Biden prepares to just accept gun violence after successive shootings

Here's what you need to know:

Recognition…Stephen Speranza for the New York Times

President Biden is expected to unveil on Thursday a series of executive measures his government will take to combat gun violence, weeks after 18 people were killed in mass shootings and the gun legislation issue for a multiple government crackdown The focus is on crises.

The measures come from the fact that Mr Biden was under pressure to take action against armed violence, but made it clear that it is currently not possible to enforce the legislation by blocking the Republican opposition.

On Wednesday officials reiterated that the president's planned actions with Merrick Garland, the attorney general, were only a starting point and that the president would continue to urge Congress to take action.

On Thursday, the Justice Department will announce three initiatives to combat gun violence.

A rule would help stop the proliferation of so-called ghost rifles – kits that can be used to assemble a weapon from parts. White House officials would not say whether the government would ultimately attempt to classify ghost rifles as firearms, only that the Department of Justice wanted to deter criminals from buying kits that contain all of the components and instructions for assembling one.

A second rule would make it clear that a weapon marketed as a stabilizing strut that converts a pistol into a short barrel rifle is subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act. The shooter in the Boulder, Colorado tragedy used a pistol with an armrest last month to make it more stable and accurate.

Finally, the Justice Department will also publish model statutes for states. The legislation would allow police and family members to petition a court for the temporary removal of firearms from anyone who could pose a danger to themselves or others. While Mr Biden cannot pass national red flag law without Congress, officials said the aim of the guidelines is to make it easier for states that want to adopt it.

The Justice Department is also planning to publish a comprehensive report on the arms trade, which it has not carried out since 2000.

Biden's government also intends to invest in evidence-based violence interventions in the community, although officials have not given a dollar figure for the investment. Mr. Biden's infrastructure plan calls on Congress to invest $ 5 billion over eight years in supporting evidence-based programs to intervene against community violence.

With Congress unlikely to pass gun laws, the White House has emphasized the importance of executive action as a more realistic starting point for delivering on Mr Biden's election pledges to end gun violence. Susan E. Rice, the Director of the Home Affairs Council, was the single point of contact for the administration for the upcoming executive action.

David Chipman testifies during a House Justice Committee hearing on assault weapons in the Capitol in 2019.Recognition…Andrew Harnik / Associated Press

President Biden will appoint David Chipman, an adviser to the gun control organization founded by former representative Gabrielle Giffords, to head the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau (A.T.F.), said two people with knowledge of the move.

The appointment of Mr. Chipman, a former agent with the A.T.F. – The contested agency charged with enforcing gun laws – comes after a recent wave of mass shootings and weeks of pressure from the Giffords group and other organizations that Mr Biden select a director.

While Mr Chipman's selection came as welcome news to gun control groups, few Senate nominees proposed by Mr Biden had any better chance of confirmation, though his allies believe that given the fear of the recent massacres, he could possibly get a narrow approval in Boulder , Colorado and Atlanta.

Mr. Chipman's prior advocacy of an offensive weapon ban and other restrictions could make it difficult for him to garner the 51 votes required to confirm it, and the Senate Republicans have potential A.T.F. blocked successfully. Directors much more in line with their pro gun base.

But Mr Biden and his allies believe they found an ideal candidate in Mr Chipman, a gun owner who worked in the office for 25 years, served on his SWAT team, and worked on high profile arms trafficking cases.

"You know, we are fortunate enough to have Gabby shot with a gun," Chipman said in a 2019 podcast about the 2011 attack on Ms. Giffords in which she was shot in the head and six people died. He added that if she had been shot by an assault rifle, she would not have survived.

The nomination is expected to be officially announced on Thursday, along with several other executive measures Mr Biden is planning to tackle the proliferation of gun violence this year.

The choice “is exactly what A.T.F. needs after six years without a permanent director, ”said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and proponent of stricter gun regulation.

The contribution was not easy to fill.

According to two gun control activists who are in close contact with the administration, one of the main problems with choosing a director is that potential candidates are reluctant to sign up for a nomination that is likely to perish in defeat.

Art Acevedo, the former Houston police chief, recently accepted an offer to head the Miami Police Department.

For the past two decades, Republicans, with the support of Conservative Democrats, have been embedding spending bills designed to curtail the office, including restrictions on unannounced inspections of arms dealers, bans on documenting stocks of guns stores, and a particularly harmful provision that prevents the agency from doing so to digitize their records.

In 2006, the N.R.A. Confederate legislature made a provision that would change the position of A.T.F. Director, who had previously been a political appointment, subject to Senate confirmation.

As a result, only one director, Obama nominee B. Todd Jones, has been confirmed in the last 15 years.

Former President Donald J. Trump withdrew the appointment of a former top police union official, Chuck Canterbury, after the candidate refused to completely rule out the extension of background checks and other safeguards.

The appointment was previously reported by The Associated Press.

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, with reporters at the Capitol last month.Recognition…Anna Moneymaker for the New York Times

Senator Joe Manchin III. From West Virginia, a major moderate Democrat, on Wednesday reiterated its vows to protect the filibuster in the evenly-divided Senate and suggested that his party repeatedly use a quick budget process to advance legislation without a Republican vote.

Mr Manchin has long been one of the staunchest defenders of the 60-vote threshold required to end the debate in the upper chamber, even if he threatens to derail key items on President Biden's agenda. Despite previously playing with potential procedural hurdle reforms, he has repeatedly beaten questions about what could lead him to vote for the total abolition of the filibuster, despite the fact that the Democrats have worked out various scenarios in which he could give way.

In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post, Mr. Manchin vowed that "there is no circumstance in which I will vote to eradicate or weaken the filibuster," and urged party leaders to compromise the legislation rather than to try to bypass the Republican opposition. It currently takes ten Republicans to join all Democrats in a 50:50 Senate to pass key bills in the regular process.

The comments gained momentum after a key Senate official issued guidance on Monday that could allow Democrats to resume accelerated budget reconciliation at least one more time before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, after being used to the nearly 1.9 Pass Mr. Biden's trillion-dollar Pandemic Relief Bill without a Republican vote.

"We will not solve our nation's problems in a Congress if we only look for party-political solutions," wrote Manchin. "Instead of focusing on eliminating the filibuster or shortening the legislative process through budgeting, it's time to get our work done."

Pressure has increased on the Democrats to further push the boundaries of what a majority party can do unilaterally when it has control over both houses of Congress and the White House to fulfill a number of election promises. While the Democrats don't yet have the votes to abolish the filibuster, they have explored other avenues to ensure Mr Biden's agenda becomes law.

In the last few days, the frequency of reconciliation has also been increased, which means that certain budget laws can be voted on by both chambers with a simple majority. While Senate MP Elizabeth MacDonough seems to agree with the Democratic argument that they can use the process multiple times in a fiscal year, it remains unclear how and when they could use these potential opportunities and for what.

While not immediately refusing to support any other application of the rapid reconciliation process, Mr Manchin urged both parties to cooperate and compromise on critical legislation, including infrastructure and tax changes. Any kind of reconciliation would require Mr. Manchin – and virtually every Congress Democrat – to remain united behind the legislation.

"Senate Democrats must avoid the temptation to abandon our Republican colleagues on important national issues," wrote Manchin. "However, the Republicans have a responsibility to stop saying no and to get involved in finding a real compromise with the Democrats."

While there are still many unanswered questions about how Democrats might seize another chance at reconciliation, both Mr Biden and the leaders of Congress insist that they want to work with Republicans to reach compromises, particularly on the sweeping proposal for a $ 2 trillion infrastructure just unveiled by the White House.

"There are things that we work on together – some of them we passed, others we will pass," said Biden on Wednesday. He suggested that a group of 10 Republican senators willing to compromise on his pandemic relief plan weren't doing enough to get negotiations off their original $ 618 billion plan. “If they had come up with a plan that would have done most of it, and it was a billion – three or four, two or three – that would have allowed me to have parts of everything that was in it I've been willing to compromise, but they haven't, ”he added.

The group of 10 Republican senators later issued a joint statement Wednesday evening arguing that the proposal was "an initial offer to the White House to open bipartisan negotiations" that was instead "rejected as totally inadequate to its own" Justify decision. " -alone strategy. "

A Palestinian worker watches as he prepares bags of food at an aid distribution center operated by the United Nations aid agency in a refugee camp in Gaza City.Recognition…Mohammed Salem / Reuters

The Biden government announced Wednesday that it would return hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid to the Palestinians. This is the strongest move yet to reverse President Donald J. Trump's policies on the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The package, which will provide $ 235 million to Palestinians, will be used for humanitarian, economic and development efforts in the region. It is part of President Biden's attempt to restore US relations with Palestinians, which were effectively halted when the Trump administration reshaped American policy increasingly in favor of Israel.

"US. Foreign aid to the Palestinian people serves important interests and values ​​of the US," said Foreign Minister Antony J. Blinken in a statement on Wednesday. "It offers urgent help for the needy, promotes economic development and supports the Israeli-Palestinian understanding, security coordination and stability. "

A senior Palestinian official welcomed the move to resume aid, but said the Palestinian leadership still hopes Mr Biden will reverse several other actions implemented by the Trump administration.

"This is a positive, important and constructive step towards correcting the Palestinian-US relationship that the Trump administration has destroyed," said Ahmad Majdalani, the Palestinian Authority's social development minister.

Much of the initial responses from Israeli officials centered on Mr Biden's decision to resume funding for the United Nations Relief Organization (UNRWA), which supports approximately 5.7 million people of Palestinian origin in these areas and in neighboring countries. Mr Blinken said the package would include $ 150 million in humanitarian aid channeled through UNRWA.

Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, condemned the Biden government's decision to restore funding for UNRWA, saying its activities were "anti-Israel and anti-Semitic in nature".

The package would provide an additional US $ 75 million for economic development programs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and US $ 10 million for peacebuilding operations carried out by the US Agency for International Development.

In a joint statement, Idaho Senator Jim Risch and Texas Representative Michael McCaul, both Republicans, criticized the fact that aid was restored "without any concessions from the Palestinian Authority."

Khaled Elgindy, director of the Middle East Institute's Palestine Program, said that while the move was "a very positive development" focused on reversing Trump policy in the region, it was not yet part of a larger effort to promote it of Palestine seemed to be the most difficult subjects such as discussions about a two-state solution.

"Your goal is to undo as much of the Trump legacy as you can," he said, "and hope that this will be enough to stabilize the problem, not worsen it."

Former President Donald J. Trump spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida in February.Recognition…Erin Schaff / The New York Times

The Republican political arm of the House inserts a pre-checked box to enroll donors to repeat monthly donations – and warns them in threatening language of the consequences of unsubscribing: "If you clear this box, we must tell Trump that You are a DEFECTOR. "

The language appears to be an effort by the Republican National Congress Committee to increase the volume of recurring donations, which are very lucrative, while also invoking the popularity of former President Donald J. Trump with the conservative grassroots. Donors who do not proactively uncheck the box will have their credit cards billed or bank accounts deducted for donations each month.

The pre-checked box is the same tactic and tool that resulted in an increase in refunds and credit card complaints when used by Mr. Trump's campaign last year, according to a research published over the weekend by the New York Times. The Trump operation made the language in its pre-checked boxes increasingly opaque with the upcoming election. Consumer advocates and user interface designers said the pre-checked boxes were a "dark pattern" designed to deceive Mr. Trump's supporters.

The Trump operation has issued more than $ 122 million in reimbursements in the 2020 cycle, representing 10.7 percent of the campaign by Mr Trump, the Republican National Committee and their joint accounts. Refunds increased when the campaign began pre-checking boxes. At one point each week, donations were withdrawn and a "money bomb" was introduced that doubled a contribution.

The pre-checked box is a tool from WinRed, the nonprofit Republican fundraising platform founded in 2019. The ActBlue democratic platform also allows some groups to pre-screen recurring donation boxes, including the House Democrats' political arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Bulwark, a conservative anti-Trump news site, first reported on another version of a pre-checked box that the N.R.C.C. was used on Wednesday which said, “Check this box if you want Trump to run again. Uncheck this box if you are NOT standing with Trump. "

Political parties and campaigns typically test multiple language options to determine which network has the most donors. The "DEFECTOR" warning will be displayed on the donation page accessed from the N.R.C.C. is linked.

VideoLoading the video playerPresident Biden said he was ready to compromise on his $ 2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal, but pushed back critics who have argued that parts of the plan are not necessary infrastructure, including expanding broadband internet.recognitionRecognition…Amr Alfiky / The New York Times

President Biden on Wednesday signaled his openness to "negotiating in good faith" over his $ 2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal – but bluntly warned Republican opponents of the plan that he "would not be ready to do nothing".

Mr Biden pushed back against critics who have argued that his sweeping plan includes elements – such as renovating veterans' hospitals, expanding broadband internet access, and poverty reduction programs – that fall outside the traditional definition of infrastructure.

"To automatically say the only thing infrastructure is, a freeway, a bridge, or whatever, it's just not rational," said Biden, who urged Republicans to ask working-class Americans "what infrastructure." they need to build a better life. " can breathe a little ”instead of rejecting his suggestion straight away.

"I don't know why we don't understand," added Mr Biden, who was flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris as he made remarks in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and repeatedly deviated from script to deliver a passionate, sometimes angry, pleading Support.

Mr Biden's speech was openly addressed to Republicans in Congress, led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader who has been almost unanimously opposed to the plan.

But he also targeted red and swing state voters who support projects in their communities, and spoke to moderate Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia who have proposed approving a corporate tax increase, but one that is not entirely as big as the 28 percent suggested by Mr. Biden. The current rate is 21 percent.

When asked if he would be willing to compromise the corporate rate in his plan – perhaps 25 percent – Mr Biden replied, "I am ready to negotiate," adding that he is willing to accept new proposals that will pay off for him would plan “wide open”.

"Debate is welcome, compromise is inevitable, change is certain," he said. “Over the next few weeks, the Vice President and I will meet with Republicans and Democrats to hear from everyone. And we will listen, we will be open to good ideas and good faith negotiations. But here's what we're not open to: We won't be open to doing nothing. "

The Democrats on Capitol Hill were bolstered Monday by a Senate Parliament ruling that would allow the Democrats to take advantage of the fast-paced budget vote process for the second time this fiscal year. The ruling means Democrats can essentially reopen the February budget and add guidelines to pass the infrastructure package or other initiatives. Choosing the train would protect them from a filibuster that would require 60 votes to overcome.

Treasury officials said Wednesday that Mr. Biden's full tax plan included that too Eliminating tax subsidies for fossil fuel companies would generate $ 2.5 trillion in new revenues over the next 15 years.

Penn Wharton's bipartisan budget model at the University of Pennsylvania estimated Wednesday that Mr. Biden's tax plans would raise $ 2.1 trillion over a decade. Analysts for the group estimate that the plan would spend $ 2.7 trillion over the decade and that the programs it invests in would help the economy function more productively.

However, they calculate that the combination of tax hikes and additional government debt created by the plan would slow economic growth slightly, leaving the economy 0.8 percent smaller in 2050 than it would otherwise have been.

Treasury officials said Wednesday they were still reviewing the analysis but disagreed with its conclusion and insisted that Mr Biden's plans will spur growth.

Recognition…Al Drago for the New York Times

The Biden administration on Wednesday announced its plan to revise its corporate income tax and made a series of proposals that would require large corporations to pay higher taxes to fund the White House's economic agenda.

If the plan went into effect, it would generate revenues of $ 2.5 trillion over 15 years. This would lead American companies, who have long had quirks in the tax laws that allowed them to lower or eliminate their tax bill, to make big changes, often by shifting profits overseas. The plan also includes efforts to combat climate change and proposes replacing fossil fuel subsidies with tax incentives that encourage clean energy production.

Some companies have expressed a willingness to pay more taxes, but the overall scope of the proposal is likely to have an impact on the business community, which has benefited from loopholes in tax law and a loose approach to enforcement for years.

Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said during a briefing with reporters Wednesday that the plan would end a global "race to the bottom" of corporate taxation.

"Our tax revenues are at their lowest level in generations," said Ms. Yellen. "If they keep falling, we will have less money to invest in roads, bridges, broadband, and research and development."

The plan announced by the finance department would raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. The government said the increase would align the US corporate tax rate more closely with other advanced economies and reduce inequality. It would also stay lower than it was before Trump's 2017 tax cuts, when the tax rate was 35 percent.

The White House also proposed substantial changes to several international tax rules, contained in the Trump tax cuts, which the Biden administration described in the report as guidelines that make "America last" by benefiting foreigners. The biggest changes include doubling the de facto global minimum tax to 21 percent and tightening it to force companies to pay the tax on a larger income range in each country.

This has created concern, particularly in the business world. Joshua Bolten, executive director of the Business Roundtable, said in a statement earlier this week that "the US is facing a major competitive disadvantage".

However, on Wednesday some companies expressed their openness to the new proposals.

Lyft president and co-founder John Zimmer told CNN that he supported Mr Biden's proposed corporate tax rate of 28 percent.

"I think it is important to invest in the country and the economy again," said Zimmer.

The Biden government also made it clear that the proposal was something of an opening offer and that there will be room for negotiation.

Trade Minister Gina Raimondo on Wednesday urged lawmakers not to simply reject the plan and invited them to a "discussion" – even if she suggested that the basic parameters of the proposal remain in place.

"We want to compromise," she said during a briefing at the White House. "What we can't do, and what I beg the business community not to do, is to say," We don't like 28. We go away. We don't argue. "This is unacceptable."

The plan would also repeal provisions enacted during the Trump administration that the Biden administration said failed to curb profit shifting and business reversals where an American company merged with a foreign company and became its subsidiary, thereby making its headquarters for taxes was effectively relocated abroad purposes. It would replace them with stricter anti-inversion rules and stricter penalties for so-called profit stripping.

The plan does not focus solely on the international side of corporate tax legislation. Attempts are made to take action against large, profitable companies that pay little or no income tax and still signal large profits with their "book value". To reduce this inequality, companies would have to pay a minimum 15 percent tax on book revenues that companies report to investors, which is often used to assess shareholder and executive payouts.

Judge Stephen G. Breyer said it was a mistake to view the Supreme Court as a political institution. "Class =" css-11cwn6f "src =" https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us / politics / 07new-washington-briefing-breyer1 / merlin_147522732_53dcbc50-964d-4b0e-a259-0e9ac376ff8d -articleLarge.jpg? quality = 75 & auto = webp & disable = upscale "srcset =" https: // static / 04/07 / us / politik / 07new-washington-briefing-breyer1 / merlin_147522732_53dcbc50-964d-4b0e-a259-0e9ac376ff8d-articleLarge. jpg? Quality = 90 & auto = webp 600w, https: //static01.nyt.com/images/2021 /04/07/us/politics/07new-washington-briefing-breyer1/merlin_147522732_53dcbc50-964d-4b0e-a259-0e9ac376ff8d-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 1024w, https: //static01.nyt.com/ 2021/04/07 / us / politik / 07new-washington-briefing-breyer1 / merlin_147522732_53dcbc50-964d-4b0e-a259-0e9ac376ff8d-superJumbo.jpg? Quality = 90 & auto = webp 2048w "size =" ((min-width: 600px) und (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 60vw, 100vw "decoding =" asyncRecognition…Doug Mills / Die New York Times

Richter Stephen G. Breyer warnte am Dienstag, dass die Ausweitung des Obersten Gerichtshofs das Vertrauen der Öffentlichkeit in ihn untergraben könnte, indem er die Botschaft sendet, dass es sich im Kern um eine politische Institution handelt.

Der 82-jährige Richter Breyer ist das älteste Mitglied des Gerichts und das hochrangige Mitglied seines dreiköpfigen liberalen Flügels. Er machte seine Kommentare in einer langen Rede, die an Mitglieder der Community der Harvard Law School gestreamt wurde. Er ging nicht auf die Möglichkeit ein, in den Ruhestand zu treten, und gab Präsident Biden die Möglichkeit, eine neue Justiz zu benennen, während der Senat von Demokraten kontrolliert wird. Aber sein Vortrag hatte eine valedictory Qualität.

Er untersuchte die Art der Autorität des Gerichts und sagte, sie sei untergraben worden, indem Richter als konservativ oder liberal eingestuft worden seien. Er unterschied zwischen Recht und Politik und sagte, dass nicht alle Spaltungen am Gericht vorhersehbar seien und dass diejenigen, die es seien, im Allgemeinen durch Unterschiede in der Rechtsphilosophie oder in den Auslegungsmethoden erklärt werden könnten.

Progressive Gruppen und viele Demokraten waren wütend darüber, dass die Republikaner des Senats 2016 Richter Merrick B. Garland, den dritten Kandidaten des Obersten Gerichtshofs von Präsident Barack Obama, nicht angehört hatten. Diese Wut wurde durch die eilige Bestätigung von Justiz Amy Coney Barrett, Präsident Donald J. Trumps dritter Kandidatin, im vergangenen Herbst noch verstärkt.

Die Liberalen haben Herrn Biden gedrängt, mit dem zu antworten, was sie als entsprechenden Hardball bezeichnen: die Anzahl der Sitze auf dem Platz zu erhöhen, um die jetzt konservative 6-zu-3-Mehrheit zu überwinden. Herr Biden war unverbindlich, hat jedoch eine Kommission eingesetzt, um mögliche Änderungen der Struktur des Gerichts zu untersuchen, einschließlich der Erweiterung und Auferlegung von Fristenbeschränkungen für die Richter.

Richter Breyer sagte, es sei ein Fehler, das Gericht als politische Institution zu betrachten. Mit scheinbarer Befriedigung stellte er fest, dass "das Gericht keine Fälle angehört oder entschieden hat, die die politischen Meinungsverschiedenheiten bei den Wahlen 2020 betrafen". Und er listete vier Entscheidungen auf – über das Gesetz über erschwingliche Pflege, Abtreibung, Volkszählung und junge Einwanderer -, bei denen das Gericht Konservative enttäuscht hatte.

Diese Entscheidungen wurden alle mit 5 zu 4 Stimmen getroffen. In allen von ihnen umfasste die Mehrheit den Obersten Richter John G. Roberts Jr. und den damals vierköpfigen liberalen Flügel des Gerichts, um Mehrheiten zu bilden.

"Ich hoffe und erwarte, dass das Gericht seine Autorität behält", sagte Richter Breyer. „Aber diese Autorität hängt ebenso wie die Rechtsstaatlichkeit vom Vertrauen ab, einem Vertrauen, das das Gericht von Rechtsgrundsätzen und nicht von der Politik leitet. Strukturelle Veränderungen, die durch die Wahrnehmung politischen Einflusses motiviert sind, können diese Wahrnehmung nur nähren und dieses Vertrauen weiter untergraben. "

Recognition…Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

In the immediate aftermath of the assault on the Capitol that left five dead, irate Democrats vowed to punish Republicans for their roles in perpetuating or indulging former President Donald J. Trump’s fiction of a stolen election, which motivated the mob that attacked the building.

There was talk of cutting off certain Republicans entirely from the legislative process, denying them the basic courtesies and customs that allow the House to function even in polarized times.

Democrats introduced a series of measures to censure, investigate and potentially expel members who, in the words of one resolution, “attempted to overturn the results of the election and incited a white supremacist attempted coup.” But the legislation went nowhere and to date no punishment has been levied against any members of Congress for their actions related to Jan. 6.

What has unfolded instead has been something of an uneasy détente on Capitol Hill, as Democrats reckon with what they experienced that day and struggle to determine whether they can salvage their relationships with Republicans — some of whom continue to cast doubt on the legitimacy of President Biden’s victory.

Republicans have felt the breach as well. Representative Michael Waltz, Republican of Florida, who did not vote to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory but joined a lawsuit challenging the election results, said feelings ran raw after the mob violence at the Capitol.

“I had some candid conversations with members that I have a good relationship with. There was a lot of heated emotion,” Mr. Waltz said. Still, he said, “I didn’t experience a freeze.”

He recently teamed up with Representative Anthony G. Brown, Democrat of Maryland, to round up 70 Republicans and 70 Democrats for a letter to the Biden administration laying out parameters for an Iran nuclear deal.

The dilemma of whether to join such bipartisan efforts is particularly charged for centrist Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, who won office on the promise of working with Republicans but say they find it difficult to accept that some of those same colleagues spread lies that fueled the first invasion of the Capitol since the War of 1812.

Adding to the tensions, most Republicans insist that they did nothing wrong, arguing that their push to invalidate the election results was merely an effort to raise concerns about the integrity of the vote. Some have reacted angrily to Democrats’ moves to punish them.

A temporary shelter for unaccompanied migrant children in Homestead, Fla., in 2019." class="css-11cwn6f" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-brief-separation/07new-washington-brief-separation-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale" srcset="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-brief-separation/07new-washington-brief-separation-articleLarge.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 600w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-brief-separation/07new-washington-brief-separation-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 1024w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-brief-separation/07new-washington-brief-separation-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 2048w" sizes="((min-width: 600px) and (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 80vw, 100vw" decoding="asyncRecognition…Wilfredo Lee/Associated Press

The parents of 61 migrant children who were separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border by the Trump administration have been located since February, but lawyers still cannot find the parents of 445 children, according to a court filing on Wednesday.

In the filing, the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union indicated slow progress in the ongoing effort to reunite families that were affected by a policy to prosecute all undocumented immigrants in the United States, even if it meant separating children from their parents.

The update in the reunification efforts comes as the Biden administration struggles to address a growing number of migrants seeking entry into the United States at the border with Mexico, including many children being held in jail-like facilities for longer than the law permits because of overcrowding.

Of the 445 remaining children, a majority are believed to have parents who were deported, while more than 100 children are believed to have parents currently in the United States, according to the court filing. The government has yet to provide contact information that would help locate the families of more than a dozen children.

Though the court filing says that U.S. agencies and the A.C.L.U. continue to work together to reunite the families, the effort has proved to be more difficult as time passes. The initial searches began years ago, under the Trump administration, after the policy of family separation was rescinded in the summer of 2018.

Only a fraction of the roughly 2,700 children who were initially separated under the policy still remain, and President Biden has indicated that reuniting those remaining children with their families is a priority. During his first week in office, Mr. Biden signed an executive order creating a task force led by Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, to focus on reuniting families.

Advocates for families separated at the border during the Trump administration continue to pressure the president to move faster to reunite them. Lee Gelernt, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who has waged a lengthy legal battle against Mr. Trump’s separation policy, said some progress had been made but much more needed to be done.

“We and the Biden administration have enormous work yet to do if we are going to fix the terrible abuses of the Trump administration’s family separation practice,” he said.

Senator Ted Cruz’s book was intended to highlight his conservative legal philosophy." class="css-11cwn6f" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-cruz/merlin_185443242_df75bf40-dc18-4522-b3b7-c74725c9c0ce-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale" srcset="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-cruz/merlin_185443242_df75bf40-dc18-4522-b3b7-c74725c9c0ce-articleLarge.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 600w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-cruz/merlin_185443242_df75bf40-dc18-4522-b3b7-c74725c9c0ce-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 1024w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-cruz/merlin_185443242_df75bf40-dc18-4522-b3b7-c74725c9c0ce-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 2048w" sizes="((min-width: 600px) and (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 60vw, 100vw" decoding="asyncRecognition…Michael A. McCoy for The New York Times

A nonpartisan government watchdog group on Wednesday filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee accusing Senator Ted Cruz of using campaign funds to generate profits from a book he wrote in 2020.

The Campaign Legal Center claims that Mr. Cruz, a Republican of Texas, improperly used donations to his campaign committee to spend $18,000 on Facebook ads promoting “One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History.”

The book, put out by Regnery Publishing, a conservative publishing house, was intended to highlight Mr. Cruz’s conservative legal philosophy — but it also provided him with a hefty $400,000 advance and 15 percent of the royalties on sales, according to his 2019 Senate financial disclosure forms.

“When elected officials use campaign contributions to advance their personal bottom lines, they compromise the integrity of the political process,” the group wrote in a letter to the ethics committee.

Such cases seldom result in serious penalties. The Federal Election Commission has often negotiated with candidates to repay their campaigns for questionable expenses, while the ethics committee has been reluctant to take action on all but the gravest violations.

The fact that Mr. Cruz profited from each sale of the book, and the fact that his campaign paid for promotion of it, triggered the complaints, said Brendan Fischer, the Campaign Legal Center’s director of federal reform.

“This is a clear-cut case — there is a lot of precedent,” he said in an interview. “Federal campaign law is clear that campaigns are not for the personal use of a candidate and can’t be used to promote the sale of a candidate’s book for which they receive a royalty.”

Chris Gober, a lawyer representing the committee that paid for the ad, Ted Cruz for Senate, said Mr. Cruz denied the claims.

“Senator Cruz’s campaign has closely followed Federal Election Commission laws and guidelines when promoting his book, and he has not received any royalties whatsoever for these book sales,” Mr. Gober said in a statement forwarded by a Cruz spokeswoman.

The book’s Amazon page suggests it sold well, promoting “One Vote Away” as having been on best-seller lists from The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Publisher’s Weekly, The New York Times and Amazon.

Mr. Fischer said that the claim that Mr. Cruz received no royalties is contradicted by Mr. Cruz’s own Senate disclosures, which provide a detailed royalty structure that gave him “15 percent of net sales” and a lesser amount for each book sold at a discount.

The Facebook ad cited in the complaints directed buyers to purchase the books through links to three online retailers. It is not clear how those sales would not have generated royalties, unless Mr. Cruz had devised a complex system to divert them to a special pool, he added.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz did not respond to a request to clarify Mr. Gober’s statement or answer any of the questions raised by Mr. Fischer.

A pharmacist preparing to administer a dose of the Moderna vaccine at a Walmart in West Haven, Conn. Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, is offering electronic verification apps to patients vaccinated in its stores." class="css-11cwn6f" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-passports/merlin_183902190_cd3ecedf-1b49-4255-9f54-838377330fa1-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale" srcset="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-passports/merlin_183902190_cd3ecedf-1b49-4255-9f54-838377330fa1-articleLarge.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 600w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-passports/merlin_183902190_cd3ecedf-1b49-4255-9f54-838377330fa1-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 1024w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/politics/07new-was-passports/merlin_183902190_cd3ecedf-1b49-4255-9f54-838377330fa1-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 2048w" sizes="((min-width: 600px) and (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 80vw, 100vw" decoding="asyncRecognition…Mike Segar/Reuters

Around the country, businesses, schools and politicians are considering “vaccine passports” — digital proof of vaccination against the coronavirus — as a path to reviving the economy and getting Americans back to work and play.

But the idea is raising charged legal and ethical questions: Can businesses and schools require employees, customers and students to provide proof that they have been vaccinated? And can governments mandate vaccinations — or stand in the way of institutions that demand proof?

Legal experts say the answer to all of these questions is generally yes, though in a society so divided, politicians are already girding for a fight. Government entities like school boards and the Army can require vaccinations for entry, service and travel — practices that flow from a 1905 Supreme Court ruling that said states could require residents to be vaccinated against smallpox or pay a fine.

Private companies, moreover, are free to refuse to employ or do business with whomever they want, subject to only a few exceptions, ones that do not include vaccination status. (States could probably override that by enacting a law barring discrimination based on vaccination status.)

Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, is offering electronic verification apps to patients vaccinated in its stores. Universities like Rutgers, Brown and Cornell have already said they will require proof of vaccination for students this fall. The Miami Heat this week became the first team in the N.B.A. to open special “vaccinated only” sections. Airlines including JetBlue and United are testing the CommonPass app, which lets users display testing and vaccination records.

New York has rolled out “Excelsior Pass,” billed by the state as “a free, fast and secure way to present digital proof of Covid-19 vaccination” in case reopening sports and entertainment venues require proof of attendees’ status.

But some states are moving in the opposite direction. On Tuesday, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas became the latest Republican governor to issue an executive order barring state agencies and private entities that receive funds from the state from requiring proof of vaccination.

The Biden administration has said it will not impose a federal vaccine-credential system. Still, officials are facing pressure to at least set standards for privacy and accuracy.

“The government is not now nor will we be supporting a system that requires Americans to carry a credential,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. “There will be no federal vaccinations database and no federal mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential.”

She promised that the administration would provide guidance about privacy, discrimination and other concerns.

Supporters of President Donald J. Trump rioted inside the Capitol in January." class="css-11cwn6f" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/05/us/politics/05new-washington-briefing-trump-lawsuit1/merlin_182076882_260104e2-fe7a-42fb-9ba7-ad576103720e-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale" srcset="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/05/us/politics/05new-washington-briefing-trump-lawsuit1/merlin_182076882_260104e2-fe7a-42fb-9ba7-ad576103720e-articleLarge.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 600w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/05/us/politics/05new-washington-briefing-trump-lawsuit1/merlin_182076882_260104e2-fe7a-42fb-9ba7-ad576103720e-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 1024w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/05/us/politics/05new-washington-briefing-trump-lawsuit1/merlin_182076882_260104e2-fe7a-42fb-9ba7-ad576103720e-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 2048w" sizes="((min-width: 600px) and (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 80vw, 100vw" decoding="asyncRecognition…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

A group of 10 Democratic members of Congress on Wednesday joined a federal lawsuit against former President Donald J. Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, claiming that they violated a 19th-century statute when they tried to prevent the certification of the presidential election on Jan. 6.

Representatives Karen Bass of California, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Hank Johnson, Jr. of Georgia, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Barbara Lee of California, Jerrold Nadler of New York, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, and Maxine Waters of California on Wednesday all joined the lawsuit that originally also named the Proud Boys, the far-right nationalist group, and the Oath Keepers militia group.

But since the official dissolution of the Proud Boys organization in February, the suit now names as defendants the Van Dyke Organization L.L.C., Warboys L.L.C. and Jazu Transport L.L.C., which it describes as successors to the Proud Boys.

The legal action accuses Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani and the other groups of conspiring to incite a violent riot at the Capitol, with the goal of preventing Congress from certifying the election. It contends that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, an 1871 statute that includes protections against violent conspiracies that interfered with Congress’s constitutional duties.

The N.A.A.C.P. originally brought the suit on behalf of Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi in February, adding to a host of legal problems that Mr. Trump is facing since leaving office. A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Jason Miller, said at the time that Mr. Trump did not “plan, produce or organize the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse.”

Mr. Thompson and the other plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the lawsuit that was filed in Federal District Court in Washington, as well as injunctive relief. The dollar amounts would be determined by a jury at a trial, an N.A.A.C.P. spokesman said.

All 10 of the lawmakers joining the suit were in the House gallery when pro-Trump rioters breached the Capitol on Jan. 6. Many of the lawmakers who were in the building that day continue to suffer from the trauma of hearing gunshots and seeing broken windows and the faces of rioters on the other side of the doors, the N.A.A.C.P. said. That includes nightmares and difficulty sleeping.

“As I sat in my office on Jan. 6 with rioters roaming the hallways, I feared for my life and thought that I was going to die,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement, even contemplating whether he would want to be buried with his family in Memphis or at the Congressional Cemetery.

“This violence was anything but spontaneous,” Mr. Nadler, who sought refuge in the Judiciary Committee’s office for hours, said in a statement. “It was the direct result of a conspiracy to incite a riot, instigated by President Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.”

Vice President Mike Pence spoke on Jan. 4 at a church in Milner, Ga." class="css-11cwn6f" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-briefing-miller/merlin_181967604_3df2300c-c4cd-461c-ac6c-58932f8390fc-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale" srcset="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-briefing-miller/merlin_181967604_3df2300c-c4cd-461c-ac6c-58932f8390fc-articleLarge.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 600w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-briefing-miller/merlin_181967604_3df2300c-c4cd-461c-ac6c-58932f8390fc-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 1024w,https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/04/07/us/07new-washington-briefing-miller/merlin_181967604_3df2300c-c4cd-461c-ac6c-58932f8390fc-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp 2048w" sizes="((min-width: 600px) and (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 80vw, 100vw" decoding="asyncRecognition…Nicole Craine for The New York Times

Former Vice President Mike Pence is making a string of public moves for the first time since the Trump administration ended, with a planned speech in South Carolina and a new advocacy group that could help him burnish his image among Republicans ahead of a possible presidential campaign of his own in 2024.

Aides to Mr. Pence on Wednesday announced the formation of Advancing American Freedom, a group with a series of allies of Mr. Pence and former President Donald J. Trump either running it or on the board. In a statement to the Washington Examiner, Mr. Trump gave the group his blessing.

Mr. Pence, a former governor of Indiana, was aligned with the traditional conservative wing of the Republican Party until Mr. Trump became the presidential nominee in 2016 and asked him to be his running mate. Mr. Pence became Mr. Trump’s most loyal advocate and adviser over four years.

But in the final weeks of the administration, Mr. Trump pressured Mr. Pence to refuse to certify President Biden’s Electoral College win in Congress on Jan. 6 and send the votes back to states, something the former vice president told Mr. Trump he did not have the authority to do.

When Mr. Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 during the certification, some chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” The vice president was whisked to safety from rioters who, video has shown, were closer than previously realized.

Also on Wednesday, Simon & Schuster announced that it would publish Mr. Pence’s autobiography as part of a two-book deal. The memoir, which does not yet have a title, will cover his Christian faith and political career beginning in Indiana through Mr. Biden’s inauguration. The book is expected to be published in 2023.

Simon & Schuster profited significantly from political books during the Trump administration, including best selling memoirs by John Bolton, the former national security adviser, and Mary L. Trump, Mr. Trump’s niece. The day after the Capitol riot, the publisher canceled plans to release a book by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, saying it “cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat.”

Mr. Pence appears to be trying to craft a separate identity from Mr. Trump while also focusing on the policies of the administration, including related to immigration laws, as he weighs a run for president.

Mr. Pence is also giving a speech to the Palmetto Family Council in South Carolina later this month, his first major event since leaving office. While Mr. Trump has been giving multiple interviews to conservative outlets, Mr. Pence has been abiding by the tradition of past officeholders in lying low.

Elsewhere, another close adviser to Mr. Trump, Stephen Miller, is creating a group that will file lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s policies in court. Mr. Miller worked informally with Republican attorneys general while Mr. Trump was in office on suits that would challenge policies enacted by Mr. Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama.