Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>House Democrats sent a letter to Democratic leadership urging them to go even bigger on <keyword id="17408" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="infrastructure">infrastructure</keyword> funding.</li><li>They said that <keyword id="60973" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Biden">Biden</keyword> should see past GOP negotiations and pass an urgently needed bill.</li><li>Biden has remained committed to <keyword id="472942" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="bipartisanship">bipartisanship</keyword> and plans to negotiate on another GOP counter-offer.</li></ul>Bipartisanship is the theme of President Joe Biden's agenda these days, with him dedicating the majority of his May in persuading both sides of the aisle to get on board with his $4 trillion <keyword id="595080" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="infrastructure-plan">infrastructure plan</keyword>.But House Democrats are worried that these negotiations, while well-intentioned, could narrow down legislation that Americans urgently need, and they want Biden to go bigger - in line with his campaign promises.Led by Reps. <keyword id="1655958" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Pramila-Jayapal">Pramila Jayapal</keyword> of Washington and <keyword id="11280391" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="jimmy-panetta">Jimmy Panetta</keyword> of California, 59 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Monday, urging them to take the opportunity to go big on infrastructure investments. They outlined three priorities regarding the size, scope, and speed of Biden's American Jobs Plan, and they urged the congressional leaders to not get bogged down by Republican counter-offers. The letter was <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-push-party-leaders-big-infrastructure/story?id=77744477">first reported on by ABC News</a>."We appreciate the White House's interest in reaching across the aisle to seek Republican support for overwhelmingly popular infrastructure priorities to invest in caregiving, workforce development, the environment, housing, and education, and to make the very wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes to reduce inequality," they wrote in the letter. "While bipartisan support is welcome, the pursuit of Republican votes cannot come at the expense of limiting the scope of popular investments."A group of Senate Republicans, led by Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, introduced a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-republican-infrastructure-plan-breakdown-biden-2021-4">$568 billion</a> counter-proposal to Biden's infrastructure plan. They have a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-gop-plan-biden-counter-proposal-tuesday-deadline-2021-5">Tuesday deadline</a> to bring the president a new offer to negotiate, but Democrats don't want this to be the focus of Biden's agenda.Here are the three main priorities the Democrats outlined to Schumer and Pelosi:<h1>(1) Size</h1>The lawmakers want Biden to prioritize his campaign promise of a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/03/29/biden-infrastructure-taxes-spending-plan/">$7 trillion</a> infrastructure investment, including a four-year, $2 trillion investment on climate-focused infrastructure. Currently, Biden's American Jobs Plan proposes $2.3 trillion over eight years, but Democrats want Biden to "maintain an ambitious infrastructure size" and go even bigger.<h1>(2) Scope</h1>After Republicans introduced their $568 billion infrastructure plan, Democrats called it "a joke" and "a slap in the face" given how small it was compared to Biden's. In the letter, the Democrats cited Republicans' "widespread climate denial," among other things, as reasons to see past bipartisan negotiations and not succumb to a deal that doesn't meet the needs of the <keyword id="34412" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="economy">economy</keyword> and the climate.<h1>(3) Speed </h1>Given the fierce Republican opposition to Biden's infrastructure plan as he proposed it, the Democratic group said "that robust legislation comprising the American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan must be enacted as rapidly as possible, preferably as a single, ambitious package combining physical and social investments hand in hand."Republican lawmakers said that Biden's plan focuses on too many things beyond physical infrastructure, like roads and bridges, but Democrats remained firm in their messaging that care-economy measures, like universal pre-K and affordable housing, belong in infrastructure.Biden and Republican lawmakers have expressed the desire to strike a bipartisan deal by Memorial Day, and Pelosi aims to get a bill to the House floor by July 4. Democratic leaders, including Pelosi and Schumer, have remained optimistic on reaching a bipartisan agreement. "The president has his vision," Pelosi told reporters last week. "The Congress will work its will. In any event, I felt optimistic about our ability to pass such a bill, and more optimistic now about being able to do so in a bipartisan way."

59 House Democrats urge Biden to ditch Republicans and go even bigger on $7 trillion of infrastructure spending

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A new bill would give Americans up to $1,500 off the purchase of an electric bicycle.</li><li>The E-BIKE Act of 2023 is an expanded version of legislation that was cut from the IRA last year.</li></ul>Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill last week that would give Americans up to $1,500 off the purchase of an electric bicycle. The legislation, the Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act, is a new version of a 2021 bill with the same name and offers a more generous tax credit to more Americans for a broader range of bikes. The new and expanded legislation would give Americans who earn up to $150,000, or up to $300,000 for joint tax filers, a refundable tax credit of 30% off, up to $1,500. The credit applies to e-bikes that cost under $8,000.The previous version of the bill limited the rebate to bikes that cost under $4,000 and only those who earn under $75,000 a year (or $150,000 for couples) were eligible. The Senate cut this legislation out of <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23297209/ebike-tax-credit-climate-bill-ev-car-congress" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act</a>, but included subsidies for electric cars and SUVs. The <a href="https://panetta.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-panetta-blumenauer-thompson-and-schiff-reintroduce-e-bike-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new E-BIKE Act</a>, which was introduced in both the House and Senate on March 21, is backed by a much larger set of environmental groups, and is sponsored by more lawmakers. Reps. Jimmy Panetta, Mike Thompson, and Adam Schiff of California, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, and Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii introduced the bill. "Many people are looking to get out of their cars and get on to e-bikes not just for recreation, but also for transportation purposes," Rep. Panetta said in a statement. "By incentivizing Americans to own and use e-bikes, we are allowing them the chance to help improve the quality of life in our communities and tackle the climate crisis in our country." While this year's bill has more support both in and outside the halls of the Capitol, it will need Republican backing to pass the House, and it remains to be seen whether that will materialize. E-bikes have increasingly been embraced by environmental advocates as the best alternative to cars and a key way to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. If people rode an e-bike instead of driving a car just 15% of the time, it would reduce emissions by 12%, <a href="https://www.bicycling.com/news/a33798099/e-bikes-can-reduce-carbon-emissions-study/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a study found in 2020</a>. Biking advocates argue that electric bikes should be subsidized just as electric cars have been for years. "It'd be great for bikes to get similar consideration because they really can replace car trips and be that form of transportation for people at a lower price point and with less impact on the environment than electric cars," Ken McLeod, policy director for the League of American Bicyclists, told Insider. E-bikes are generally viewed as a better replacement for cars than analog bikes because people ride more frequently and for longer distances on them, the 2020 study found. But they're on average more expensive than regular bicycles, often starting at around $1,000. "If that passes, I think it'll be one of the biggest impacts in shifting the transportation system," Rachel Hultin, sustainable transportation director at Bicycle Colorado, told Insider of the E-BIKE Act.Both Hultin and McLeod — along with bicycle advocates from across the country — will be converging on the Hill this week as part of the National Bike Summit to lobby Congress to pass the legislation. Electric bikes have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/business/e-bikes-urban-transit.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">boomed in popularity</a> in the US over the last several years. E-bike tax credits introduced by cities and states around the country have become hugely popular in recent years. Thousands of Denver residents have taken advantage of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/12/19/denver-ebike-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the city's e-bike rebate</a> of between $400 and $1,200 per person (plus an extra $500 for cargo e-bikes). The city's program was so popular that the government had to temporarily pause it to catch up with demand.Other cities, including Ann Arbor and Austin, have implemented e-bike rebates, while the states of Colorado, California, Connecticut, and Hawaii are all planning to introduce e-bike subsidies this year."Bicycle Colorado just declared 2023 the year of the e-bike," Hultin said.

Democrats want to make electric bikes much cheaper by giving you up to $1,500 to buy one

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Sens. Brown and Portman introduced a plan to update a key <keyword id="12003093" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="social-security" source="Orion">Social Security</keyword> program.</li><li>They want to ensure disabled Americans can store money without losing monthly benefits.</li></ul>A Democratic and Republican senator introduced a bill to make it easier for disabled and elderly Americans to save money without getting deprived of their Social Security benefits.Democratic Sen. <keyword id="11994301" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="sherrod-brown" source="Orion">Sherrod Brown</keyword> and GOP Sen. Rob Portman rolled out the legislation late last week. The Ohio senators say the plan aims to raise the amount of money people receiving benefits from the<a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/supplemental-security-income"> Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program</a> can have in their bank accounts before being cut off from payments.<keyword id="12047872" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ssi" source="Orion">SSI</keyword> is an underlying part of Social Security that provides monthly cash payments to generally low-income Americans with disabilities. The asset limit for the program is currently just $2,000 for singles and $3,000 for couples. Beneficiaries who breach the limit under existing rules lose their Social Security benefits. Those cutoffs haven't been lifted in over three decades.The bill would lift the limits to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married people filing jointly."We shouldn't be punishing seniors and Ohioans with disabilities who do the right thing and save money for emergencies by taking away the money they rely on to live," Brown <a href="https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-brown-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-reform-supplemental-security">said in a statement</a>. "SSI's arbitrary and outdated rules make no sense." Portman said in the same statement that he wanted to provide extra financial relief for people feeling burdened by inflation.Currently, over 5 million SSI recipients get an average of $625.50 <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/">every month</a>. It forms the main source of income for over half of all beneficiaries, <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/supplemental-security-income">per the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.</a>It's not the only <keyword id="11896048" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="policy" source="Orion">policy</keyword> to penalize disabled Americans. Employers are allowed to pay some disabled workers what's called a "<a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39-14c-subminimum-wage">subminimum wage</a>" — a wage lower than the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. Disabled Americans <a href="https://thearc.org/blog/when-people-with-disabilities-are-forced-to-choose-between-love-needed-benefits-marriage-penalties/">can risk losing disability benefits and access to Medicaid</a> if they get married, something that Rep. Jimmy Panetta <a href="https://panetta.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-panetta-introduces-marriage-equality-disabled-adults-act">has also introduced</a> legislation to change.The Brown and Portman legislation's fate is unclear since Republican support is far from assured. Brown told Insider on Tuesday that he aims do "whatever it takes" to see it become law. He opened the door to ensuring it's a piece of <keyword id="11896865" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="democrats" source="Orion">Democrats</keyword>' stalled party-line reconciliation bill, a bipartisan measure to increase competitiveness with China, or an end-of-year government spending package.

A GOP and Democratic senator want to make it easier for disabled Americans to save money without losing their Social Security checks

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A growing number of lawmakers is pushing for recurring <keyword id="9071639" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="stimulus-checks">stimulus checks</keyword> in an <keyword id="17408" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="infrastructure">infrastructure</keyword> plan.</li><li>The Economic Security Project found two more checks would keep 12 million more people out of <keyword id="45057" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Poverty">poverty</keyword>.</li><li>So far, 28 <keyword id="6534156" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Democrats">Democrats</keyword> have signed letters asking <keyword id="60973" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Biden">Biden</keyword> to include recurring checks in infrastructure.</li></ul><keyword id="45304" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Stimulus">Stimulus</keyword> checks have been a cornerstone of pandemic relief, helping offset financial strains brought on by COVID-19. But <a href="https://www.bankrate.com/surveys/stimulus-check-survey-april-2021/">studies</a> have shown that those checks only last Americans a few months, and many Democratic lawmakers want to implement recurring direct payments for a sustainable economic recovery.Under the CARES Act signed into law in March 2020, Americans received their first $1,200 stimulus check. Then came the December $600 check, and most recently, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law, which included $1,400 stimulus checks.Democratic lawmakers don't want Biden to stop there.The Economic Security Project found that that sending two more rounds of stimulus checks <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/more-stimulus-checks-help-fight-poverty-economic-security-project-2021-4">could keep 12 million more Americans out of poverty</a>, and since the beginning of this year, a growing number of Democrats have come out in support of recurring payments, urging Biden to include them in his infrastructure plan.For example, in March, 21 senators wrote a letter to Biden advocating for recurring direct payments, and last week, seven House Democrats wrote a similar letter pushing for the same thing."The pandemic has served as a stark reminder that families and workers need certainty in a crisis," the House Democrats <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/permanent-stimulus-checks-recurring-payments-democrats-biden-jimmy-gomez-2021-5">wrote</a>. "They deserve to know they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They should not be at the mercy of constantly shifting legislative timelines and ad hoc solutions."Here are the lawmakers who support recurring stimulus payments in Biden's infrastructure plan, according to letters from <a href="https://gomez.house.gov/uploadedfiles/letter_to_president_biden_regarding_automatic_stabilizers.pdf">House</a> and <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprogressives.org/images/033021_Automatic_Stabilizers_Letter_Final.pdf">Senate</a> members:<h1>Senate Democrats</h1><ul><li>Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin</li><li>Michael Bennet of Colorado</li><li>Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut</li><li>Cory Booker of New Jersey</li><li>Sherrod Brown of Ohio</li><li>Dick Durbin of Illinois</li><li>Tammy Duckworth of Illinois</li><li>Kirsten Gillibrand of New York</li><li>Mazie Hirono of Hawaii</li><li>Ed Markey of Massachusetts</li><li>Jeffrey Merkley of Oregon</li><li>Alex Padilla of California</li><li>Gary Peters of Michigan</li><li>Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico</li><li>Jack Reed of Rhode Island</li><li>Bernie Sanders of Vermont</li><li>Brian Schatz of Hawaii</li><li>Debbie Stabenow of Michigan</li><li>Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts</li><li>Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island</li><li>Ron Wyden of Oregon</li></ul><h1>House Democrats</h1><ul><li>Donald Beyer of Virginia</li><li>Earl Blumenauer of Oregon</li><li>Judy Chu of California</li><li>Jimmy Gomez of California</li><li>Gwen Moore of Wisconsin</li><li>Jimmy Panetta of California</li><li>Brad Schneider of Illinois</li></ul>

Meet the 28 lawmakers who want to make stimulus checks recurring in Biden's infrastructure plan

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A new proposal from two House Democrats could dramatically cut the cost of buying a new e-bike. </li><li>The E-BIKE Act aims to make <keyword id="930861" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="E-bikes">e-bikes</keyword> more accessible and to cut the country's carbon emissions. </li><li>It would provide up to a $1,500 credit to subsidize 30% of the cost of a new e-bike. </li></ul>There are plenty of reasons to buy an e-bike. They offer all the benefits of a normal human-powered bike, but with considerably less sweating and much more utility. Plus, for certain people, they can replace car trips, cutting down on congestion and curbing harmful emissions. But one major hurdle to widespread e-bike adoption remains: cost. Although some manufacturers are taking it upon themselves to sell low-cost e-bikes - Rad Power Bikes' new <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rad-power-bikes-radmission-1-review-best-affordable-e-bikes-2021-1">$1,099 RadMission 1</a> is an example - by and large, high-quality e-bikes are out of reach for the average consumer. A new proposal from two House Democrats aims to change that. This month, Reps. Jimmy Panetta and Earl Blumenauer - of California and Oregon, respectively - introduced the <a href="https://panetta.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-panetta-introduces-e-bike-act-encourage-use-electric-bicycles-and">Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act</a>, a tax-credit program that aims to spur e-bike sales.The act would cover 30% of the cost of a new e-bike up to $1,500 and would apply to new bikes that cost $8,000 or less. The idea, they said, is to encourage people to take fewer car trips and ultimately reduce their carbon footprint. "E-bikes are not just a fad for a select few, they are a legitimate and practical form of <keyword id="34991" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="transportation">transportation</keyword> that can help reduce our carbon emissions," said Rep. Panetta in a statement. "My legislation will make it easier for more people from all socio-economic levels to own e-bikes and contribute to cutting our carbon output." According to the lawmakers, the environmental impact of such a program could be huge. If 15% of car trips were replaced by an e-bike - an ambitious goal - carbon emissions could drop by 12%, they said in a press release, citing an October <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920920306696?via%3Dihub#!">study</a> out of Portland State University. That makes sense, given that the transportation sector is the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions">single largest source of greenhouse-gas emissions</a> in the US, and passenger cars are the biggest polluter within that category. The proposal isn't without precedent. It resembles a federal tax credit program that gives buyers of certain low- and zero-emission cars a rebate worth up to $7,500. <a href="https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/09/23/opinion-state-must-subsidize-e-bike-purchases/">Some politicians</a> and <a href="https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/new-california-law-provides-funding-for-ebike-purchases">advocates</a> have long argued that a similar incentive should be extended to electric bikes. In 2019, California passed a <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB400">bill</a> that provides residents of low-income and disadvantaged communities up to $7,500 toward the purchase of an e-bike or bike-share membership if they trade in their car. And multiple European countries including France, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have introduced some form of e-bike subsidy. Bicycling and sustainability groups welcome the policy. "Incentivizing electric bicycles makes them a competitive transportation option for more Americans and supports a national effort to lower carbon emissions," Jenn Dice, CEO of advocacy organization PeopleForBikes, said in a statement. "The E-BIKE Act positions rightfully electric bicycles as a critical part of a larger solution to climate change and equitable mobility."President Joe Biden's <a href="https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/">sweeping plans</a> to transition the US <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-plans-replace-government-fleet-with-electric-vehicles-clean-energy-2021-1">away from fossil fuels</a> - and the fact that Democrats control both chambers of congress - mean that the E-BIKE Act may not be such a stretch. Biden also aims to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/automakers-biden-electric-vehicle-federal-fleets-2021-1">electrify the federal government fleet</a>, establish half a million new charging stations, and support EV research.

Electric bikes could get much cheaper under a new proposal from two House Democrats

<a href="http://www.army.mil">US Army</a>A group of House Democrats have launched a task force to address President Donald Trump's policies that they say "compromise our national security."Chaired by Reps. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, Stephanie Murphy of Florida, and Jimmy Panetta of California, the Democratic Caucus National Security Task Force aims to address the "most pressing security challenges," and "hold the Trump administration accountable," according to a statement."The Trump administration has taken - or pledged to take - certain foreign policy actions that are likely to compromise our national security, weaken our alliances, and undermine our values," read a statement from the three representatives. "Our constituents seek a steady hand at the helm of our ship of state.""Democrats need a strong, smart, and strategic approach to national security," said Moulton. "This task force will hold the administration accountable in a thoughtful and impactful way, while working to find the best solutions to the national security issues facing our country."The formation of the task force comes months after a US cruise missile strike at a Syrian airfield - a response to corroborated reports of a deadly chemical attack on Syria's civilian population. Although Congress broadly supported Trump's decision after the fact, he has been criticized for the lack of a thorough follow-up plan, which may have <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/syria-trump-assad-iran/527352/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">resounding effects</a>, due to ongoing volatility in the region.The lack of a concrete plan is further evidenced by the US being continually roped into the Syrian conflict through a proxy war - the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/world/middleeast/syria-drone-shot-down.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">most recent incursion</a> involving a US F-15E fighter jet shooting down a "pro-Syria regime" drone after it had attacked US-backed forces in southern Syria."The United States faces a wide range of threats, whether from terrorist groups like ISIS or nations like North Korea," said Murphy. "It has never been more important to develop and implement national security policies that are smart, strategic, and strong." <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/war-ian-bremmer-north-korea-donald-trump-nuclear-2017-6">IAN BREMMER ON NORTH KOREA: Trump could either start a war or win a Nobel Peace Prize</a></h3> Please enable Javascript to watch this video

House Democrats frustrated by Trump's national-security policies have launched a task force

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Abroad/14c4abe6a07b4f6b99e8f06fb183ceb3/1/0">Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo</a>President Donald Trump at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, Belgium.</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>Senators have reintroduced a measure meant to keep President Donald Trump from pulling out of NATO.</li><li>The measure prohibits funds from being used for a withdrawal and expresses US support for the alliance.</li><li>Despite the alliance's popularity, however, the president has broad foreign-policy and military authorities.</li></ul>Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine reintroduced a bill on Thursday that would keep President Donald Trump from pulling the US out of NATO - the transatlantic security organization that the US helped found after World War II and toward which Trump has repeatedly expressed disdain.The <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/397679135/Kaine-Colleagues-Reintroduce-Bipartisan-Bill-to-Prevent-Any-President-From-Leaving-NATO#from_embed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bipartisan bill</a>, introduced in 2018 but never voted on, would require "the advice and consent of the Senate or an Act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.""No funds authorized or appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or indirectly, any efforts on the part of any United States Government official to take steps to suspend, terminate, or withdraw the United States [from NATO] ... until such a time as the Senate passes, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of Members, a resolution advising and consenting to the withdrawal of the United States from the treaty or pursuant to an act of Congress," the bill adds.It also authorizes Congressional legal counsel to challenge the Trump administration in court if it tries to pull out of the alliance.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/soldier-of-the-polish-army-sits-in-a-tank-as-a-nato-flag-news-photo/477566314">Sean Gallup/Getty Images</a>A Polish soldier in a tank in front of a NATO flag the NATO Noble Jump military exercise in Zagan, Poland, June 18, 2015.</div></div></div>The bill also requires the president to notify the committees on foreign affairs in the Senate and House of Representatives in writing of any effort to suspend, terminate, or withdraw from NATO."President Trump's repeated threats to withdraw from NATO are dangerous," Kaine, a member of the foreign affairs and armed services committees, <a href="https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/kaine-colleagues-reintroduce-bipartisan-bill-to-prevent-any-president-from-leaving-nato" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said in a release</a>.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-donald-trump-took-shots-at-nato-in-2018-2018-12" data-analytics-position="14">Here's how Donald Trump took shots at NATO in 2018 - and it spurred Jim Mattis to quit in protest</a>Trump's "reckless decision-making-his abrupt withdrawal of US troops from Syria and Afghanistan, his pullout from the Iran nuclear deal and Paris climate agreement, and his deference to Vladimir Putin - is destroying strategic partnerships we have forged with allies across the world," Kaine added.Republican Sens. Cory Gardner, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Susan Collins, and Democratic Sens. Jack Reed, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal also sponsored the bill.Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly inveighed against NATO and its members, criticizing them for what he believes is failure to spend adequately on <keyword id="6354810" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="defense">defense</keyword>, instead free-riding on the US's contribution to the alliance.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/men-and-women-soldiers-from-different-nations-march-in-the-news-photo/996215250">Sean Gallup/Getty Images</a></div></div></div>NATO members pay to support the alliance's administrative operations, but <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nato-budget-is-funded-2018-7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">there is no common pool</a> for defense funds. (The US provides about 22% of the overall budget, but that contribution is scaled to each country's national income.)Rather, members support the alliance by spending on their own militaries. NATO members agreed in 2014 increase their individual military expenditures to 2% of GDP by 2024. Many members remain short of that goal, as Trump has repeatedly noted.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-military-exercises-in-2018-2018-12" data-analytics-position="16">NATO just held its largest war games since the Cold War - one of more than 100 exercises the alliance carried out in 2018</a>Trump has made comments supporting NATO in the past, but the reintroduction comes after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a New York Times report</a> that on several occasions during 2018 Trump said in private that he wanted to pull the US out of the alliance.The Senate measure is not the only one introduced to Congress. The bipartisan "<a href="https://panetta.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-panetta-introduces-no-nato-withdrawal-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">No NATO Withdrawal Act</a>" was introduced in the House in summer 2018. That bill, which did not pass, prohibited funds from being used to withdraw from NATO and stated that it was US policy to remain in the alliance.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesTrump with other NATO leaders at the opening ceremony at the 2018 NATO Summit at NATO headquarters on in Brussels, Belgium, July 11, 2018.</div></div></div>California Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta, a cosponsor of the 2018 bill, reportedly <a href="https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1086009337296891904" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reintroduced</a> it to the House on Thursday.While lawmakers and the US public largely support the US's membership in NATO, there may be little Congress could do should Trump decide to pull the US out.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-ships-and-sailors-got-beat-up-during-natos-massive-war-games-2018-12" data-analytics-position="7">'We can do better': The Navy's newest fleet commander says US ships and sailors got 'beat up' during NATO's biggest exercise since the Cold War</a>Congress retains the powers of the purse and the ability to approve treaties, and some legal rulings have checked the president's authority on national-security matters. But the president is responsible for diplomacy and controls the US military."The president, in the foreign affairs realm, can exercise a lot of discretion where Congress is silent," Scott Anderson, a Brookings Institution scholar and former State Department lawyer, <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/trump-cant-do-that-can-he-nato-russia-congress/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told Foreign Policy</a> this week. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/comparing-russia-most-advanced-military-equipment-nato-hardware-us-defense-2017-1">How Russia's most advanced military equipment stacks up against NATO hardware</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

Senators from both parties have introduced a bill to keep Trump from ditching NATO, but they may not be able to stop him

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Every American <keyword id="2540" type="POSITION" weightage="60" keywordseo="President">president</keyword> since Eisenhower has been followed by a bag known as the "<keyword id="6613382" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Nuclear-football">nuclear football</keyword>."</li><li>The briefcase was born from the Cold War belief the president needs to be able to order a launch in minutes.</li><li>Much of the briefcase's contents are highly classified, but over its decades-long history, a lot has been learned.</li></ul>Wherever a US president goes, a military aide carrying a heavy black briefcase follows. The case is always close by, just in case the president needs to unleash the devastating and destructive power of the US nuclear arsenal while out of the White House.Every US president since Harry Truman, the only leader of a nuclear-armed state to authorize the use of nuclear force against an enemy, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/president-nuclear-weapon-command-authority-first-use-2021-2">has had absolute authority over the use of nuclear weapons</a>, and the "nuclear <keyword id="64" type="SPORT" weightage="60" keywordseo="Football">football</keyword>" has been an important part of that presidential power for decades.The briefcase is officially known as the president's emergency satchel, but it is more commonly called the "nuclear football" or simply the "football." The case starts following the president the moment they take the oath of office.The "football" exists for two reasons, <a href="https://twitter.com/AtomicAnalyst">Stephen Schwartz, a nonresident senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists</a> and an expert on the satchel, told Insider recently.One, the briefcase "is the physical representation of the presidential authority" to order the use of nuclear weaponry, Schwartz said. Two, it exists because "we've been afraid that a surprise nuclear attack could catch us off guard and preclude any sort of retaliation."Schwartz explained that the strategic thinking behind the "football" is that "if you have the ability for the president to act quickly, you can forestall that and therein deter that from ever happening."<h2>'Atomic weapons in an emergency'</h2><div type="image" title="A White House military aide carries the nuclear &quot;football&quot; as he leaves the White House" height="683" width="1024" msid="81284734" hostid="261"></div>Born from Cold War fears that the Soviet Union might launch a surprise attack that could cripple the critical US nuclear capabilities were the president unable to launch an immediate retaliatory strike, the "nuclear football" has been around since the Eisenhower administration.The "football" was invented by Capt. Edward "Ned" Beach, Jr., a submarine officer who served as a naval aide to Dwight Eisenhower during his presidency, <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/fumbling-football-now-it-can-be-told-204660">according to a 1991 Newsweek article</a>.The bag has been handed off from presidency to presidency, and every incoming president since Eisenhower peacefully transferred power to John F. Kennedy has been briefed on their nuclear responsibilities and the "nuclear football" prior to or upon taking office.The day before Kennedy's inauguration, Army Brig. Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, a defense liaison to the president, and Eisenhower met with the president-elect and "showed Mr. Kennedy the 'satchel' and the book of emergency documents therein," <a href="https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/dc.html?doc=4564666-Document-01-Memorandum-for-the-Record-by">a memo from Jan. 25, 1961 reads</a>.The memo says that the general "also told him of the extra document ... included in the satchel which would authorize the use of atomic weapons in an emergency."The first known photograph of the briefcase, which can be seen in the first black-and-white photo in the collection of "football" photos below, was taken on May 10, 1963, when Kennedy traveled to Hyannis Port, Massachusetts to meet the Canadian prime minister.Army Maj. Gen. Chester Clifton was tasked with carrying the satchel that day, just months before the president's life suddenly and violently ended in November 1963.<h2>Nicknamed the 'football'</h2>It is unclear where exactly the nickname "football" came from, but one of the first known public appearances of this term was in a November 1965 article by Associated Press reporter Bob Horton on Kennedy's death two years earlier and the transfer of the presidential nuclear command authority.Horton wrote that as Kennedy was dying at a hospital in Dallas, Texas after being shot, Ira Gearhart, a US Army warrant officer, "sat outside in the lobby unobtrusively guarding a brown leather briefcase someone had nicknamed the 'football.'"When Kennedy died, the man "picked up the case and strode past the emergency room desk into a surgery suite where, behind drawn shades, sat Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson," Horton wrote, explaining that "with those few steps came the first real, if not formal, transfer of power."As for why someone nicknamed the president's emergency satchel the "football," <a href="https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-05-nuclear-football_x.htm">a 2005 AP report on the briefcase said that the nickname "football" came about in response to the first nuclear war plan</a>, or Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), code-named "dropkick."<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/real-story-football-follows-president-everywhere-180952779/">Smithsonian Magazine reported the same in 2014</a>, explaining that the concept was that a "football" was required to execute a "dropkick." This explanation was attributed to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.<a href="https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2018-07-09/presidential-control-nuclear-weapons-football">William Burr, an analyst with the National Security Archive at George Washington University, wrote</a> in 2018 that this "may be the case, but no evidence supports this claim." He argued that there is no evidence of a US war plan code-named "dropkick."Burr further explained that the only reference to "dropkick" that he has been able to find is in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. There were, however, <a href="https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2018-07-09/presidential-control-nuclear-weapons-football">real plans code-named "dropshot" and "offtackle,"</a> the latter being a football term.Regardless of where the nickname came from, it stuck, and people continue to call the briefcase the "football" today. That even includes the aides that carry the case and US presidents who might need to use it.<h2>'Chemodanchik'</h2>The aide with the briefcase is the president's constant companion, not only at home, but also overseas as well. During the later years of the Cold War, the briefcase was photographed in Red Square in Moscow. It is one among many places the case has traveled.Russian leaders are accompanied by a briefcase similar in function to the American "nuclear football." The case, which is an important part of the command and control of Russia's nuclear forces, is known as the "cheget" or more generally "chemodanchik."The Russian briefcase was created during the tense early 1980s, when the Soviets were becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility of a US nuclear strike that would require immediate retaliation, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter031598a.htm">according to a 1998 Washington Post report</a>.US and Russian leaders have talked about the possibility of eliminating the nuclear briefcases, though nothing has ever come of those discussions.The issue was raised repeatedly during meetings between Bill Clinton and his Russian counterpart Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union, declassified confidential memos on the meetings show."Let us say we get rid of the nuclear footballs," <a href="https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4941247-Document-1-Memorandum-of-Conversation-Expanded">Yeltsin remarked during a 1994 meeting</a>. Yeltsin said that it was "too much" to have a military aide "drag around one of these briefcases." Clinton said he would need to think about it, telling Yeltsin he hadn't given the matter any thought.<a href="https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4941248-Document-2-Memorandum-of-Conversation-Private">The Russian president brought this proposal up again in 1997</a>, asking, "What if we were to give up having to have our finger next to the button all the time?" Yeltsin told Clinton that "it is not necessary for us to carry the chemodanchik.""I'll have to think about this," Clinton replied. "All we carry, of course, are the codes and the secure phone."There is a little bit more to the contents of the "football" than Clinton's short response during that meeting suggests. Reports from military aides and others throughout its history have offered some insight into what is in the bag. The specifics are classified though.<div type="image" title="A US military aide carries the &quot;president's emergency satchel.&quot;" height="2658" width="3986" msid="81284737" hostid="261"></div><h2>'Things in the Football'</h2>Warren "Bill" Gulley, the former director of the White House Military Office that oversees the "nuclear football," wrote in his 1980 book Breaking Cover that "there are four things in the Football."These things include "the Black Book containing the retaliatory options, a book listing classified site locations, a manila folder with eight or ten pages stapled together giving a description of procedures for the Emergency Broadcast System, and a three-by-five inch card with authentication codes."The briefcase is also suspected to contain communications tools because what appears to be an antenna is visible in some photos of the "football."The black book in the briefcase explains US nuclear war plans, previously called SIOPs but later renamed, and contains a collection of pre-approved preemptive or retaliatory strike options the president could choose from in an emergency.A simplified summary of the nuclear war plans and strike options was added to the briefcase during the Carter administration at the request of the president, <a href="https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-05-nuclear-football_x.htm">according to the AP</a>.The simplified summary has been described as somewhat cartoonish. A former military aide who carried the "football" said it is a little bit like "a Denny's breakfast menu."Gulley described the options as "Rare, Medium, or Well Done," the AP reported. It is unclear if this remains unchanged.The card with the authentication codes, which are not the same as the launch codes maintained by the US military, is known as the "<keyword id="92588" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Biscuit">biscuit</keyword>," and it is an important part of the process a president would go through to order a nuclear strike.If the president decided to use <keyword id="50845" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Nuclear-weapons">nuclear weapons</keyword>, the "football" would be opened, and the president would be presented with strike options. The commander in chief may choose to consult with senior advisors and military leaders before proceeding, but that is not a requirement.Using the "biscuit," the president would identify himself to a military official in the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon, who would then receive and transmit strike orders once it was clear that the nuclear strike orders were coming from the commander in chief.Within just a few minutes, nuclear weapons aboard strategic bombers or carried by land-based or submarine-launched missiles would be in the air.While it may have once been carried inside the "football," presidents later began carrying the "biscuit" on their person. That development has led to more than one alarming mishap.<div type="image" title="An Air Force aide carries the 'nuclear football' out of the White House as he accompanies President Joe Biden" height="683" width="1024" msid="81284739" hostid="261"></div><h2>'Nothing going wrong'</h2>Carter accidentally left his "biscuit" in a suit that he sent to the dry cleaner, the FBI took possession of Ronald Reagan's card after agents seized his clothes at the hospital following an attempt on his life, and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-lost-president-nuclear-codes-and-nobody-found-out-2018-1">Clinton is said to have lost his card</a>. It was missing for months before anyone knew.Like the "biscuit," the "football" has also been fumbled quite a few times.During Gerald Ford's presidency, the "football" was mistakenly left on Air Force One, and Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton all found themselves separated from the aide carrying the briefcase at one point or another.None of these incidents "tremendously imperiled presidential command and control," Schwartz told Insider, "but they do point out the fact that when you have one person in charge of all this, it does put a premium on everything working and nothing going wrong."During the Trump administration, there were at least two incidents involving the "nuclear football."The first happened when Donald Trump visited Beijing in November 2017 and involved <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-football-secret-service-china-2018-2">a scuffle between US officials and Chinese security over the briefcase</a>.Chinese security officials attempted to prevent the military aide carrying the satchel from following the president into the Great Hall of the People, setting off a series of events that ultimately led to a physical altercation between the Secret Service and Chinese security personnel, <a href="https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sneak-peek-852ce0f7-5ca9-4020-8b81-082c15f69df1.html">Axios reported at the time.</a> Beijing apologized for the unpleasant exchange.<h2>'An unstable president'</h2>Another incident involving the "football" occurred near the end of Trump's presidency on Jan. 6, 2021, when a violent mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-football-mike-pence-capitol-riots-impeachment-video-2021-2">where a backup "nuclear football" was following Vice President Mike Pence</a>.The practice of giving a backup "nuclear football" to the vice president started under Eisenhower, who was concerned about his health after he suffered a heart attack. Over time, it became standard practice, <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/nuclear-football-vice-president-pence.html">Fred Kaplan, the author of The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War, explained in a recent Slate article</a>.During the Capitol riots, the mob, some members of which were shouting "Hang Mike Pence!" after Trump criticized him for not pushing to overturn the election, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-football-mike-pence-capitol-riots-impeachment-video-2021-2">came within 100 feet of Pence and the "football."</a>Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for inciting the deadly riots at the Capitol, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/president-nuclear-weapon-command-authority-first-use-2021-2">which raised questions about the dangers of giving a potentially unhinged president sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons</a>.Even as he faced impeachment for the second time in his presidency, Trump maintained control of the "nuclear football" and the authority to use nuclear weapons.The troubling situation moved Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/pelosi-milley-conversation-stopping-trump-nuclear-strike-2021-1">call the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about options to restrict this presidential power</a> for Trump, who she called "an unstable president."The scene was reminiscent of when Richard Nixon, who was depressed and drinking heavily in the face of impeachment, <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/11/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-richard-nixon-215478">sparked fears among members of his own Cabinet and some members of Congress that he might order a nuclear strike and kill millions</a>.But, just as it did with Nixon, Trump's presidency passed without a nuclear catastrophe. At noon on Jan. 20, 2021, the "nuclear football" began following President Joe Biden.Though <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-to-nuclear-football-if-trump-skips-biden-inauguration-2020-12">there were some questions beforehand about how the transfer would take place given Trump's decision to not attend his successor's inauguration</a>, the transfer of the briefcase and presidential nuclear command and control authority occurred seamlessly that day.Biden currently has control of the "football" and nuclear command authority, but <a href="https://twitter.com/RepTedLieu/status/1364651359178551301">some in Congress are pushing to change the status quo</a> that allows him to unilaterally order nuclear attacks at a moment's notice.Just a few days after Biden took office, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Secretary of Defense William Perry wrote <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/25/after-trump-end-nuclear-launch-authority-for-presidents-column/4235023001/">in an op-ed published by USA Today</a> that "no president should have unilateral power to use nuclear weapons." Then, a little over a month into Biden's presidency, <a href="https://twitter.com/RepTedLieu/status/1364651359178551301">dozens of House Democrats led by California Reps. Ted Lieu and Jimmy Panetta sent him a letter asking him to consider changing US nuclear policy</a>, specifically the president's sole nuclear strike authority, and creating checks and balances in the system.The debate over the president's authority to order the use of nuclear weapons has come and gone many times. It is unclear what decisions, if any, Biden will make on nuclear policy, but for the time being at least, wherever the president goes, the "nuclear football" will follow.

Here's where the 'nuclear football' came from and why it follows US presidents wherever they go

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty ImagesFormer Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>On Sunday, former Republican congressman Joe Walsh jumped into the 2020 presidential fray to challenge President <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-donald-trump-bio-age-family-key-positions-2019-4">Donald Trump</a> in the 2020 Republican primary.</li><li>Walsh, a one-term congressman and conservative radio show host, is betting on his bombastic personality and conservative convictions to win over primary voters who are "tired" of Trump.</li><li>On Monday, Walsh spoke to Insider <keyword id="6358883" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="politics">politics</keyword> reporter Grace Panetta about why he chose take on Trump, some of his past controversial tweets, and how he views the state of the GOP today. </li><li>"I'll own all my tweets. And for tweets that deserve an apology. I'll apologize. Contrast that with this president who's never apologized for a damn thing," he said of his past inflammatory statements. </li><li>"The Republican Party brand under Trump is mean, it's bigoted, it's cruel, and it acts like it's above the law and it's losing voters," Walsh explained, adding "Trump has to lose" for the GOP to remain viable.</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/?hprecirc-bullet">Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.</a></li></ul>On Sunday, former Republican congressman Joe Walsh jumped into the 2020 presidential fray to challenge President <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-donald-trump-bio-age-family-key-positions-2019-4">Donald Trump</a> in the 2020 Republican primary.Walsh served one term representing suburban Chicago in Congress from 2011 to 2013 as part of the Tea Party movement within the GOP, which advocated for extremely limited government. After his stint in Congress, Walsh became a prominent conservative radio show host.While Walsh voted for and initially supported Trump, he had a change of heart in the summer of 2017 and quickly rose to become one of the most prominent anti-Trump critics on the right. "No surprise, we've got a guy in the White House who is unfit to be president ... Everybody believes that he's unfit, he lies every time he opens his mouth," <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-walsh-2020-run-against-trump-2019-8">Walsh told ABC's George Stephanopoulos</a>.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-walsh-2020-run-against-trump-2019-8" data-analytics-position="1">Tea Party firebrand and former GOP Rep. Joe Walsh announces he's running against Trump in the 2020 Republican primary</a>Former Massachusetts Governor <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-bill-weld-bio-age-family-key-positions-2019-5">Bill Weld</a> is also challenging Trump in the GOP primary, but his low-key presence and moderate beliefs have failed to make much of a splash among Republican primary voters. While Trump enjoys sky-high approval among Republicans, Walsh is betting on his bombastic personality and conservative convictions to win over primary voters who are "tired" of Trump and the daily controversies and scandals that roil his administration. But as Walsh geared up to launch his candidacy, many of his own previous controversial statements and tweets on issues like race and religion re-surfaced.Walsh thoroughly apologized for many tweets, including ones in which he accused former President Barack Obama of being a Muslim, but they may still cast doubt on whether Walsh was the right candidate to make the moral case against Trump. On Monday, Walsh spoke to Insider politics reporter Grace Panetta about why he chose to run for president and take on Trump, some of his past controversial tweets that have resurfaced in recent days, and how he views the state of the GOP today. Editor's note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity. <h2>Walsh disavows white nationalist, but has no regrets over using the 'n-word' to make point about the Washington Redskins' name</h2>Insider: What have your first 24 hours as a presidential candidate been like, what kind of a reaction you've gotten, and how it's been to be rocketed into the national spotlight?Joe Walsh: It's felt like we've been on a rocketship. I think there's hunger for [Trump] to be tested in the Republican primary. The reaction's been all over the map. Good, bad, and ugly, but there's been a lot of reactions. Insider: There's been quite a bit of debate and controversy within the conservative movement over your candidacy and whether you're the right messenger to take on Trump.I wanted to ask you about <a href="https://twitter.com/ltthompso/status/1165765086960586755">a photograph</a> that's been circulating around of you with the white nationalist Paul Nehlen, <a href="https://omny.fm/shows/the-joe-walsh-show/the-joe-walsh-program-august-14-2017">who you hosted on your radio show in August of 2017</a> and where you encouraged your listeners to go to his website and get behind him. Given <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/paul-nehlen-white-supremacist-loses-wisconsin-congressional-primary_n_5b6ded0ee4b0530743c9dbf9">his racist and anti-Semitic views,</a> do you regret that decision and do you disavow Nehlen? Walsh: I remember when Nehlen first challenged Paul Ryan in one of the primaries, I supported him. I mean, my wife's Jewish, I'm hugely pro-Israel, as soon as I found out or learned about his white nationalist bullshit and his anti-Semitism, I had nothing to do with him. Insider: And that was after he appeared on your show in August of 2017?Walsh: Yeah, I never had anything to do with him once it became clear who he was. None of us conservatives really knew that about him. I think it was after he lost that first primary to Ryan, then he kind of kind of came out as a weird alt-right, anti-Semite kind of guy and I never had anything to do with him.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/over-half-americans-think-trump-emboldens-white-supremacy-2019-8" data-analytics-position="3">More than half of all Americans think Donald Trump fuels white supremacy</a>Insider: Other messages and tweets are resurfacing in which you used the n-word multiple times in the year 2014 <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/479781393405198337">in reference to the Washington Redskins</a>. You said like words like "cracker" and "redneck Bible thumper" were okay, but the n-word was not. Do you regret saying those things about the n-word? Walsh: No. And actually that's a good one, that's an easy one to explain. When I did that, people who were insisting that the Washington Redskins should change their name, they called the Redskins the new n-word. And I said, bull, Redskins isn't the new n-word. The n-word has a uniquely ugly history in our country. There is no word like the n-word.And to make that point, I was very right there in your face. I can say that right on the air, I can write "Redskins" and that won't catch anybody's eye.<h2>Walsh stands by calling Haiti a 'shithole' in a 2018 tweet</h2>Insider: Do you still stand by your echoing President Trump and calling Haiti "a shithole" <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/951936512928591873">in a January 2018 tweet</a>?Walsh: I mean, it's got nothing to do with race, but Haiti is a shithole. That's one of those weird ones where I really didn't have a problem with Trump saying that. If he called Sweden a shithole and it deserved to be called a shithole, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I mean, presidents have said worse in private.Insider: More of your tweets that have resurfaced recently are statements in support of 2017 Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, and <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/939171946620743681">your questioning the accounts of multiple women</a> who said that he molested them as teenagers. Do you still stand by Roy Moore? Walsh: Let me be clear in everything I said about Roy Moore. It was up to the voters of Alabama, period. I never endorsed Roy Moore. I never supported him. (Walsh, in fact, called on his Twitter followers to vote for Moore in at least three tweets, <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/939182217917497344">here</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/939171946620743681">here</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/940300534552162305">here)</a>.But I was one of these people who said ... that if the people of Alabama elect him, the people of Alabama elected him. It wasn't my decision.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Screenshot via ABCJoe Walsh announced his presidential campaign Sunday on ABC's "This Week."</div></div></div>Insider: Some people are questioning your sincerity and arguing that you're just doing this to boost your national profile. What do you say to those who doubt your motives in pursuing this presidential campaign? Walsh: They don't know me real well. If I wanted to boost my profile these past two years, the easiest thing for me to have done would have been to have been a big Trump supporter. Because that's where the money is. That's where the ratings are.If you are a Sean Hannity and you think this president is the greatest, you're going to do well right now. I say what I say what I believe. So everything I say about Trump, it's what I believe.<h2>Walsh argues that unlike Trump, he's shown genuine remorse for 'demonizing' his political adversaries </h2>Insider: There are people who are questioning your moral standing to challenge Trump given your own past <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/636948011281719297">invocation of the birther conspiracy about Barack Obama,</a> your controversial statements about groups like Black Lives Matter, and tweeting in 2015 that you hoped terrorists <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-walsh-hopes-terrorists-behead-cnn-cowards-in-next-attack-2015-1">would go after CNN and MSNBC reporters.</a> What do you say to those who argue that you don't have the moral standing to challenge Trump? Walsh: I was never a birther. I've apologized for the fact that I called Obama a Muslim on more than one occasion and that was the wrong thing to do and I regret that. (In August of 2015, Walsh joked in a tweet, <a href="https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/636948011281719297">"Obama never let a voter touch his birth certificate"</a> in response to a video of Trump letting a voter touch his hair.)I've been tweeting for six years. There are probably 40,000 tweets out there. I bet you could find 200 that you and I would say, "Oh my God, Joe, what were you tweeting?" And I'll own all my tweets. And for tweets that deserve an apology. I'll apologize. Contrast that with this president who's never apologized for a damn thing.I've been very outspoken and over the years there have been times where I've gotten personal and ugly in this political warfare we've been engaged in. And I've tried to apologize for that. I've also said I feel responsible that Trump's in the White House, because it was some of the personal demonizing of my opponents that I think helped lead to Trump. And that's nothing that I'm proud of.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-walsh-regrets-calling-obama-a-muslim-promoting-birther-conspiracy-2019-8">Trump's new primary challenger Joe Walsh says he 'regrets' calling Obama a Muslim and promoting the racist 'birther' conspiracy theory</a>Insider: Does your own history give you the moral perspective to challenge Trump, knowing that you were part of the system that led to him in the first place?Walsh: Well, yeah, if you believe in forgiveness. I'm genuine in that. I don't regret being a Tea Party congressman. I don't regret fighting for the issues, like balanced budgets, that I went to Washington to fight for. But I regret how I got personally ugly sometimes in my politics. <h2>If Walsh loses his primary challenge, he won't vote for a Democrat</h2>Insider: What are the main areas where you disagree with Trump on policy? And are there any policies that you support and you would try to continue if you were president?Walsh: If I just disagreed with Trump on a few issues, I wouldn't be going to all this trouble. I mean, this is a pain in the butt. I'm getting beaten up now and it's only day two. I do believe that almost every time he opens his mouth, he lies. I believe he's a narcissist and I believe he's betrayed this country.Now, having said all of that, I disagree with him on his spending. He's spending more than Obama did. He's running up deficits higher than the Obama did. His tariffs are tax increases and they're hurting this country. He hasn't built one foot of new wall. The border right now is a bigger mess than it was when he got elected. There are some policy agreements that I've got with him, his judges have been good, he's done some good things with deregulation, and I applaud moving our embassy to Jerusalem. Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-trump-win-2020-even-if-there-is-recession-2019-8" data-analytics-position="6">Experts say there is still a clear route for Trump to win reelection in 2020 even if a recession strikes</a><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Associated PressWalsh believes that President Donald Trump is "unfit" for office.</div></div></div>Insider: Even if you don't win the primary, your primary challenge could still significantly weaken Trump going into the general. Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush all faced serious primary challenges, and while they still became the nominees, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sitting-presidents-serious-primary-challenges-often-lose-reelection-2019-3">they all lost their reelection campaigns</a>.Is that an outcome that you considered when making the decision to run, and do you believe that a Democrat would be preferable to Trump? Walsh: I didn't think about that when I made this decision, I decided to primary him because I believe he's unfit, and I don't believe that our country can stand four more years of him. And I did it because I want to beat him. So if I lose the primary to him, I will not support him. I will never vote for Donald Trump again.Will I support a Democrat? No, because I think their ideas are wrong. If <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-elizabeth-warren-bio-age-family-key-positions-2019-3">Elizabeth Warren</a> is president, then I will fight every day against the kind of socialism that she wants to bring to America. <h2>He believes he can save the Republican Party before Trump completely sinks it </h2>Insider: A <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-suburban-voters-fleeing-trumps-gop-democrats-could-win-big-2019-8">recent trend we've seen</a> is suburban voters - and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-democrats-suburbs-gop-senate-2019-8">especially suburban women</a> - fleeing the GOP and voting for Democrats. What are you going to do to try to bring those suburban and white, college-educated voters who feel betrayed by Trump back into the party?Walsh: I'm going to try to beat Trump because Trump's the problem. Because of Trump, Republicans are losing women. Because of Trump, Republicans are losing young people. Because of Trump, Republicans are losing the suburbs.The Republican Party before Trump had a pretty bad brand, which is why a bad man like Trump could win. But right now the Republican Party is horrible. The Republican Party brand under Trump is mean, it's bigoted, it's cruel, and it acts like it's above the law and it's losing voters.So Trump has to lose because as long as Trump is that the head of the party, this party is always going to have a problem with women and young people. Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-suburban-voters-fleeing-trumps-gop-democrats-could-win-big-2019-8" data-analytics-position="13">Here's why the once solidly Republican state of Texas could become a ticking time bomb for Trump's GOP</a>Insider: What is your strategy going forward for the next couple of months? It'll be pretty hard to overcome Trump's approval rating within the Republican Party and, of course, his lock on the Republican National Committee. Walsh: Well, first on the RNC, we're going to try to unlock that lock because you're right, Donald Trump is working with the party to try to shut off any primary challenge and we're gonna make the case that that's wrong and un-American. Our campaign slogan is "be brave." I picked "be brave" because I really do believe that privately, the vast majority of Republicans are sick and tired of Trump. They don't like him. They're tired of his lies. They're tired of his insults. They're tired of all of it. They just don't say that publicly. So what my campaign is gonna try to do is get them to come out publicly.So we're going to be very aggressive, very active. We're going to be on TV all the time and we're going to campaign real hard to try to get people to be brave. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/megyn-kelly-details-sexually-harassed-roger-ailes-fox-news-2017-11">Megyn Kelly details how she was allegedly sexually harassed by Roger Ailes, then advised to 'just steer clear of him'</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

You Searched For "jimmy panetta" and got 11 results

59 House Democrats urge Biden to ditch Republicans and go even bigger on $7 trillion of infrastructure spending

Ayelet Sheffey

Democrats want to make electric bikes much cheaper by giving you up to $1,500 to buy one

Eliza Relman

A GOP and Democratic senator want to make it easier for disabled Americans to save money without losing their Social Security checks

Joseph Zeballos-Roig,Juliana …

Meet the 28 lawmakers who want to make stimulus checks recurring in Biden's infrastructure plan

Ayelet Sheffey

Electric bikes could get much cheaper under a new proposal from two House Democrats

Tim Levin

House Democrats frustrated by Trump's national-security policies have launched a task force

David Choi

Senators from both parties have introduced a bill to keep Trump from ditching NATO, but they may not be able to stop him

Christopher Woody

Here's where the 'nuclear football' came from and why it follows US presidents wherever they go

Ryan Pickrell

Joe Walsh opens up about his racially inflammatory tweets and says he's the one to save the Republican Party from Trump

Grace Panetta

WHIP COUNT: Here's which members of the House voted for and against impeaching Trump

Grace Panetta

The 3-letter word that's missing from the showdown with Iran

Michael T. Klare, TomDispatch

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides