President Biden and former President Donald Trump are in a virtual dead heat in a key general election battleground state in a potential 2024 rematch, according to a new poll.

Trump stands at 47% support and Biden at 46% among registered voters in Pennsylvania, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

The survey indicates Trump winning the support of Republicans 89% to 7% and Biden with overwhelming 94% to 4% backing from Democrats. Among independent voters, the former president holds a 51% to 37% advantage.

Biden, a Pennsylvania native who spent his early childhood in Scranton, edged Trump by just over 1% in the Keystone State in the 2020 election. Pennsylvania was one of six swing states where Biden narrowly defeated Trump to win the White House.

The president remains underwater with Pennsylvania voters, according to the survey.

‘Voters give President Biden a negative 39-57% job approval rating, with 4% not offering an opinion,’ a release from Quinnipiac University noted.

But Trump was also in negative territory, with a 41%-57% favorable/unfavorable rating among Keystone State voters.

For Pennsylvania’s Republican presidential primary, the poll indicates Trump would top Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis 49% to 25%, with every other candidate in a large field of GOP contenders in single digits.

In the Democratic presidential primary, Biden grabs 71% support, with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at 17% and Marianne Williamson at 5%.

Pennsylvania is scheduled to hold its 2024 primary in late April, but there’s an ongoing effort to move the date to mid-March, earlier in the presidential nominating calendar.

The poll indicates Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who was elected last November, is underwater with a 39% to 50% job approval rating.

Longtime Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. — who is seeking re-election next year — stands at 44% to 32%.

And Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, who along with Fetterman was elected last year, stands at 57% approval and 23% disapproval.

The poll was conducted June 22-26 among 1,584 registered voters in Pennsylvania. The survey’s overall sampling error was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

LOS ANGELES – What should parents and students expect if the Supreme Court bans affirmative action in public and private universities? Consider the case of California, which banned race-based admissions in 1996.

Despite spending some $500 million on outreach programs to boost Black and Latino enrollment, the state’s elite universities still failed to improve racial diversity on campus. California even recently eliminated standardized tests — the ACT and SAT — hoping to reduce high-scoring Asian students from outperforming competitors, but it too failed to change the racial makeup of University of California (UC) students.

‘Despite its extensive efforts, UC struggles to enroll a student body that is sufficiently racially diverse to attain the educational benefits of diversity,’ UC wrote in an amicus brief to the court. ‘The shortfall is especially apparent at UC’s most selective campuses, where African American, Native American, and Latinx students are underrepresented and widely report struggling with feelings of racial isolation.’

In 2021, 54% of the state’s high school seniors were Latino, 5.4% Black. By contrast, UC’s incoming freshmen were 26% Latino – a 28-point gap – and 4.4% Black. At UC Berkley, just 20% of incoming freshmen were Latino, 3% Black. In all, there were just 228 Black students compared to more than 2,800 incoming Asian students out of a total enrollment of 6,750.

‘I’ve only met two other Black students within all of my classes that I’ve been in,’ Berkeley student James Bennett told Reuters.  

Law professor John Powell, who is Black, added, ‘Everyone agrees. The fact is that admissions in college is uneven. Blacks are underrepresented, especially at a place like Berkeley.’ 

Today, the elite UC system’s nine undergraduate universities have been using 13 factors to build a freshman class. Their ‘holistic’ admissions review has included high school GPAs, class ranks, high school zip codes, family income and education, student essays and outside accomplishments.

Should the court ban affirmative action, education consultant Arvin Vohra predicted other universities will adopt the California model and develop algorithms or software to try achieving racial equity even if race is not allowed as an input. 

‘The group that’s most likely to be helped by this decision are Asian American students, while you’ll see lower enrollment among Black and Hispanic students,’ said Vohra. ‘You can’t change your race, but you can change your activities. You can change your way of presenting your story.’

He predicted that colleges will use crime, demographic and poverty rates from a student’s zip code to help identify minority applicants. Elite schools could also see an increase in Black and Hispanic applications if other schools also drop the standardized test. California saw an 18% jump in those applications after it dropped the SAT and ACT. 

‘A very high achieving Black or Hispanic student is going to be very in-demand,’ Vohra said. ‘We’ve seen this in private and public colleges. If you’re a top-level Black or Hispanic student, you’ll have a lot of opportunities.’ 

Already, even with affirmative action, top state schools are having a hard time finding minority students who could compete with higher-scoring Asian and White students. In a study of 101 of the nation’s most selective public universities, the Education Trust found Black and Latino students vastly underrepresented.

‘The overwhelming majority of the nation’s most selective public colleges are still inaccessible for Black and Latino undergraduates,’ the report concluded. ‘Over half of the 101 institutions earned D’s and F’s for access for both Black and Latino students.’ 

Some of the worst scores happened at each state’s flagship university. For example, at the University of Georgia, just 8% of incoming freshmen are Black compared to the 36% of graduating public high school seniors statewide. At Ole Miss, 8% of incoming freshmen are Black compared to 48% of high school grads. At the University of Michigan, the gap is smaller — 4% versus 17% statewide.

Hispanic enrollment is not much better. At the University of Texas, there is a 23-point gap between the incoming freshman class and the statewide average. At the University of Colorado Boulder, the gap is 20 points.

At UC Berkeley, it’s 34 points; 20% of the freshmen are Hispanic versus 54% of high school grads, according to the ‘Common Data Set,’ numbers provided annually by all the major U.S. universities.

If history is any guide, if the court bans affirmative action in higher ed, elite schools will likely see minority enrollment drop. That was true at Berkeley, where minority enrollment fell 40% post-Prop 209. At UCLA, freshman Black enrollment dropped from 7.1% in 1995 to 3.4% in 1998. Latino students dropped from 21% to 10% over the same period.

The average SAT score in 2022 was 1050. By ethnicity, Asian students average 1229, White students 1098, Hispanic students 964 and Black students 926, according to the College Board.

Without affirmative action, experts have said the score will take on added weight, unless the colleges adjust their criteria. 

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who has consistently struggled through public events due to the aftermath of a stroke he suffered more than a year ago, is falling to President Biden’s unpopularity level in their home state of Pennsylvania. 

According to a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday, half of Keystone State voters disapprove of Fetterman’s job handling, while only 39% approve. President Biden, a Scranton native, has a worse approval rating in the state, with 57% of Pennsylvanians disapproving of his job handling as president, while 39% approve.

Voters view Fetterman much worse than his fellow statewide Democrats, the poll shows. Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro garners a 57% job approval rating, while 23% disapprove. Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, meanwhile, also earns good marks from voters, with 44% approval and 32% who disapprove of the job he’s doing in office. The remaining percentages for each politician reflect individuals who did not offer an opinion. 

Fetterman has floundered through Senate hearings and other public events since taking office, often coming across incoherent due to his injuries from the stroke. His office has repeatedly slammed critics for drawing attention to the issue and maintains he is fine outside of auditory processing problems. 

The issue exploded when Jeff Stein, a Washington Post economics reporter, admitted in May to amplifying a misquote Fetterman’s office provided to him. Meanwhile, Fetterman’s office has quietly and significantly altered the senator’s transcribed comments on several occasions to make him sound more coherent, Fox News Digital previously reported.

After spending over a month in a hospital for clinical depression treatment, Fetterman revealed his depression was ‘in full force’ during his first few weeks in the Senate.

He initially suffered the stroke in May 2022 while campaigning in the Pennsylvania Senate race, resulting in auditory processing issues. 

Fetterman described his only midterm debate against Dr. Mehmet Oz as similar to ‘trying to run a marathon with a broken ankle.’ During the debate, Fetterman was granted the use of a closed captioning system so that he would be able to read the questions.

Fox News Digital’s Aubrie Spady contributed to this report.

The U.S. Attorney who led the federal investigation into Hunter Biden was ‘briefed’ on the key FBI form that contained allegations that then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national were engaged in a criminal bribery scheme that involved influence over U.S. policy decisions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed Wednesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who led the federal investigation into Hunter Biden demanding answers amid allegations from whistleblowers suggesting the probe was slow-walked and influenced by politics.

Graham wrote to Garland and Weiss separately, seeking information on the alleged politicization that influenced decisions throughout the Hunter Biden probe.

The document in question is an FBI-generated FD-1023 form. The form, dated June 30, 2020, reflects the FBI’s interview with a ‘highly credible’ confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with a top executive of Burisma Holdings over the course of several years, starting in 2015. Hunter Biden sat on the board of Burisma.

In the letter to Weiss, Graham said that he has ‘been informed that you and your office were briefed on allegations in an FD-1023 form suggesting there may have been phone calls recorded between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden with a senior official at Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company.’

‘The FD-1023 in question alleges that the confidential informant told the Department of Justice and FBI that such tapes may exist,’ Graham wrote.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr earlier this month said the FD-1023 form had been routed to Weiss. Sources told Fox News Digital that Weiss’ team was briefed on the FD-1023 form in September 2020. 

Fox News Digital was briefed on the heavily-redacted form, in which the Burisma executive explained to the confidential source that Burisma had to ‘pay the Bidens’ because Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma, and explained how difficult it would be to enter the U.S. market in the midst of that investigation.

According to a source familiar with the document, the Burisma executive told the confidential human source, ‘$5 million for one Biden, $5 million for the other Biden.’

Sources familiar told Fox News Digital that the confidential human source believes that the $5 million payment to Joe Biden and the $5 million payment to Hunter Biden occurred, based on his or her conversations with the Burisma executive.

The confidential source said the Burisma executive told him he ‘paid’ the Bidens in such a manner ‘through so many different bank accounts’ that investigators would not be able to ‘unravel this for at least 10 years.’

The document then makes reference to ‘the Big Guy,’ which many believe is a reference to Joe Biden.

A whistleblower first alerted Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to the existence of the document. Grassley has seen the unredacted form, and claims that under the redactions is a reference to the Burisma executive saying he kept 17 audio recordings of his conversations with them as an ‘insurance policy.’

Grassley, earlier this month, said the FD-1023 has a redacted reference that the Burisma executive possesses 15 audio recordings of phone calls between himself and Hunter Biden.

According to Grassley, the FD-1023 also states that the executive possesses two audio recordings of phone calls between himself and then-Vice President Biden.

Graham, in the letter, is asking Weiss to clarify whether he was ‘in fact briefed on these allegations,’ which President Biden has dismissed as ‘a bunch of malarkey.’ 

‘If yes, what actions were taken to investigate this matter and what was the final disposition?’ Graham wrote.

‘As I write, I do not know if the allegations are credible, but I know they are serious, and I believe it is incumbent on you to clarify and inform the public,’ Graham continued. ‘I am confident this can be achieved without compromising confidential sources.’

Graham and Grassley last week asked the FBI to turn over an unredacted version of the FD-1023 form. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., had subpoenaed the document, but the FBI did not comply, and instead, brought a redacted version to a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) on Capitol Hill for committee members to review.

Meanwhile, in his letter to Garland, Graham refers to allegations brought to the House Ways and Means Committee by two IRS whistleblowers, claiming the entire federal investigation into Hunter Biden was influenced by politics.

‘To the American people, it appears DOJ had its thumb on the scale of justice,’ Graham wrote to the attorney general.

Graham’s letter comes after two IRS whistleblowers said officials at the Justice Department, FBI and IRS interfered with the federal investigation into Hunter Biden. Those whistleblowers said the decisions in the case seemed to be ‘influenced by politics.’

The whistleblowers testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and alleged that Weiss was ‘constantly hamstrung, limited, and marginalized by DOJ officials as well as other U.S. Attorneys.’ They testified that Weiss had requested to have special counsel authority, but was denied.

‘It is imperative these allegations are addressed head-on,’ Graham wrote to Garland, questioning whether he was ‘aware of any request’ by Weiss to be designated special counsel.

‘And likewise, were you aware of any effort to seek support to bring felony charges in Washington, D.C. or California?’ Graham asked, referring to allegations that Weiss sought to bring charges against Hunter Biden in two separate venues. ‘If such requests were made by U.S. Attorney Weiss and you were not aware, who would be the decision-making authority in such a case?’

The Justice Department has denied the whistleblowers’ claims, with Attorney General Merrick Garland saying Weiss was ‘given complete authority to make all decisions on his own behalf.’ 

Graham, in his letter to Weiss, also pressed for clarification on whether he did seek special counsel authority from the Justice Department and whether he was denied.

‘Whistleblower allegations indicate that while you were investigating Hunter Biden you requested Special Counsel designation and were denied, and that you sought more serious charges and that attempt was rejected,’ Graham wrote to Weiss. ‘Whistleblowers also indicated that you made efforts to bring charges in Washington, D.C., and California, and were also rejected.’

Graham demanded Weiss provide information regarding the allegations, including the corroborating ‘contemporaneous e-mail’ referring to those sought after charges.

‘Please provide information regarding these allegations, as a prompt response is necessary to reassure the public that there is equal justice under the law,’ Graham wrote.

The Justice Department said it has received Graham’s letter, but did not comment further.

Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced online that another of his interviews has been removed from social media giant YouTube.

Kennedy announced that his interview with former New York Post reporter Al Guart had been taken off the prominent video-sharing platform.

The Democrat challenger to President Biden in the 2024 primaries has already seen one of his interviews removed from YouTube due to an apparent violation of the website’s vaccine misinformation policy.

‘[YouTube] just pulled another of my videos, with former NY Post political reporter [Guart],’ Kennedy wrote in a Tuesday Twitter thread. ‘People made a big deal about Russia supposedly manipulating internet information to influence a Presidential election. Shouldn’t we be worried when giant tech corporations do the same?’

‘When industry and government are so closely linked, there is little difference between ‘private’ and ‘government’ censorship,’ he continued. ‘Suppression of free speech is not suddenly OK when it is contracted out to the private corporations that control the public square.’

Kennedy wrote that the ‘Twitter Files proved that numerous government agencies, acting through the FBI, told Twitter whom to censor’ and that ‘Twitter complied.’

‘Doubtless, Facebook, YouTube, and the rest received similar requests,’ Kennedy wrote.

‘In the case of my interview with [Guart], [YouTube] probably acted on its own initiative,’ he continued. ‘It has internalized the political wishes of the establishment to the point where it knows what to censor without being told.’

Google, YouTube’s parent company, did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Kennedy’s comments came after YouTube took down a different interview between the Democrat presidential candidate and podcast host Jordan Peterson, citing the website’s vaccine misinformation policy.

This month, both Kennedy and Peterson tweeted that the video-sharing website had taken down their interview from an episode of Peterson’s show and accused the social media platform of censorship and interfering with a presidential campaign.

A Google spokesperson previously told Fox News Digital that YouTube ‘removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel for violating YouTube’s general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities.’

The spokesperson also said the company ‘removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel featuring a conversation with Robert F Kennedy Jr.’ and that Google’s ‘Community Guidelines apply equally to all creators on our platform, regardless of political viewpoint.’

‘Under our general vaccine misinformation policies, we remove false claims about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and the WHO. This includes content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them.’

‘Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines,’ the spokesperson said. ‘Content that would otherwise violate our Community Guidelines may stay on YouTube when it has Educational, Documentary, Scientific, or Artistic (EDSA) context, such as providing countervailing views to the remarks that violate our policies.’

In the interview, Kennedy said that ‘a lot of the sexual dysphoria’ America is seeing comes from exposure to chemicals in the water.

China is fully embracing the potential transformative power of artificial intelligence and determined to emerge as the world’s leading AI power, according to experts and Chinese state media.

The People’s Daily, the mouthpiece newspaper of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), on Monday published its second commentary in two weeks vowing to intensify efforts to unleash the potential of AI.

‘[AI] will become an important driving force in the new wave of technological revolution and industrial transformation, with a major impact on people’s production and life,’ the commentary says.

The article, first flagged by the South China Morning Post, lists several areas where China could benefit from AI, such as daily office work, pharmaceuticals, and meteorology.

The People’s Daily’s focus on AI comes as experts in the U.S. are warning of China’s tech ambitions.

In a new report, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments concludes that, while the U.S. currently leads China in industrial might and national security technology, Beijing is on the offensive in areas like AI and believes it can be a global leader in the next decade.

‘The United States has a powerful advantage because it played a central role in establishing the existing global techno-security order,’ the report states. ‘But the current revolution in global technology affairs offers a window of opportunity for China to stake a leadership claim on emerging domains such as 5G, AI, quantum technology, cybersecurity, clean energy, and biotechnology.’

The term ‘techno-security’ describes various innovations that can be applied to national security requirements.

According to the report, the U.S. needs to take action now to secure its stronger position or risk China catching up in the near future as it continues to close the technological gap between the two.

‘The U.S. techno-security system remains better organized and structured for the long-term techno-security competition than China, but it cannot be complacent and needs to urgently address a raft of structural flaws in its system,’ the authors conclude. ‘As China ramps up its efforts to transform its techno-security capabilities and sets deadlines to achieve its goals over the next 5–10 years, the U.S. has only a limited window of opportunity to act.’

Tai Ming Cheung, a co-author of the report and a professor at the University of California, San Diego, noted that China ‘is now doubling down’ on AI, telling the U.S. Naval Institute’s news website that the Chinese ‘think they have a real chance to lead’ in this sector.

Since the AI tool ChatGPT was releasee in November, many observers both in and out of government have highlighted the strategic importance of tracking China’s focus on developing AI to boost industrial productivity and its economy — the world’s second largest.

In April, the Politburo, the CCP’s decision-making body, said China should prioritize the ‘development of artificial general intelligence’ and ‘create an ecosystem for innovation’ while simultaneously trying to mitigate the risks of AI, according to a statement issued by state media outlet Xinhua summarizing the Politburo’s quarterly meeting on the country’s social and economic development.

According to the accounting and consulting firm PwC, China will benefit significantly from AI, which is set to contribute to a 26% increase in China’s gross domestic product by 2030.

However, the People’s Daily noted that China still faces challenges, such as a lack of compute-in-memory chips, tough ethical questions, intellectual property rights, and potential issues for personal privacy and online fraud.

‘The evolving nature of AI also poses certain risks,’ the commentary read. 

The Chinese government mouthpiece also called on governments and industry leaders to address the risks associated with AI.

Chinese leaders are deliberating over a new law to target telecoms and online fraud using AI face swapping technology.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has reportedly reached out to China about working together on international norms for AI in weapons systems — a potential new area of both cooperation and competition amid tensions between the two countries.

Former President Donald Trump is extending his lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in New Hampshire, with newcomers in the 2024 Republican primary for president also earning support from voters in the state, according to a new poll.

The Saint Anselm College Survey Center poll, released Tuesday, gathered responses from 1,065 registered Granite State voters from June 21 – 23 and found that Trump sits at 47% support from voters in the state.

Following Trump, DeSantis received 19% support, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie received six percent support, former United Nations Ambassador Gov. Nikki Haley garnered five percent support, and South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim Scott received four percent support.

Other contenders for the Republican presidential nomination — including entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former Vice President Mike Pence, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson — received two percent support from survey respondents.

Compared to a similar poll from Saint Anselm College earlier this year, support for DeSantis in New Hampshire has dropped 10 points and support for Trump has increased seven points. The poll from March found Trump to have 42% support, followed by DeSantis at 29%, Haley at 4%, and Ramaswamy at 3%.

If an election rematch between Trump and President Biden was held today, New Hampshire voters who took part in the poll said they would vote for Biden over Trump 49% to 40%. DeSantis is in the same boat, with voters in the state still saying they would support Biden over the Florida governor 49% to 40% among general election voters.

But Granite State voters said they believe a Biden-Trump matchup in 2024 signals that the system is broken. Fourteen percent of Republicans surveyed said they are somewhat more inclined than Democrats (6%) to believe such a match-up represents the best that each political party has to offer, but 83% disagreed overall.

As for age, 70% of respondents to the survey — including 50% of Democrats — expressed concern about the 80-year-old incumbent, while only 34% said they are concerned about the age of the 77-year-old former president.

Despite his polling numbers against Republicans, Biden remains in the clear among Democrats despite his primary challengers. Robert Kennedy Jr. received 9% support in the latest survey, while Marianne Williamson, who sought the party’s nomination for president in 2020, picked up 8% support.

The Saint Anselm College Survey Center poll — conducted via online surveys — has a margin of error of +/- 3.0% with a confidence interval of 95%.

f

The Maine House voted Tuesday night to enact a bill to expand access to abortions, putting the proposal one final vote away from going to the governor for her signature.

The Senate, which supported the bill in an initial vote Tuesday, must cast a final vote on the legislation that’d give the state one of the least restrictive abortion laws in the country.

The House vote, 73-69, capped an emotional day that included demonstrators against the bill holding signs, singing hymns and chanting ‘kill the bill!’ in the State House hallways.

Current state law bans abortions after a fetus becomes viable outside the womb, at roughly 24 weeks, but allows an exception if a mother’s life is at risk. The bill would allow later abortions if deemed medically necessary by a doctor.

Opponents said the proposal goes too far.

‘This bill is so extreme that the very thought of it being enacted crushes my soul,’ said Rep. Tracy Quint, R-Hodgdon, one of about 30 lawmakers to speak on the House floor.

Rep. Katrina J. Smith, R-Palmero, who became the mother of a healthy daughter after being told her baby wouldn’t live, warned of the consequences of putting ‘blind trust in doctors.’

Supporters, meanwhile, said the change was necessary to give mothers a choice in heartbreakingly rare circumstances when fatal anomalies are discovered later in a pregnancy.

‘How do we legislate the unimaginable?’ Sen. Jill Dusan, D-Portland, said Tuesday on the Senate floor. ‘We do so by making sure that those who face the unimaginable have the freedom they need to make the decision that is right for them.’

But Sen. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, said changes were unnecessary to the current law that he co-sponsored years ago and was signed into law by then-Republican Gov. John McKernan. ‘This bill represents a fundamental shift from the uneasy consensus we’ve had in Maine for the past 30 years,’ he said.

The votes just came days after the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that concluded women don’t have a constitutional right to an abortion, returning authority to the states.

The 21-13 Senate vote and the later vote in the House lacked the 11th-hour drama when Democrats hustled to ensure support before the bill was narrowly approved late last week in the House, passing 74-72 after the chamber took an hourslong break and the vote was held open for about 45 minutes.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills said during her reelection campaign that she was content with the existing abortion law, but she unveiled a proposal to expand abortion access in January in response to the case of a woman who had to travel to Colorado for an abortion after discovering 32 weeks into her pregnancy that her baby would not survive outside the womb.

Opponents feared that the governor’s bill would allow abortions to become rampant and that healthy babies that were viable outside the womb would be aborted.

Bishop Robert Deeley of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland called the bill ‘immoral’ and said it went against the wishes of hundreds of Mainers who testified against it at a 19-hour public hearing. He accused supporters of the bill of bowing to ‘whispers of special interests.’

House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross, sponsor of the governor’s bill, was targeted over the weekend with anti-abortion flyers calling her a ‘baby killer’ and chalk messages left outside her Portland home.

Portland police launched an investigation and the Christian Civic League of Maine condemned the tactics.

<!–>

–>

Members of an internal White House council President Biden established shortly after taking office are at odds with the administration over carbon capture technology which the president’s climate agenda largely hinges upon.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology — which involves separating CO2 emissions at fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial factories before transporting that gas via pipeline into a deep underground cavern where it is stored forever — is at the center of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent proposal regulating power sector emissions.

The EPA’s plan — proposed in May and which the agency expects to slash emissions by about 617 million metric tons through 2042 — forces electric power providers to slash pollution by about 90% over the next two decades. To achieve such emissions reductions, power plants must either adopt carbon capture or shut down. The EPA projects there will be no coal plants without the technology by 2035.

However, members and leaders of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC), tasked with providing policy recommendations, have loudly opposed CCS technology and characterized it as a false climate solution. And the council issued a report in May 2021 listing CCS and direct air capture as projects that won’t help communities.

‘President Joe Biden has been vocal about his commitment to environmental justice, but the administration must be willing to listen to those who will be most affected by potential solutions — or false solutions,’ Beverly Wright, a member of the WHEJAC and executive director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, wrote in a op-ed last year.

‘No matter how they tout the benefits of CCS, oil and gas companies are looking for another method to boost profits without consideration for the human or environmental cost,’ she continued. ‘Carbon capture is not a safe, sustainable solution. It will encourage growth of fossil fuel industries and continue the injustice of sacrificing communities of color for profits.’

Earlier this month, Wright issued a joint statement criticizing CCS alongside other environmental activists including WHEJAC co-Chair Peggy Shepard and fellow council members Maria Lopez-Nunez and Nicky Sheats. They said the EPA proposal would be ineffective at combating climate change and would only encourage continued reliance on fossilf fuels.

‘What is being proposed at the federal level is undermining wins achieved at the local and state levels to transition away from fossil fuels and harmful co-pollutants like particulate matter to a just and equitable energy economy,’ the joint statement said.

In addition, NDN Collective, whose climate justice campaign director Jade Begay sits on the WHEJAC, and the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, whose environmental health and justice program director Vi Waghiyi is on the WHEJAC, have also expressed skepticism about CCS adoption.

Also, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, whose senior strategist Miya Yoshitani is a member of the WHEJAC, signed onto a letter blasting CCS with more than 80 other eco groups in October.

‘CCS regularly fails to meet its promises, requires high use of electricity and water, puts communities at real risk of harm, and would prolong the production and use of fossil fuels that are driving the climate emergency and polluting communities,’ the letter stated.

The debate over carbon capture has recently come to a head in Louisiana where state officials are requesting federal approval to assume primacy in regulating CCS projects. Proponents of the request argue it would streamline permitting for such projects and help overcome the backlog of billions-of-dollar CCS projects that have been held up.

In May, the EPA proposed a rule approving the state’s request and has since accepted public feedback during online webinars. The rule would specifically enable the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources to monitor permitting for Class VI wells which inject carbon underground.

‘Is it utterly without risk? Nothing is. But we recognize what the primary risks are and anybody who’s trying to get a permit through our office, they’re going to have to address those to our satisfaction,’ Patrick Courreges, a spokesperson for the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, told Fox News Digital.

Courreges added that the state’s regulations are actually more restrictive than the EPA’s and would better protect the environment. But because the state can devote more people to review each proposed project, he said it was in a position to green-light projects quicker.

Mark Zappi, the executive director of the Energy Institute of Louisiana at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, lauded CCS technology for its effectiveness and pushed back on criticism.

‘Many of the technologies or the processes that are going to be used have been around since the 1970s, even before. So, the engineering community the energy community has a lot of experience with it,’ Zappi told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘The pipelines — there are well over 5,000 miles of carbon dioxide pipeline in the United States.’

‘When you get to the far, far right, they don’t believe in global warming. They don’t think any CO2 ought to be taken out. So, they’re not a fan of any of this,’ Zappi continued. ‘When you go to the far, far left, they want to eliminate fossil fuels. In my opinion, the heart of a lot of what you hear about ‘greenwashing’ is they feel that CCS, and it will in many ways, will extend the life of fossil fuels.’

‘The reality, to maintain society, we’re not going to get rid of fossil fuels. It’s not a switch. There’s no magical group that’s holding off on a green technology that’s viable. Most of these green technologies just are too expensive or have some other flaws.’

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The Biden administration is facing pressure from lawmakers and experts who are calling for an immediate moratorium on offshore wind development until its effects, including on military operations, navigation and radar systems, are studied.

Earlier this week, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., industry stakeholders and experts met with officials from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a top federal watchdog agency, to discuss their concerns about offshore wind development. According to Smith — who represents a district along the Atlantic coast home to a naval weapons depot and where offshore wind projects have been proposed — more than an hour of the three-hour meeting was devoted to military impacts.

The GAO recently agreed to investigate the wide-ranging effects of offshore wind development after Smith, fellow New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., and several other lawmakers called for a probe. The investigation will look, in part, into wind turbines’ impact on military operations and radar.

‘It will impact marine radar through sonic interference. It causes disruptions, shadowing,’ Smith told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘There’s going to be nothing but disruption. Radar will not be credible. So, you’ll have ships of every size and variety — military ships, ocean and cargo ships, including carrying oil coming into my state for refineries — that potentially could run into other ships or into even some of these windmills themselves.’

‘The Coast Guard, too, will not be able to do search and rescue, particularly in bad weather, because of the gross interference that will happen,’ he continued. ‘There’s also an impact on the Navy’s … Integrated Undersea Surveillance System, and it will interfere with that.’

Smith added that wind turbines could ultimately have the effect of blocking detection of U.S. adversaries’ movement via submarine.

He blasted the Department of Defense for its handling of the issue and lack of transparency, noting he has spoken with anonymous defense officials who have told him wind development is being prioritized over national security.

Smith’s meeting with the GAO, meanwhile, comes months after the Navy and Air Force assembled a report in early October with maps showing large swaths of acreage blocked off in federal waters near North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. The report characterizes four offshore wind lease areas proposed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as ‘highly problematic’ and two others as ‘requiring further study.’

In addition, various studies and analyses have been published in recent years, suggesting wind turbines could pose a significant effect on radar. A 2022 study from the National Academy of Sciences concluded wind development would create ‘interference with marine vessel radar, which is a critical instrument for navigation, collision avoidance, and use in search and rescue missions.’

Finnish and Taiwanese military brass have also expressed concerns about the effects offshore wind farms could have on their defense capabilities.

‘They’re willing to sacrifice anything for green energy,’ Meghan Lapp, the fisheries liaison for Rhode Island-based fishing company Seafreeze and one of the participants in Smith’s meeting with the GAO, told Fox News Digital. ‘I have seen national security overridden. I’ve seen maritime safety overridden. I’ve seen domestic food production overridden. I’ve seen concerns of coastal businesses and communities overridden.’

‘Every single entity and every single concern — valid concerns, not made up, not hyperbole or anything — are just overridden. And the answer is what? ‘Well, we need to do this because of climate change.’’

In 2011, Congress established the so-called Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse, which created a central authority within the Department of Defense to oversee alternative energy projects’ compatibility with military activities.

According to Lapp and Smith, the entity has ultimately overridden base commanders’ concerns and consistently backed green energy development.

‘Now, we have an entire coast that’s going to be weakened by this terrible decision,’ Smith said. ‘I’ve never been more angry and disappointed in the military’s acquiescence and silence.’

As part of its climate agenda, the Biden administration has aggressively moved forward with rapid offshore wind development across millions of acres of federal waters, primarily along the East Coast. Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden outlined goals to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, the most ambitious goal of its kind worldwide.

In May 2021, BOEM approved the 800 megawatt Vineyard Wind project 12 miles off the coast of Massachusetts, marking the first-ever large-scale offshore wind approval. Then, in November 2021, the agency approved the 130-megawatt Southfork Wind project off the coast of Long Island, New York, the second commercial-scale offshore project.

A number of other proposed offshore wind projects along the Atlantic coast are under development and in the federal permitting stage. The Biden administration has also leased hundreds of thousands of acres to energy corporations and plans future lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California.

‘The Department of Defense is committed to protecting American national security interests, which includes reducing reliance on foreign energy sources and expanding domestic offshore wind energy development,’ Pentagon spokesperson Kelly Flynn told Fox News Digital. ‘The DoD continues to work with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, industry and other stakeholders to identify the best locations for offshore development, as we have done in every call area in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico.’

‘This discussion includes impacts to the environment, shipping, fishing, viewshed and more and includes mitigation strategies to overcome the impacts,’ Flynn continued. ‘This is one step in the process and DoD will continue to collaborate with the stakeholders in order to promote compatible offshore wind energy development.’

‘The Department has been an active participant in similar leasing plans off the coasts of New York/New Jersey, the Gulf of Mexico, California and Oregon,’ she said. ‘In each case, we’ve been able to find suitable areas for development, and we expect to do the same in the central Atlantic.’