let a minor take things that prevent their puberty, and you think they get that back?” Mr. Paul, who is an ophthalmologist, said at one point. “You give a woman testosterone enough that she grows a beard — you think she’s going to go back looking like a woman when you stop the testosterone?”
Dr. Levine replied that, “Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field with robust research and standards of care” that she would be happy to discuss with him.
The clash exposed the deep shift Washington is undergoing as Mr. Biden settles into office, undoing the policies of his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump, who worked aggressively to undermine transgender rights. Mr. Biden, by contrast, is seeking to make his administration more welcoming to L.G.B.T.Q. people.
Mr. Biden has repealed Mr. Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military. L.G.B.T.Q. references are now commonplace, and visitors to the White House website are now asked whether they want to provide their pronouns when they fill out a contact form: she/her, he/him or they/them.
And the Senate hearing unfolded on a day when the House passed the Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.
In emotional remarks in support of the bill on Thursday, Representative Marie Newman, Democrat of Illinois, said she was fighting to advance the legislation to ensure that people like her daughter, who is transgender, would no longer face discrimination. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the first-term Republican from Georgia who is known for spreading false and bigoted conspiracy theories and has a history of online trolling, responded on Twitter, calling Ms. Newman’s daughter “your biological son” and saying that she did not “belong in my daughters’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams.”
The ugly attack on a fellow lawmaker’s child came after Ms. Newman posted video of herself putting up a transgender pride flag outside her office on Capitol Hill so Ms. Greene, her office neighbor, would have to “look at it every time she opens her door.” In response, Ms. Greene put up a poster of her own in the hallway outside that bore the phrase: “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE.”
Also on Thursday, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, weighed in, lashing out at Mr. Paul and Ms. Taylor Greene — though not by name — during a news conference with Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California in support of the equality bill.
“Their attacks on trans people and the transgender community are just mean, mean and show a complete lack of understanding, a complete lack of empathy,” Mr. Schumer said, adding, “Their despicable comments just make my blood boil with anger. If I didn’t have a mask, you could see my teeth gritting.”
Since Mr. Biden nominated her, Dr. Levine has been subject to attacks on social media and from conservative news outlets that have asserted, without evidence, that she has advocated gender reassignment surgery for minors, which is generally not done in the United States.
Dr. Levine, a pediatrician who previously focused on eating disorders and adolescent mental health, was also the liaison for the L.G.B.T.Q. community for the Office of Diversity at the Penn State College of Medicine.
Her detractors have seized on a 2017 speech she gave describing hormone therapy as a standard of care for transgender youth, and also on a tweet she posted in January 2020 about a study showing that transgender youth with access to puberty blocking drugs are at decreased risk of suicide.
“This study is important because it’s the first to show this specific association,” Dr. Levine wrote.
Catie Edmondson contributed reporting.
The Senate confirmed Jennifer M. Granholm to be energy secretary on Thursday, positioning the former governor of Michigan to play a key role in President Biden’s plans to confront climate change.
Ms. Granholm, a longtime champion of renewable energy development, was confirmed by a vote of 64 to 35, with support from both Democrats and Republicans. She will be the second woman to lead the Department of Energy, after Hazel R. O’Leary, who served under President Bill Clinton.
Ms. Granholm will oversee an agency that plays a leading role in researching and developing new energy technologies, such as advanced wind turbines or methods to capture carbon dioxide from industrial facilities before the gas reaches the atmosphere. Energy experts have said innovations like these could prove critical for slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
At her confirmation hearing last month, Ms. Granholm sought to allay fears by lawmakers that transitioning the United States away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner energy sources would devastate the nation’s economy. She pointed to her experience as Michigan’s governor during the 2009 recession, when the state invested heavily in electric vehicle technology and worker retraining programs amid efforts to rescue an ailing auto industry that had long focused on building gasoline-powered cars and trucks.
“I understand what it’s like to look into the eyes of men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own,” Ms. Granholm said. But clean energy, she added, “is a sector that every single state can benefit from.”
Ms. Granholm could face challenges in managing the sprawling federal agency. Only about one-fifth of the Energy Department’s $35 billion annual budget is devoted to energy programs. The rest goes toward maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, cleaning up environmental messes from the Cold War and conducting scientific research in areas like high-energy physics at the department’s network of 17 national laboratories.
transcript
transcript
Pelosi Expects $15 Minimum Wage Will Be Included in Pandemic Bill
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Democrats have a “very strong argument” for including a $15-per-hour minimum wage in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic response bill.
-
We all want to hear from the Senate parliamentarian as to what will happen with the minimum wage piece of the legislation. I don’t know what other considerations she has, but I feel that we have a very, very strong argument. And we have a very big need in our country. And it’s long overdue, and it will be phased in. And we would hope that it could be part of this reconciliation deal. The need is great, the opportunity is there and the precision of this legislation to directly address the needs of the American people, the lives of the American people and the livelihood.
The battle over the federal minimum wage — long a deferred dream for Democrats — moved to the forefront on Thursday as lawmakers waited to see if inclusion of a $15-per-hour wage in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic bill passes parliamentary muster.
Approval of the hike by the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, which would more than double the current $7.25 rate, would likely set off one of the biggest intraparty and interparty battles yet of Mr. Biden’s young administration.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, during her weekly news conference at the Capitol on Thursday, suggested the increase would pass, despite opposition from two Senate Democrats and from the White House’s reluctance to overrule Ms. MacDonough if she strikes the provision from the bill.
“We will pass the minimum wage,” said Ms. Pelosi. “We must pass the minimum wage.”
Democrats argue that the federal standard, often lower than the more generous rates set in individual states (New York State’s base minimum wage is $12.50, rising to $15 an hour for some employees in New York City), is far below the subsistence level, regardless of the state, for any worker who needs to support a family or pay rent.
On Thursday, the chief executive of Costco told the Senate Budget Committee, chaired by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, that the retailer was raising its starting pay to $16 an hour.
A short time later, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a leader of the Democrats’ progressive wing, suggested that she would vote against any bill that reduces the wage hike. That was a reference to attempts by Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia to lower the increase significantly as part of a compromise backed by some Republicans.
She did say, however, that she would vote for the pandemic bill if the parliamentarian strikes the minimum wage section.
Republicans claim that the increase will drive small business to bankruptcy and give big companies, like Costco and Walmart, which can afford to offer higher pay and better benefits, an unfair advantage that will accelerate the ruin of mom-and-pop stores.
To make that point, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranking Republican, took to Twitter to share his own boyhood employment experiences working in the state four decades ago.
“I started working by bussing tables at the Star Family Restaurant for $1/hour & slowly moved up to cook – the big leagues for a kid like me– to earn $6/hour,” Mr. Thune wrote. “Mandating a $15 minimum wage would put many of them out of business.”
Critics were quick to point out that blue-collar workers in 2021 would jump for the chance to make Mr. Thune’s 1980s wage, when it was adjusted for inflation.
“Why is this relevant? Well, it’s not. Because $6 forty years ago is worth $21.62 today,” replied Representative Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California.
Neera Tanden, you might have heard, has a Twitter problem.
Ms. Tanden, President Biden’s choice to run the Office of Management and Budget, has a yearslong trail of problematic tweets, many aimed at certain key senators who control the increasingly precarious fate of her nomination.
A procession of these senators — Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and the Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah — have indicated that they are unlikely to support Ms. Tanden, in part because of the “divisive” and “overly partisan” nature of her tweets.
There has been much talk of double standards, opportunism, hypocrisy and all of the things that make politicians rather easy to call out.
“Maybe it’s me, but some of this Republican outrage feels a little manufactured,” said Erik Smith, a longtime Democratic media strategist.
The political question of “problematic tweets” has been dominated in recent years by a certain former president who tweeted a lot — at least until last month when he was sent packing from the White House and by Twitter.
During President Donald J. Trump’s time in office, Republicans on Capitol Hill mastered the Kabuki of ducking questions about his latest inflammatory tweet, usually by claiming they “didn’t see the tweet” or were “not going to comment on every one of the president’s tweets” or were “late for lunch, sorry, got to run.”
Around Washington, Ms. Tanden has been a well-known and outspoken liberal for decades. She was a top policy aide to Hillary Clinton, worked in the Obama administration, and has generally been a left-leaning fixture in any number of Washington green rooms, book parties and advisory boards. Any of Ms. Tanden’s nearly 380,000 followers would attest that she is unapologetically partisan.
As technology evolves, so do the Washington rules of the road. In the past, potential job candidates could be derailed by various “indiscretions,” “past statements” or certain things that they might have said “in the heat of the moment.” All of which is basically Twitter in a nutshell.
transcript
transcript
House Approves Sweeping L.G.B.T.Q. Equality Legislation
The House narrowly passed the Equality Act on Thursday, a bill that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
-
“Today, the House will take up and pass for the second time, the Equality Act, H.R. 5, and we are really excited to have the incredible support of President Biden and his commitment to make the Equality Act the law of the land. Every American deserves respect and dignity. And it’s important that the Equality Act become law because it will once and for all ensure that L.G.B.T.Q. Americans can live lives free of discrimination and in particular it amends the existing civil rights architecture and adds sexual orientation and gender identity to employment, education, housing, credit, jury service, public accommodations and federal funding. It’s a fully inclusive civil rights law that will once and for all make discrimination illegal in this country.” “This legislation is personal for me. Just six years ago, L.G.B.T.Q. Americans, like my daughter, won the legal right to marry who they love. The Equality Act would make sure she can continue living her life with her wife, with the security and dignity of knowing she won’t face basic discrimination because of who she.”
A divided House on Thursday narrowly passed a sprawling bill that would extend civil rights protections to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but the measure faced an uphill battle to enactment, with Republicans almost uniformly opposed.
The legislation, passed 224 to 206, almost entirely along party lines, stands little chance of drawing enough Republican support in the Senate to advance, at least in its current form. It was the second time the Democratic-led House had passed the measure, known as the Equality Act, which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add explicit bans on discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in both public and private spaces.
“In most states, L.G.B.T.Q. people can be discriminated against because of who they are, or who they love,” said Representative David Cicilline, an openly gay Democrat from Rhode Island and the lead sponsor. “It is past time for that to change.”
In a landmark decision in June, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 civil rights law protects gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination, and that the language of the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, also applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Equality Act builds on that ruling, and would expand the scope of civil rights protections beyond workers to consumers at businesses including restaurants, taxi services, gas stations and shelters.
It would also water down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1993 law at the heart of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case that set a high bar for governments to enact laws that “substantially burden” an individual’s freedom to exercise religious beliefs. Those protections have been cited by, for example, bakers or photographers who object to serving same-sex weddings. Those seeking to challenge portions of the Equality Act could not do so under RFRA, according to the legislation.
The House first passed the legislation in 2019, but the Republican-controlled Senate at the time refused to take it up. Upon taking office, President Biden encouraged the Democratic-controlled Congress to “swiftly pass” the bill, calling it a “critical step toward ensuring that America lives up to our foundational values of equality.”
But 10 Republicans would need to join Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to pass legislation under normal Senate procedures, a level of support its proponents are unlikely to muster, unless substantial changes are made.
There is another Joe in town, with the power to give big Joe the jitters.
Senator Joe Manchin III, a genial but calculating West Virginia Democrat who has managed to survive in a deep-red state, is emerging as the legislative keystone of his party’s fragile 50-seat majority.
Being the chamber’s most conservative Democrat endows him with the same power held by Vice President Kamala Harris — the ability to cast tiebreaking votes in the chamber. Without Mr. Manchin’s support, Democrats will often fall short of the 51 total votes, including Ms. Harris, needed to pass anything.
Mr. Manchin — who crossed the aisle last year to endorse Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who shares his centrism and who once threatened to retire unless Democrats compromised on a budget — has never been shy about using his leverage.
And he has never had nearly so much.
Take Wednesday. His thumbs-up for a Biden cabinet appointee, Deb Haaland for interior secretary, was regarded as sealing her nomination. On the flip side, his announcement last week that he would oppose Neera Tanden, the president’s pick to run the Office of Management and Budget, has rendered that confirmation increasingly unlikely.
These were mere warm-ups for a bigger test. Party leaders are confident that Mr. Manchin will support the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package that President Biden has made his top priority — but increasingly, they are asking what he might demand in return.
Mr. Manchin has already said he plans to oppose Mr. Biden’s plan to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, a stance also taken by Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, a centrist who has shown less inclination to challenge party leaders.
With such positions, Mr. Manchin, a former governor, embodies the polyglot political personality of a state that delivered huge majorities for former President Donald J. Trump but has a deeply ingrained history of trade unionism and support of federal aid programs.
The state’s current governor, Jim Justice, a Democrat who flipped to the Republican Party to back Mr. Trump, has a similar independent streak: He supports Mr. Biden’s plan and urged his adopted party to “go big.”
Senator Charles Schumer, the majority leader, has long believed Mr. Manchin’s loyalty on big votes entitled him to buck party orthodoxies. But Mr. Biden’s margin of error is small and Mr. Schumer on Tuesday made a broad pitch for party unity when asked about Mr. Manchin.
Mr. Biden and Mr. Schumer are not the only ones with small margins.
Mr. Manchin is up for re-election in 2024. He last won his state by just three points, and cannot afford to lose even a small percentage of Black voters and progressives in population centers like Morgantown and Charleston. White House officials know this, and Ms. Harris made a conspicuous appearance on one of the state’s biggest television stations to push the stimulus last month, much to Mr. Manchin’s annoyance.
Mr. Biden can also take consolation in the fact that there is only one Mr. Manchin.
While President Obama entered office in 2009 with a bigger Senate majority, he also had to appease a half-dozen conservative Democrats, like the powerful chairman of the Finance Committee at the time, Max Baucus, who viewed themselves as legislative barons to be courted, not corralled.
transcript
transcript
Capitol Police Were Unprepared for Scale of ‘Mob Mentality,’ Chief Says
Yogananda D. Pittman, acting chief of the Capitol Police, told a House panel on Thursday that officers were unprepared for the scale of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, and were uncertain of when to use lethal force.
-
The department was not ignorant of intelligence indicating an attack of the size and scale we encountered on the 6th. There was no such intelligence. Although we knew the likelihood for violence by extremists, no credible threat indicated that tens of thousands would attack the U.S. Capitol. The department also did not ignore intelligence that we had, which indicated an elevated risk of violence from extremist groups — to the contrary, we heightened our security posture. There’s evidence that some of those who stormed the Capitol were organized. But there’s also evidence that a large number were everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality because they were angry and desperate. It is the conduct of this latter group that the department was not prepared for. The department did face some operational challenges that we are addressing. For example, the Capitol lockdown was not properly executed. Some of the officers were unsure of when to use lethal force, our radio communications to officers were not as robust and we are ensuring that our incident command system protocols are adhered to going forward. And re-implementing training in those respective areas. We are addressing those operational challenges, but I want to make clear that these measures alone would not have stopped the threat we faced. To stop a mob of tens of thousands requires more than a police force, it requires physical infrastructure or a regiment of soldiers.
The acting chief of the Capitol Police plans to tell a House panel on Thursday that officers on the force were uncertain about whether and when they should use lethal force during the deadly attack on the Capitol last month by a mob of Trump supporters.
“Officers were unsure of when to use lethal force on Jan. 6,” Acting Chief Yogananda D. Pittman planned to tell a House Appropriations subcommittee, according to a copy of her written testimony provided in advance. “The department will also implement significant training to refresh our officers as to the use of lethal force.”
Chief Pittman also said the force would begin training officers on scenarios for how to respond if the Capitol is breached again.
Chief Pittman and Timothy P. Blodgett, the acting House sergeant-at-arms, were both set to testify before the subcommittee about the failures that contributed to the Capitol riot and the steps they are taking to ensure such an event does not happen again.
Both took their posts after their predecessors resigned under pressure in the wake of the assault, in which Capitol Police were overrun by a throng of rioters who invaded the Capitol while the vice president and the entire Congress were assembled inside.
Chief Pittman plans to detail some operational failures that she says she has begun to address since taking over the agency, including training officers on lockdown procedures that were not properly executed during the rampage and on the appropriate use of force.
transcript
transcript
Katherine Tai Testifies Before the Senate Finance Committee
Katherine Tai, President Biden’s pick for U.S. trade representative, testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday about opportunities to boost the economy through trade.
-
Serving as the U.S. trade representative holds special resonance for me as the daughter of immigrants. My parents were born in mainland China, and grew up in Taiwan. The immigration reforms set in motion by President Kennedy opened a path for them to come here as graduate students in the sciences, and they made the most of their American opportunity. That sense of pride and patriotism will ground me every day if I have the honor to be confirmed as United States trade representative. I know that the challenges ahead are significant. Our first task will be to help American communities emerge from the pandemic and economic crisis. U.S.T.R. has an important role to play in that effort. Working with Congress, the entire Biden-Harris administration and other countries, and trusted partners, U.S.T.R. will help to build out strong supply chains that will get our economy back on track. In the longer term, we must pursue trade policies that advance the interests of all Americans.
Katherine Tai, President Biden’s pick for U. S. trade representative, promised members of the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday that she would work with Congress to help reinvigorate the economy and aggressively enforce American trade rules against China, Mexico and other trading partners.
As trade representative, Ms. Tai would play a part in carrying out several of the Biden administration’s key goals, including helping to restore American alliances abroad, challenging China’s unfair trade practices and reforming and enforcing American trade rules to help alleviate inequality and mitigate climate change.
She would also play an important role in decisions like whether to keep former President Donald J. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products, how to address new digital services taxes that foreign countries have imposed on American technology companies and whether to aggressively pursue new trade deals.
In her testimony Thursday morning, Ms. Tai promised to ensure that trading partners adhered to new trade rules, including the agreement that Mr. Trump signed with China last year, and new measures included in the revised North American trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. On China, she said her background challenging China’s unfair trade practices in the Obama administration had given her knowledge of “the opportunities and limitations in our existing toolbox” and that she would explore “all of our options” on improving the U.S.-China trade relationship.
She declined to give many specifics on the trade policies the Biden administration would pursue, saying instead she would review existing tariffs and trade negotiations. But she laid out a philosophy of trade policy that would support broader, more equitable growth and “recognize that people are workers and wage earners, not just consumers,” which she said would be a significant departure from the past.
One of the challenges will be creating trade policy “to break out of that pattern, so that what we are doing in trade is coordinated with what we are doing in other areas, but also not forcing us to pit one of our segments of our workers and our economy against another,” she said.
Asked about the tariffs that Mr. Trump had placed on foreign metals, Ms. Tai said that tariffs were “a legitimate tool in the trade tool box,” but that the global steel and aluminum industries faced larger problems with overcapacity that might require other policy solutions. She also said that she was aware of “the many concerns” that had arisen with the process of companies applying for exclusions from the tariffs, and said that reviewing that system with an eye to transparency, predictability and due process would be “very high on my radar.”
Ms. Tai most recently worked as the chief trade counsel of the House Ways and Means Committee, where she helped to negotiate reforms that brought Democrats on board with U.S.M.C.A., which was negotiated by Mr. Trump. Before that, she served in U.S.T.R.’s general counsel office, where she brought several successful cases against China’s trade practices at the World Trade Organization.
If confirmed, Ms. Tai would be the first woman of color and first Asian-American to serve in the position.
Starting on Friday, a medley of conservative politicians, commentators and activists will descend on Orlando, Fla., for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, commonly known as CPAC. In years past, the event has been a reliable barometer for the base of the Republican Party, clarifying how its most devout members define the institution and what they want it to look like in the future.
For party leaders, those questions have become especially urgent in the aftermath of former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss in November. The party has hardened over the past four years into one animated by rage, grievance and, above all, fealty to Mr. Trump. The days ahead will help illuminate whether it’s likely to stay that way.
Mr. Trump is scheduled to speak at 3:40 p.m. on Sunday, but his presence will be felt throughout the event. On Friday, panelists including Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, who has enthusiastically backed Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud, will gather for a segment called “Protecting Elections: Why Judges & Media Refused to Look at the Evidence.” That theme picks up again on Sunday morning, when speakers will discuss what they call the “Failed States” of Pennsylvania, Georgia and Nevada — states President Biden won.
With so many segments anchored in the 2020 election, the conference appears to be less about mapping the party’s future than relitigating its past. The list of speakers, however, hints at who hopes to be the party’s standard-bearer in 2024.
Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida will deliver the kickoff address on Friday at 9 a.m. Other potential 2024 candidates on the speaker list include Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Rick Scott of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri. Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state, and Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota will anchor the lineup on Saturday.
But who isn’t speaking at CPAC this year is as telling as who is.
The most notable absence is former Vice President Mike Pence, who has kept a low profile since Jan. 6, when pro-Trump rioters called for his execution.
Also missing from the list is former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, who served under Mr. Trump as ambassador to the United Nations and whose absence may signal an attempt to occupy a more moderate lane in the party in the years ahead.
A group claiming that Harvard’s admissions systematically discriminates against Asian-Americans asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to hear their case, betting that the conservative majority — bolstered by three justices appointed during the Trump administration — will see it as a chance to abolish race as a criterion for college admissions everywhere in the country.
The petition portrays Harvard as a worthy object of scrutiny because its admissions system has served as a “model” cited in other Supreme Court cases.
“It isn’t just any university,” the petition says. “It’s Harvard. Harvard has been at the center of the controversy over ethnic and race-based admissions for nearly a century.”
It asks the high court to reverse a lower court decisions in support of Harvard, and to overturn Supreme Court precedent, specifically in Grutter v. Bollinger, involving the University of Michigan law school. That 2003 decision upheld the “narrowly tailored” consideration of race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
The petition says Grutter used the Harvard model as its “North Star,” and the rules laid down by the decision are so “amorphous,” “Delphic” and “obscure,” that it has allowed bias and racial stereotyping against “disfavored minorities,” like Asian-Americans, to creep into the process.
“Harvard’s mistreatment of Asian-American applicants is appalling,” the brief says. “Harvard penalizes them because, according to the admissions office, they lack leadership and confidence and are less likable and kind.”
In a statement Thursday, Harvard said it “will continue to vigorously defend the right of Harvard College, and every other college and university in the nation, to seek the educational benefits that come from bringing together a diverse group of students.”
The plaintiff group, Students for Fair Admissions, is led by Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist, but not a lawyer, who has a track record of taking cases involving race to the Supreme Court. It includes several Asian-American students rejected by Harvard who would transfer there if they could, the petition says.
Mr. Blum was the architect of Shelby County v. Holder, winning a 2013 Supreme Court decision that effectively gutted a key portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that some civil rights advocates say unleashed new voter suppression laws. He also recruited Abigail Fisher, the white plaintiff in a discrimination case against the University of Texas; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the university in 2016.
But since then, the composition of the Supreme Court has changed with the addition of three conservative justices — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — nominated by former President Donald J. Trump.
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken plans to take virtual “trips” to Mexico and Canada on Friday, an effort to continue diplomacy in as normal a fashion as possible at a time when the coronavirus has shut down most foreign travel.
Mr. Blinken will first “visit” Mexico, the State Department announced in a statement on Thursday, where he will meet with Secretary of Foreign Affairs Marcelo Ebrard and Secretary of Economy Tatiana Clouthier to discuss issues like trade, migration and climate change. Mr. Blinken and Mr. Ebrard will also pay a joint virtual visit to the Del Norte border entry point to discuss management of the southern U.S. border.
The digital facsimile of travel is an innovative, if potentially awkward, effort by the State Department to compensate for Mr. Blinken’s inability for now to take physical trips amid the pandemic, a frustrating condition for a newly installed diplomat determined to rebuild U.S. alliances after the Trump era.
“We’re trying to make it resemble, as closely as we can, a physical trip,” said Ned Price, a State Department spokesman.
Mr. Blinken has been vaccinated, but State Department officials say that given the size of his overseas entourage, and potential risks to people who might gather for his visits in host countries, he is not expected to take a physical trip before late March at the earliest.
Later on Friday, Mr. Blinken will meet with Canadian officials, according to the State Department, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Minister Marc Garneau, as well as a group of Canadian students.
Mr. Blinken’s meeting with the students, visit to the border, and “meet and greets” with embassy employees are intended to replicate the sort of interactions with host countries outside of government ministries that enrich diplomatic travel but have become dangerous because of the virus.
Mr. Blinken joined President Biden on Tuesday for a virtual meeting with Mr. Trudeau, who was broadcast onto a large video screen about 20 feet away from his American hosts, and then appeared on another screen alongside Mr. Biden, standing at a podium, for press statements.
As Julie Chung, the acting assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, put it in a briefing for reporters Thursday: “This is the new world we live in.”