Kerry during a press conference said that while he went to China to "break new ground" on the communist nation's climate commitments, he was unable to do so. Kerry went as far as to admit that he made no demands of the Chinese, arguing that "nobody should be 'dictated to.'" He nonetheless argued that his trip was a success, as he held "very frank conversations."

"We did succeed in having long and very detailed meetings with a lot to catch up on," Kerry said. "We did have very frank conversations, but we came here to break new ground … and it is clear that we are going to need a little more work to complete that task."

Kerry's failure to return to the United States with any sort of climate agreement likely comes as an embarrassment to the Biden administration, which argued in the buildup to Kerry's trip that U.S.-China climate negotiations should not be derailed by political disagreements. During Kerry's time in Beijing, Xi poured cold water on the Biden administration's attempts at climate diplomacy—he did not meet with Kerry during the visit and on Tuesday said his nation's climate goals "will never be influenced by others."

In response to that statement, Kerry on Wednesday said he agrees that the United States should not make demands of the Chinese.

"We all agree that nobody should be 'dictated to,' and we're not doing that. That's why we had three days of intensive discussions," Kerry said. "And I think if you ask [Chinese officials] … they would tell you there was no dictation here, there was a clear exchange of ideas."

In addition to Xi's comments, the Chinese Communist Party used climate negotiations to threaten the United States during Kerry's trip. CCP-run propaganda rag Global Times on Monday warned that America must end its "crackdown" on China or risk losing "any kind of cooperation" on climate change.

"While Washington has long wanted to isolate climate change issues related to China, there is actually no way to separate bilateral cooperation on global warming from the broader context of China-U.S. relations," the state-run media outlet's editorial said.

Kerry worked to avoid angering Xi ahead of the trip. During a Thursday congressional hearing, he refused to call Xi a "dictator," saying that while Xi "wields enormous power as the leader of China," the Biden administration shouldn't get "tangled up in labels and names."

"Frankly, all of that is water off a duck's back," Kerry said.

The post John Kerry Leaves China Empty-Handed After Days of Climate Discussions appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Manchin in a Thursday video said he was "proud to announce" his work to secure "many West Virginia priorities," including one measure he advanced to "prohibit" the Biden administration from "banning gas stoves." Just two years ago, however, Manchin opposed an amendment from Wyoming Republican senator John Barrasso that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to ban "the direct use of natural gas in residential and commercial buildings for space heating, water heating, cooking, or other purposes." For Manchin, the measure was not necessary.

"I would be as concerned as Senator Barrasso if I thought that would happen," Manchin said during a July 2021 Senate Energy Committee meeting. "I don't see that happening." Other Democrats disagreed. New Mexico Democratic senator Martin Heinrich, for example, opposed Barrasso's measure not because he thought natural gas bans were unrealistic, but rather because a move away from natural gas and toward "electrification" would bring "energy savings."

This is not the first time Manchin has changed his tune on energy policy as he approaches a reelection year in a state former president Donald Trump carried easily in both 2016 and 2020. Manchin in May attacked the Biden administration for failing to spur offshore oil and gas development—roughly one year after he shot down a measure from Louisiana GOP senator John N. Kennedy that would have required the administration to conduct more offshore oil and gas lease sales.

Manchin, whose office did not return a request for comment, is yet to announce his political future. The West Virginian has flirted with a third-party presidential bid, an endeavor that his Senate Democratic colleagues are scrambling to stop. Those colleagues would prefer Manchin run for reelection next year, but that campaign is expected to be a difficult one for Manchin, who could face off against popular Republican governor Jim Justice should he seek a third Senate term. Forty-three percent of likely general election voters back Justice, compared with just 29 percent who back Manchin, according to a National Journal poll released last month.

Those numbers could explain why Manchin is signaling he may pursue a third-party "unity ticket" run despite objections from Senate Democrats. Manchin teased that run during a Monday event with self-described centrist group No Labels. "I'm here trying to basically save the nation," Manchin said. "I'm more concerned now than I've ever been concerned in my lifetime."

Regardless of whether Manchin chooses to run for Senate, president, or another office, the Democrat has worked in recent months to position himself as a critic of President Joe Biden's spending. That criticism, however, is centered on Biden's trillion-dollar Inflation Reduction Act, which Manchin himself named and orchestrated.

During an April Fox News appearance, for example, Manchin attacked Biden for working to "liberalize" the massive climate spending bill, which includes rebates to change from a gas stove to an electric one. Just two months prior, Manchin—who is considered the Inflation Reduction Act's "chief architect"—heaped praise on the bill and said he did not regret voting for it "at all."

"The Inflation Reduction Act will be the most transformative bill that we've ever had in the United States, in Congress, as far as I've been here," Manchin said in February.

In addition to the bill's incentives to ditch gas stoves for their electric counterparts, the Biden administration has moved forward with plans to restrict gas stove sales following Manchin's 2021 comments. Biden's Energy Department has defended its rule to "confront the global climate crisis" by imposing energy conservation standards on cooking appliances. Those standards would effectively ban the sale of half of all gas stoves on the U.S. market, according to an Energy Department analysis. Some industry leaders, however, think that figure is much larger, given that the Energy Department in December found 96 percent of gas stove models it tested failed to meet the rule's proposed efficiency standards.

Manchin has taken liberal positions in the past, only to swear off those positions as Election Day approaches. In July 2017, the Democrat said he was "not for" building a wall on the Mexican border "at all." One year later, when Republicans ran ads highlighting those comments, Manchin called it a "flat-out lie" that he opposed the wall.

The post Joe Manchin Dismissed Concerns About Natural Gas Bans. Now He Wants Credit for Stopping Them. appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during her July trip to China "previewed" to Xi's government the administration's plans to limit investment into certain Chinese sectors, Bloomberg reported Monday evening. "The goal, in part, was to make sure it doesn't catch off guard America's biggest geopolitical rival," according to the outlet.

The revelation marks the latest example of Yellen's attempts to appease the Chinese while in Beijing. Beyond briefing Xi's government on the planned investment restrictions, Yellen declined to use tough-on-China language that has angered the Chinese Communist Party. The Treasury secretary refused during her trip to say that the Biden administration is working to "decouple" or "de-risk" from China's economy, instead arguing that the United States merely wants "diverse" supply chains. Yellen hoped that language would "allay China's concerns," according to the New York Times.

While China's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday condemned U.S. efforts to "place arbitrary curbs on normal technology cooperation and trade," the Biden administration's plans to restrict investment in China are more limited than expected. The restrictions, which should be unveiled by the end of August, only apply to new investments and include carveouts for China's biotechnology and energy sectors, according to Bloomberg. Yellen during a Monday interview touted the narrow scope of the restrictions, saying the administration's plans will not "affect U.S. investment broadly in China" or "have a fundamental impact on affecting the investment climate for China."

As a result, some China experts say the plans do not go far enough. American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Derek Scissors said that Yellen's "constant attempts to reassure" China are "bizarre," while American Foreign Policy Council senior fellow Michael Sobolik accused the administration of "pulling punches."

"The Biden administration should just be honest and say what they want: improved relations with a genocidal regime," Sobolik told the Washington Free Beacon. "This is how America loses the Cold War with China. One concession at a time."

The Treasury Department did not return a request for comment. News of its watered-down investment restrictions comes as another top Biden administration official, climate czar John Kerry, meets with Chinese leaders in Beijing to hold climate change talks.

China has tied those negotiations to further U.S. concessions. The CCP's flagship newspaper, the Global Times, said on Monday that America must end its "crackdown on China" and "mend the past frictions" with the communist nation or lose "any kind of cooperation" on climate change. Kerry on the same day praised the Chinese government, which is by far the world's top carbon emitter, for "doing an incredible job of building out renewables." Kerry also urged the United States and China to put aside "political issue[s]" and "come together to take action."

Florida Republican congressman Mike Waltz subsequently hammered the Biden administration for its willingness to "overlook" Chinese threats in an attempt to maintain "helpless" climate negotiations.

"The Biden administration are climate appeasers willing to overlook all the threats posed by the CCP in a helpless attempt to get China on board with their environmental priorities," Waltz told the Free Beacon. "Not only are they weakening American energy independence, but further enabling China's pollution by building green energy projects with Russian coal."

The post Biden Admin Briefed Xi on Watered-Down Chinese Investment Limits appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Government-run propaganda rag Global Times on Monday lamented the "continuing U.S. crackdown on China's technological development," adding that if America does not "mend the past frictions" with China, the communist nation will not cooperate on climate.

"If the U.S. continues its crackdown on China, escalating tensions and hostility between the two sides, it is unlikely to be conducive to any kind of cooperation, including on climate change," Global Times said in its editorial. "While Washington has long wanted to isolate climate change issues from its other political and trade policies related to China, there is actually no way to separate bilateral cooperation on global warming from the broader context of China-U.S. relations."

The CCP's threat comes as Kerry, who serves as President Joe Biden's climate czar, spends four days in China to "engage with [Beijing] on addressing the climate crisis." Kerry on Monday praised the Chinese government for "doing an incredible job of building out renewables" and urged the United States and China to put aside "political issue[s]" and "come together to take action." Those comments, GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley argued on Monday, show why Kerry "might be the worst member of Joe Biden's admin."

Kerry "wants America to ignore the fact that China is preparing for war, spying on us, hacking our govt, & infiltrating our institutions so he can make nice with [Chinese president] Xi Jinping on climate change," Haley tweeted.

Kerry, whose office did not return a request for comment, is not the only Biden administration official to travel to China in recent weeks. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen from July 6 to 9 held talks with China's top economic officials—talks that saw Yellen water down tough-on-China language that has angered the CCP. Yellen, for example, refused during her trip to say that the United States is working to "decouple" or "de-risk" from China's economy. Instead, Yellen argued that America merely wants "diverse" supply chains, language that the top Biden administration official hopes will "allay China's concerns," according to the New York Times.

Kerry has long expressed regret that the "climate issue has gotten mixed up into all the other tensions that exist between our countries." "They've kind of pulled back a little bit, expressing the feeling that all we're doing is bashing them and bashing them," Kerry said in March, nearly one year after then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan prompted China to suspend U.S. climate talks.

Kerry last week said he hopes that his trip to China will prompt the communist nation to cut back on coal, given that China burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and is by far the world's largest carbon emitter. But China has pledged to limit its coal consumption before, only to build record numbers of new coal plants.

In 2014, for example, China said it would work to lower emissions by capping its annual coal consumption at 4.2 billion tons by 2020, a move that then-U.S. president Barack Obama said "shows what's possible when we work together on an urgent global challenge." In 2021, China exceeded that figure by more than a billion, consuming a whopping 5.24 billion tons of coal. One year later, Xi approved the equivalent of two new coal power plants per week.

Still, Kerry has cited Xi's word as proof that China is making progress on climate change. The Biden climate official in 2021 lauded Xi for using the term "climate crisis" for the first time, arguing that the rhetoric showed the Chinese president was ready to "do something" to save the planet.

The post US Must End Its 'Crackdown' on China or Lose Climate Cooperation, CCP Warns Amid Kerry Trip appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

While electric vehicles do not produce tailpipe emissions, the materials that must be mined, processed, and refined to build the cars produce considerably more carbon dioxide than those used to build their gas-powered counterparts. In many cases, meanwhile, the power used to charge electric vehicles comes from natural gas and coal. Those emissions, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills argues in a Wednesday report, "substantially offset reductions from avoiding gasoline." Additionally, driving an electric vehicle instead of a gas-powered one "could even lead to a net increase in emissions."

For Mills, the findings expose a "fatal flaw" in the rationale behind President Joe Biden's electric vehicle mandates. Biden's Environmental Protection Agency in April announced a rule that effectively forces U.S. automakers to ensure two-thirds of the vehicles they sell are electric by 2032. That rule, the Environmental Protection Agency said at the time, will "tackle the climate crisis" by avoiding billions of tons of carbon emissions.

But the agency's forecast and other assessments that claim electric vehicles will "play a central role in radically cutting carbon dioxide emissions" are flawed, according to Mills's report. "Every claim for EVs reducing emissions is a rough estimate or an outright guess based on averages, approximations, or aspirations," the report says. "The variables and uncertainties in emissions from energy-intensive mining and processing of minerals used to make EV batteries are a big wild card in the emissions calculus."

Some forecasts the report cites, for example, assume that the minerals used to build electric cars come from North America, where power grids are much cleaner. "In reality," Mills writes, "China refines 50%-90% of the world's suite of energy minerals," and the emissions associated with Chinese refineries are considerably higher than those seen in the United States or Europe. As a result, Mills calculated scenarios in which driving an electric vehicle "leads to greater lifetime emissions" than driving a gas-powered car.

"If implemented, [internal combustion engine] bans will lead to … draconian constraints on freedoms and unprecedented impediments to affordable and convenient driving," the report states. "And it will have little to no impact on global carbon emissions. In fact, the bans and EV mandates are more likely to cause a net increase in emissions."

In addition to Mills's environmental concerns, top car companies and powerful labor unions have warned of the job losses that they say will come with Biden's electric car mandate. The United Auto Workers—a longtime force in Democratic politics that endorsed Biden in 2020—is concerned that the mandate will force the auto industry to fire laborers, as electric vehicles require fewer parts and thus fewer workers to build. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that represents the world's largest car companies, similarly argued in comments sent to the Biden administration that the mandate is "neither reasonable nor achievable" and would come with price hikes.

Despite Biden's incessant promotion of electric vehicles—the Democrat last year fawned over Ford's electric truck during a test drive at a plant in Michigan—the cars have nonetheless failed to win over the American public. Less than one-fifth of Americans say they're very likely to make their next vehicle an electric one, an April poll shows, with most citing the high cost associated with electric vehicles as the primary deterrent. Electric vehicles on average cost at least $10,000 more than their gas-powered counterparts.

The post Electric Cars Might Not Even Lower Carbon Emissions, Report Finds appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Brown announced his campaign Monday, saying Rosen and President Joe Biden have "abandoned Nevada and divided America with extreme policies."

"As your senator, I will get the job done for Nevada," Brown said in a statement. "I am ready to lead and fight for you again."

Brown's entrance into the race comes as a win for Senate Republican leaders, who recruited the wounded veteran to challenge Rosen. National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Steve Daines (R., Mont.) quickly endorsed Brown on Monday, praising his "service and sacrifice." "I am very pleased that Sam is stepping up to run for the U.S. Senate," Daines said in a statement.

Daines's immediate backing of Brown reflects the Montana Republican's willingness to influence GOP primaries as the party looks to reclaim a Senate majority in 2024. Daines's predecessor, Florida Republican senator Rick Scott, opted not to intervene in top primaries during last year's races, prompting a rift with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who lamented the party's poor "candidate quality." Daines has reversed that policy as Senate Republicans' campaign chief—in addition to Brown, Daines in late June endorsed former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, who is running to unseat Montana Democratic senator Jon Tester.

Brown applied to West Point following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 2006. Two years later, he was deployed to Afghanistan, where his vehicle was hit with a roadside bomb during a mission. The explosion left Brown with severe burns and visible scarring. After medically retiring from the military, Brown pursued a business degree and moved to Nevada to start a small business that provides pharmaceuticals to veterans. The Republican ran a grassroots Senate campaign in 2022 but finished second in the primary behind Adam Laxalt, Nevada's former attorney general.

"When I was in a combat environment, nobody cared what sort of political party you were affiliated with or how you grew up. They just cared that you were going to get the job done and that everyone would be able to accomplish the mission," Brown told Fox News. "Something I bring is leadership and being focused on the mission and the people. That's what I've been trained to do and that's what I've done."

To face Rosen, Brown will first have to win a primary against former state lawmaker Jim Marchant, who in 2022 ran to become Nevada's secretary of state. Marchant lost to Democrat Francisco Aguilar by roughly 2 percentage points.

The post Senate GOP Lands Top Recruit To Challenge Democrat Jacky Rosen in Nevada appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, however, is no ordinary military site. It's the U.S. military's greenest base, having achieved carbon neutrality through solar panels and other alternative sources. As part of its push to go green, the base is electrifying much of its vehicle fleet, including through a brand-new F-150 Lightning, Ford's electric pickup. Marines stationed at the base aren't totally sold on the effort, however, with some expressing concern that if they make the back-and-forth journey to Camp Lejeune in an electric vehicle, they'll face charging complications that could turn a routine trip into a logistical nightmare.

That anxiety is justified, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis, which used a popular electric vehicle trip planning service to chart the charging stops required when making the drive in the base's electric truck. These stops make each leg of the trip at least three hours longer—and that's assuming the public charging stations littered between the Albany base and Camp Lejeune actually work. They often don't. In an electric truck, the roughly 9-hour trip balloons to at least 12 hours, if not considerably longer.

The inefficiencies associated with electric vehicle charging—particularly during long road trips—have not stopped the Biden administration from moving forward with plans to require the U.S. military to adopt an all-electric vehicle fleet by 2030. President Joe Biden last year said his administration is "spending billions of dollars" to "start the process where every vehicle in the United States military, every vehicle, is going to be climate-friendly. Every vehicle—I mean it." Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm endorsed this "process" in April, saying during a Senate hearing that she supports the military's adoption of an "EV fleet."

Common trips such as the one from the Albany base to Camp Lejeune, however, show how the Biden administration's embrace of military electric vehicles impedes efficiency.

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany assistant fleet manager Zachary Haller told the Free Beacon that the base's Lightning includes a standard battery, as opposed to one with extended range. While Ford says the standard range Lightning—which costs at least $60,000—can travel 230 miles per charge, the truck typically maxes out at roughly 210 miles per charge when driving on highways, tests show. As a result, a Marine making the trip in a Lightning would need to make two charging stops to travel from the Albany base to Camp Lejeune.

Those stops, according to electric vehicle trip planner PlugShare, could be made in Augusta, Ga., and Florence, S.C., two cities that offer public electric vehicle charging stations and are roughly 200 and 350 miles from the Albany base, respectively. But these stations are hit or miss. Many "public" charging stations are located in hotel and car dealership parking lots and cannot be used by non-paying customers. Stations that are truly open to the public, meanwhile, are often crowded, broken, or charge at a much slower rate than advertised.

A pair of public chargers at a convenience store just outside of Augusta, for example, are compatible with the Lightning and advertise 62.5 Kilowatts of charging power. Those who have used the station, however, say the chargers sometimes deliver as little as 24 Kilowatts. Given that the Lightning would sit at just 5 percent battery after driving the 200 miles from the Albany base to Augusta, charging it to 90 percent at 62.5 Kilowatts would take an hour and a half, according to an electric vehicle charging time calculator. The task would take a whopping four hours at 24 Kilowatts.

For the trip's second stop, PlugShare pointed the Free Beacon to a charging station located in a Walmart parking lot in Florence. PlugShare reviews show that the station's charging units are routinely broken, and those that do work offer "very slow charging," delivering anywhere from 30 to 60 Kilowatts of power. The drive from Augusta to Florence is a shorter one, clocking in at 150 miles, meaning the Lightning would sit at roughly 20 percent battery upon arrival. Charging the Lightning from 20 to 90 percent battery would take an hour and 15 minutes at 60 Kilowatts and nearly three hours at 30 Kilowatts, according to the calculator. Still, those times do not include unforeseen issues such as broken charging units or wait times if the chargers are in use—issues that occur often at this particular station.

"Awful slow station took over an hour 20% to 80%," one user wrote. "Was able to charge after waiting for one of the 2 barely working units to become available," another complained. "Very slow charging," a third reviewer wrote. A fourth called the station "straight trash" while a fifth said the station is so "pathetic" that it could "kill EV adoption."

In total, the two charging stops would add at least three hours to the Camp Lejeune trip, thanks to charging wait times and added driving distance. But that figure assumes the charging stations operate as advertised. If they don't—a problem electric vehicle users regularly encounter on road trips—the routine drive from Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany to Camp Lejeune could easily become an all-day affair.

Haller confirmed the Free Beacon's analysis, saying in a statement that while the base's Lightning "has not made a trip to Camp Lejeune, N.C., at the moment," using the electric truck for such a trip "would add 3 hours of charge time to the trip, stopping twice." Haller also told the Free Beacon the base's Lightning "is equipped with a credit card to use at public charging stations."

Some military leaders have defended the administration's electric vehicle aspirations, with former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment and Energy Resilience Richard Kidd telling the Washington Post that reducing greenhouse gas emissions builds military "resilience." But many conservative lawmakers and experts who served in the military disagree, arguing that the charging infrastructure issues in the United States pale in comparison to the logistical challenges that come with electric vehicle use overseas.

Former Marine Corps officer and deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger said he "encountered a lot of IEDs on dirt roads in Afghanistan, but no charging stations." Indiana Republican congressman and Afghanistan war veteran Jim Banks agrees—Banks last month introduced an amendment to block Department of Defense contracts for electric vehicles, which he called "the stupidest idea any American president has ever had."

"Joe Biden's EV mandate is political theater and a sham," Banks said in May. "But the damage it could do to our military is 100 percent real."

The post Military Efficiency? Biden's Electric Vehicle Push Adds Hours to Routine Marine Trip appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Sixty-four percent of Hispanic Americans say Biden has accomplished "not that much" or "little or nothing" as president, according to a Survey Center on American Life poll released on June 29. That figure puts the traditionally Democratic voting bloc in line with the American public as a whole. Among all Americans, 64 percent say Biden has "not that much" or "little or nothing" to show for his tenure as president, the poll shows.

The revelation could spell trouble for Democrats come 2024, particularly given that Republicans have improved their standing among Hispanic voters in recent years. Biden won Hispanic voters by 21 points in 2020, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. The margin marks a staggering 17-point drop from 2016, when former secretary of state Hillary Clinton held a 38-point advantage among Hispanic voters. Polling shows the GOP could enjoy additional gains next year—Biden's lead among Hispanic voters is just 12 points if matched up against former president Donald Trump, according to the Survey Center on American Life. If Biden faces Florida governor Ron DeSantis, that lead is just 9 points, the group's survey shows.

In addition to Hispanic voters' pessimistic views on Biden's accomplishments, Hispanics have also soured on the Biden economy. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Hispanics prefer Trump's economy to Biden's by double digits, 55 percent to 36 percent. Hispanics also overwhelmingly say transgender athletes should play for sports teams that match their biological sex, and 60 percent reject the notion that racism is "built into our society, including into its policies and institutions," the Survey Center on American Life poll shows.

"The challenge for Democrats is this: The party can no longer rely on simply mobilizing this constituency. They will have to convince these voters that Democrats share the values of a community that is socially moderate-to-conservative," American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Ruy Teixeira wrote in a Wednesday Post op-ed. "If they don't, Republicans will seize the opportunity to move more Hispanics—especially men—into their camp and further erode that community's longtime loyalty to the Democrats."

While the GOP as a whole did not build on its 2020 gains with Hispanic voters during the midterm elections two years later, some Republicans enjoyed overwhelming success with Latinos in 2022. DeSantis, for example, won 58 percent of Latinos during his 19-point rout of Democratic challenger Charlie Crist last November. DeSantis even won Miami-Dade County—a historically liberal stronghold that is 70 percent Hispanic—by double digits.

"We not only won election, we have rewritten the political map," DeSantis said after his win.

The post Biden Hasn't Accomplished Much as President, Two-Thirds of Hispanics Say appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Manchin was in some cases years late on tax payments for real estate and personal property items, including cars and boats, NBC News reported Thursday. In 2020, for example, Manchin "made nearly $630 in back tax payments … for taxes he owed on cars, boats, and trailers from 2016, 2017, and 2018," according to the report. Less than two years later, Manchin emerged as the "chief architect" of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided $80 billion in new IRS funding, more than half of which went to enforcement. Republicans denounced the funding as "part of the broad Biden administration strategy to tax [and] audit exponentially more Americans," particularly those who—unlike the deep-pocketed Manchin—earn less than $25,000 a year.

The revelation comes as Manchin ponders his political future ahead of a potentially difficult reelection year. Manchin, a Democrat who represents a state that former president Donald Trump won twice by an average of 41 points, is facing a challenge from West Virginia's popular Republican governor, Jim Justice. But Manchin hasn't committed to running against Justice and is flirting with a third-party presidential bid against President Joe Biden, a prospect that Senate Democrats are urging him to abandon.

A Manchin spokesperson dismissed criticism over the late payments, telling NBC News that the Democrat "has always paid every tax bill he's received in full and any lapse in payment has been quickly rectified as soon as he has been made aware." That explanation was not enough for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose spokesman, Tate Mitchell, called Manchin "a complete hypocrite."

"Joe Manchin voted to raise West Virginians' taxes with the so-called Inflation Reduction Act but refuses to pay his own," Mitchell said.

As Manchin weighs a Senate reelection run in 2024, the Democrat has attempted to position himself as a staunch critic of President Joe Biden's spending. But Manchin has trashed the Inflation Reduction Act to do so—even though he negotiated the bill's terms himself. In April, for example, Manchin attacked Biden for working to "liberalize" the legislation and said he would even "vote to repeal [his] own bill." Just months earlier, however, Manchin had heaped praise on the legislation and said he did not regret voting for it "at all."

"The Inflation Reduction Act will be the most transformative bill that we've ever had in the United States, in Congress, as far as I've been here," he said in February.

Since then, Republicans have watered down the bill's IRS provisions. The May debt ceiling deal between Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) rescinded $21 billion of the agency's roughly $80 billion in new funding. Still, Republicans are trying to cut more, with Texas senator John Cornyn calling the deal a "good down payment."

The post Joe Manchin, Who Orchestrated $80 Billion IRS Expansion Bill, Routinely Paid Taxes Late appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Jones, a longtime ally of the left-wing "Squad" who represented New York's 17th Congressional District from 2021 to 2023, is again running to represent the district, he announced Wednesday. Before Jones advances to the general election, however, he will need to defeat Whitmer's sister, Liz Whitmer Gereghty, a school board member who launched her bid for the seat in May. 

The matchup could become one of the nastier primary fights in the country, with Jones's allies already lashing out at Gereghty. "I didn't even know her sister lived in the district," liberal congressman Jamaal Bowman, a "Squad" member who represents a nearby district in New York, told Politico in April. "And I don't know many people who know her." While Gereghty's supporters countered by saying the Democrat has "lived in the area for two decades," Gereghty has courted support from Michigan's congressional delegation and hired a campaign manager who most recently worked in the Great Lakes State.

Jones is known for his progressive politics, a reputation that could hurt him in a district that became more conservative following the 2020 redistricting process. Jones, in the summer of 2020, supported the movement to defund police, writing in a Teen Vogue op-ed that America must "dismantle white supremacy in all aspects of our society, and that means moving funding away from police departments." Jones in the op-ed also called to "abolish cash bail," and the Democrat has expressed support for Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. In addition to Bowman, Jones during his congressional career has received endorsements from fellow "Squad" members Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.).

Gereghty, meanwhile, serves on the board of the Katonah-Lewisboro School District, which sits roughly 50 miles north of Manhattan. Her campaign site condemns "extremist Republicans" for "banning books," "robbing women of their reproductive rights," and "fearmongering about crime." Gereghty in the first 10 weeks of her campaign raised more than $400,000, and she's already received endorsements from EMILY's List and other liberal outside groups.

Jones joined Congress in January 2021 after he defeated Republican nominee Maureen McArdle Schulman by 24 points. But redistricting put him in the same district as then-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Sean Patrick Maloney, forcing Jones to leave the 17th District and run in the 10th District instead. Jones finished third in the primary for his new district, while Maloney lost to Republican challenger Mike Lawler in November 2022, meaning both incumbents were out of power come January 2023. 

Jones has since expressed regret that he opted not to challenge Maloney, and his entrance into the race Wednesday shows he is not afraid of a contentious primary battle this time around. Still, Gereghty is not backing down—the Whitmer sister's campaign on Wednesday criticized Jones for moving districts "to chase a congressional seat." "The most important thing right now is defeating Mike Lawler," the campaign told News 12 Westchester, "and Liz Whitmer Gereghty is the best candidate to do it."

The post Knives Out in New York: Squad-Backed Democrat Launches House Campaign Against Gretchen Whitmer’s Sister appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Fifty-one percent of Americans oppose policies that bar new buildings from including gas lines, according to a Pew Research Center poll published Wednesday. While a majority of Democratic voters—68 percent—support those policies, there is not enough liberal support to overcome the overwhelming majority of Republicans who oppose gas bans in new buildings.

The findings come as liberal leaders move forward with plans that would ban gas stoves and other gas-powered appliances in new buildings. Berkeley, Calif., in 2019 became the first U.S. city to enact such a policy, and blue cities such as San Francisco and Seattle went on to follow suit. In May, meanwhile, New York became the first state to ban gas stoves, a "transition" that Democratic governor Kathy Hochul defended.

"Just like we had to go … a long time ago to transition from coal as your energy source, we do have to transition," Hochul said. "This is where our nation has to go eventually." Roughly two months after Hochul made those comments, New York City's Department of Environmental Protection unveiled regulations that could end the use of wood- and coal-fired ovens in the city's historic pizzerias. Those stoves, department spokesman Ted Timbers said, "are among the largest contributors of harmful pollutants in neighborhoods with poor air quality."

While the White House has worked to distance President Joe Biden from unpopular gas stove bans, the administration has in some cases worked to uphold the bans. Biden's Department of Justice and Department of Education earlier this month filed a joint brief in federal court that argues in support of Berkeley's gas stove ban, which has faced legal challenges in the years following its passage. While a federal court in April found that federal law prevents cities and states from restricting natural gas appliances, the Biden administration brief says gas stove bans can move forward because they address "health and safety" concerns rather than energy efficiency, which is under the federal government's purview.

The Biden administration has also targeted gas stoves through regulatory actions. Biden's Energy Department is pushing appliance efficiency regulations that it acknowledges would effectively ban half of all gas stoves on the market. Still, Biden's energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, argued in March that the policy is no big deal, as the "full range of gas stoves is absolutely not affected."

Industry groups and Republican lawmakers disagree with that assessment, pointing toward a December Energy Department test of 21 gas stove models, all but one of which failed to meet the rule's proposed efficiency standards. As a result, groups such as the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers have argued that the regulation would actually nullify 96 percent of gas stoves.

"It's like they're in such a rush to regulate these products, and they're trying to cover their tracks. But they're doing an incredibly poor job of it," association vice president Jill Notini said in February. "We've never seen this level of sloppy analysis from DOE before."

Not all gas stove bans, however, are applied equally. The California city of Palo Alto in May exempted world-famous liberal chef José Andrés from its natural gas ban after landlords for the chef's restaurant warned that Andrés would pull out over the regulation. That restaurant, the landlords' attorney argued, relies on "traditional cooking methods that require gas appliances to achieve its signature, complex flavors."

The post Save the Stoves: Majority of Americans Oppose Plans To Eradicate Natural Gas From Buildings, Poll Finds appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Biden in April unveiled new environmental regulations that effectively force U.S. automakers to ensure two-thirds of the vehicles they sell are electric by 2032, and the United Auto Workers—a longtime force in Democratic politics that endorsed Biden in 2020—is not happy. The union's new president, Shawn Fain, is concerned that the push will prompt job loss in the auto industry, as electric vehicles require fewer parts and thus fewer workers to build. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that represents the world's top automakers, agrees with the union—its leaders in comments sent to Biden's Environmental Protection Agency said the regulations are "neither reasonable nor achievable" and would prompt huge price hikes.

A lack of support from the same groups that helped send Biden to the White House could bring major challenges to the Democrat's reelection campaign. The United Auto Workers in 2020 endorsed Biden and spent millions of dollars to elect Democrats. Roughly a third of the union's rank-and-file members, however, voted for former president Donald Trump over Biden, and there's good reason to believe a wide array of United Auto Workers disapprove of the administration's electric vehicle rule.

That's because nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose phasing out the production of gas-powered cars and trucks, according to a Pew Research Center poll published Wednesday. Just 40 percent of the public, meanwhile, supports such a policy—that figure was 7 percentage points higher two years ago. Moderate and conservative Democrats are also split on the issue, with just 53 percent favoring a gas-powered vehicle purge, compared with 76 percent of liberals. In general, only 21 percent of Americans say they would feel "excited" if gas-powered vehicles were phased out, while 45 percent say they would feel "upset."

For the United Auto Workers, Biden's "electric vehicle transition" is so troubling that the union is holding off on endorsing the Democrat's reelection bid, a stunning development given its status as a staunch Democratic Party ally.

"The EV transition is at serious risk of becoming a race to the bottom," Fain, the union's president, wrote in a recent memo to members. "We want to see national leadership have our backs on this before we make any commitments." Fain also condemned Biden's $9.2 billion electric vehicle battery loan to Ford, asking, "Why is Joe Biden's administration facilitating this corporate greed with taxpayer money?"

The White House did not return a request for comment.

This is not the first time the union has challenged Biden's mission to greenify the auto industry. In April, the administration planned to unveil its new vehicle regulations alongside United Auto Workers allies in Detroit, where the union is headquartered. Once the union learned of the policy's details, however, they balked at supporting the regulations publicly. As a result, Biden's Environmental Protection Agency had to move the announcement to Washington, D.C., a location change it initially blamed on "scheduling conflicts." The agency's administrator, Michael Regan, went on to acknowledge that union leadership "expressed anxiety" over the regulations.

"We've dealt with the loss of jobs before through technology, but when you talk about the speed of this, it's hard to fathom that we won't lose jobs," United Auto Workers Local 600 vice president Mark DePaoli said at the time.

Should the Biden administration reverse course on its plans to force Americans to adopt electric vehicles, it will undoubtedly struggle to achieve its green energy goals. Just 19 percent of Americans say they're "very" or "extremely" likely to purchase an electric vehicle when they need a new car, while nearly half say they're unlikely to do so, according to an Associated Press poll published in April. The high cost of electric vehicles is the main deterrent—the vehicles, on average, cost at least $10,000 more than their gas-powered counterparts.

The post From Powerful Unions to Everyday Voters, Biden's Gas-Powered Car Purge Prompts Backlash appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Biden has suffered from sleep apnea since at least 2008, when Politico reported that Biden "has suffered from atrial fibrillation, or an irregular heartbeat," which doctors said was probably "linked to Biden's reoccurring problem of sleep apnea." Dr. Joseph Krainin, M.D., a medical advisor at SleepApnea.org, told the Washington Free Beacon that Biden likely suffered from "a certain type of sleep apnea where his brain forgets to breathe during sleep."

There is no mention of sleep apnea in White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor's summary of the president's health following Biden's most recent physical in February. Biden's medical records from 2019 revealed that he had several surgeries on his sinus and nasal passage. But surgeries do not always cure patients' sleep apnea, and patients may still need to use a CPAP machine after undergoing an operation, according to Alberta Health Services.

Failing to treat his sleep apnea with a CPAP machine—for more than a decade—may have put Biden at increased risk for dementia, studies show.

That's because untreated sleep apnea leads to intermittent oxygen deprivation in the brain, causing certain brain cells to die. Those brain cells are among the same cells "that we know die in dementia," according to Australian neuroscientist Elizabeth Coulson. As a result, Coulson and her coauthors found in a recent study, untreated sleep apnea can lead to increased risk of dementia.

A 2022 study published in the National Library of Medicine came to a similar conclusion: "Sleep apnea is associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia, particularly for Alzheimer's disease," the study says. A third study, published in the American Academy of Neurology's medical journal in May, found that people "with sleep apnea who spend less time in deep sleep are more likely to have brain health problems that could lead to dementia, Alzheimer's disease, or a stroke."

The revelation will do little to ease concerns over Biden's age and mental fitness. A whopping 68 percent of U.S. voters say Biden is "too old for another term," according to a Yahoo News/YouGov poll released in March. On Wednesday, hours before the White House confirmed Biden's use of a CPAP machine, Biden mistakenly told reporters that Russian president Vladimir Putin is "losing the war in Iraq," rather than Ukraine.

It wasn't the first time Biden has confused the two countries when discussing the Ukraine war. He also repeatedly referred to himself as a U.S. senator since becoming president in 2021. Biden was a senator when he voted to support the Iraq war in 2002.

Mistakes of this nature could be examples of "time-shifting," a common symptom of dementia. "Time-shifting is when a person's experience is that they are living at an earlier time in their life," the U.K.-based Alzheimer's Society writes on its website. "They may become disorientated and confused about time and place."

It's unclear how exactly Biden has treated his sleep apnea for the last 15 years. The White House did not return a request for comment on his history of using a CPAP machine or other sleep apnea treatments.

The post Biden's Failure To Treat Sleep Apnea May Have Increased Risk of Dementia, Studies Show appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Afternoon travelers enjoyed heavy delays and miles of backups after Biden closed major portions of the Capital Beltway to travel to a private fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md., the state's wealthiest town. The octogenarian Democrat did not need to shut down the highway to get to his campaign's soirée—the most direct route from the White House to Chevy Chase would have seen Biden travel five of the trip's roughly seven miles down Connecticut Avenue, a route that Apple Maps notes contains the fewest turns. Instead, Biden's motorcade took a longer route, causing some segments of the Beltway to come to a complete halt.

Biden during his Tuesday night fundraiser acknowledged that presidential road closures "make a hell of a lot of people mad" and could even cause him to lose "thousands of votes." "We had traffic problems on the highway. I don't know what the hell is the matter," he said. "But we also make a hell of a lot of people mad if we don't get going, because they're—they block the roads beginning now."

While it's unclear why Biden opted to explain the road closure issue rather than leaving—the remarks added time to Biden's speech and thus kept roads closed for even longer—the Democrat's assessment that traffic jams "make a hell of a lot of people mad" was quickly proven correct. When the Washington Post highlighted the traffic jams in a piece headlined, "Motorcade snarls traffic after closure of Beltway's inner loop," commenters flooded the post with angry assessments.

"Who's the geographically challenged idiot who came up with this route? Stopping Beltway traffic during rush hour???" one reader asked.

"What an unnecessary and thoroughly crappy move. And why the hell are they taking such a ridiculous and convoluted route?" another wrote. "Just drive up Conn. Ave for goodness sake—without shutting it down. … There are about a million better and more direct ways to go from the White House to Chevy Chase."

The White House did not return a request for comment on why Biden took "such a ridiculous and convoluted route." The Secret Service in a Tuesday statement said it "does not specifically discuss the means and methods used to conduct protective operations in order to maintain operational security."

Biden's Tuesday night traffic jam comes as the Democrat faces record-low approval. A Pew Research Center poll published last week found that just 35 percent of Americans approve of the president, compared with 62 percent who disapprove. That approval rating is 2 points lower than Biden's previous record low of 37 percent, which was registered in April.

The post Biden Brings DC to Its Knees During Fundraising Trip to Super-Rich Suburb appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Sheehy—a Bronze Star with Valor for Heroism in Combat and Purple Heart Medal recipient—launched his candidacy Tuesday, telling Fox News he's "answering the call to serve."

"From inflation to our border to our deficit, America is ready for change. And I think it's time for a new generation of leaders to step up," Sheehy said. "One thing I learned in a foxhole in Afghanistan or in the belly of a submarine, is when the chips are down there's really only one political party, and that's American."

Sheehy's entrance into the race will likely test Senate Republican leaders as they look to avoid another disappointing election cycle come 2024. During last year's races, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) sparred on the party's nominees, with McConnell lamenting poor "candidate quality" as then-committee chair Rick Scott (R., Fla.) opted not to intervene in top primaries. This time around, however, new committee head Steve Daines (R., Mont.) is willing to wade into those races—and the Montana Republican could face his first battle in his home state.

That's because Montana Republican congressman Matt Rosendale, a House Freedom Caucus member, is planning a Senate bid of his own. But Rosendale has run against Tester before, losing to the Democrat in 2018 by roughly 4 percentage points. As a result, some in the party have suggested Rosendale could face the same electability issues that plagued top GOP Senate nominees in 2022. Daines is already touting his support for Sheehy, whom he called a "decorated veteran, successful businessman, and a great Montanan."

"I could not be happier that he has decided to enter the Montana Senate race," Daines said in a Tuesday morning statement.

Prior to his entry in the race, Sheehy "did several deployments overseas" after joining the military "right out of high school." The Republican moved to Montana in 2014 to start a business "after being medically separated from active duty due to wounds being received in Afghanistan," his résumé says. Sheehy is CEO of Bridger Aerospace, an aerial firefighting company that supports "front-line firefighters with world-leading technology and aerial fire suppression systems."

Sheehy on Tuesday said a lack of veterans in Congress motivated him to enter the race.

"We're in one of the lowest participation rates in history of veterans in Congress, and that's a huge problem," he said. "We want to get combat veterans in and those who understand service back to help fix this government and get things working right."

The post 'Answering the Call To Serve': Former Navy Seal Launches Bid To Take Down Montana's Jon Tester appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Manchin has flirted with a third-party presidential bid, an endeavor that self-described centrist group No Labels—which has pledged to spend $70 million on a third-party candidate in 2024 but has yet to reveal its most recent financial figures—could fund. For Manchin's Senate Democratic colleagues, the idea is a full-blown disaster. Sen. John Hickenlooper (D., Colo.), for example, told Politico he "advised [Manchin] against" a third-party presidential run, which he called a "terrible idea" that would "help Donald Trump." Manchin remained coy in response—he merely "looked at me and nodded," Hickenlooper told Politico.

Manchin's political indecisiveness comes as the senator approaches a difficult reelection bid in 2024, which could see him face off against West Virginia's popular governor, Republican Jim Justice. Manchin has so far declined to commit to a reelection bid and says he's in "no hurry" to determine his political future, which, in addition to a presidential bid, could see the Democrat run to replace Justice as governor, a position he held from 2005 to 2010.

Senate Democrats are, for now, taking Manchin's White House ambitions seriously. Sen. Gary Peters (D., Mich.) told Politico Manchin is "still thinking" about running for president, while Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.) said "you never know about Joe." Should Manchin run for president, those lawmakers and others say, Republicans would likely win West Virginia's Senate race in 2024 and could even take the White House. Still, that argument has not moved Manchin, who questioned the notion that a third-party presidential run would help the GOP.

"Everybody's getting so worked up and scared to death, and we're a year and a half away," Manchin said. "I don't rule out anything. There's a tremendous concern about our country and the direction the country is going in. That's all."

As Manchin approaches a potential reelection bid, the Democrat has worked to position himself as a critic of President Joe Biden's spending. Manchin's criticism, however, is centered on the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act, which Manchin himself named and orchestrated. Manchin heaped praise on the bill as recently as February, saying he did not regret voting for it "at all."

"The Inflation Reduction Act will be the most transformative bill that we've ever had in the United States, in Congress, as far as I've been here," he said.

Manchin's Inflation Reduction Act support has already brought the Democrat political headaches. A spending group aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), has already spent millions on ads dinging Manchin for his work on the bill, which the group says "could cost West Virginia 100,000 fossil fuel jobs."

Should Manchin square off against Justice next November, he may be in trouble. Forty-three percent of likely general election voters back Justice, compared with just 29 percent who back Manchin, according to a National Journal poll released in May.

The post Democrats Scramble To Stop Joe Manchin From Running Against Biden appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Officials from President Joe Biden's Department of Justice and Department of Education filed a joint brief in federal court on Monday arguing in favor of Berkeley, California's ban on natural gas in new buildings. Berkeley in 2019 became the first U.S. city to enact such a policy, but a federal court struck it down in April, finding that federal law prevents cities and states from restricting natural gas appliances.

The Biden administration's brief calls on the court to overturn the ruling. For the administration, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act—a 1975 law that gives only the federal government the power set energy efficiency rules—does not bar Berkeley from banning gas stoves, because that ban was made in the name of "health and safety" concerns, not energy efficiency concerns. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, determined in its April ruling that the policy effectively renders "gas appliances useless" and thus skirts federal law.

If the Biden administration effort is successful, states and cities around the country could enact sweeping natural gas bans with little fear of judicial hurdles. These bans would likely reignite the political firestorm surrounding gas stoves. The president has attempted to distance himself from the controversy, with the White House saying earlier this year that "the president does not support banning gas stoves." The statement came after Biden's pick to serve on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., said a ban was "on the table," and the administration has since targeted gas stoves through regulatory actions and legal arguments.

In addition to its brief in support of Berkeley, Biden's Energy Department is pushing regulations that would effectively ban half of all gas stoves on the U.S. market. Still, Biden's energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, has said that the policy is no cause for concern—during a March congressional hearing, she said the "full range of gas stoves is absolutely not affected" by the regulations, given that "half of the gas stoves that are on the market right now wouldn't even be impacted."

Industry groups and Republican lawmakers have dismissed that assessment. They point to a December Energy Department test of 21 gas stove models, all but one of which failed to meet the rule's proposed efficiency standards. The test, groups such as the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers argue, shows that the regulation would actually nullify 96 percent of gas stoves.

"It's like they're in such a rush to regulate these products, and they're trying to cover their tracks. But they're doing an incredibly poor job of it," association vice president Jill Notini said in February. "We've never seen this level of sloppy analysis from DOE before."

The Energy Department did not return a request for comment.

After a panel of three federal judges unanimously overturned Berkeley's gas ban in April, green groups put pressure on Biden to take federal action. Liberal environmental group Sierra Club, for example, urged the administration to "alleviate legal scrutiny of city-level gas restrictions," including through nationwide bans on gas appliances, so the issue no longer needs to be litigated in states and cities across the country. Biden has worked closely with the Sierra Club both as president and as a presidential candidate.

Should the Biden administration fail to overturn the court decision blocking Berkeley's gas ban, the legal argument against the ban will almost certainly be replicated to target local gas bans across the country. Green groups in April warned that the decision "could have a chilling effect on states and cities pursuing similar bans," and one attorney who worked on the case said it "sets an important precedent for future cases, especially with other cities and states considering restrictions on natural gas."

The post Biden Admin Backs City of Berkeley in Bid to Ban Gas Stoves appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland was forced to hold the event at a different location after Native landowners blocked the road into the park, telling the Biden appointee to "go home" and stop "trespassing." Haaland expressed her disappointment with the protest after changing venues, saying the demonstration "wasn't ideal." "To see any road into any of our national parks or our public lands blocked was heartbreaking because our public lands belong to all Americans," Haaland lamented.

Today, @SecDebHaaland was supposed to celebrate at Chaco Canyon with tribal, state and federal leaders about the new ban on oil and gas leases in the area. Navajo allottees blocked off the entrance in protest.

More to come for @source_nm pic.twitter.com/D1S2VTku5U

— Megan Gleason (@fabflutist2716) June 11, 2023

At issue was Haaland's June 2 decision to ban for 20 years oil and gas leasing within 10 miles of Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a move she said would protect "a sacred place that holds deep meaning for the Indigenous peoples." Many Navajo Nation landowners, however, disagreed as they depend on the revenue they earn from leasing the land to oil and gas companies. Haaland planned to celebrate the ban at her Sunday event, prompting condemnation from Navajo president Buu Nygren.

"The financial and economic losses that are impacting many Navajo families as a result of the secretary's recent land withdrawal are nothing to celebrate," Nygren said in a statement. "As leaders of the Navajo Nation, we support the Navajo allottees who oppose the withdrawal of these public lands."

The ordeal is deeply embarrassing for Haaland, who represented New Mexico's First Congressional District in Congress from 2019 to 2021 and later "made history" when she became the first Native American to serve as a cabinet secretary. Still, that history didn't stop Navajo protesters from derailing Haaland's Sunday event, and the tribe is even considering suing Haaland to overturn the oil and gas ban.

Navajo Nation leaders say Haaland, whose office declined to comment, failed to adequately consult them before issuing the 20-year oil and gas ban. But Haaland did provide access to her daughter's green group, Pueblo Action Alliance, which works to end both oil and gas production as well as "imperial capitalism." 

Haaland last year met with the group's executive director, who referred to the Biden appointee as "Auntie Deb." Haaland's daughter, meanwhile, represented the group on a December Washington, D.C., lobbying trip aimed at securing the oil and gas ban around Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Just months later, Haaland's daughter got her wish.

Haaland's relationship with her daughter's green group prompted the House Natural Resources Committee to launch an investigation into Haaland over potential ethics violations. For energy advocacy group Power the Future, that investigation is far overdue.

"For more than two years, the Biden Administration has acted without any serious congressional oversight, and we have all suffered the disastrous consequences," the group's founder and executive director, Daniel Turner, said in a statement. "Secretary Haaland’s relentless crusade against American energy producers knows no limits, and the public deserves to know about any financial connections she stood to gain from her family employment."

The post Our Financial Loss Is ‘Nothing to Celebrate’: Navajo Protest Biden’s Ban of Drilling on Their ‘Sacred’ Land appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The Biden appointee on Friday wrote the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to inform members of the financial holdings. When Granholm submitted her financial disclosures in 2021 and 2022, she acknowledged in the letter, she failed to report that her husband owned thousands of dollars' worth of Ford stock, a mistake she called an "accidental omission."

Had Granholm disclosed the stock, it almost certainly would have prompted conflict of interest accusations. Both Granholm and President Joe Biden have promoted Ford's electric car fleet, with Granholm last year saying the company's electric Mustang is "cool." Granholm's husband also held stock in the company as the Biden administration greenlit hundreds of billions of dollars in electric vehicle subsidies through the Inflation Reduction Act—subsidies that Ford plans to take advantage of through its battery factories and electric car sales. In April, meanwhile, Granholm tapped Ford lobbyist Christopher Smith to serve on her Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

This is far from the first time the Biden administration has promoted a company Granholm stands to profit from. Biden and other top administration officials repeatedly showcased Proterra, an electric bus company that once counted Granholm as a member of its board of directors and that she held a significant amount of stock in. Granholm eventually sold her 240,000 Proterra shares in May 2021, earning a cool $1.6 million.

The Senate Energy Committee's ranking member, Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, hammered Granholm for her "failure to follow basic ethics and disclosure rules."

"Secretary Granholm lied to the committee about her family's stock holdings," Barrasso said in a statement. "This is a troubling pattern. It is unacceptable."

The Energy Department did not return a request for comment. Granholm said her husband sold his Ford stock on May 15.

Beyond her husband's Ford stock, Granholm on Friday acknowledged that she owned stock in six other companies before selling those stakes on May 18. The holdings contradict Granholm's testimony during an April Senate committee hearing, during which the Biden appointee said she did not own any individual stocks.

Despite her long history of ethics issues—Granholm last year failed to properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock trades—the energy secretary claimed in her letter that she takes federal ethics standards "very seriously."

"As a public servant, I take very seriously the commitment to hold myself to the highest ethical standards, and I regret the accidental omission of my spouse's interest in Ford," Granholm wrote. "This is a commitment I made to you, the President, and most importantly the American people."

The post Energy Sec's Husband Held Stock in Ford as Admin Approved Billions in Electric Vehicle Subsidies appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

National Geographic raises funds by flying deep-pocketed travelers around the world on its "specially outfitted" Boeing 757 jet, which features "comfortable VIP-style leather seating," "plush, sleek interior design," a private chef, and a "dedicated luggage handler." The trips, most of which cost roughly $100,000, allow millionaires and billionaires to "fly in exceptional comfort" as they visit "far-flung destinations" and encounter "legendary wildlife"—including the same coral reefs National Geographic says in its pages are dying.

Travelers on one of the 24-day "expeditions" fly nearly 30,000 miles. Planes, on average, produce 53.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per air mile, meaning the trip's flights would emit more than 1.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide. The average American's yearly carbon footprint is just 32,000 pounds, meaning the flights in just 24 days generate a carbon footprint equivalent to that of nearly 47 Americans in an entire year.

One of the trips, a $108,000 "Wildlife of the World by Private Jet" tour, takes wealthy attendees to see elephants in Malaysia, mountain gorillas in Rwanda, Bengal tigers in India, and "dazzling marine life" from an "overwater bungalow in the Maldives" before wrapping up in Rome.

National Geographic often laments the "climate change crisis," which, it says, is causing melting icebergs, coral reef extinction, deadly floods, forest fires, and a rise in mosquito-borne diseases. The media giant argued in September that climate change is "the greatest threat to human health in recorded history." National Geographic even identifies transportation as one of the largest sources of carbon emissions—which it says are warming the earth "as a byproduct of human activities"—and tells readers they should measure their carbon footprint and spend time "thinking about" how much they fly.

National Geographic is far from the only prominent organization or individual that sounds the alarm about the "climate crisis" while enjoying the luxuries of private air travel. Liberal billionaire Bill Gates, a top National Geographic Society donor, just months ago defended his private jet travel, saying he is not a "hypocrite" because he pays for carbon offsets, a controversial practice in which you spend money to counteract your own actions, such as by funding solar panels to replace fossil fuel use elsewhere. Doing so, of course, does not actually remove the original carbon from the air, and environmental groups have criticized the concept. National Geographic itself asked if "carbon offsetting really make[s] a difference" in a February piece.

Another National Geographic Society donor, world-famous actor Leonardo DiCaprio, has taken gas-guzzling private jets to accept environmental awards. Biden climate czar John Kerry, meanwhile, has addressed the fight against climate change at National Geographic events—Kerry until recently owned a private jet, saying in 2019 that private air travel is "the only choice for somebody like me."

National Geographic did not return a request for comment. Beyond its "Wildlife of the World by Private Jet" tour, the media giant offers similar "Around the World by Private Jet" tours that cost roughly $100,000 and allow attendees to "circumnavigate the Northern Hemisphere by private jet," "meet with Mongolia's nomads, Arctic farmers in Svalbard and villagers in the Faroe Islands," and explore "savanna wildlife on the Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya." Other trips include "Central and South America by Private Jet," "Cultural Wonders of Africa: A Journey by Private Jet," and "The Future of Everything: Exploring Global Innovation by Private Jet." Seventy-three American billionaires reportedly joined a National Geographic private jet trip to Nepal, which cost $95,000 per person.

When attendees descend from National Geographic's private jet, they enjoy "some of the world's finest accommodations." The "Wildlife of the World by Private Jet" trip, for example, includes a stay at the Antara Palazzo Naiadi Rome Hotel, an "elegant palazzo near the Spanish Steps." The five-star luxury hotel and "historic palace" is one of Rome's "grandest," boasting five bars and restaurants and a wellness spa "built on the foundations of the Roman Empire's most luxurious baths."

National Geographic earns revenue in part through its joint venture with Disney, which helps operate National Geographic's magazine, TV channels, website, and other media endeavors. But the media giant also rakes in large donations through its nonprofit arm, the National Geographic Society, which aims to collect $100 million a year in contributions, often from climate-focused activists such as Gates and DiCaprio.

National Geographic openly touts its aim to "activate" global citizens as a "purpose-native" brand. In 2018, for example, it launched an initiative to drive people to reduce their single-use plastic consumption. National Geographic has also raised funds by touting its work studying "climate change's impact on" Mount Everest and "those living in its shadow."

Still, National Geographic's climate-centered "purpose" does not appear to threaten its private jet trips anytime soon. National Geographic has 16 expeditions scheduled to depart between now and the end of 2024.

The post National Geographic Says Climate Change Is 'Greatest Threat to Human Health.' It Also Flies Billionaires Around the World on Its Private Jet. appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.