Politico

Special counsel Robert Hur jolted the presidential campaign Thursday with a withering assessment of Joe Biden’s mental acuity, drawing the president’s biggest political liability firmly into the public conversation.

While Biden’s age is a major concern for voters in polling, top Democrats have danced around the issue, keeping their concerns mostly private. But Hur’s description of Biden, 81, in an official report as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” may force a new reckoning for the president.

Investigators found insufficient evidence to charge Biden for mishandling classified documents during his time as vice president but wrote his memory “appeared to have significant limitations” and that “he did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died” in 2015. Biden could not remember when he was vice president or the details of a debate about sending additional troops to Afghanistan, they said.

That scathing description came just as Biden’s aides were trying to explain away the president’s most recent verbal gaffes — in which he mixed up the heads of state and recalled recent conversations with world leaders who died long ago.

During a pair of New York fundraisers on Wednesday night, Biden twice described conversations he said he had in 2021 with European leaders at the G7 meeting in the U.K., which took place just months after the U.S. Capitol insurrection. At both Manhattan events, Biden said that former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who died in 2017, had asked him about the Jan. 6 riot and his reaction if people stormed the British Parliament and killed officers “to stop the election of a prime minister.”

And just days earlier, during a campaign event outside of Las Vegas, Biden mixed up François Mitterrand, the former French president who died in 1996, for French President Emmanuel Macron.

Democrats have defended Biden but also questioned the age and fitness of Biden’s likely Republican rival, Donald Trump, himself facing an indictment over his handling of classified materials.

Beyond his recent high-profile mix-up of Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, Trump, 77 has repeatedly said he is running against Barack Obama, and not Biden, and that he feared that the nation may soon enter World War II, a conflict that has been over for nearly 80 years.

Biden’s mistakes underscore what critics say are the most persistent political threats to the president’s reelection bid: his age and the fear among voters that he is not mentally fit to hold office again.

“If you turn on Fox News, they’re talking about a bumbling, fumbling Joe Biden. If you go on TikTok, Instagram, there are tons of videos making fun of his age,” said a Democratic donor adviser, granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. “It’s just consistently out there, so the more this happens, the more it feeds it.”

Then came Thursday’s release of the special counsel report. It noted investigators found insufficient evidence to charge the president for mishandling classified documents during Biden’s time as vice president. But it also said that Biden’s memory “appeared to have significant limitations” and that “he did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died” in 2015. And it said that Biden could not remember when he was vice president or the details of a debate about sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

After the report was released, White House lawyers disputed Hur’s characterizations of Biden’s memory, and argued that he had gone outside his scope and remit. They said he was gratuitous in his focus on the president’s memory. Republicans were biting. Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), GOP Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) in a joint statement, said the comments on Biden’s memory were among the report’s “most disturbing parts.”

“A man too incapable of being held accountable for mishandling classified information is certainly unfit for the Oval Office,” they added.

Polls have consistently shown deep voter concerns about Biden’s age. A new NBC poll released this week found a combined 76 percent of voters say they have major (62 percent) or moderate (14 percent) concerns about Biden lacking the necessary mental and physical health to be president for a second term. Perhaps most worrisomely for the president, 81 percent of independents and 54 percent of Democrats say they have major or moderate concerns about Biden’s fitness for a second term.

On whether they have the same concerns about Biden’s likely GOP opponent, Donald Trump, the poll found 48 percent of voters said they did.

The former president also has made a series of recent gaffes. When he confused Haley for Pelosi, it prompted Haley, his lone remaining GOP primary rival, to suggest that Trump was “in decline” and no longer up for the job.

Before the release of the special counsel report, the White House was asked about the president’s misstatements about the foreign leaders — and dismissed them as nothing more than slips. “As it relates to the names and what he was trying to say, many people, elected officials, many people, you know, they can misspeak sometimes,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday.

Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz argued “it is very clear what will matter most to voters” in November.

“Like we did in 2020, we’ll remain focused on those issues that matter to families and how it’s only because of President Biden’s deep experience that Democrats up and down the ballot are able to run on such a historic and popular agenda,” Munoz said in a statement.

Biden has previously made other errors involving the deceased. Most infamously, he mistakenly called out for Rep. Jackie Walorski at a September 2022 event, though the Indiana Republican had died in a car crash the month before. Last year, Biden mixed up Chinese President Xi Jinping with Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese leader who died in 1997.

Both Biden and Trump “are vulnerable to age-related mistakes,” said Dan Sena, a Democratic consultant who led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018. “But I don’t completely buy into the ageism argument against either of them — that making gaffes will decide this. It’ll come down to the larger meta-narrative about those who are looking backward and those who are looking forward.”

Even so, “I don’t envy the management position they’re constantly in,” Sena added. Biden’s “ability to connect is one of his greatest strengths, but at the same time, it exposes some of his vulnerabilities.”

Democrats argue that the president’s age is baked in for most voters, who are keenly aware of his advanced age. They point to Biden’s victory in 2020, when he was 77, as evidence he has already overcome the issue.

“If [Republicans] spend all this money on saying he’s old and his age makes him out-of-touch, who does that move? Who is on the fence on that issue? People have already made up their minds on this,” said Kevin McKeon, a Democratic consultant.

The Biden campaign has, at times, used humor to try to neutralize the issue, a strategy Democratic donors have urged him to lean into. On his 81st birthday, Biden’s campaign posted a photo of the president in front of a blazing birthday cake, joking about his “146th birthday.”

Others, like Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh, believe that “the president has to just go on being the president, showing he has the vigor to be the president,” but that means “some of these mistakes are going to occasionally happen.”

Biden’s pitch in 2020 was that he was the one Democrat who could beat Trump and the incumbent president has privately suggested that he believes that holds true again for this November.

But his age prompted a presidential primary challenger. Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) launched a long-shot bid against Biden that is entirely centered on how the president’s age weakens Democrats’ chances in beating Trump.

“I’m attacked for being honest and saying the quiet part out loud — the part DC insiders only do in private,” Phillips posted on X, including a clip of Biden from earlier this week, when he appears to forget the name of Hamas, when answering a question about the Israel-Hamas conflict.

“But shame on all of you pretending everything is ok. You are leading us — and him — into a disaster, and you damn well know it,” Phillips wrote.

Those in Biden’s inner circle note that fatigue forces Biden to expend more energy combating his lifelong stutter — and contribute to verbal slips.

But while many in Biden’s orbit bristle at the narrative about his age, they also believe they can neutralize it. They argue that voters don’t make their decisions about whom to support based on age, and instead are more concerned about a candidate’s values and accomplishments.

Biden’s advisers also make the case that he was slammed by Trump and his GOP allies over his age and mental fitness during the 2020 campaign, and that they overcame those attacks in part by pointing to his experience. Now, they said, they can point to major legislative victories as part of an updated plan as well as a robust travel schedule that compares favorably to his predecessors and includes two recent stops in war zones.

The special counsel investigating President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents has concluded that no criminal charges are warranted in the matter and said they wouldn’t be even if the Department of Justice didn’t have a policy barring the prosecution of sitting presidents.

That conclusion was revealed in a 345-page report that the Justice Department sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday. The report criticized Biden’s conduct, saying he improperly took classified material related to the 2009 Afghanistan troop surge and shared classified information with the ghostwriter of his 2017 memoir. The report also includes photos of classified documents in insecure places, including a cardboard box in Biden’s garage and a filing cabinet under his TV.

An independent investigation into classified documents found at the home of President Joe Biden and a think tank office he used has concluded without apparent charges, according to a letter sent to Congress on Wednesday.

The letter from Attorney General Merrick Garland to congressional leaders did not include a copy of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report, which is being reviewed by a legal privilege team. It provided few details about the investigation but made no mention of charges.

The attorney general said Hur filed his final report Monday and the bulk of it is expected to be made public soon.

“I am committed to making as much of the Special Counsel’s report public as possible, consistent with legal requirements and Department policy,” Garland wrote in the one-page letter.

Garland said the release of the report was waiting on a legal privilege review by Biden’s White House Counsel’s Office.

White House spokesperson Ian Sams said the review should be complete later this week.

The attorney general appointed Hur in January 2023 to conduct an independent investigation into the discovery of classified records in the garage at Biden’s Delaware residence and in files at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington.

Hur was named as special counsel about two months after Garland tapped former federal prosecutor Jack Smith to serve as special counsel to investigate the handling of classified documents by former President Donald Trump at his home in Florida and elsewhere.

About 300 classified documents were found at Trump’s home in Palm Beach. There were about 20 at the Biden-related sites.

Hur and his team interviewed Biden over two days in October.

The following month, officials speaking on condition of anonymity said no criminal charges were expected in the case.

Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden promised to remake the federal judiciary. With less than a year left to deliver, Democratic senators worry they’re missing their last chance to do that, especially as funding fights increasingly drain their time.

Even if Biden wins reelection, the party has an uphill battle to retain control of the Senate. And it’s especially vital for the party as judges across the country decide key cases that could threaten reproductive rights, walk back environmental regulations and undo labor protections.

Biden crossed a new threshold this last week, notching his 175^th confirmed judge and eclipsing former President Barack Obama’s numbers under his first term. It reflects Democrats’ focus on refilling the federal judicial ranks, but they’re scrambling to catch the record set by former President Donald Trump.

And election years only get harder. Typically reliable judicial votes like Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) will be unwilling to make any risky moves, as the two defend their Trump-friendly turf. Plus, any cooperation from Republicans is likely to fade, if not disappear altogether, especially if they feel confident Trump will win the election.

“We need a full court press,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee. “We may need to stay weekends. But we need to get the job done and fill those vacancies and I’m determined to support any measures necessary to do it.”

Here’s what to look for as the latest chapter of the judicial confirmation wars heat up ahead of a hotly-contested presidential election cycle.

Can Democrats keep up with the Trump pace?

Republicans locked in 234 conservative-leaning jurists for lifetime appointments under Trump’s presidency, including three to the Supreme Court. Democrats would need about 60 more confirmed judges to catch up.

That’s doable, but pretty tough in an election year. And Democrats know it. When asked if they could catch Trump’s total, Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) bluntly replied: “I don’t know.”

The White House sees especially strong opportunities for nominations in states like California, New York, Pennsylvania and Arizona, where there are two Democratic senators. That makes it easier to obtain so-called blue slips — something that says the senators from that state approve the judicial nominations — a longstanding tradition for picking judges that Biden is loath to break.

“When you look at our track record on red states, you see a world in which we could hit 235,” said a senior White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

There are currently 57 federal judicial vacancies throughout the country, according to data maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Only 19 of those vacancies have pending nominees. And Biden started off with a big disadvantage: Just 1.1 percent of circuit court positions and 6.4 percent of district court spots were vacant in January 2021, compared to 9.5 percent on circuit courts and 12.8 percent on district courts when Trump took office in January 2017, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Not to mention, judges require the Senate’s most precious resource: floor time. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has faced a litany of pressures on that front, given seemingly never-ending spending fights. It’ll only grow more scarce this year, with longer breaks for senators to go back and campaign in their districts.

And if Democrats lose Senate control in November — a distinct possibility — it means they might not be able to significantly refill judicial ranks for quite a while. They could do some confirmations in the lame duck months; in 2020, the Republican Senate confirmed 13 judges even after Trump lost the election.

Republicans acknowledge Democrats could come close to Trump’s record, with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) describing Durbin’s method as “a conveyor belt.”

“He’s been single minded about it. And I imagine that won’t change, he’ll still try to keep doing that right up till the time of the election,” Hawley said.

Will Republicans keep playing nice?

Trump broke from the typical blue slip process, nominating judges to circuit court posts even if home-state senators didn’t approve. Progressives and the Congressional Black Caucus pleaded with Biden to go even further — pushing him to abandon blue slip requirements on district court nominations — which would allow them to get more liberal judges in red states.

The former Judiciary Committee senator didn’t bite. That means some of his ability to fill judge slots is at the mercy of Republicans, who can easily block a nominee in their state by not returning a blue slip.

Still, Biden has had success with getting red-state senators to sign off. The Senate has advanced and confirmed judicial nominees from Indiana, Texas, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma and Louisiana in recent weeks. Other senators from places like Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska and Florida have also signed off on picks, allowing the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on their selections.

Asked if the blue slip tradition was working, Durbin said simply: “Yes.” And Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) credited Judiciary ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) as being “pretty constructive” in trying to build bipartisan support for red-state nominees.

To be sure, the pace of red-state nominations is still much too slow for many Democrats, who blame Republicans for refusing to engage in good faith.

“We are in active discussions with a number of Republican senators who have vacancies in their states,” the White House official said. “There are some senators who are holdouts, but thankfully, those senators are an overall minority.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said his state is trying to reach consensus on several nominations. Other Republicans like Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, whose state has a number of vacancies, indicated they’re not looking to play ball.

“We’re still probably in the early innings,” Schmitt told POLITICO. “We’ll see. We’ll see.”

Do the judicial wars resonate during election season?

Democrats have seen electoral success in their focus on reproductive rights, but it’s unclear that will extend to the selection of judicial nominees who support those rights — particularly when it doesn’t involve the Supreme Court.

But the party is going to try, as its chances of keeping the Senate next year look difficult, at best. Welch acknowledged that typical voters aren’t likely to be tracking district and appellate judge vacancies in their state, but said Democrats can turn it into an “animating issue.”

“They get that the courts wield enormous power and that the damage from Dobbs is something Democrats care deeply about,” he said.

Meanwhile, Republicans have had more success in messaging the importance of judicial confirmations to their electorate. Conservatives see the Trump overhaul of the federal judiciary as one of the biggest wins of his first term.

“One of the big issues on the ballot is [that] trying to have a more conservative judiciary comes with having a Republican,” Graham said. “If you want to make sure you get conservative judges, win elections.”

And some Republicans have already signaled they’re looking to hold out until after the election, hoping their party pulls off the double Senate-White House win. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, mocked some of the picks Biden has tried to make in his state.

“They send us some judges that aren’t qualified to judge a pie contest,” he said.

The bipartisan border security deal that’s headed for a pivotal first vote this week would pair $20 billion in emergency spending with policy changes that would amount to the most stringent immigration bill endorsed by a Democratic president in recent memory.

President Joe Biden is calling the bill the “toughest and fairest” in decades — and progressives are calling it a return to the Trump era.

The 370-page bill is already in jeopardy, with House Republican leaders vowing that they’ll never vote on the long-negotiated package. They are joined by conservative senators who argue that the $118 billion-plus legislation, which also sends tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, has too many loopholes to effectively stop spiking migration at the southern border.

Progressives in both chambers of Congress are also turned off by the deal, lamenting that it amounts to an embrace of Donald Trump-style border policies and an undue shrinking of the asylum system designed to protect vulnerable immigrants.

Yet Biden is throwing his weight behind the plan, which he called “essential” to making the U.S.-Mexico border “more orderly, secure, fair, and humane.” It would deliver far more emergency cash than his October request for less than $14 billion in border funding as illegal border crossings from Mexico reached an all-time high in December, with nearly 250,000 arrests.

As members of both parties scrap over the substance of the bill, here’s a rundown of what’s really in it:

Detention

Immigration and Customs Enforcement would get almost $8 billion in emergency funding, rivaling the agency’s regular annual budget of about $9 billion. The emergency funding would include more than $3 billion for increased detention capacity.

Asylum

The plan would set a goal of speeding up the review of asylum claims, striving to let no cases last more than six months — often by allowing asylum officers to close out a claim rather than going through immigration courts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would get nearly $4 billion to help shoulder that new workload, including for hiring more than 4,300 asylum officers.

The measure would require asylum seekers to show greater proof to seek refuge in the U.S. and would ensure they are allowed a lawyer if they are facing rapid deportation. All unaccompanied children under 14 years old would also be granted lawyers during removal proceedings, covered by an infusion of $350 million for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Immigrant advocates quickly panned the proposal, with the ACLU arguing that it would “eviscerate” longstanding protections, and the National Immigrant Justice Center stressing that it would make asylum “largely un-obtainable for those who are permitted to request it at ports of entry.”

‘Border shutdown’

The bill would force the Department of Homeland Security to shutter the border if daily illegal crossings top 5,000 migrants on average or 8,500 in a single day. Unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada wouldn’t count toward that total.

The administration could only reopen the border if encounters of illegal crossings drop to 75 percent of the number that initially triggered the closure.

DHS would also have the power to shut down the border if crossings average more than 4,000 a day for a week, and Biden has signaled he would aggressively use that authority.

During a “border shutdown,” many people trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border would be quickly deported. But exceptions would be made for unaccompanied minors and people who meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Torture rules.

Ports of entry

DHS would still consider asylum requests from people crossing at legal ports of entry during those periods of “border shutdown” — just not in between those ports. Officials would have to process at least 1,400 asylum requests per day under those terms.

Local support

$1.4 billion would be disbursed to help states and local governments handle the influx of immigrants. In New York alone, Gov. Kathy Hochul earlier this month proposed spending $2.4 billion to provide services to migrants in her annual budget.

Border wall

The bill would force the Biden administration to use money already laid out for border barriers on the kind of steel fencing that Trump boasted during his tenure. That “bollard”-style border wall is supposed to be 18 to 30 feet high, with “anti-dig” and “anti-climb” features.

Afghan nationals

Permanent residency would be offered to Afghans who fled their home country and received special immigrant visas following the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2021. It would also allow Afghans who are considered U.S. allies to be deemed refugees and entitled to special State Department protections or immediate removal from Afghanistan.

Special immigrant status would also be offered to Afghans who are an immediate relative of a U.S. military member or veteran. Up to 2,500 special immigrant visas would be offered a year, for a total of up to 10,000.

Visas

The deal would free up 250,000 new visas over half a decade for people seeking to work in the U.S. or to join family members. It would offer work authorization to the children and spouses of people who have H-1B visas for specialized jobs that often require a bachelor’s degree, like tech and engineering work.

Immigrants awaiting visas would also be eligible for work if they have a U.S. citizen spouse or fiancé, or if their parent is the spouse or fiancé of a U.S. citizen.

Countering fentanyl

Folded into the border security deal is legislation aimed at beefing up anti-money laundering policies and sanctions, known as the Fend Off Fentanyl Act.

The Drug Enforcement Administration would receive more than $23 million to disrupt and disband Mexican cartels trafficking fentanyl across the southern border. And the State Department and USAID would see about $25 million for programs aimed at curbing the flow of the drug into the U.S.

‘Documented Dreamers’

Advocates and some Democrats quickly slammed the lack of relief or pathways to citizenship for so-called Dreamers, or undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. There’s also no new citizenship path for farm workers or other long-time residents who work in essential jobs.

The legislation does, however, aim to provide a pathway to citizenship for “Documented Dreamers,” or children who accompanied their parents on a work visa and who could potentially lose their place in line for a green card at age 21.

Work permits

Immigrants who apply for asylum could be eligible to work in the U.S. while they wait.

Border Patrol

Customs and Border Protection would get nearly $7 billion in emergency funding, a massive infusion above its current yearly budget of about $21 billion. That extra funding would include $723 million would cover increased hiring of Border Patrol agents and overtime pay.

The bill would also give DHS more flexibility in hiring Border Patrol agents and create yearly training requirements for non-lethal force, protecting due process and preserving civil and human rights.

Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of strikes in Iran in saying the U.S. will continue its military action in Iraq and Syria in response to last weekend’s deadly attack against U.S. troops in Jordan.

“I would just say, from the perspective of Tehran, if they chose to respond directly to the United States, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us,” Sullivan said to host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

The strikes come days after three U.S. soldiers were killed in a drone strike at the Tower 22 base in Jordan on Jan. 27. Airstrikes on Iranian militants in Iraq and Syria began Friday, and U.S. and British forces carried out another round of air and missile strikes on the Houthis in Yemen the following day.

When asked by “Fox News Sunday” host Shannon Bream if strikes within Iran are on or off the table, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said that “what you saw on Friday night was just the first round. There will be additional response action taken by the administration against the IRGC and these groups that they’re backing,” referencing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“And in terms of the attacks that we’ve suffered over recent months, [Biden] has increased aggressiveness of our responses to go more directly after the IRGC. And now, you saw what happened on Friday night, and I’m telling you, that’s not the end of it. There will be more,” Kirby said.

Sullivan appeared on multiple Sunday morning talk shows to discuss the status of the Biden administration’s response.

“We intend to take additional strikes and additional action to continue to send a clear message that the United States will respond when our forces are attacked, or people are killed,” Sullivan told NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker.

President Joe Biden first responded to the Iran-backed Houthis on Jan. 11, launching retaliatory strikes in Yemen in a move that enraged some members of Congress who disagreed with the president’s decision to take military action without first seeking congressional approval.

Kirby defended Biden’s decision to bypass Congress.

“The president is acting consistent with his Article II responsibilities as commander in chief. These are self-defense actions that we’re taking to prevent and to take away capability from these groups from targeting our troops and our facilities,” Kirby said.

“We believe they had good effect in reducing and degrading the capabilities of the militias and the Houthis, and, as necessary, we will continue to take action,” Sullivan said of the strikes.

Sullivan told ABC’s Stephanopoulos that Biden has informed military commanders that they need to be “positioned to respond to further attacks,” and they cannot rule out possible retaliation from the Houthis or militias in Iraq and Syria.

Following the strikes Saturday, the Iraqi government said that 16 people were killed, with some among those being civilians. A government spokesperson said that 25 people were also wounded in the attacks.

When asked by CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennen about reported civilian casualties, Sullivan said they are “continuing to assess the battle damage.”

“The targets that we hit, we believe with conviction, were valid military targets. They were ammunition depots and command and control centers,” Sullivan said.

President Joe Biden urged Congress to pass the bipartisan border deal unveiled Sunday night by Senate negotiators, ramping up the pressure on House Republicans who have repeatedly cast doubt on the bipartisan effort.

“Working with my administration, the United States Senate has done the hard work it takes to reach a bipartisan agreement. Now, House Republicans have to decide. Do they want to solve the problem? Or do they want to keep playing politics with the border?” Biden said in a lengthy statement.

The president’s response came not long after senators released the long-awaited $118 billion deal that would unleash stricter border and immigration policies, while sending billions of dollars to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as the southern border. The bill’s introduction kicks off a sprint as the White House and negotiators work to sell the deal to Republicans and progressives before it heads for a procedural vote in the Senate scheduled for Wednesday.

The president said the agreement unveiled Sunday includes some of the “toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades,” and one that he “strongly” supports. Biden asked Congress to pass the deal quickly — placing the fate of the deal in their hands. And he once again dared Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break comment amid GOP fissures in both chambers.

“I’ve made my decision. I’m ready to solve the problem. I’m ready to secure the border. And so are the American people,” the president said. “I know we have our divisions at home but we cannot let partisan politics get in the way of our responsibilities as a great nation. I refuse to let that happen.”

The border has long been a challenging issue for the Biden White House. The president has seen record crossings since taking office in 2021, further straining a southern border already weighed down by irregular migration and an overwhelmed asylum processing system. Border Patrol agents reported a record 302,034 encounters with migrants over the southern border last month, according to figures released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

In addition, the fast-approaching 2024 election has piled on the pressure for Biden to take action on the border — to address the crisis but to also win the messaging battle on an issue Republicans frequently used to rally their base. Former President Donald Trump, Biden’s likely 2024 opponent, is sure to continue his efforts to combust a deal, adding another layer to efforts to sell the border legislation.

“I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement,” Biden said. “Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately.”

Given the White House’s work with Senate Republicans on the legislation, Biden administration officials have focused their attention on Speaker Mike Johnson, casting him and House Republicans as the barrier to securing the border.

During the Senate talks, the Biden administration has tried to flip the long-held view — one borne out in public polling — that Republicans are better trusted on the issues of immigration and protecting the border. The administration argues the House GOP has blocked all of the president’s efforts to secure the border.

“Despite arguing for 6 straight years that presidents need new legal authority to secure the border, and despite claiming to agree with President Biden on the need for hiring more Border Patrol agents and deploying new fentanyl detection equipment, Speaker Johnson is now the chief impediment to all 3,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates wrote in a strategy memo released last week.

Johnson’s camp has blamed Biden for reversing Trump-era border regulations that led to an uptick in migrants crossing the border.

“In a desperate attempt to shift blame for a crisis their policies have induced, they have argued it’s a funding problem,” wrote Johnson spokesperson Raj Shah in a memo last month. “Clearly, they have no facts to back up their claim.”

National security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of strikes in Iran in saying the U.S. will continue its military action in Iraq and Syria in response to last weekend’s deadly attack against U.S. troops in Jordan.

“I would just say, from the perspective of Tehran, if they chose to respond directly to the United States, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us,” Sullivan said to host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

The strikes come days after three U.S. soldiers were killed in a drone strike at the Tower 22 base in Jordan on Jan. 27. Airstrikes on Iranian militants in Iraq and Syria began Friday, and U.S. and British forces carried out another round of air and missile strikes on the Houthis in Yemen the following day.

Sullivan appeared on multiple Sunday morning talk shows to discuss the status of the Biden administration’s response.

“We intend to take additional strikes and additional action to continue to send a clear message that the United States will respond when our forces are attacked, or people are killed,” Sullivan told NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker.

President Joe Biden first responded to the Iran-backed Houthis on Jan. 11, launching retaliatory strikes in Yemen in a move that enraged some members of Congress who disagreed with the president’s decision to take military action without first seeking congressional approval.

“We believe they had good effect in reducing and degrading the capabilities of the militias and the Houthis, and, as necessary, we will continue to take action,” Sullivan said of the strikes.

Sullivan told ABC’s Stephanopoulos that Biden has informed military commanders that they need to be “positioned to respond to further attacks,” and they cannot rule out possible retaliation from the Houthis or militias in Iraq and Syria.

Following the strikes Saturday, the Iraqi government said that 16 people were killed, with some among those being civilians. A government spokesperson said that 25 people were also wounded in the attacks.

When asked by CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennen about reported civilian casualties, Sullivan said they are “continuing to assess the battle damage.”

“The targets that we hit, we believe with conviction, were valid military targets. They were ammunition depots and command and control centers,” Sullivan said.

President Joe Biden on Saturday praised political leaders in Northern Ireland after Irish nationalist Michelle O’Neill was appointed the region’s first minister, ending a two-year standoff.

“I welcome and strongly support the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly at Stormont, and I commend the political leaders of Northern Ireland for taking the necessary steps to restore these core institutions,” the president said in a statement.

As a senator, Biden helped negotiate the Good Friday Agreement, which mostly ended decades of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and established a power-sharing arrangement in 1998.

On a visit to Belfast last year to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the agreement, Biden underscored the importance of the agreement and reaffirmed his continued support to the region.

Northern Ireland struggled for two years to form a government under rules that require its main pro-British party — the Democratic Unionist Party — to share power with Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin, O’Neill’s party.

Stormont, the region’s government seat, was practically frozen in a standoff after the DUP walked out in protest over trade issues related to Brexit.

“I look forward to seeing the renewed stability of a power-sharing government that strengthens the peace dividend, restores public services, and continues building on the immense progress of the last decades,” Biden said in his statement, nodding to the fact that power will be split between O’Neill and Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly, from the Democratic Unionist Party.

Though the two will be equals, O’Neill, whose party won more seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly in the 2022 elections, will hold the more prestigious title.

O’Neill becomes the the first leader from the Irish Catholic side of the divide.

“To all of you who are British and unionist, your national identity, your cultures, your traditions are important to me,” O’Neill declared to the unionist benches on the far side of the Stormont chamber.