Politics

(WASHINGTON) — A little over a year ago, the U.S. pandemic response was all about the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The focus was on getting vials and needles to cities and towns, far and wide, as quickly as possible.

Jeff Zients was deemed the right man for the job of White House coronavirus response coordinator because he had a reputation as a savvy businessman who could cut bureaucratic red tape.

So on Thursday, when the White House announced Zients was stepping down in April and that Dr. Ashish Jha, a leading public health voice, would be the new face of the federal coronavirus response, it emphasized the recent shift in the nation’s pandemic strategy to a phase that’s more about preparedness and communication rather than maximizing operational effort.

Jha, the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, initially stepped into the spotlight during the pandemic as a doctor with straightforward advice and predictions about the pandemic. He has at times been a daily presence on television, including on ABC News, and he’s been applauded for giving candid answers about what people should do to stay safe. On Twitter, his takes on the latest pandemic news have garnered him hundreds of thousands of followers.

Brown University announced that Jha will take a short-term leave from the School of Public Health for the temporary White House special assignment.

For the White House, Jha’s popularity is a selling point in the face of a growing communications problem for the Biden administration, under whom the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been criticized for being too slow and vague in its guidance on issues like masking recommendations and quarantine timelines. And as the country moves away from masks, administration officials say Jha’s deft communication skills will be an important asset in light of a potential resurgence in cases from the BA.2 variant.

If mask guidance changes, Jha will be at the forefront of explaining why Americans should put them back on.

He’ll also be at the helm while experts at the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration consider whether Americans will need a second round of booster shots, and at what point shots will be authorized for those under five years old, which vaccine companies expect to happen sometime this spring.

During the course of the pandemic, Jha — who is a practicing internist in New England in addition to working in academia — has already racked up some government experience, participating in congressional hearings on the national pandemic response and advising the Biden White House on the National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan.

He’s also been tied to the Washington circuit through consulting work — including work with one firm that some experts have criticized for the opaque nature of its client lists, raising questions regarding potential conflicts of interest. Listed as a “senior advisor” at the boutique international consulting firm Albright Stonebridge Group, Jha is the latest addition to a long list of senior Biden administration officials who have previously worked at consulting firms with murky client lists.

Many such officials have disclosed much of their consulting work as part of their obligatory financial disclosures — and Jha, as an incoming member of the White House team, is required to disclose his past employment and sources of income, along with his personal finances, within 30 days of assuming his role.

But the specifics of Jha’s work for Albright Stonebridge might not be part of that disclosure unless he discloses the work as part of his ethics agreement — because Jha says he did not get paid for his work at the firm. Officials are only required to include in their personal financial disclosures clients that have paid them more than $5,000 for their services.

Last year, when news of his work with the group circulated on Twitter, Jha wrote that he had advised the group on “pandemic preparedness,” but not for a fee: “In 2020, I volunteered for Madeline Albright’s group (got paid $0) to advise on their work around future pandemic preparedness,” Jha said.

The arrangement could present the appearance of a conflict of interest in Jha’s new role, said Delaney Marsco, ethics legal counsel for the Washington-based nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. But to what extent would depend on Jha’s specific clients, the nature of his consulting work, and what he will be working on while in government, Marsco said.

“Positions that are more honorary and passive are less likely to raise a conflict or even an appearance,” Delaney told ABC News. “If he was directly working on issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic for a private company with a significant interest in the government’s current response, there is heightened concern. More disclosure can help us assess the potential for conflict.”

When contacted by ABC News for a comment from Jha, Mahrokh Irani, an associate director in the Brown University School of Public Health’s dean’s office, said that “Dr. Jha was an unpaid advisor for ASG from June, 2020 to February, 2022. Dr. Jha provided to ASG his views on the latest developments in the pandemic and how to be prepared. His work was unrelated to Pfizer, Merck or pharmaceutical company IP issues.”

Of his work for Albright Stonebridge, Jha also said on Twitter in May 2021: “Do dozens of these kinds of things. Happy to put together list of everyone I advise/talk to. I’ll do that.” However, records and social media searches suggest that Jha has not yet publicly released a list of his private consulting clients.

Representatives for Albright Stonebridge Group declined to comment to ABC News.

White House officials say that Jha will undergo extensive ethics training as he joins the administration, as every new hire does.

“While we can’t comment on specific past affiliations, as a White House employee, Dr. Jha will receive rigorous ethics counseling on his obligations under federal ethics law and the Biden-Harris Ethics Pledge, and will follow all applicable ethics and recusal requirements to prevent any conflicts of interest or even the appearance of a conflict, including with respect to his past affiliations,” a White House official said in a statement.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — When President Joe Biden said “the answer” to nationwide crime surges was to fund police, he reignited intense debate on defunding police departments.

“The answer,” Biden said in his State of the Union speech on March 1, “is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police. Fund them with resources and training they need to protect our communities.”

With that, more are taking deeper looks into whether funding can be effective at lowering crime rates. But some advocates who spoke with ABC News continue to wonder whether defunding police departments and shifting monies to efforts like mental health service and youth programs is the ideal, multi-pronged approach to combating rising crime.

Across the country, major cities are contending with disturbing increases in crime rates.

For example, New York City saw a 38.5% increase in overall crime when comparing January 2020 to January 2021 and Philadelphia’s homicide rate in 2022 is beginning to outpace the dangerous, record-high numbers of 2021.

And when crime rises, political leaders typically focus on increasing police budgets — a Wall Street Journal report found that about half of the top 20 largest U.S. police jurisdictions proposed police funding increases in their 2022 budgets.

However, after the racial reckoning of the summer of 2020 following the murder of George Floyd by former Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin, some called for “defunding” the police.

Those who advocate for defunding police say that funds from police departments should be reallocated toward other programs that address community issues like poverty, housing and more.

Those who are against defunding the police say that reducing funding will worsen crime and leave police departments without the resources to do their jobs efficiently.

“Without the police, you’re left with … no line of defense between innocent people and the potential for lawlessness,” said Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Facts about police department funding

Nationally, $115 billion is spent each year on policing, according to the criminal justice research and policy organization Vera.

The vast majority of police funding — an estimated 80% – 95% of a department’s total budget — goes to personnel, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

This means that most money goes toward putting police on the street.

“One of the largest expenditures of any police department is their payroll,” said Pasco. “It’s getting those officers hired and trained, out on the street — it’s an extraordinarily expensive undertaking.”

Spending also goes toward equipment (like gear and patrol cars), operational costs (like uniforms and office supplies), and the funding of community programs.

Police agencies across the country reported to the Police Executive Research Forum that hiring has stalled or decreased, while resignations and retirements have increased.

Those who advocate for defunding police say this proves money allocated to personnel should go elsewhere, while others say it shows more money is needed to better train and retain good police officers.

“You need money to hire people,” Pasco said. “You need money to recruit qualified people, hire them, train them and put them out on the street and put them to work.”

Others say funding to get police back on the streets isn’t worth it because the job has become almost impossible to recruit for.

Eugene O’Donnell, a former NYPD officer and lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says police are forced to work longer and take on dangerous situations with less backup due to the poor retention and hiring rates.

“You’re simply not going to get humans to put on police uniforms, especially in places where they would be needed the most. They’re not going to go near the job now,” O’Donnell said. “The people that will want the job will be scary.”

As a result, he says departments — those provided with more funding or not — are extraordinarily stretched.

To fund or defund: Measuring which is more successful

Factors like falling crime, fewer violent or harmful police interactions and successful community programs are just a few of the considerations for some experts to consider that expanded police funding is a productive tactic.

But others, including Sakira Cook, senior director of the justice reform program at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, says that investing in an increased police presence and funding is not the way to go.

“For decades, policymakers have pushed tough-on-crime policies that have not made us safer, but only wreaked havoc and destroyed lives — particularly in Black and Brown communities, while costing us billions,” Cook said.

She says that tough-on-crime officials have often implemented strict criminal codes, long prison sentences and expanded police power on the streets.

A University of Dayton Law Review study said it found that these kinds of policies did not reduce crime rates. Research in the Police Journal also failed to find a relationship between increased police presence and crime deterrence.

A National Bureau of Economic Research study found that additional officers can translate to fewer homicides — but can lead to more arrests for low-level offenses.

Hans Menos, the vice president of Law Enforcement Initiatives for the Center for Policing Equity says that these laws and funded efforts don’t fix the roots of crime — poor local infrastructure, accessibility to community programs and services, etc.

“I vastly prefer conversations on funding and resources that talk about systems of care, like community development … all the other things that have been neglected in favor of systems of punishment,” Menos told ABC News.

However, some departments have shifted resources and now fund mental and behavioral health professionals who can respond to lower-level calls. This, proponents say, reduces pressure on the police, reduces community contact with police and eases the burden on the criminal justice system.

“Many people have started these alternate responder programs with great success,” Menos said.

He added: “The programs that take social services and embed them within police departments are successful because it’s taking the idea of a first responder and recognizing that it needs to be a whole lot more specialized and needs to be a lot more responsive to community concerns.”

How funded and defunded police departments measure up

Some of the most well-funded departments in the country — many of which increased their budgets in 2021, including Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C., — saw a rise in violent crimes. However, a few have seen major decreases, like in Wilmington, Delaware.

Several of the departments that have reduced their budgets, including Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco have also seen spikes in crime.

Some of the departments that cut their budgets invested in mental health responders to low-level or non-violent calls.

Many of these programs are relatively new, so it’s difficult to measure long-term success.

The complexities of the current state of policing in the U.S. has experts disagreeing on whether more funding or less funding is “the answer.”

“To make this investment in our communities, we must shrink the footprint of the criminal-legal system in our lives, by sizing budgets and shifting resources away from solely criminalization and incarceration toward investments in social programs and services,” Cook said.

Some think the police are no longer the public safety tool of choice with the way they are currently functioning.

“The police profession at this point is beyond repair,” O’Donnell said. “And we would be better off figuring out other ways to secure the public. “

Some say otherwise.

“The vast majority of Americans want to be want to feel safe in their homes and in their churches and their schools and their transportation systems,” Pasco said. “It sometimes takes police officers to ensure that that is a possibility.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration is considering ways to fast-track bringing Ukrainian refugees to the U.S. amid the historic surge across Europe of Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s war, according to U.S. officials.

But the administration faces some legal hurdles to doing so, especially to giving Ukrainians refugee status, and has instead repeatedly emphasized that “the vast, vast majority of refugees want to stay in neighboring countries,” as White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday, adding, “That is where we have been focus our energies at this point.”

That focus comes in the form of U.S. assistance: $293 million so far, with another $4 billion specifically for humanitarian aid in the new funding bill President Joe Biden signed earlier this week.

But as the needs grow — as cities like Warsaw and countries like Moldova are overwhelmed — there’s growing pressure on the White House, including from some U.S. lawmakers, to do more.

The refugee resettlement process, however, is complex and time-consuming, with very few avenues to expediting cases from the point they are referred to the U.S. by the United Nations refugee agency, through the vetting process, to their resettlement in a local community.

But Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed the administration is “looking at things that we can do ourselves and do directly.”

“As this and if this goes on, as the numbers increase, as the burden increases for European partners, we will certainly do everything we can to help,” he added Thursday, saying it was “something we’re very focused on right now” and previewing “more to say on this in the coming.”

So far, the White House has ordered some steps. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it had granted Temporary Protected Status for Ukrainians already in the U.S. by March 1, allowing them to stay legally and work for at least the next 18 months.

In addition, U.S. embassies and consulates in the region have been expediting visa processing for immediate family members of U.S. citizens, but they are overwhelmed.

“We are throwing many, many resources at the assistance for U.S. citizens in this region as well as visa processing, but the demand, as you can imagine, is very high,” a senior U.S. administration official said. “We are not able to process the volume of the people who are thinking about that as an option.”

That pool of people is also already limited. Immigrant visas only apply to immediate family members as defined under U.S. law — spouses, unmarried children under 21, and parents.

If a U.S. citizen’s family member doesn’t fall into those categories, there’s a process to petition U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to approve their case, but that is not being expedited, according to the senior administration official, meaning their application could take months, even years.

Refugee advocates, however, say there are potentially thousands of Ukrainians for whom the USCIS has confirmed their familial relationship, but haven’t yet fully approved their petition — arguing their cases can and should now be expedited.

It’s unclear if the administration is weighing that. Blinken told reporters Thursday they were “looking at steps we may be able to take on family reunification.”

Wait times for nonimmigrant visas are often shorter, and applicants can request your application be expedited. But the senior administration official said there’s a risk of being denied because these are “not the appropriate tool to begin an immigrant, refugee, or resettlement process.”

“If your plan is to go to the United States and you have absolutely no idea what you’ll do after that — which I have to say on a human level is very understandable — as U.S. consular officers who are charged with executing U.S. immigration law, they [Ukrainian applicants] would be well advised to have much more of a plan afterward,” they said.

The Department of Homeland Security also has the ability to provide another kind of temporary legal status known as humanitarian parole that allows a foreigner to enter the U.S. usually for up to a year. Reuters has reported that Customs and Border Patrol agents have been granting humanitarian parole to Ukrainians crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

DHS declined to comment to ABC News about those reports.

“We address an individual’s claim for humanitarian relief as they are presented to us,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Thursday. “We are looking at other programs that we can implement to expand the avenues of humanitarian relief.”

But DHS continues to use a public health authority known as Title 42 to send the majority of adults attempting to cross the border back to their country of origin. The policy was enacted at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic by the Trump administration, and despite intense pressure from immigrants’ rights group and progressive Democrats, the Biden administration has yet to lift it.

Mayorkas said DHS has issued guidance to all CBP officers on the border reminding them of the exceptions to the Title 42 authority and how it relates to Ukrainian nationals “and everyone else” attempting to make credible fear claims at the southern border. But Psaki said revoking Title 42 “wouldn’t be done in response to a war in a European country. It’s done by — a decision would be made by the CDC and then it would be implemented.”

The push to “fast track” the refugee process, however, is unlikely to yield results, with the program defined by law and requiring a referral and thorough vetting. The senior administration official said it “is not an emergency response program, so our goal would be to provide humanitarian assistance to keep people safe where they are for now” instead.

For many refugees seeking to move to the U.S., it is a years-long process. There are already 7,000 Ukrainian refugees who have been in the pipeline for resettlement, according to Church World Service.

While Blinken said “of course we will take referrals” for new refugees, he also emphasized the administration is “looking at steps that we can take in the near term.”

Refugee resettlement agencies say the administration is considering using the Lautenberg program as one way to potentially expedite refugee status. The Cold War-era program allows religious minorities, including Ukrainian Greek Catholics and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Christians, to bring family members to the U.S. with refugee status.

One agency told ABC News there are thousands of Ukrainian applications that the U.S. could swiftly admit, but it’s not clear the administration agrees.

ABC News’s Ben Gittleson and Sarah Kolinovsky contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A few short years ago, California became the first state to legally ban racial hair discrimination.

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the CROWN Act (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair), in a 235-189 vote which will further put an end to race-based hair discrimination.

This new legislation will prohibit discrimination based on one’s hair texture or hairstyle — specifically pointing to hairstyles associated with a particular race or national origin.

With this new passing, the bill will now head to the Senate to be voted upon with legislative sponsors Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman leading the charge.

In a Twitter post, Coleman recalled that on the last day of Black History Month, 188 House Republicans temporarily obstructed passage of the CROWN ACT.

“Despite what my GOP colleagues may tell you, this bill is too important to give up on,” she added. “That’s why today, I brought it to the floor again.”

Coleman also elaborated in a statement saying, “Natural Black hair is often deemed ‘unprofessional’ simply because it does not conform to white beauty standards. Discrimination against Black hair is discrimination against Black people. I’m proud to have played a part to ensure that we end discrimination against people for how their hair grows out of their head.”

GOOD NEWS: The #CROWNAct has passed the House! Today, America got one step closer to ending racial discrimination.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where I hope my colleagues will pass it without delay. pic.twitter.com/jBqoSr9qaN

— Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (@RepBonnie) March 18, 2022

As many supporters and sponsors of the potential federal law continue to carry enthusiasm, several have also spoken out applauding the recent House passage.

“Every day in this country, Black women and girls face discrimination because of their natural hair at their workplaces and schools,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Joyce Betty in a statement. “So today, I proudly voted yes on the #CROWNAct to finally end race-based hair discrimination once and for all.”

She continued, “It’s simple — discrimination against Black hair is discrimination based on race. I look forward to swift passage of this critical legislation in the Senate and to standing with President Biden as he signs it into law. To every young Black girl and boy, I say to you, your hair — from your kinks to your curls, from your fros to your fades, from your locs to your braids — is a crown. Be proud of your hair and know the Congressional Black Caucus is fighting for you.”

Today, the House of Representatives passed the #CROWNAct: Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.

It’s time to end hair discrimination
Get into these CROWNS. 👑https://t.co/Vw4VOiwqHp

— The Black Caucus (@TheBlackCaucus) March 18, 2022

President Joe Biden’s Administration has already shown support for the legislation as well by sharing in a statement that the “administration looks forward to working with the Congress to enact this legislation and ensure that it is effectively implemented.”

Following California’s official ban in 2019, the CROWN Act has also seen legislative wins in 13 additional states including New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado as well as in 34 municipalities.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a high-stakes video call, President Joe Biden and China’s President Xi Jinping spoke Friday morning for the first time since November amid concerns that China will help Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

The White House said the two leaders spoke for one hour and 50 minutes.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden would be candid and direct and that the call provided a chance for him to “assess where President Xi stands.” The conversation would center on “managing the competition between our two countries as well as Russia’s war against Ukraine and other issues of mutual concern,” according to the White House.

Biden was expected to warn Xi that if China directly helps Russia in its assault on Ukraine there will be consequences — but it’s unclear if he laid out specific actions the U.S. will take if China were to supply Russia with military equipment or economic assistance to offset the impact of global sanctions.

In what appeared to be a warning shot to the West, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday that any foreign supplies to Ukraine containing military equipment will be considered “legitimate targets” for Russian strikes after Biden announced this week a slate of weapons the U.S. is supplying to Ukraine.

“We clearly said that any cargo moving into the Ukrainian territory which we would believe is carrying weapons would be fair game. This is clear because we are implementing the operation the goal of which is to remove any threat to the Russian Federation coming from the Ukrainian soil,” Lavrov said in an English-language interview with the RT television channel.

Ukrainians woke up Friday to the first strike on the outskirts city of Lviv, considered a safe haven until now, and not far from the Polish border. It follows a stark warning from the Pentagon that Russia was broadening its target and escalating attacks this week.

While the Biden administration has hesitated from drawing red lines of what would change its position on not supporting a no-fly zone or troops on the ground in Ukraine, Lavrov’s message raises concerns that Russia could fire at military bases in neighboring NATO ally Poland to Ukraine, triggering an Article 5 response.

Earlier this week, national security adviser Jake Sullivan had a seven-hour meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Rome, which was described as “intense.” A senior Biden administration declined to tell reporters whether China had expressed an openness to providing Russia with military or economic support or if it had already provided support to Russia since it invaded Ukraine.

“We do have deep concerns about China’s alignment with Russia at this time, and the national security adviser was direct about those concerns and the potential implications and consequences of certain actions,” the official said.

That meeting had been “long-planned” and “long-discussed” as a way to maintain communication with China, but it happened to take place at “a really timely and important moment in this crisis,” the official added.

Biden and Xi’s critical call comes on the heels of Biden labeling Putin a “war criminal,” a “murderous dictator,” and a “pure thug” in the last 48 hours. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Thursday he “personally” agrees with Biden that Russia has committed war crimes in Ukraine.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Officials from the Biden administration met with Florida LGBTQ students and their families in a virtual roundtable concerning the now-dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” bill and other legislative efforts advocates deem anti-LGBTQ.

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona and Rachel L. Levine, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, listened to the students and their family members discuss concerns and fears about the impact of such bills.

The two were advised on what resources could be provided to support the Florida LGBTQ community.

“Laws around the country, including in Florida, have targeted and sought to bully some of our most vulnerable students and families, and create division in our schools,” Cardona said in a statement.

He added: “My message to you is that this Administration won’t stand for bullying or discrimination of any kind, and we will use our authorities to protect, support, and provide opportunities for LGBTQI+ students and all students.”

The Parental Rights in Education bill, dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by LGBTQ activists, would limit what classrooms can teach about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Under this legislation, these lessons “may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

The bill would also allow parents to sue school districts that engage in these topics. The bill is awaiting a decision from Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The Biden administration has denounced the efforts as “hateful.”

“Every parent hopes that our leaders will ensure their children’s safety, protection, and freedom,” the White House said in a statement Feb. 8.

It continued: “Today, conservative politicians in Florida rejected those basic values by advancing legislation that is designed to target and attack the kids who need support the most – LGBTQI+ students, who are already vulnerable to bullying and violence just for being themselves.”

After the bill was passed by the Florida House and Senate, Cardona slammed the legislators responsible for its passage.

“The Department of Education has made clear that all schools receiving federal funding must follow federal civil rights law, including Title IX’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” Cardona said.

Levine and Cardona also shared with students and families the mental health resources and support that are currently available for these students.

“We need to support LGBTQI+ youth, their parents and families to help them achieve the good health and quality care they deserve,” Levine said. “Our communities have a champion in President Biden. The President supports equality and works to ensure everyone is represented. And that gives people a voice, a chance to effect change, to help people understand the diverse needs of our nation.”

Legislation targeting the LGBTQ community has sent shockwaves throughout the U.S.

States continue to debate whether trans youth should receive gender-affirming health care, whether trans girls should be allowed to play girls’ sports, or whether LGBTQ content can be taught in schools.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — With President Joe Biden’s $15.6 billion request for COVID-19 relief stalled in Congress, the federal government plans to begin significantly cutting the number of viral treatments available to the states, according to internal planning documents obtained by ABC News, which show a decrease of some 30%.

The drawdown, which begins Monday, includes monoclonal antibodies that have been shown to work against the omicron variant. Their ability to curb hospitalization rates, particularly among unvaccinated high-risk patients, has made them a key component in Biden’s COVID plan.

Weekly allocations of the monoclonal antibody Sotrovimab from GSK and Vir Biotechnology will be cut from 52,250 to 35,000 through at least the next three weeks, according to the documents, which were verified by two people familiar with the situation.

Weekly allocations of Eli Lilly’s recently authorized monoclonal Bebtelovimab, which has so far worked against both the omicron and BA.2 subvariant, will be cut from 49,000 to 30,000 doses.

The White House has also warned that antiviral pills from Pfizer and Merck could run out by September if the government doesn’t place more orders soon.

Also starting Saturday, unordered doses in each distribution cycle will be reclaimed and reabsorbed into the federal inventory for later redistribution, according to the planned allocation schedule. The monoclonal Evusheld, which is meant for highly vulnerable groups like immunocompromised people to protect them even before exposure to the virus, will be allocated on a monthly basis, and unordered doses will be swept up at the end of each month, starting March 31.

This new supply policy comes as the COVID funding cuts threaten to force the government to ration lifesaving drugs.

The White House has warned that with funding stalled in Congress “critical COVID response efforts” will grind to a halt; absent that cash infusion, the nation will not be able to keep up with testing, supplies of antibody treatments, boosters and antiviral treatments.

A new purchase of hundreds of thousands more monoclonal courses planned for next week will also be canceled. The White House predicts the U.S. will fully exhaust the supply by May.

“The allocation projections are subject to change and should be used for planning purposes only,” the planning document advises. “Of course, the COVID-19 environment remains dynamic.”

ABC News’ Anne Flaherty, Cheyenne Haslett, Ben Gittleson, Eric M. Strauss and Sony Salzman contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — States nationwide are grappling with ongoing debates over critical race theory, sexual orientation and book censorship.

In many ways, some of the most contentious and deeply divisive issues in politics are anchored in the classroom and playing out in school boards across America.

Republicans across the country have been zeroing in on how social issues are covered by teachers, including lessons on race, gender identity, sexual orientation and more.

At least 35 states have introduced what is being called anti-critical race theory legislation that limits lessons about race and inequality which are perceived to be divisive by Republican bill supporters.

The country saw the power of “parental rights” and education play out in the Virginia election, where the now-governor was propelled to victory by focusing on those exact issues.

Experts say that Democrats have to pay close attention to these debates and shift the conversation away from the culture wars to avoid losses at the ballot box in 2022.

But students themselves are caught in the middle, especially those in vulnerable groups who are suffering as a result, experts say.

Parental Rights

While education has always been a key issue in America, it has gained steam in the past two years a proxy for the culture wars that were intensified during the pandemic.

Many Republicans have been pushing back against what they believe to be aspects of public education systems run amok, first with COVID-related restrictions and then with issues like race and sexuality, attempting to restrict and refocus discussions.

The Florida legislature recently passed the deeply controversial Parental Rights Education Bill, dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by LGBTQ activists, which would limit what some classrooms can teach about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Under the new legislation, these lessons “may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

It’s an effort that gives parents and guardians more control over what their children learn in school and that opponents say is overly broad.

Similar bills from Republican legislators restricting LGBTQ education have crept up in several other states, including Tennessee, Arkansas, Montana and Georgia.

However, a new ABC News/IPSOS poll found that 62% of Americans oppose legislation that would prohibit classroom lessons about sexual orientation or gender identity in elementary school, while 37% of Americans support legislation that would.

There have also been attempts to impart issues like structural racism and comprehensive sex education into school curricula. Especially since protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd, there has been a renewed push to highlight the role of racism in American history and institutions.

Many of those efforts have been lumped under the banner of “critical race theory,” a discipline in higher education that teaches about racism in U.S legal systems. While it is not taught in K-12 classes, many legislators have been invoking critical race theory broadly in their arguments to attempt to restrict discussions of race in the classroom.

What is taught in schools has typically been a state and local issue (with relatively recent exceptions like No Child Left Behind), impacting governor races across the country, according to experts. However, many experts now predict that the importance of education may extend nationally to the midterm elections.

A recent CNN poll found that 81% of respondents said education was either extremely or very important to them heading into the 2022 elections.

Shavar Jeffries, the national president of political advocacy organization Democrats for Education Reform, said he believed that growing frustrations from parents on their involvement in education may be swaying them at the polls.

Jeffries pointed to Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s win in Virginia, after making education a centerpiece of his campaign and promising to “invest more in schools, raise teacher pay, and demand better performance from our schools.” His slogan: “parents matter.”

“The 2022 midterms will hinge on Democrats’ ability to learn from these lessons and lead on education,” said Jeffries in a press release on Youngkin’s win.

Republicans steer education debate

Joanna Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the Republican Governor Association, told ABC News that Republican governors said they are hearing from parents that they want a say in their children’s education. Now, governors are channeling that energy, and believe a parent’s say “needs to be codified into law.”

Most, if not all, legislation that restricts LGBTQ content or race education in schools comes from Republican legislators.

“As we begin to see those successes — with those surface-level successes, and public opinion changing — we also begin to have these very big conversations around the nation’s history and inequality within the nation’s history,” Rigueur told ABC News.

The debate even made it into the White House, with the Trump administration issuing its 1776 Report in opposition to the 1619 project which reframes the story of America by placing “slavery and its continuing legacy at the center of the [country’s] national narrative,” according to the project website.

Rigueur said that so-called “culture warriors” are trying to channel the fears and vulnerabilities of some parents to turn back the clock on social progress.

“One of the fastest ways to get parents to rally around a cause is to [imply] that schools are teaching something that’s inappropriate … something dangerous,” Rigueur said.

“It is a relatively easy way to get parents, who often feel powerless in the education process, deeply invested in order to change both the curriculum and the subject matter that their children have access to.”

On anti-LGBTQ legislation, Cathryn Oakley, state legislative director and senior counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, said education is the key to combating fear-mongering and the demonization of LGBTQ people.

“It is about painting a picture that is just completely not true,” Oakley said of this legislation. “The American public needs to understand that they’re being lied to by the folks who are putting these bills forward.”

As the midterm elections approach, Rigueur said Democrats have to fight to combat the forces against them.

Not only does the party of the incumbent president typically have a much harder time during the midterms, but the pandemic has also piled on the pressure in several political spheres, Rigueur said.

Rigueur added that a lot of these culture wars have been tied to the pandemic. The debate about freedom regarding mask mandates and vaccines highlights the growing want for parental control amid the dramatic changes that COVID-19 has caused.

“Part of what Democrats can do is really push the issue back to these bread-and-butter issues that the vast majority of Americans signify over and over again that they care about,” she said, like the economy and health care.

However, as politicians fight these ongoing political battles, students lie in their wake according to Becky Pringle, the president of the National Education Association (NEA).

“True learning only happens when students feel supported and celebrated in the classroom,” Pringle said in response to the Florida anti-LGBTQ bill.

Battleground heads to the classroom

Some students have circumvented book bans by delivering restricted readings to other students, holding sit-ins in the state Capitol building, or walking out of their classrooms in protest of bills that are anti-race education and anti-LGBTQ.

“Students, pre-K through [12th grade] are always silenced,” CJ Walden, a youth activist in South Florida, told ABC News. “Lawmakers need to know that this is not a game that they are playing.”

Other activist organizations, including the NEA, LGBTQ suicide prevention group The Trevor Project and the Human Rights Campaign, have highlighted the impact this will have on students in the classroom.

“We will not fall for the politics of division and distraction, in Florida or anywhere — we will continue to join together to ensure all students can learn, grow, and thrive,” Pringle said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Thursday that Customs and Border Protection will handle asylum claims by Ukrainian and Russian nationals at the U.S.-Mexico border on a case-by-case basis.

Advocates have criticized the Biden administration alleging it has been turning away both Ukrainian and Russian refugees from ports of entry along the southern border.

‘We address an individual’s claim for humanitarian relief as they are presented to us,” Mayorkas told reporters on Thursday. “We have a number of efforts already underway … to provide humanitarian relief for individuals fleeing a war-torn Ukraine. We are looking at other programs that we can implement to expand the avenues of humanitarian relief.”

“For example, if someone makes a claim under the Convention Against Torture, or an individual presents to the Border Patrol agents, a case of acute of vulnerability such as a medical condition or otherwise,” he said, adding the department has sent refugee affairs officers to Eastern Europe.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday President Joe Biden is “willing” to welcome refugees into the United States but the administration so far has been providing funding for humanitarian aid to neighboring countries in Europe.

DHS has been tasked with the federal domestic response to the Russia and Ukraine conflict.

Mayorkas believes most Ukrainian refugees ultimately will want to go back to Ukraine.

“The vast majority of Ukrainians are displaced in the countries in that region with the hope understandably of being able to return to their country,” he said.

The secretary did not offer any details on what else DHS is looking to do concerning the refugee situation in Ukraine, but the department previously stood up Operation Allies Welcome when Afghanistan was under siege by al-Qaida.

He also did not give any estimates on how many Ukrainian refugees he expects to attempt to get into the U.S.

Mayorkas said DHS has issued guidance to all CBP officers on the border reminding them of the exceptions to the Title 42 authority and how it relates to Ukrainian nationals “and everyone else” attempting to make credible fear claims at the southern border.

DHS is using Title 42 authority at the border to send the majority of adults back to their country of origin under the guise of a public health emergency. The policy was enacted at the start of the pandemic by the Trump administration.

Mayorkas said he didn’t have a timeframe for when Title 42 would be rolled back, and instead said it was a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decision, but did say his department is prepared.

“We plan for the possibilities, whether or not they ultimately materialize or when they materialize it is our responsibility to plan and that is what we do,” he said.

 

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — As the Democratic National Committee considers changes to its primary calendar, New Jersey Democrats are pitching themselves for consideration as one of the early presidential primary states.

In a letter sent Wednesday afternoon to DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, New Jersey Democratic State Committee Chair LeRoy J. Jones, Jr. asked Harrison to consider New Jersey, suggesting the traditional lineup, which leads with Iowa caucuses, is outdated.

ABC News reviewed the letter, which was also sent to the Rules and Bylaws Committee along with their co-chairs, Lorraine Miller and James Roosevelt Jr.

“Moving to a new, modernized presidential nominating system would send a strong message that the Democratic Party is focused not on the past, but on the future. Our party cannot cling to outdated traditions that do not help us reach new voters and motivate the diverse coalition of supporters needed to win elections and enact our pro-middle class agenda,” Jones Jr. writes.

Jones Jr. argues New Jersey presents a cost-effective alternative for candidates who find other early states’ media markets too expensive, as well as a diverse state that captures many of the party’s key demographics.

“No other state affords its residents the opportunity to wake up in a city, spend the day hiking on a rural trail or mountain, and then enjoy an oceanfront view for dinner the way that New Jersey does — making our state the ideal proving ground for political candidates across urban, suburban, and rural settings. In many ways, we are truly a microcosm of the country,” Jones Jr. writes.

The DNC declined ABC News’ request for comment.

Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status has been critiqued by Democrats for years, and attacks sharpened during the last election cycle in large part due to its lack of racial diversity. Iowa is made up of 90% white residents, according to data from the U.S. Census.

President Joe Biden’s bid for office was all but written off after a stunningly poor performance at the Iowa caucuses before the 2020 election. Momentum shifted after a major endorsement in the South Carolina early state primary.

“Our party is best when we reflect the people we are trying to serve, and it’s just as plain as that,” Harrison said at The DNC spring meeting. “This process will be guided by that north star.”

During the event’s Rules and Bylaws meeting, several members pushed for modernizing the primary process, making clear that Iowa’s status was on the chopping block. Several members also expressed openness to change during the group’s winter meeting in January.

“Now is not a time for us as a party to stand on tradition; now is not the time for us as a party to stand on status quo,” said Rules and Bylaws member Mo Elleithee, who laid out a series of proposed guidelines for state parties to be considered in the early nominating contest.

But unseating Iowa is not a simple process, necessitating changes to state law and Rules and Bylaws members coming to an agreement on guidelines for early state waiver applicants by the DNC’s summer meeting, expected in either August or September.

“New Jersey lies at the center of our party’s efforts to protect our majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, with four frontline incumbent Democrats whose victories are critical to that mission,” writes Jones Jr. “It is time for the Democratic Party to move boldly into the future with a presidential primary calendar that reflects the diversity of our party and nation. Let’s make New Jersey one of the first primary states, and set up future Democratic Party presidential nominees for long-term success.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.