U.S. intelligence officials reportedly believe that Iranian officials are considering a plan to assassinate the U.S. ambassador to South Korea in retaliation for the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian general, in January.

Politico reported Sunday that a U.S. government official who has seen the intelligence and another familiar with intelligence reports confirmed the reported plot, which if carried out would represent a major escalation of the simmering conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces.

Click Here: cheap Cowboys jersey

National Security Council (NSC) officials did not immediately return a request for comment on Politico’s reporting from The Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

One official told Politico that the intelligence indicated that an Iranian embassy in Pretoria, one of South Africa’s major cities, is involved in discussions about possibly assassinating Lana Marks, the U.S. ambassador in the country, and stated that the intelligence has become more specific about the plot in recent weeks.

Intelligence community officials including the Director of National Intelligene (DNI) and CIA declined to comment to Politico on the allegation, and Iran’s United Nations mission did not return the news outlet’s request for comment.

Information indicating that Iranian officials were considering assassinating Marks has reportedly circulated in the intelligence community for months, even as President TrumpDonald John TrumpCrowd aims ‘lock him up’ chant at Obama during Trump rally Nevada governor: Trump ‘taking reckless and selfish actions’ in holding rally Michigan lieutenant governor blasts Trump coronavirus response: He ‘is a liar who has killed people’ MORE has vowed to “deal with Iran within four weeks” should he win reelection in November.

Tensions between Iran and the U.S. have been at an all-time high for months, as U.S. officials have kept up a campaign of pressure against the Iranian government by rolling back sanctions previously relaxed under the U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement, signed under the Obama administration, which the Trump administration announced plans to exit in 2018.

A lawsuit against United Airlines alleges the company only allowed young, blonde crews to work charter flights for sports teams.

The practice discriminates against some workers and benefits others based “entirely on their racial and physical attributes, and stereotypical notions of sexual allure,” the two flight attendants who filed the lawsuit said, according to Bloomberg.

Sharon Tesler and Kim Guillory, who have more than six decades of work for the airline between them, said they have both tried in vain to get assigned to the flights in question numerous times.

ADVERTISEMENT

The plaintiffs said in the lawsuit that when they spoke to supervisors about being assigned to the flights, they were told they were not “preferred” lists. They claimed they eventually discovered the assignments were going to young, white and blonde attendants at lower levels of seniority.

The airline has “adopted and continues to implement procedures that are designed to ensure that young, white, blond/blue-eyed, female employees receive positions with the charter program, while more senior, and Black and Jewish employees such as plaintiffs, do not,” the lawsuit claims.

United denied the allegations in a statement to Bloomberg Saturday.

“While we cannot comment on this ongoing litigation, the flight attendants included in our sports team charter program are largely representative of our overall flight attendant population in regards to age and race,” the company said. “Importantly, flight attendant eligibility to work a charter flight is based solely on performance and attendance and has nothing to do with age, race or gender.”

The airline claimed its flight attendants on the athletic charter are 46 years old, on average, and have an average of more than 19 years’ tenure. The company also denied racial discrimination in the assignments, saying the charter flights had a higher proportion of African American flight attendants than the airline overall.

Click Here: cheap Cowboys jersey

The coronavirus is shining a spotlight on the digital divide in America and stalled efforts to expand rural broadband as a way to help millions of students both during the pandemic and beyond.

With the explosion of virtual education, along with the proliferation of telehealth and the need to work from home as businesses adhere to health orders, the lack of high-speed internet is hitting rural communities the hardest.

Experts say the longtime debate on Capitol Hill over infrastructure spending to build out broadband is unlikely to be solved quickly, posing a significant challenge for students whose households and schools lack the connectivity of other parts of the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Coronavirus has really shone the spotlight on something that we’ve been talking about for a really long time,” said Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association. “It’s a little bit of a ‘we’ve been telling you so’ moment, because I just feel like the last decade we’ve been talking to policymakers about how you build it out, what programs are important, what is working, how do you build a network that will be future-proof and robust enough to do all of the things you now see people doing.”

Congress has taken some action on boosting rural broadband to tackle education concerns, but legislation has yet to cross the finish line and make it to President TrumpDonald John TrumpCohen: ‘I guarantee that it’s not going to go well for whoever’ set up Woodward interview Pompeo says ‘substantial chance’ Navalny poisoning was ordered by senior Russian official Trump says he ‘almost definitely’ won’t read Woodward book MORE’s desk.

A House-passed coronavirus relief package in May, which the GOP-controlled Senate has declined to take up, would provide $4 billion in emergency broadband connectivity funding and other money for students and health care providers to access broadband. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellPessimism grows as hopes fade for coronavirus deal On The Money: McConnell shores up GOP support for coronavirus package | Biden unveils plan to penalize companies that offshore jobs | Trump faces fewer chances to bolster economic argument McConnell accuses Democrats of sabotaging COVID-19 relief talks MORE (R-Ky.) has said he doesn’t want to include infrastructure spending in a coronavirus relief package.

House Democrats later unveiled a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan in June, which would provide $100 billion for broadband. That measure has not been taken up in the Senate.

“Republicans haven’t been doing much to ensure connectivity during COVID. The House has already passed their bill that would ensure connectivity and it wasn’t even brought to a vote,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, which works to ensure everyone in the U.S. has access to affordable, high-quality broadband.

Nicol Turner Lee, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has argued that Congress must direct funding to bring broadband access to all public schools in the next coronavirus relief package before more vulnerable students get left behind.

ADVERTISEMENT

She stressed that while millions of students didn’t have access to both the internet and a device to do remote education, low-income African Americans, Latinos and first-generation college students were more likely to have only one device at home that is shared among multiple siblings.

“To make distance learning work, vulnerable families need emergency broadband relief, which can be done through increased investments in home broadband, schools, and libraries,” she wrote in a recent essay.

CTIA, which represents the U.S. wireless communications industry, stressed the need for funding for equitable access to broadband.

“We urge Congress to prioritize the millions of students still learning remotely and ensure that any COVID-19 relief package includes funding for the FCC to ensure students have the devices and connections they need to succeed,” said Kelly Cole, CTIA senior vice president of government affairs, referring to the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC said in May that 93.7 percent of Americans have broadband access, though critics have argued the methodology the agency uses underestimates that access. NTCA has said 86 percent of Americans have access to four or more broadband providers.

On improving those numbers, Bloomfield said congressional interest in the topic was much higher earlier on in the pandemic but has since subsided.

“For the first two months, everyone was like, ‘Wow, thank God I’ve got broadband.’ I worry a little bit that policymakers have taken their foot off the gas pedal and have just assumed, where it is, that’s great; where it’s not, it will come,” she said.

The Trump administration announced in June that the Department of Agriculture was investing $86 million in rural broadband service for eight states.

Christopher Yoo, a professor of law, communication, computer and information science at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said the pandemic has spotlighted the need for a comprehensive action plan to support education.

“The easy issue to see is that students need connectivity. But in addition, teachers need a high level of connectivity to support their students. Administrators need management systems to communicate with teachers and for teachers to input their grades,” Yoo said.

He added that teachers and students also need different types of training on virtual learning and systems need new security and privacy protocols.

The private sector has taken some steps to bolster broadband access during the pandemic.

ADVERTISEMENT

In March and April, T-Mobile put connectivity solutions in place for more than 775,000 students across more than 1,600 schools and school districts nationwide for remote learning. It announced earlier this month a $10.7 billion initiative aimed at delivering free internet connectivity to millions of underserved student households through partnerships with schools and school districts.

But any significant funding to fill in the rural broadband gaps would likely come from Washington.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden says Trump downplaying coronavirus threat was ‘almost criminal’ Democrats fear Biden’s lagging Latino support could cost him Trump courts Florida voters with moratorium on offshore drilling MORE’s plan for rural America includes investing $20 billion in rural broadband infrastructure, and President Trump has often expressed interest in pursuing a major infrastructure package, though no progress has been made in the past four years.

Yoo argued, though, that infrastructure hasn’t been enough of a focus on the campaign trail.

“During the last presidential election, the candidates from both parties talked about investments in infrastructure. Unfortunately, we did not see strong interest from either side of the aisle following that. Investing in infrastructure would be a terrific way to support the economy. It not only spends money but also lays the foundation for future growth and future jobs,” he said.

“But the discussions today have not been particularly strategic with how to intervene during the pandemic,” he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Complicating matters in some ways is the embrace of 5G technology, which has been lumped in with the debate over how to provide rural broadband. Experts like Yoo worry, however, that the new technology in and of itself would be an ineffective solution.

“Many policy advocates have used the pandemic as an occasion to push their favorite policy intervention. For example, 5G is sometimes regarded as a panacea, but it is not likely to increase connectivity in rural areas because of the short distances associated with the technology,” Yoo said.

While major broadband expansion may be months or even years down the line, depending on which party wins the White House and controls the Senate starting in 2021, Bloomfield is hopeful that the new school year will bring with it some momentum and pressure on lawmakers, most of whom are in their districts and hearing from constituents who are struggling with connectivity problems.

“I think that when they are home, which they are, this is what they hear. It is the parents of those school kids basically being like, what am I going to do? I can’t keep taking my kids to the McDonald’s parking lot,” she said.

Click Here: cheap all stars rugby jersey

The Trump administration’s decision to require the deferral of payroll taxes for federal workers and military members is creating more divisions around the president’s attempt to provide short-term economic relief for workers during the coronavirus pandemic.

While many private sector employers are not expected to defer their employees’ Social Security payroll taxes under Trump’s order, the federal government is making it mandatory for its employees. Federal agencies have indicated that the deferral will apply to all eligible civilian employees and service members.

The federal government is the most prominent employer to announce it’s participating in the deferral, and the administration’s move to defer the payroll taxes of executive branch workers increases the impact of an action by Trump that may have little effect beyond government.

ADVERTISEMENT

“That makes it much more salient,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee whose Northern Virginia district includes many federal workers.

Rep. Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinCongress must enact a plan to keep government workers safe Five takeaways from Fauci’s testimony GOP lawmakers comply with Pelosi’s mask mandate for House floor MORE (D-Md.), whose district also includes many federal employees, said, “A lot of people are attempting to just roll their eyes about the whole exercise because it’s so transparently political, but when you look at the number of people affected, a lot of people are going to come to rely on that money being there, which suddenly won’t be there.”

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCohen: ‘I guarantee that it’s not going to go well for whoever’ set up Woodward interview Pompeo says ‘substantial chance’ Navalny poisoning was ordered by senior Russian official Trump says he ‘almost definitely’ won’t read Woodward book MORE last month signed a memo on deferring payroll taxes in an effort to provide relief to workers amid stalled talks between the White House and lawmakers over coronavirus relief legislation.

Under the IRS guidance implementing the memo, employers can choose to stop withholding the 6.2 percent employee-side Social Security tax through the end of the year from the paychecks of workers making less than $4,000 biweekly. Employers would then recoup the money by increasing the amount withheld from workers’ paychecks in the first few months of next year.

Business groups have said that many of their members are not planning to participate in the deferral, because companies don’t want to have a situation where their employees are receiving smaller than normal paychecks next year. But the federal government has announced that civilian federal employees and members of the military will see their Social Security taxes deferred. More than 1 million civilian federal employees are expected to be affected.

“The President put forward this action to give relief to all Americans during this pandemic — as an employer, the Executive Branch is implementing the deferral to give our employees relief as quickly as possible, in line with the Presidential memo,” Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said in a statement last week.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lawmakers and unions representing federal employees are concerned about the deferral for federal workers and have been urging the Trump administration to allow federal employees to choose whether to have their own taxes deferred. They also have asked the administration to provide more information to federal workers about how the deferral will work, including about how the money will be recouped.

“We have already heard concerns voiced by numerous constituents who do not want their payroll taxes deferred only to have their paychecks substantially reduced at the end of the deferral period,” a group of Democratic House members from the Washington, D.C., area wrote in a letter publicized Wednesday.

Sen. Chris Van HollenChristopher (Chris) Van HollenSenators urge administration to make payroll tax deferral optional for federal workers Democrats divided over 1998 embassy bombing settlement Trump payroll plan would deplete Social Security by 2023: Administrator MORE (D-Md.), who took the lead on a letter from senators this week that also requested that the deferral be optional for federal workers, said Trump is forcing federal employees and military members “to participate in this program which is really a shell game.”

While lawmaker concerns about the deferral for federal employees have primarily come from Democrats, some Republicans also have raised concerns.

Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsJoe Lieberman endorses Susan Collins: ‘I’m a lifelong Democrat but I put my country first’ McConnell tries to unify GOP McConnell works to lock down GOP votes for coronavirus bill MORE (R-Maine) joined a number of Senate Democrats on the letter Van Hollen led, and a spokesperson for House Armed Services Committee ranking member Mac ThornberryWilliam (Mac) McClellan ThornberryOvernight Defense: Woodward book causes new firestorm | Book says Trump lashed out at generals, told Woodward about secret weapons system | US withdrawing thousands of troops from Iraq Top Armed Services Republican ‘dismayed’ at Trump comments on military leaders When ‘Buy American’ and common sense collide MORE (R-Texas) said the congressman is concerned about the consequences of the deferral and has asked the Defense Department for information about how it plans to ensure that military members and their families don’t face surprises next year.

Jacqueline Simon, policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, said many federal workers live paycheck to paycheck and could be hurt by getting less in take-home pay early next year. She also said that federal workers with security clearances who fall behind on their bills risk losing their clearances and their jobs.

“There’s many negative aspects for federal employees,” she said.

Trump has said he wants to forgive the deferred taxes if reelected, and the White House wants Congress to take action in this arena. It remains to be seen if the risk of smaller paychecks for federal employees and service members adds enough pressure on Congress for them to pass legislation to forgive the deferred taxes.

“While Democrats in Congress prioritize their political agenda over the American people by holding up much-needed relief, President Trump is taking action for those who have lost jobs or been financially impacted by the pandemic,” said Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella. “The President is an ardent supporter of our military, giving them the largest pay raise in a decade following the Obama-Biden administration, and for many Americans and service members, every dollar counts. That’s why President Trump is calling for the payroll tax deferral to be made permanent and why Congress must pass legislation to ensure the men and women of this great nation can begin their road to recovery from this global pandemic.”

Stephen MooreStephen MooreSunday shows – Stimulus, election preparations dominate Moore: May through August has been ‘the four biggest months of job creation’ in US history Economist Moore claims he had a ‘similar’ experience to Rand Paul following Trump convention speech MORE, a member of Trump’s economic recovery task force, expressed confidence that the deferred taxes would be forgiven regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden says Trump downplaying coronavirus threat was ‘almost criminal’ Democrats fear Biden’s lagging Latino support could cost him Trump courts Florida voters with moratorium on offshore drilling MORE wins the presidential election in November.

“It would be ridiculous to charge people a double payroll tax next year,” he said.

But Tony Reardon, national president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said federal workers can’t assume that Congress will forgive the deferred taxes.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The federal employees cannot count on that happening,” he said.

Democrats have expressed concerns that forgiving the deferred taxes could cause harm to Social Security. Republicans have said that legislation on forgiveness would also transfer money from the general fund to the Social Security trust fund, but Democrats still have questions.

Rep. John Larson John Barry LarsonMilitary members can’t opt out of Trump’s payroll tax deferral Five things to know about Trump’s payroll tax deferral House Democrat offers measures to block Trump’s payroll tax deferral MORE (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, said that a transfer from the general fund would shift Social Security away from being “an earned benefit paid for by the employer and the employee.”

Larson last week introduced two measures aimed at blocking the payroll tax deferral, and he said he hopes his legislation will get a floor vote later this month. In the meantime, Beyer said Trump has to do some damage control as commander in chief.

Beyer said that military members “have been more than a little upset” about a recent article in The Atlantic that said Trump had referred to U.S. troops killed in World War I as “suckers” and “losers.” He said that Trump has got “a big perception problem to climb” that may not be solved by a temporary increase in take-home pay.

Trump’s payroll-tax deferral memo was issued before The Atlantic story was published, and the White House has rejected the story.

Updated at 10:08 a.m.

Click Here: cheap all stars rugby jersey

Tech giant Oracle won a bidding war for control of the U.S. operations of the widely popular Chinese-owned app TikTok on Sunday, according to multiple news reports.

News of Oracle’s purchase came just minutes after Microsoft, a top competitor for the sale, announced that TikTok parent company ByteDance had informed it that the company’s bid had been rejected.

Microsoft’s statement marked an end to a bid that had been backed by GOP senators and President TrumpDonald John TrumpCrowd aims ‘lock him up’ chant at Obama during Trump rally Nevada governor: Trump ‘taking reckless and selfish actions’ in holding rally Michigan lieutenant governor blasts Trump coronavirus response: He ‘is a liar who has killed people’ MORE and seen as a solution to the latter’s threat to ban TikTok from operating in the U.S. unless it was sold to a U.S. buyer. The Trump administration has raised national security concerns about the app and its owner over its alleged connections to China’s government.

ADVERTISEMENT

“ByteDance let us know today they would not be selling TikTok’s US operations to Microsoft,” read Microsoft’s statement.

“We are confident our proposal would have been good for TikTok’s users, while protecting national security interests. To do this, we would have made significant changes to ensure the service met the highest standards for security, privacy, online safety, and combatting disinformation, and we made these principles clear in our August statement,” the company continued.

TikTok has vowed to battle the Trump administration’s order banning it from operating in the U.S. Microsoft said in early August that it was moving forward with plans to purchase the app, while pledging a security review.

“Hundreds of millions of people come to TikTok for entertainment and connection, including our community of creators and artists who are building livelihoods from the platform,” said a TikTok spokesperson in late July. “We’re motivated by their passion and creativity, and committed to protecting their privacy and safety as we continue working to bring joy to families and meaningful careers to those who create on our platform.”

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill have urged the Justice Department to open an investigation into TikTok, citing data privacy concerns.

“As tens of millions of Americans turn to Zoom and TikTok during the COVID-19 pandemic, few know that the privacy of their data and their freedom of expression is under threat due to the relationship of these companies to the Chinese government,” Sens. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyOracle wins bid to purchase TikTok: reports Cruz says he wouldn’t accept Supreme Court nomination Republicans call on DOJ to investigate Netflix over ‘Cuties’ film MORE (R-Mo.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote to the agency in July. “Of particular concern, both Zoom and TikTok have sought to conceal and distract from their meaningful ties to China, holding themselves out as American companies.”

Click Here: cheap all stars rugby jersey

Oregon Gov. Kate BrownKate Brown Trump to visit California Monday amid West Coast wildfires Explosive Western blazes portend long fire season ahead The Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by National Industries for the Blind – Woodward book revelations rock Washington MORE (D) said Sunday the wildfires raging across the west coast are a “wake up call” for officials to take action on climate change. 

Brown said the cause of the fires is being investigated, but said the region saw the “perfect fire storm.” 

“We saw incredible winds, we saw very cold hot temperatures, and of course we have a landscape that has seen 30 years of drought,” Brown said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “This is truly the bellwether for climate change on the west coast and this is a wakeup call for all of us that we have to do everything in our power to tackle climate change.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Brown said that about 500,000 acres of land has burned in Oregon over the last ten years. By contrast, she said over 1 million acres has burned in the state this week alone. 

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks

Asked about claims that the fires are due to mismanagement of forests rather than climate change, Brown said “it’s both.” 

“It’s both, it’s decades of mismanagement of our forests in this country and it is the failure to tackle climate change. We need to do both,” the governor said. 

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump slams Nevada governor at rally, takes aim at mail-in voting Former NFL coach Mike Holmgren slams Trump pandemic response, throws support to Biden Watch Live: Trump rallies supporters in Nevada MORE is scheduled to visit California on Monday. Trump last month claimed the fires are due to years of poor forest management, dismissing concerns over climate change. 

Los Angeles Mayor Eric GarcettiEric GarcettiSunday shows preview: With less than two months to go, race for the White House heats up TikTok stars Bryce Hall, Blake Gray charged for throwing house parties during pandemic Latino Victory to boost Alex Padilla to fill Harris’s potential Senate seat MORE (D) said Sunday on CNN that “anybody who lives in California is insulted” by Trump’s claims, and criticized the president’s response to the fires.

Rep. Kevin BradyKevin Patrick BradyOn The Money: US deficit hits trillion amid pandemic | McConnell: Chance for relief deal ‘doesn’t look that good’ | House employees won’t have payroll taxes deferred Top Republican offers bill to create payroll tax holiday Five things to know about Trump’s payroll tax deferral MORE (Texas), the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation on Friday that would create a payroll tax holiday from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31, an effort aimed at forgiving the taxes deferred under a memo President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate panel seeks documents in probe of DHS whistleblower complaint Susan Collins: Trump ‘should have been straightforward’ on COVID-19 Longtime House parliamentarian to step down MORE signed last month.

The bill would reduce the 6.2 percent employee-side Social Security tax to zero in the last four months of this year, and would also implement a similar tax cut for self-employed people.

To prevent the holiday from hurting the Social Security trust fund, the bill would make transfers to the fund from the general fund.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump signed a memo that resulted in the IRS issuing guidance late last month under which employers can stop withholding Social Security payroll taxes from workers’ paychecks from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31. The employers currently have to recoup the deferred taxes by increasing the amount held from workers’ paychecks in the first four months of next year.

The payroll tax deferral is optional, and many businesses are not planning to implement it because absent congressional action, workers could see smaller paychecks at the beginning of 2021.

Brady said that his bill would help provide certainty to businesses and local economies.

“The essential workers who keep this country running through the pandemic deserve a pay raise,” he said in a statement. “This bill forgives the payroll taxes deferred by President Trump to help working families, many of whom now rely on a single paycheck.”

The payroll tax holiday in Brady’s bill would apply to all workers, not just those whose taxes are currently being deferred.

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) said in a memo that under current IRS procedures, employers would file amended returns to the IRS for periods when they over-withheld payroll taxes. Workers who don’t get refunds from their employers could get them when they file their 2020 tax return next year.

JCT estimated that the bill would result in a revenue loss of $137 billion.

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCrowd aims ‘lock him up’ chant at Obama during Trump rally Nevada governor: Trump ‘taking reckless and selfish actions’ in holding rally Michigan lieutenant governor blasts Trump coronavirus response: He ‘is a liar who has killed people’ MORE on Sunday signed a long-awaited executive order aimed at lowering drug prices by linking them to the cost of the same drugs in other nations.

The president took to Twitter to celebrate the order, saying it would provide U.S. patients with “the same low price Big Pharma gives to other countries.” 

“Just signed a new Executive Order to LOWER DRUG PRICES!” he posted on Twitter. “My Most Favored Nation order will ensure that our Country gets the same low price Big Pharma gives to other countries.” 

ADVERTISEMENT

“The days of global freeriding at America’s expense are over and prices are coming down FAST!” he said, adding that he ended “all rebates to middlemen.”

 

 

The executive order requires that the secretary of Health and Human Services “immediately” test a payment model for Medicare to pay “no more than the most-favored-nation price,” meaning the lowest price paid in other developed countries, for specific “high-cost” prescription drugs and products. 

Lowering drug prices is a top issue for voters, and the move comes weeks before the election.  

ADVERTISEMENT

The order is also controversial given that many Republicans oppose the idea as a “price control,” which is associated with Democratic proposals for lowering drug prices. 

There are further administrative steps that need to happen before the proposal will take effect and result in lower drug prices. The secretary of Health and Human Services will have to issue the details of the proposal, and there will be an array of questions about how the policy will work in practice.  

It is unclear when the move will take effect.

The proposal would apply to both Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, an expansion from an earlier version of the order. The order would apply to Part D drugs where “insufficient competition exists.”

Still, the order does not look to lower drug prices for people who are not on Medicare. 

The model would determine if patients paying the lowest possible price “would mitigate poor clinical outcomes and increased” expenses. 

The executive order says that Americans pay more per capita for prescription drugs than other developed countries, which it calls “unfair” and “unacceptable.” 

The order comes after the president signed four others on July 24 that focused on lowering drug prices. But Trump delayed signing this executive order to give his administration and the pharmaceutical industry time to reach an agreement. The White House said Sunday that no agreement was reached, so the president is moving forward.  

The pharmaceutical industry quickly blasted the surprise move and raised the idea of suing to stop it. 

“With scientists and researchers at America’s biopharmaceutical companies working around the clock to fight a deadly pandemic, it is simply dumbfounding that the Trump administration would move forward with its threat to import foreign price controls and the inevitable delays to innovation that will follow,” said Michelle McMurry-Heath, CEO of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. 

She said the industry will “use every tool available – including legal action if necessary – to fight this risky foreign price control scheme.”

Rep. Lloyd DoggettLloyd Alton DoggettTrump signs new executive order aimed at lowering drug prices Overnight Health Care: Fauci says family has faced threats | Moderna to charge to a dose for its vaccine | NYC adding checkpoints to enforce quarantine GOP plan would boost deduction for business meals MORE (D-Texas), who has long pushed for strong action to lower drug prices, dismissed the move as a pre-election stunt by Trump, with few details, “after failing to lower any prices during almost four years.”

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks

“Trump aims to make a misleading headline for his failing campaign, not a genuine difference for victims of price gouging,” Doggett said in a statement.