Forget never never land, Metallica is off to the classroom.
The metal legends are launching their own Masterclass series, in which they will teach “being a band,” including everything from making an album to “navigating egos” and “giving criticism.”
“We have sustained our bond for more than 40 years because we’ve learned a lot about each other and ourselves over time,” says frontman James Hetfield. “In our class we not only teach MasterClass members how we write songs and find inspiration for our music, but how the experiences we’ve had together have contributed to successful creative collaboration.”
All four Metallica members will take part, and will be breaking down the making of classics including “Enter Sandman,” “One” and “Master of Puppets.”
For a preview of what you can expect, you can check out a trailer for the Masterclass streaming now on YouTube. Additional info can be found at MasterClass.com.
This report is a part of “Rethinking Gun Violence,” an ABC News series examining the level of gun violence in the U.S. — and what can be done about it.
(NEW YORK) — In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation.
But if the purpose of the debate is to reduce the tragic human toll of gun violence, the focus on Second Amendment is often misplaced, according to many experts on guns and the Constitution.
They say the battle lines that actually matter have been drawn around state legislatures, which are setting the country’s landscape on guns through state laws — or sometimes, the lack thereof.
Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a “buffer zone” for the Second Amendment.
“Before you even get to the Constitution, there’s a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms,” Blocher said. “This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require.”
Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the “judicial Second Amendment” and the “aspirational Second Amendment” widens.
Winkler defines the “judicial Second Amendment” as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the “aspirational Second Amendment” as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is “far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one,” he said — and also more prevalent.
“The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law,” he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. “State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America’s gun laws.”
Winkler told ABC News the aspirational or “political” Second Amendment has become the basis for expanding gun rights in the last 40 years.
“In the judicial Second Amendment, gun rights advocates haven’t found that much protection,” Winkler said. “Where they found protection was by getting state legislatures, in the name of the Second Amendment, to legislate for permissive gun laws.”
The debate around the Second Amendment (and why some say it might be overrated)
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in full:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The role of the Second Amendment, like many constitutional rights, is to put limits on what regulations the federal government can pass, and scholars and lawyers have debated its scope since it was ratified in 1791.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, much of the debate revolved around the meaning of a “well-regulated militia.” The Heller decision struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and established the right for individuals to have a gun for certain private purposes including self-defense in the home. The court expanded private gun ownership protection two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, determining that state and local governments are also bound to the Second Amendment.
“The Bill of Rights, by its terms, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That’s what the question was in McDonald,” Blocher said. “But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out.”
Notably, the court in Heller carved out limitations on that individual right and preserved a relatively broad range of possible gun regulation — such as allowing for their restriction in government buildings, schools and polling places — but in many instances, state legislatures have decided not to use the authority that the court has granted them.
“Most states have chosen not to use their full regulatory authority,” Blocher said. “If a state decides not to forbid people from having large-capacity magazines, for instance, that doesn’t necessarily result in a law. It can be the absence of a law that has the most impact.”
It goes back to that widening gap between the judicial Second Amendment as the courts interpret it and the aspirational Second Amendment as used in politics, according to Winkler and Blocher.
“There’s a difference between the Second Amendment as interpreted and applied by courts and the Second Amendment as it’s invoked in political discussions. And for many gun rights advocates, the political version of the Second Amendment is quite a bit more gun protective than the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court and lower courts have applied it,” he said.
Laws based on the ‘aspirational’ Second Amendment
There are a few laws many experts say bolster gun rights in ways the Second Amendment does not explicitly require.
In more than 40 states, preemption laws expressly limit cities from regulating guns — with some going so far as to impose punitive damages such as fines and lawsuits on officials who challenge the state’s rules. This means, even if a highly populated city had overwhelming support to pass a local ordinance regulating guns, a preemption law in the state would restrict local officials from taking any action.
After the National Rifle Association formed its own political action committee in 1977, it began targeting state legislatures with the preemption model and found it was a more effective way to bolster the rights of gun owners than going through Congress.
The effort picked up momentum when a challenge, on Second Amendment grounds, to a local ordinance in Illinois banning handgun ownership failed in 1982 — years ahead of the 2008 Heller decision. So, he said, the NRA raised the specter of Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove to lobby for preemption laws in order to lessen local governments’ abilities to regulate guns in the first place.
In 1979, two states in the U.S. had full preemption and five states had partial preemption laws. By 1989, 18 states had full preemption laws and three had partial, according to Kristin Goss in her book “Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America.”
“There’s been a concerted effort by gun rights organizations to enact gun-friendly legislation in the states. And they do so using the rhetoric of the Second Amendment, even though nothing about the Second Amendment necessarily requires the state to pass such legislation,” said Darrell Miller, another expert on gun law at Duke University School of Law.
While a densely populated area with a high crime rate may want to enact stricter gun policies not necessarily suited for other areas in a state, preemption laws restrict local governments from doing so.
For example, in Colorado, a preemption law had prevented cities and municipalities from passing gun regulation measures. Boulder tried to ban semi-automatic weapons in 2018 after a gunman with an AR-15-style rifle opened fire at a high school in Parkland, Florida, leaving 17 dead and surpassing the Columbine High School shooting as the deadliest high school shooting in American history.
But a state court struck down the ban on March 12 of this year — 10 days before a 21-year-old man with a semi-automatic Ruger AR-556 pistol killed 10 people at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder. The judge’s decision did not hang on the Second Amendment but rather a violation of Colorado’s preemption law.
Colorado in June became the first state to repeal its preemption law — a move gun-regulation activists such as those at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have hailed as a reflection of what voters want. More than half of Americans support more gun regulation, according to data from recent surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup.
There’s also the presence of “permitless carry regimes,” said Jake Charles, another gun law expert at Duke University, which is when legislatures interpret the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms in public without a permit, an interpretation the Supreme Court has not made.
In all 50 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun in public, subject to varying restrictions depending on the state, but at least 20 do not require permits for either open or concealed carry of firearms, with Texas becoming the latest to enact what advocates call “constitutional carry.”
Permitless or “constitutional carry” is not something the Supreme Court’s reading of the Second Amendment currently calls for.
Experts say that could change.
In New York state, a person is currently required to prove a special need for self-protection outside the home to receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm. A challenge to the constitutionality of a “may-issue” permit law, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall — the court’s first major case on guns in a decade, coming as the makeup of the court swings right due to three appointments from former President Donald Trump.
“There are about half a dozen states which have laws similar to New York’s, so if the court strikes it down, we can expect to see challenges to those states’ laws in short order,” Blocher said.
The partisan debate continues
Allison Anderman, senior counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stressed that, in part because of the influence of state statutes, the Second Amendment should not be a barrier to gun regulation.
She also said that because the Second Amendment’s political definition is entrenched in the true, judicial one, the debate surrounding it gets muddied up and the passion is, perhaps, misplaced.
“It’s a rallying cry. It’s easy. It’s a sound bite,” she said. “But the Second Amendment gets thrown around politically in a way that’s not based in law.”
Blocher agreed and argued the Second Amendment debate is among the most partisan in the nation.
“The gun debate has gone far beyond judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment and these days has much more to do with personal, political and partisan identity,” he said.
Foo Fighters and Machine Gun Kelly are among the nominees for the 2021 American Music Awards.
Dave Grohl and company will compete against the “Bloody Valentine” rocker in the Favorite Rock Artists category, along with All Time Low, Glass Animals and AJR.
Glass Animals and AJR are also up for the Favorite Pop Duo or Group award.
2021 breakout star and pop-punk disciple Olivia Rodrigo leads all nominees, with a total of seven nods.
The 2021 American Music Awards will take place Sunday, November 21 at 8 p.m. ET. The ceremony will broadcast live on ABC.
After “Montero (Call Me By Your Name)” shot up to the top of the Billboard charts, it was only a matter of time before Kidz Bop got its hands on the sexually-charged song. However, Lil Nas X apparently wasn’t expecting just how far the music brand would go to make his X-rated anthem “child friendly.”
The Grammy winner took to Twitter and shared a peek at the super-sanitized lyrics, which read, “I wanna lie on the beach in Hawaii/ I want that jet lag from livin’ and flyin’/ Put a smile on your face whilst we’re dinin’.”
Of course, those who know the song by heart know the actual lyrics are way more explicit.
A further look at the clean edition shows that the brand also shifted the R-rated lyrics “Cocaine and drinking with your friends” to a watered down “Singin’ and dancin’ with your friends.”
Fans had a blast poking fun at the lyrical changes, especially over the inclusion of words like “whilst” and “dining.”
For those who prefer a squeaky-clean version of this year’s top songs, you can pre-order Kidz Bop 2022 for $12 on the brand’s official website. The album also includes child-friendly versions of “Astronaut in the Ocean,” “Save Your Tears,” “Peaches,” “Mood” and more.
Understandably, Cardi B‘s “Up” and Ariana Grande‘s “34+35” did not make the cut.
On the latest installment of The Ellen DeGeneres Show, the eponymous host reacted to her friend Jason Sudeikis‘ SNL sketch spoofing her, called Mellen.
The conceit of the skit was that with more men sitting at home during the pandemic, network executives “took 10 seconds” to come up with a male-skewing alternative for DeGeneres’ long-running program.
The result of the execs’ poor planning was dressing Sudeikis like Ellen, dubbing him Mellen, and ripping off her show. “All the fun daytime energy of Ellen with a hard, masculine edge,” according to the SNL sketch.
The result is an admittedly poorly thought-out combination of vests, “awkward male dancing,” and fistfights in the audience. “Ellen’s lawyers called the series, ‘cease and desist,'” the sketch says.
On her show, the real Ellen explained she was surprised by the sketch, when she and wife Portia de Rossi were watching SNL “as we do every week.” She screened the SNL version for her own audience, and then admitted with a laugh, “I would actually watch that show.”
She then called out Sudeikis, saying, “Jason, when you’re ending Ted Lasso, we should do that show.”
Charlie Puth is giving fans a tease of an upcoming song, but not before providing some insight.
Taking to Instagram on Tuesday, the singer explained, “I’m very bad at expressing my feelings, which is why I usually just hide them in music, but as I write this next part to this song, I feel like I should tell you why I’m singing it so it’s not random when you hear it.”
Puth, 29, explained, “I went through a very bad breakup one time, and I felt like I lost a year of my life.”
He then played a snippet of the track while he bobbed his head to the beat and lip-synced on camera.
In the teaser, Puth slings some pretty intense lyrics at his ex, singing, “You took away a year of my f****** life, and I can’t get it back no more/ So, when I see those tears coming out your eyes, I hope it’s me.”
After a beat drop, the song continues, “You didn’t love when you had me, but now you need me so badly/ You can’t be serious. That’s hilarious.”
The “We Don’t Talk Anymore” singer captioned the video, ” I was scared to post this,” but fans were happy that he did.
“I need thissss,” one user commented, while another urged, “Release it already!”
(NEW YORK) — The NAACP on Thursday called on members of the NBA, WNBA, NFL, NHL and MLB to consider not signing with teams in Texas as a protest against several controversial laws passed recently in the state.
In the two-page letter given first to ABC News, the NAACP took jabs at state lawmakers, calling the state “a blueprint by legislators to violate constitutional rights for all, especially for women, children and marginalized communities.” The NAACP noted the state’s controversial laws on abortion, voting rights and coronavirus mask mandates as reasons for free agents not to sign with Texas teams.
“As we watch an incomprehensible assault on basic human rights unfold in Texas, we are simultaneously witnessing a threat to constitutional guarantees for women, children and marginalized communities,” NAACP National President Derrick Johnson and NAACP Texas State Conference President Gary Bledsoe wrote in the letter. “Over the past few months, legislators in Texas have passed archaic policies, disguised as laws, that directly violate privacy rights and a woman’s freedom to choose, restrict access to free and fair elections for Black and Brown voters, and increase the risk of contracting coronavirus.”
“If you are a woman, avoid Texas. If you are Black, avoid Texas,” the letter continued. “If you want to lower your chances of dying from coronavirus, avoid Texas.”
Texas’ SB8, the strictest anti-abortion law in the country, has caused protests nationwide and a current legal fight between the state and Department of Justice. The law bans abortions after a so-called fetal heartbeat is detected, which is about six weeks into a pregnancy and often before a person knows they are pregnant.
Republicans in the state also spent months trying to overhaul the voting system in the state, even though Democrats say the new rules will make it harder for minority voters to take part in elections. Although there was no evidence of widespread fraud in Texas following the 2020 election, Republicans claim they are seeking to restore voter confidence in the state’s elections.
Gov. Greg Abbott, the only politician who is mentioned by name in the NAACP’s letter, has also been a vociferous opponent of mask and vaccine mandates to fight COVID-19.
There are nine Texas teams playing the leagues mentioned by the NAACP: the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, San Antonio Spurs and Houston Rockets; the NHL’s Dallas Stars; the WNBA’s Dallas Wings; MLB’s Texas Rangers and Houston Astros; and the NFL’s Houston Texans and Dallas Cowboys.
With the NHL, NFL and NBA seasons less than halfway over, the leagues won’t welcome free agency until well into 2022. MLB free agency begins five days after the end of the World Series, where the Astros are currently playing.
The letter comes just a few months after MLB took a stand against Georgia’s voting overhaul this past baseball season when it moved the All-Star Game out of Atlanta in protest.
The civil rights group is calling on athletes to “seek employment with sports teams located in states that will protect, honor and serve your families with integrity.”
The group added, “Until the legislation is overturned, Texas isn’t safe for anyone.”
(NEW YORK) — The summer surge of COVID-19, fueled by the delta variant, raised alarm bells among scientists and citizens alike that unlike prior variants of the virus, this one was different.
Those fears solidified in July, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts, among mostly vaccinated people. This early data hinted, alarmingly, that the delta variant could be equally likely to spread among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
Prior to the emergence of the delta variant, the risk of spreading the virus while vaccinated appeared to be so low the CDC said it was safe for vaccinated people to ditch their masks. But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky described the Provincetown findings as “concerning,” and she promptly reversed the agency’s mask guidelines for vaccinated people, prompting renewed fear and uncertainty about the efficacy of vaccines against variants.
“I think the people who are really concerned are parents with children under 12 who are concerned that even if they’re vaccinated, they could have a breakthrough infection and transmit it to their unvaccinated children,” said Dr. Anna Durbin, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “I get that.”
But reassuringly, experts told ABC News, new studies show those fears may have been overblown.
“Data are coming out that it’s the opposite,” said Dr. Paul Goepfert, an infectious disease physician and director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic.
The CDC’s Provincetown study relied on something called viral load — the amount of virus in a person’s body. Researchers found that viral load levels were the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people, prompting speculation the virus transmits just as readily among a vaccinated person. But viral loads change over time.
“The problem with the Provincetown study is they just looked at one early point in time,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel member and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“That’s just the first time point,” Goepfert said. “If you keep following them, they’re much less infectious more rapidly.”
Experts said there’s no doubt the delta variant is among the most hyper-transmissible versions of the virus to have emerged. That hyper-transmissibility makes it possible to spread between vaccinated people. But that risk is still low. Even if the delta variant is transmissible among vaccinated people, new data suggests “it’s for a shorter period of time” compared to the unvaccinated, said Durbin.
In late July, researchers following patients in Singapore who had breakthrough infections with the delta variant after vaccinations with mRNA vaccines — such as Pfizer and Moderna — showed this exact decrease in infectivity. The study compared viral load counts during the first few weeks of each breakthrough infection. The delta variant caused the same peak viral load in all infected individuals — a sign of active infection and risk of infectious spreading — but the vaccinated group cleared the infection faster.
Research by a separate group found similar results with the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is authorized in many countries outside the United States. In that study, researchers found that being vaccinated also appeared to shorten the time of breakthrough infection by the delta variant, according to an abstract presented at the Infectious Disease Society of America’s conference in early October.
Both studies have yet to be peer reviewed, but vaccine experts said they offer reassuring evidence that being vaccinated still dramatically reduces the risk of spreading the virus to a friend or loved one — even the highly-transmissible delta variant.
As families prepare for the 2021 holiday season, those who are vaccinated can rest assured that there’s increasing evidence that being vaccinated remains the best defense against the spread of infection, especially in the event of an unlikely breakthrough case.
The nominations for the 2021 American Music Awards were announced Thursday morning and first-time nominee Olivia Rodrigo leads the pack with a total of seven nods.
Olivia scored a nomination in the coveted Artist of the Year category, where she’ll be up against Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, BTS, Drake and The Weeknd. Taylor currently holds the record for the most career AMA wins, at 32.
The Weeknd is the second-most nominated artist this year with with six nominations, followed close behind by Bad Bunny, Doja Cat and R&B singer Giveon, with five apiece.
The 2021 American Music Awards will take place Sunday, Nov. 21 at 8 p.m. ET. The ceremony will broadcast live on ABC.
Here’s a list of the nominees in some of the major categories:
Artist of the Year
Taylor Swift
Ariana Grande
The Weeknd
Olivia Rodrigo
BTS
Drake
Favorite Male Pop Artist
Drake
Ed Sheeran
Justin Bieber
Lil Nas X
The Weeknd
Favorite Female Pop Artist
Ariana Grande
Doja Cat
Dua Lipa
Olivia Rodrigo
Taylor Swift
Favorite Pop Duo or Group
AJR
BTS
Glass Animals
Maroon 5
Silk Sonic
Favorite Pop Album
Ariana Grande, positions
Dua Lipa, Future Nostalgia
Olivia Rodrigo, SOUR
Taylor Swift, evermore
The Kid LAROI, F*CK LOVE
Favorite Pop Song
BTS, “Butter”
Doja Cat feat. SZA, “Kiss Me More”
Dua Lipa, “Levitating”
Olivia Rodrigo, “drivers license”
The Weekend & Ariana Grande, “Save Your Tears (Remix)”
New Artist of the Year
24kGoldn
Giveon
Masked Wolf
Olivia Rodrigo
The Kid LAROI
Collaboration of the Year
24kGoldn ft. iann dior “Mood”
Bad Bunny & Jhay Cortez “DAKITI”
Chris Brown & Young Thug “Go Crazy”
Doja Cat ft. SZA “Kiss Me More”
Justin Bieber ft. Daniel Caesar & Giveon “Peaches”
(WASHINGTON) — As President Joe Biden jets off to Europe to meet with allies, some of the United States’ closest partners are still wondering if America is truly “back” as Biden proclaimed earlier this year.
Cautious about Biden’s domestic standing, and smarting from his lack of coordination on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, they are concerned whether his presidency truly represents a break from the isolationist, confrontational foreign policies of his predecessor, President Donald Trump, according to U.S. foreign policy experts.
Biden’s second trip abroad as president will take him to Rome and Scotland, where he’ll attend international summits aimed at tackling the coronavirus pandemic, global finance and the climate crisis.
But the excitement over Biden’s arrival on the world stage has belied the fact that he’s continued some key Trump policies, such as tariffs on China and a general pivot — started under President Barack Obama — toward Asia and the Pacific. Congressional inaction on fighting climate change also has the potential to weaken Biden’s hand.
“I think there was probably too high expectation that we could just turn the page of the last four years, or maybe we attributed to Trump some policies that were more structural, such as the U.S. shift to China and to the Indo-Pacific,” Benjamin Haddad, the senior director of the Europe Center at the Atlantic Council, told ABC News.
Is America really ‘back’?
When the president took to the world stage for his first trip abroad, with a June trip to the United Kingdom, Belgium and Switzerland, he and other world leaders celebrated the United States’ changed tone.
Biden preached multilateralism, which Trump had maligned for four years. And European allies rejoiced.
When Macron met the U.S. president during a summit in England, the French leader told reporters that he “definitely” believed “America is back.”
“I think it’s great,” Macron said, “to have the U.S. president part of the club and very willing to cooperate.”
But French-U.S. relations hit a major snag last month when the Biden administration announced it would sell Australia nuclear submarines — resulting in Australia canceling a major defense deal with France.
France recalled its ambassador from Washington in response to the so-called “sub snub,” and its foreign minister compared Biden’s style to Trump’s.
But since then, Biden and Macron have sought to repair ties: They held a phone call last week, have launched meetings between senior officials from both countries, and on Friday, plan to meet in Rome. Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Paris next month, too, according to her office.
“In many ways, this is not just about the French,” Célia Belin, an expert on trans-Atlantic relations at the Brookings Institution, told ABC News. “It goes to the core of the conversation that the U.S. should be having with their allies, which is, what do you actually expect from European allies in the Indo-Pacific?”
What’s at stake in Rome and Glasgow
Before those major hiccups, Biden’s reception in Europe stood in stark contrast with the constant spats — both personal and policy-wise — between U.S. allies and Trump.
Calling his foreign policy “America First,” Trump actively sought to lessen American commitments abroad.
He pulled the United States out of international organizations and treaties and publicly called on allies to pay more for defense. His fights with foreign leaders marred the international summits he did attend.
Biden campaigned in large part on reversing the damage he said Trump had caused, and when he won the presidency, U.S. allies rattled by years of instability from Washington had high hopes of a return to the pre-Trump years.
“The decisions that the administration has taken, very much and consistent with the domestic mood and polarization, have left them quite disappointed,” Heather Conley, the director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said.
Allies are now facing the decision of whether to work independently of the United States on certain issues, uncertain whether Biden’s young administration will truly restore America’s relationship with the world, Conley said.
“I think the question for me is, moving forward, has the administration understood that these decisions have profoundly challenged and questioned our allies as far as our credibility?” she said. “Can we restore that trust?”
Biden planned to arrive in Rome late Thursday ahead of a Friday meeting with Macron, and another meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican.
In the Italian capital, the president also planned to attend a summit of the leaders of rich and developing nations known as the Group of 20, or G-20, where he plans to formalize an international agreement on a 15% minimum tax for corporations. The global response to the coronavirus pandemic and other global finance issues are also expected to take center stage.
Biden then plans to travel to Glasgow, Scotland, where on Monday and Tuesday, he is scheduled to attend the U.N. climate change conference known as COP26. The U.S. is pushing countries to cement emissions-reduction targets they had set as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
He won’t have the opportunity to meet in person with two leaders who play a key role on climate and security issues: Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They plan to attend the summits virtually, citing the COVID-19 situation in their countries.
‘It’s nice to have a win’
Biden had hoped to travel abroad with two major pieces of legislation in his pocket: his bipartisan $1 trillion physical infrastructure bill, which has already passed the Senate, and his larger social package — which he calls the “Build Back Better” bill and is full of Democratic priorities like universal pre-kindergarten, expanded healthcare, guaranteed paid leave and programs to combat the climate crisis.
Strong climate provisions, in particular, could lend him credibility at COP26, showing the United States put its money where its mouth is as it hectors developing nations to commit to lowering emissions — and others to fulfill their pledges.
A recent report by the New York-based research institute Rhodium Group — frequently cited by the White House — found that the only way the U.S. could meet its goal of halving its 2005 emissions levels by 2030 would be with congressional action. Experts have questioned whether the climate provisions in the “Build Back Better” bill will have enough teeth to help the U.S. meet that target.
“I’m presenting a commitment to the world that we will, in fact, get to net zero emissions on electric power by 2035 and net zero emissions across the board by 2050 or before,” Biden said last week during a town hall hosted by CNN, referencing COP26. “But we have to do so much between now and 2030 to demonstrate what we’re going to — that we’re going to do.”
Twin legislative victories would also show allies that Biden had political strength and could push through the policies he champions when abroad. They could also help him with sagging poll numbers at home.
“For messaging purposes, it’s nice to have a win when you’re abroad that you can brag about a little bit,” Amanda Rothschild, who served as a speechwriter on the Trump White House’s National Security Council, told ABC News.
Putting money where his mouth is
The president had made clear that he wanted his $1 trillion physical infrastructure deal to pass Congress by the time he departed, and that he also wanted a deal on his larger social bill — which is expected to contain massive climate-related investments.
When it became clear in recent days that might not be possible in time for the trip, the White House has emphasized, instead, that Democratic lawmakers’ negotiations seem to be coming to a conclusion soon.
Biden’s top national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told reporters Tuesday that U.S. allies are “excited” about the investments the president is pursuing in climate change, clean energy, infrastructure, and domestic economic growth.
“They want to see the United States making these investments,” Sullivan said. “They also recognize that the United States has a set of democratic institutions, has a Congress; that this is a process; that it needs to be worked through.”
Sullivan, though, said world leaders understood the ups and downs of policy-making.
“I think you’ve got a sophisticated set of world leaders,” he said, “who understand politics in their own country, and understand American democracy, and recognize that working through a complex, far-reaching negotiation on some of the largest investments in modern memory in the United States — that that takes time.”
Haddad, of the Atlantic Council, said European allies were less interested in the nitty gritty of legislating and more on practical matters like Republicans blocking the confirmation of most of Biden’s ambassadorial nominees.
“I don’t think the day-to-day negotiations in Congress are really being noticed in Europe,” Haddad said. “But the domestic political paralysis does have an impact on U.S. leadership.”
But if Biden arrives in Europe without those pieces of legislation in hand, “it’s going to be much harder for him to make the case, you know, the U.S. is back,” Matthew Goodman, an expert on international economic policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said.
Still, Biden’s not Trump — and even if allies are nervous, the fledgling administration still has time to gain its footing on the international front, after spending much of its time focused on the domestic economic recovery, according to Goodman, who served in the White House and State Department under President Barack Obama.
“I think the rest of the world is going to be relieved that, you know, it’s not Donald Trump at the table, frankly,” Goodman, who served in the Obama administration, said. “He was considered a very disruptive force, and so I think, by comparison, Biden’s going to be well received in that sense.”
