WASHINGTON (AP) — Anti-abortion advocates say there is still work to be done to further restrict access to abortion when Republican Donald Trump returns to the White House next year.

They point to the federal guidance that the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden released around emergency abortions, requiring that hospitals provide them for women whose health or life is at risk, and its easing of prescribing restrictions for abortion pills that have allowed women to order the medication online with the click of a button.

“Now the work begins to dismantle the pro-abortion policies of the Biden-Harris administration,” the Susan B. Anthony List, the powerful anti-abortion lobby, said in a statement Wednesday. “President Trump’s first-term pro-life accomplishments are the baseline for his second term.”

The group declined to release details about what, specifically, they will seek to undo. But abortion rights advocates are bracing for further abortion restrictions once Trump takes office. And some women are, too, with online abortion pill orders spiking in the days after Election Day.

Trump has said abortion is an issue for the states, not the federal government. Yet, during the campaign, he pointedly noted that he appointed justices to the Supreme Court who were in the majority when striking down the national right to abortion. And there are things his administration can do, from picking judges to issuing regulations, to further an anti-abortion agenda.

Trump unlikely to require emergency abortions from hospitals

The Trump administration is expected to pull back Biden’s controversial directive that requires emergency rooms to provide abortions when necessary to stabilize a woman’s health or life. The Biden administration had argued that the decades-old federal law, which requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for patients in exchange for Medicare funding, also applies in cases where an abortion might be needed.

Reports of women being sent home or left untreated by hospitals in dangerous scenarios have proliferated across the United States since the Supreme Court overturned the national right to an abortion in 2022. In some cases, hospitals said state abortion bans had stopped them from terminating a pregnancy.

“We’re seeing the lives of pregnant people be put in jeopardy,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said Wednesday. “We’re seeing women who have become infertile, who have been subject to sepsis and we’re now hearing reports with death.”

Even if a Trump administration abandons the guidance of the law, Goss Graves said advocacy groups like hers will continue a legal fight for the Biden administration’s interpretation of the law.

Some doctors and hospitals also have said the federal guidance offered a protection for them to perform emergency abortions in states like Idaho and Texas, where threat of prosecution for performing an abortion hangs over their decision-making.

Trump has said he supports exceptions for rape and incest cases, as well as when a woman’s life is at risk. But he has not gone as far as saying he supports exemptions when a woman’s health is on the line.

Abortions might be necessary to prevent organ loss, significant hemorrhage or dangerous infections for pregnant women in rare but serious scenarios. In cases like ectopic pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes and placental abruptions, a fetus might still be alive but continuing the pregnancy can be detrimental. Doctors have argued that the legal gray area has put them in a bind.

In Idaho, for example, one hospital resorted to airlifting women out of the state after a strict abortion ban, which only allowed for abortions to prevent a woman’s death, was enacted.

The Biden administration sued Idaho, arguing its state law conflicted with federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment, which might include abortions, for patients. The state amended its law to allow abortions for ectopic pregnancies, but other dangerous scenarios still remain unaccounted for. The Supreme Court declined to address the issue earlier this year, issuing a limited order that cleared the way for hospitals to provide emergency abortions while the case worked its way through lower courts.

Enforcement of the federal law, however, is on hold in Texas, which challenged the Biden administration’s guidance on emergency abortions.

A patchwork of state laws governing abortion will remain in place under the Trump administration. Voters in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota on Tuesday defeated constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.

In Missouri, however, voters approved a ballot measure on Tuesday to undo one of the nation’s strictest bans. Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again in 2026 for it to take effect.

Challenges to abortion pill access will continue under Trump

The ease with which women have been able to get abortion pills could also be up for reconsideration under Trump.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration made it easier to obtain abortion pills, including mifepristone, allowing women to access the medication over telehealth. The agency has approved the drug’s safety through 10 weeks of pregnancy, saying that adverse effects happen for .32% of patients.

Anti-abortion advocates have challenged that, arguing the medications are not safe and at the very least not fit for eased access without in-person supervision by a doctor.

Although the Supreme Court preserved access to the drug earlier this year, anti-abortion advocates and conservative states have renewed their challenge in lower courts.

Some women are worried. Telehealth company Wisp saw an immediate spike in abortion pill orders between Election Day and the following day, with a 600% increase. In states like Florida and Texas, where the medication cannot be legally shipped, the company saw a nearly 1000% percent increase in orders of so-called “morning after” pills, also known as emergency contraception.

The company fills about tens of thousands of orders monthly for reproductive products including birth control pills and abortion pills, CEO Monica Cepak told the Associated Press.

Right now women typically take a two-step regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol to complete a medication abortion. Cepak said the company will keep a “close eye” on mifepristone under a Trump administration and is prepared to shift to a misoprostol-only regimen should restriction to mifepristone be implemented.

But Trump could be a wild card on the issue, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis who is an expert on reproductive health issues. In the final months of the campaign, he backed away from a more rigid stance on abortion — even saying he would not sign a national abortion ban if it came across his desk.

Although he has enjoyed firm backing from anti-abortion groups, he is willing to break with allies when he wants.

“I don’t think we have a clear sense from him about what he would do,” Ziegler said.

The post Anti-abortion advocates press Trump for more restrictions as abortion pill sales spike appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The justices turned down a request from the Justice Department to lift a sweeping appeals court order that blocked the program, known as the SAVE plan, which has been the subject of legal challenges from more than a dozen GOP-led states in recent months. The court said in an unsigned order that it “expects that the Court of Appeals will render its decision with appropriate dispatch.” There were no noted dissents.

Its order leaves the injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in place for now. The Education Department paused loan payments for borrowers enrolled in the program earlier this month because of the ongoing legal proceedings.

Mr. Biden’s attempts to provide relief to millions of Americans have not fared well before the Supreme Court, which last year struck down an earlier plan that would have benefited more than 40 million Americans and forgiven nearly half-a-trillion-dollars in loans.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan

The latest program is an income-driven repayment plan in which monthly payments of a loan are based on the borrower’s income. Rolled out by the Biden administration in July 2023, the SAVE plan lowers monthly undergraduate loan payments to 5% of a borrower’s’ discretionary income above 225% of the federal poverty line — up from 150% — and provides for shorter repayment periods and earlier loan forgiveness for borrowers with smaller starting balances. A borrower who owed $12,000 or less, for example, would have their outstanding debt wiped away after making 10 years of payments.

The administration said it had the authority to make these changes under the Higher Education Act and estimated that out of the 8 million borrowers who enrolled in the SAVE Plan, 4.5 million have monthly payments of $0. Some of the plan’s provisions took effect at the end of July 2023, and others were implemented in January. Others still were set to come into force on July 1.

The Education Department estimates the SAVE plan will cost nearly $156 billion over a decade. But critics have argued that the actual cost is $475 billion, since they said the Biden administration excluded from its analysis $430 billion in debt that it expected to be forgiven by the president’s earlier, broader loan forgiveness proposal. That plan, which relied on the 2003 HEROES Act, was invalidated by the Supreme Court last year.

In April, months after a rule detailing these changes was adopted, seven states filed a federal lawsuit in Missouri challenging its provisions and sought to block its implementation and enforcement. A separate group of three states also sued over the SAVE plan in federal court in Kansas and sought their own emergency relief from the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court kept the plan in place for now.

In a brief unsigned order, the court rejected the states’ request to lift that appeals court’s stay, noting that the states said they do not require relief from the Supreme Court as long as the 8th Circuit’s order is in place.

In the Missouri dispute, a federal district court found first that Missouri had the legal right to sue. It also determined that the state had a “fair chance” of succeeding on its claim that the secretary of education exceeded his authority by shortening the repayment period for borrowers with original balances of $12,000 or less.

While the court found that the states were unlikely to succeed on their remaining claims, it blocked any new loan forgiveness under the SAVE plan.

The Biden administration appealed, but stopped canceling loans for borrowers who would receive relief through the shortened repayment period. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit then issued a sweeping injunction blocking the SAVE plan and a pre-existing provision of forgiveness after 20 or 25 years of repayment.

The 8th Circuit’s decision blocks implementation of the program for borrowers nationwide and is at odds with the order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in the dispute involving the three other states, which kept the SAVE plan intact during legal proceedings.

The Biden administration has criticized the reach of the 8th Circuit’s ruling and said it effectively granted the trio of states in the other case — Alaska, South Carolina and Texas — relief they were denied by the appeals court covering their region.

“This is not how the judicial process is supposed to work,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices in a filing.

In asking the Supreme Court to lift the 8th Circuit’s injunction, Prelogar argued it “upends the status quo and is inflicting serious harms on millions of Americans.”

She noted that over the past year, millions of borrowers have received and paid student loan bills that reflected some of the initiative’s provisions.

“Because of the Eighth Circuit’s orders, however, many borrowers are now experiencing intense confusion from being told that their payments must be recalculated and from being placed in forbearance — which will delay any eventual loan forgiveness,” including under programs that were not challenged by the states, Prelogar said.

Borrowers, she continued, “would suffer additional harm if they are eventually sent higher bills and told that they can no longer count on the forgiveness that they were promised at the end of their repayment periods.”

But the seven states, led by Missouri, accused the Biden administration of making “flawed” arguments and omitting a “shocking amount of context.” Republican state officials from Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma called the Justice Department’s request to lift the 8th Circuit’s order “aggressive.”

“From this banal text about length that exists in many plans, the secretary asserts authority to forgive every penny of every student loan,” the GOP-led states wrote of the Higher Education Act in a Supreme Court filing. “Indeed, under the final rule, nearly everybody receives forgiveness.”

Pointing to the millions of borrowers whose monthly payments will be $0, the states claimed the Biden administration is effectively forgiving their loans. Because the Higher Education Act requires repayment and does not authorize forgiveness, the states argued the education secretary went too far.

Mr. Biden campaigned during the 2020 election on providing student debt relief and has rolled out a number of initiatives aimed at easing a financial burden that affects roughly 43 million Americans, who have a combined $1.7 trillion in student debt.

The Department of Education estimates that it has forgiven $168 billion in debt for more than 4.7 million Americans. It said one in 10 federal borrowers has been approved for some relief.

The post Supreme Court won’t reinstate Biden’s latest student loan forgiveness plan for now appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running.

The funding is a financial pillar in the plan to keep the Diablo Canyon Power Plant producing electricity to at least 2030 — five years beyond its planned closing.

Terms of the aid package were not released by the Energy Department.

In 2016, plant operator Pacific Gas & Electric, environmental groups and plant worker unions reached an agreement to close the four-decade-old reactors by 2025. But the Legislature voided the deal in 2022 at the urging of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said the power is needed to ward off blackouts as climate change stresses the energy system.

California is the birthplace of the modern environmental movement and for decades has had a fraught relationship with nuclear power. Environmentalists argued California has adequate power without the reactors and that their continued operation could hinder development of new sources of clean energy. They also warn that long-delayed testing on one of the reactors poses a safety risk that could result in an accident, a claim disputed by PG&E.

The fight over the seaside plant located midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco is playing out as the long-struggling nuclear industry sees a potential rebirth in the era of global warming. Nuclear power doesn’t produce carbon pollution like fossil fuels, but it leaves behind waste that can remain dangerously radioactive for centuries.

Separately, PG&E has submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 20-year extension of the plant’s operating licenses, typical in the industry, but emphasized the state would control how long the reactors run.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration finalizes a $1.1 billion aid package for California’s last nuclear power plant appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — For the second time this month the Biden administration is bypassing Congress to approve an emergency weapons sale to Israel as Israel continues to prosecute its war against Hamas in Gaza under increasing international criticism.

The State Department said Friday that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had told Congress that he had made a second emergency determination covering a $147.5 million sale for equipment, including fuses, charges and primers, that is needed to make the 155 mm shells that Israel has already purchased function.

“Given the urgency of Israel’s defensive needs, the secretary notified Congress that he had exercised his delegated authority to determine an emergency existed necessitating the immediate approval of the transfer,” the department said.

“The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to ensure Israel is able to defend itself against the threats it faces,” it said.

The emergency determination means the purchase will bypass the congressional review requirement for foreign military sales. Such determinations are rare, but not unprecedented, when administrations see an urgent need for weapons to be delivered without waiting for lawmakers’ approval.

Blinken made a similar decision on Dec. 9, to approve the sale to Israel of nearly 14,000 rounds of tank ammunition worth more than $106 million.

Both moves have come as President Joe Biden’s request for a nearly $106 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other national security needs remains stalled in Congress, caught up in a debate over U.S. immigration policy and border security. Some Democratic lawmakers have spoken of making the proposed $14.3 billion in American assistance to its Mideast ally contingent on concrete steps by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza during the war with Hamas.

The State Department sought to counter potential criticism of the sale on human rights grounds by saying it was in constant touch with Israel to emphasize the importance of minimizing civilian casualties, which have soared since Israel began its response to the Hamas attacks in Israel on Oct. 7.

“We continue to strongly emphasize to the government of Israel that they must not only comply with international humanitarian law, but also take every feasible step to prevent harm to civilians,” it said.

“Hamas hides behind civilians and has embedded itself among the civilian population, but that does not lessen Israel’s responsibility and strategic imperative to distinguish between civilians and Hamas terrorists as it conducts its military operations,” the department said. “This type of campaign can only be won by protecting civilians.”

Bypassing Congress with emergency determinations for arms sales is an unusual step that has in the past met resistance from lawmakers, who normally have a period of time to weigh in on proposed weapons transfers and, in some cases, block them.

In May 2019, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an emergency determination for an $8.1 billion sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan after it became clear that the Trump administration would have trouble overcoming lawmakers’ concerns about the Saudi and UAE-led war in Yemen.

Pompeo came under heavy criticism for the move, which some believed may have violated the law because many of the weapons involved had yet to be built and could not be delivered urgently. But he was cleared of any wrongdoing after an internal investigation.

At least four administrations have used the authority since 1979. President George H.W. Bush’s administration used it during the Gulf War to get arms quickly to Saudi Arabia.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post The Biden administration once more bypasses Congress on an emergency weapons sale to Israel appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Biden administration on Tuesday said it will give more than $6 billion to a pair of high-speed electric rail routes in the U.S. West, injecting new life into long-stalled projects hailed by supporters as the future of public transportation but bemoaned by critics for their high price tags and lengthy construction times.

U.S. senators from California and Nevada said the federal government will give $3 billion for a planned privately-owned route between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles area plus another $3.1 billion for an initial segment of California’s publicly-funded effort to eventually connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The money is a fraction of the total cost to build the routes. But it signals the Biden administration’s commitment to high-speed rail, a mode of transportation commonplace in Europe and Asia but bypassed in the U.S. and its car-obsessed culture.

“The federal government is back on building high speed rail in America,” said Brian Kelly, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority that is overseeing the public project. “This award is just a great leap forward.”

In 2008, California voters gave their blessing for a 500-mile (805-kilometer) project that promised to carry passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in under three hours on a fully-electric train traveling at speeds of up to 220 mph (354 kph). At the time, the project was projected to cost about $30 billion and be up and running by 2020. If running today, it would be the nation’s fastest train service by far.

But more than a decade later, the price has ballooned to more than $100 billion, of which only about $25 billion in funding has been identified by state officials. Today, officials are focusing on a 119-mile (190-kilometer) stretch that would connect the cities of Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield that would not open until 2033 at the latest. Those three cities are in California’s Central Valley, which has some of the worst air quality in the country. The $3.1 billion would go exclusively toward work on that segment.

Kelly, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said the new federal money will help close a funding gap of about $10 billion for the Central Valley route. He said the authority will look for more money in the future from both the federal and state governments. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called the funding “a vote of confidence” and said it comes “at a critical turning point” for the project.

Funding for the project has been on a rollercoaster in recent years, with former President Donald Trump trying to revoke $1 billion in federal money first granted by the Obama administration. Then state lawmakers, including Democrats, tried to block Gov. Gavin Newsom from releasing more than $4 billion in voter-approved bond money due to concerns about the project’s viability. Both pots of money have since been made available.

The route between Las Vegas and Los Angeles has been talked about for decades, and Nevada U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen told reporters the project now has all required right-of-way and environmental approvals, along with labor agreements, for work to start on some 218 miles (351 kilometers) along the Interstate 15 corridor.

No date was announced for work to start. But Rosen said electric-powered trains could be carrying passengers by the time Los Angeles hosts the Summer Olympics in 2028.

“We’re ready to get to work,” Wes Edens, founder and chairman of Florida-based Brightline, said in a statement ahead of a Friday event in Las Vegas that may coincide with a visit by President Joe Biden.

Rosen and U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, both Democrats, led a bipartisan group including all of Nevada’s elected federal lawmakers and four House members from California that in April urged Biden to commit up to $3.75 billion in federal infrastructure funds toward what they call a public-private partnership.

Planners say trains carrying passengers at nearly 200 mph (322 kph) could cut in half a four-hour freeway trip from a station in Las Vegas through Victorville, California, to a suburban Los Angeles light rail line in the San Bernardino County city of Rancho Cucamonga.

They say the service could help alleviate weekend or end-of-holiday travel traffic jams that often stretch for 15 miles (24 kilometers) on I-15 near the Nevada-California line.

“Connecting Las Vegas and Southern California by high-speed rail will create tens of thousands of good-paying union jobs, boost our Southern Nevada tourism economy, and finally help us cut down on I-15 traffic,” Cortez Masto said Tuesday in a statement.

Calls for a high-speed rail line whisking tourists through the Mojave Desert to Las Vegas date at least to 2001, said U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, a Democrat who represents the Las Vegas Strip. The proposal had starts, stops and various names over the years, before getting sidetracked during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Florida-based Brightline Holdings LLC, which built the only privately-owned and operated intercity passenger railroad in the U.S., is expected to model the Las Vegas line on service it began in 2014 on Florida’s east coast. That route now links Miami and Orlando with trains reaching speeds up to 125 mph (200 kph).

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration pledges $6 billion to a pair of high-speed electric rail routes in the US West appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Biden administration on Tuesday said it will give more than $6 billion to a pair of high-speed electric rail routes in the U.S. West, injecting new life into long-stalled projects hailed by supporters as the future of public transportation but bemoaned by critics for their high price tags and lengthy construction times. U.S. senators from California and Nevada said the federal government will give $3 billion for a planned privately-owned route between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles area plus another $3.1 billion for an initial segment of California’s publicly-funded effort to eventually connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The money is a fraction of the total cost to build the routes. But it signals the Biden administration’s commitment to high-speed rail, a mode of transportation commonplace in Europe and Asia but bypassed in the U.S. and its car-obsessed culture. “The federal government is back on building high speed rail in America,” said Brian Kelly, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority that is overseeing the public project. “This award is just a great leap forward.” In 2008, California voters gave their blessing for a 500-mile (805-kilometer) project that promised to carry passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in under three hours on a fully-electric train traveling at speeds of up to 220 mph (354 kph). At the time, the project was projected to cost about $30 billion and be up and running by 2020.

If running today, it would be the nation’s fastest train service by far. But more than a decade later, the price has ballooned to more than $100 billion, of which only about $25 billion in funding has been identified by state officials. Today, officials are focusing on a 119-mile (190-kilometer) stretch that would connect the cities of Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield that would not open until 2033 at the latest. Those three cities are in California’s Central Valley, which has some of the worst air quality in the country.

The $3.1 billion would go exclusively toward work on that segment. Kelly, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said the new federal money will help close a funding gap of about $10 billion for the Central Valley route. He said the authority will look for more money in the future from both the federal and state governments.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called the funding “a vote of confidence” and said it comes “at a critical turning point” for the project. Funding for the project has been on a rollercoaster in recent years, with former President Donald Trump trying to revoke $1 billion in federal money first granted by the Obama administration.

Then state lawmakers, including Democrats, tried to block Gov. Gavin Newsom from releasing more than $4 billion in voter-approved bond money due to concerns about the project’s viability. Both pots of money have since been made available.

The route between Las Vegas and Los Angeles has been talked about for decades, and Nevada U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen told reporters the project now has all required right-of-way and environmental approvals, along with labor agreements, for work to start on some 218 miles (351 kilometers) along the Interstate 15 corridor. No date was announced for work to start.

But Rosen said electric-powered trains could be carrying passengers by the time Los Angeles hosts the Summer Olympics in 2028. “We’re ready to get to work,” Wes Edens, founder and chairman of Florida-based Brightline, said in a statement ahead of a Friday event in Las Vegas that may coincide with a visit by President Joe Biden. Rosen and U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, both Democrats, led a bipartisan group including all of Nevada’s elected federal lawmakers and four House members from California that in April urged Biden to commit up to $3.75 billion in federal infrastructure funds toward what they call a public-private partnership.

Planners say trains carrying passengers at nearly 200 mph (322 kph) could cut in half a four-hour freeway trip from a station in Las Vegas through Victorville, California, to a suburban Los Angeles light rail line in the San Bernardino County city of Rancho Cucamonga. They say the service could help alleviate weekend or end-of-holiday travel traffic jams that often stretch for 15 miles (24 kilometers) on I-15 near the Nevada-California line. “Connecting Las Vegas and Southern California by high-speed rail will create tens of thousands of good-paying union jobs, boost our Southern Nevada tourism economy, and finally help us cut down on I-15 traffic,” Cortez Masto said Tuesday in a statement.

Calls for a high-speed rail line whisking tourists through the Mojave Desert to Las Vegas date at least to 2001, said U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, a Democrat who represents the Las Vegas Strip. The proposal had starts, stops and various names over the years, before getting sidetracked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Florida-based Brightline Holdings LLC, which built the only privately-owned and operated intercity passenger railroad in the U.S., is expected to model the Las Vegas line on service it began in 2014 on Florida’s east coast. That route now links Miami and Orlando with trains reaching speeds up to 125 mph (200 kph).

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration pledges $6 billion to a pair of high-speed electric rail routes in the US West appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Biden administration on Tuesday urged an appeals court to allow sweeping new asylum restrictions to stay in place, warning that halting them would be “highly disruptive” at the border.

The government is urging a panel of judges in Pasadena, California — two appointed by President Bill Clinton and one by President Donald Trump — to overturn a July ruling that sought to block the new asylum restrictions. The new restrictions made it far more difficult to qualify for asylum if a migrant didn’t first apply online or traveled through another country, such as Mexico, and didn’t seek protection there. They have remained in place during the appeal.

Although the judges didn’t rule immediately and gave no indication how they were leaning, the arguments occurred against a backdrop of Senate Republicans seeking to legislate far-reaching changes to asylum eligibility as part of President Joe Biden’s request for military aid to Ukraine and Israel.

Courts blocked similar measures under Trump but the Biden administration says its approach differs because it is coupled with new legal pathways to enter the country and creates exceptions. However, advocates represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and National Immigrant Justice Center argue that they are recycled Trump-era policies that violate U.S. law allowing people to seek asylum no matter how and where they arrive.

A mobile app introduced in January allows asylum-seekers to make 1,450 appointments per day at official border crossings with Mexico, while the Biden administration has allowed up to 30,000 a month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to pursue asylum if they apply online with a financial sponsor and arrive at an airport.

Those new pathways represent “a very significant difference” from Trump policies, said Brian Boynton, a Justice Department attorney. Boynton also noted that 12% of the 57,700 asylum-seekers who were subject to the new rule through September avoided it by proving “exceptionally compelling circumstances,” including “acute medical emergency,” “imminent and extreme threat to life or safety” or being a victim of human trafficking.

ACLU attorney Spencer Amdur said the exceptions were “tiny” and that the “overwhelming majority” of asylum-seekers had to enter at an official point of entry.

“The one thing they can’t do is adopt substantive asylum bars,” Amdur said. “That’s not an available option to them.”

Illegal crossings from Mexico dropped from all-time daily highs in early May after the new restrictions took effect, but although arrests haven’t returned to 10,000 crossings per day, the lull was short-lived. Arrests in September were just shy of an all-time monthly high reached in December 2022 and they topped 2 million for the second year in a row for the government’s budget year that ended Sept. 30.

Blas Nuñez-Neto, assistant Homeland Security secretary for border and immigration policy, said in filing in a separate case last week that the asylum restrictions were critical. Figures show approval rates on initial asylum screenings fell sharply after the new restrictions were put to use.

Boynton asked the judges to keep the policy in place even if they decide against the administration, implying that it was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court if it lost.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration warns of major disruption at border if judges halt asylum rule appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is moving toward a narrower student loan relief plan that would target specific groups of borrowers — those with soaring interest, for example — rather than a sweeping plan like the one the Supreme Court rejected in June.

The Education Department on Monday released a draft of new federal rules paving the way for a second attempt at student loan relief. The proposal targets groups that are seen as especially vulnerable, focusing on those who owe so much, or make so little income, that they otherwise may never repay their loans.

Though full details are likely months away, the department says it wants to cancel some or all student debt for: borrowers whose balances exceed what they originally owed; those who have loans that entered repayment 25 or more years ago; those who used loans to attend career-training programs that led to “unreasonable” debt loads or insufficient earnings; those who are eligible for other loan forgiveness programs but did not apply.

A fifth group is also being discussed — “those who are experiencing financial hardship that the current student loan system does not currently adequately address.”

“President Biden and I are committed to helping borrowers who’ve been failed by our country’s broken and unaffordable student loan system,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. “We are fighting to ensure that student debt does not stand in the way of opportunity or prevent borrowers from realizing the benefits of their higher education.”

President Joe Biden’s initial plan was broader. It would have canceled up to $20,000 in federal student loans for those with annual incomes below $125,000 or couples below $250,000. But after that was rejected by the court’s conservative majority, he called on the Education Department to try again using a different legal basis.

The new proposal aims to tackle issues that are seen as some of the biggest culprits behind skyrocketing debt.

It would help counter interest that snowballs beyond borrowers’ original balances. It would offer relief to borrowers who attended for-profit college programs with poor outcomes. It would also help older borrowers who took out loans decades ago and struggle to make payments.

The department says it will continue to refine the proposal as it goes through a federal rulemaking process. The public will be able to provide written feedback next year.

The draft proposal would give the department authority to wipe away federal student loans entirely for borrowers in some categories.

For those who started repaying loans more than 25 years ago, the proposal says that “the secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan” — amounting to total cancellation. It’s the same for borrowers who are eligible for other cancellation programs but haven’t applied.

Loans used to attend low-value college programs would also be wiped away. Borrowers would fall into that category if they attended a program that fails new standards outlined in a separate federal rule known as gainful employment.

For those with snowballing interest, the proposal would reset their loans back to the original balance, effectively canceling unpaid interest.

Even a more limited plan for relief is sure to draw fierce opposition from Republicans, who see cancellation as an unfair burden on taxpayers.

The latest attempt rests on the Higher Education Act of 1965, a wide-reaching law that gives the education secretary power to “compromise, waive or release” certain debts. But the law is unclear on how the secretary can wield that authority, creating a legal gray area that has been the subject of debate since Biden took office.

The proposal aims to settle the dispute by creating new federal rules detailing cases that merit cancellation. Before the rules can be enacted, they must be weighed by a committee of government outsiders in a process known as negotiated rulemaking. The new draft will be taken up when the committee meets next week.

The committee is made up of negotiators who represent a range of viewpoints on student loans. It includes students and officials from a range of colleges, along with loan servicers, state officials and advocates including the NAACP.

Meetings began earlier this month and are scheduled to continue into December.

At the end of the process, negotiators will vote on a proposed rule. If they reach consensus, the department will move forward with it. If they don’t, the agency will propose its own plan, which can be finalized after a public comment period.

Biden called for a plan to help “as many borrowers as possible,” but his administration seems to be moving away from the type of mass cancellation that he promised in August 2022.

That plan was estimated to cost $400 billion. It’s unclear how much the second proposal will cost.

In a separate action on Monday, the Education Department moved to correct errors by a student loan servicer that failed to send billing statements on time.

The department is withholding $7.2 million in payment to the loan servicer MOHELA after finding that it failed to send timely billing statements to 2.5 million borrowers recently. In some cases, borrowers received their bills within seven days of their due date. As a result, the department said, 800,000 borrowers were delinquent on their payments.

The department ordered MOHELA to put all affected borrowers into forbearance — a temporary hold on payments — until the issue is resolved.

Federal student loan payments resumed in October for the first time since the start of the pandemic. Some in the industry have warned of potential problems as understaffed loan servicers bring millions of borrowers back into repayment at the same time.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration is moving toward a narrower student loan relief targeting groups of borrowers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration announced Monday that it has awarded more than $1.4 billion to projects that improve railway safety and boost capacity, with roughly $1 billion of the money coming from the 2021 infrastructure law.

“These projects will make American rail safer, more reliable, and more resilient, delivering tangible benefits to dozens of communities where railroads are located, and strengthening supply chains for the entire country,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement.

The money is funding 70 projects in 35 states and Washington, D.C. Railroad safety has become a key concern nationwide ever since a train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed and caught fire in East Palestine, Ohio, in February. President Joe Biden has ordered federal agencies to hold the train’s operator Norfolk Southern accountable for the crash, but a package of proposed rail safety reforms has stalled in the Senate where the bill is still awaiting a vote. The White House is also saying that a possible government shutdown because of House Republicans would undermine railway safety.

The projects include track upgrades and bridge repairs, in addition to improving the connectivity among railways and making routes less vulnerable to extreme weather.

Among the projects is $178.4 million to restore passenger service in parts of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi along the Gulf of Mexico for the first time since Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005.

“This is a significant milestone, representing years of dedicated efforts to reconnect our communities after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in a statement. “Restoring passenger rail service will create jobs, improve quality of life, and offer a convenient travel option for tourists, contributing to our region’s economic growth and vitality.”

The grant should make it possible to restore passenger service to the Gulf Coast after Amtrak reached an agreement with CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads last year to clear the way for passenger trains to resume operating on the tracks the freight railroads own.

“We’ve been fighting to return passenger trains to the Gulf Coast since it was knocked offline by Hurricane Katrina. That 17-year journey has been filled with obstacles and frustration — but also moments of joy, where local champions and national advocates were able to come together around the vision of a more connected Gulf Coast region,” Rail Passengers Association President & CEO Jim Mathews said.

The single biggest grant — nearly $202 million — will help eliminate seven rail crossings in California as part of the larger project to build a high-speed rail line in that state. That will reduce traffic delays and help ensure that first responders can get where they need to go.

In one of the biggest other grants, the Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad in Washington state will get $72.8 million to upgrade the track and related infrastructure to allow that rail line to handle modern 286,000-pound railcars.

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, who championed the additional funding in the infrastructure law as chair of the Commerce Committee, said the grant will let grain trains safely travel twice as fast along the 297-mile route.

A project in Kentucky will receive $29.5 million to make improvements to 280 miles of track and other infrastructure along the Paducah and Louisville Railway.

And in Tennessee, $23.7 million will go to helping upgrade about 42 bridges on 10 different short-line railroads.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration announces $1.4 billion to improve rail safety and boost capacity in 35 states appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — In an aggressive move that angered Republicans, the Biden administration canceled the seven remaining oil and gas leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on Wednesday, overturning sales held in the Trump administration’s waning days, and proposed stronger protections against development on vast swaths of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

The Department of Interior’s scrapping of the leases comes after the Biden administration disappointed environmental groups earlier this year by approving the Willow oil project in the petroleum reserve, a massive project by ConocoPhillips Alaska that could produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil a day on Alaska’s petroleum-rich North Slope. Protections are proposed for more than 20,000 square miles (51,800 square kilometers) of land in the reserve in the western Arctic.

Some critics who said the approval of Willow flew in the face of Biden’s pledges to address climate change lauded Wednesday’s announcement. But they said more could be done. Litigation over the approval of the Willow project is pending.

“Alaska is home to many of America’s most breathtaking natural wonders and culturally significant areas. As the climate crisis warms the Arctic more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, we have a responsibility to protect this treasured region for all ages,” Biden said in a statement.

His actions “meet the urgency of the climate crisis” and will “protect our lands and waters for generations to come,” Biden said.

Alaska’s Republican governor condemned Biden’s moves and threatened to sue. And at least one Democratic lawmaker said the decision could hurt Indigenous communities in an isolated region where oil development is an important economic driver.

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, who drew criticism for her role in the approval of the Willow project, said Wednesday that “no one will have rights to drill for oil in one of the most sensitive landscapes on earth.” However, a 2017 law mandates another lease sale by late 2024. Administration officials said they intend to comply with the law.

The Biden administration also announced proposed rules aimed at providing stronger protections against new leasing and development in portions of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska that are designated as special areas for their wildlife, subsistence, scenic or other values. The proposal still must go through public comment. Willow lies within the reserve but was not expected to be affected by the proposed rules.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s 1.5-million-acre (600,000-hectare) coastal plain, which lies along the Beaufort Sea on Alaska’s northeastern edge, is seen as sacred by the Indigenous Gwich’in because it is where caribou they rely on migrate and come to give birth. The plain is marked by hills, rivers and small lakes and tundra. Migratory birds and caribou pass through the plain, which provides habitat for wildlife including polar bears and wolves.

Alaska political leaders — including some Democrats — have long pushed to allow oil and gas drilling in the refuge in part because of its economic impact on Indigenous communities in an area with few other jobs. Many of those same voices pressed Biden to approve the Willow project for the same reason.

“I am deeply frustrated by the reversal of these leases in ANWR,” said U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, using a common shorthand for the refuge. “This administration showed that it is capable of listening to Alaskans with the approval of the Willow Project, and it is some of those same Inupiat North Slope communities who are most impacted by this decision. I will continue to advocate for them and for Alaska’s ability to explore and develop our natural resources.”

Alaska’s congressional delegation in 2017 succeeded in getting language added to a federal tax law that called for the U.S. government to hold two lease sales in the region by late 2024.

Drilling opponents on Wednesday urged Congress to repeal the leasing provision from the 2017 law and permanently make the coastal plain off limits to drilling.

“It is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of today’s announcements for Arctic conservation,” said Jamie Williams, president of the Wilderness Society. “Once again, the Arctic Refuge is free of oil leases. Our climate is a bit safer and there is renewed hope for permanently protecting one of the last great wild landscapes in America.”

Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan denounced Biden’s actions as the latest volley in what he called a “war on Alaska.”

Two other leases that were issued as part of the first-of-its-kind sale for the refuge in January 2021 were previously given up by the small companies that held them amid legal wrangling and uncertainty over the drilling program.

After taking office, Biden issued an executive order calling for a temporary moratorium on activities related to the leasing program and for the Interior secretary to review the program. Haaland later in 2021 ordered a new environmental review after concluding there were “multiple legal deficiencies” underlying the Trump-era leasing program. Haaland halted activities related to the leasing program pending the new analysis.

A draft environmental review was released Wednesday.

The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, a state corporation that won seven leases in the 2021 sale, sued over the moratorium. But a federal judge recently found the delay by Interior to conduct a new review was not unreasonable.

The corporation obtained the leases to preserve drilling rights in case oil companies did not come forward. Major oil companies sat out the sale, held after prominent banks had announced they would not finance Arctic oil and gas projects.

Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, thanked the administration for the lease cancellation — but issued a warning.

“We know that our sacred land is only temporarily safe from oil and gas development,” she said. “We urge the administration and our leaders in Congress to repeal the oil and gas program and permanently protect the Arctic Refuge.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration cancels remaining oil and gas leases in Alaska’s Arctic Refuge appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.