Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, who spent more than three decades leading peace talks with Israel, died Tuesday weeks after contracting COVID-19. He was 65. 

Erekat’s death, reported by The Associated Press and Reuters, prompted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to declare a three-day mourning period in which flags will be flown at half-mast. 

“The departure of the brother and the friend, the great fighter Saeb Erekat, represents a big loss for Palestine and for our people,” Abbas’s office in Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank said in a statement, according to Reuters.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We feel deep sorrow for losing him, especially at such difficult times the Palestinian cause is living through,” the office added. 

The AP reported that Erekat had received a lung transplant in 2017, putting him in a higher risk category for complications from the coronavirus. 

Erekat, who served as the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), confirmed on Oct. 8 that he had contracted the virus. 

Erekat’s son, Ali, confirmed that he passed away, and the Hadassah Medical Center, the Israeli hospital where he had been receiving intensive care for three weeks, also announced his passing, according to the AP. 

Erekat was involved in nearly every series of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians since the Madrid conference in 1991. He consistently advocated for a two-state solution to the conflict, and repeatedly blamed Israel for the absence of an agreement. 

According to the AP, Erekat and his allies’ push for a two-state solution had received less international support in recent months with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain normalizing ties with Israel, breaking with the long-held Arab position that a deal on Palestinian statehood must come before normalization.

In September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin NetanyahuBenjamin (Bibi) NetanyahuMORE signed an agreement with Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani, foreign minister of Bahrain, and Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, foreign minister of the UAE, to establish diplomatic relations during an event on the South Lawn of the White House. 

The agreement, called the “Abraham Accords,” resulted from talks brokered by the Trump administration and marked the first time an Arab country had normalized relations with Israel since Jordan in 1994 and Egypt in 1979.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced Friday it would lift its “no sail” order allowing “simulation” cruises to sail in U.S. waters beginning Sunday, according to a statement from the agency.

“Today the [CDC] issued a Framework for Conditional Sailing Order that introduces a phased approach for the safe and responsible resumption of passenger cruises,” the agency said, though it did not say when passengers can return to cruise lines.

The agency cited recent outbreaks on cruise ships overseas as evidence that ship travel facilitates and increases the transmission of the virus, even when passenger capacities are reduced.

ADVERTISEMENT

The CDC underscored that allowing passenger travel to proceed unmitigated could pose significant risks of further spreading the virus into U.S. communities.

“This framework provides a pathway to resume safe and responsible sailing. It will mitigate the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks on ships and prevent passengers and crew from seeding outbreaks at ports and in the communities where they live,” said CDC Director Robert Redfield.

The initial phases of the latest order will require ship operators to demonstrate adherence to testing, quarantine, isolation and social distancing requirements to protect crew on board while building the necessary laboratory capacity to test staff and eventual passengers.

The following phases will simulate real voyages with volunteer passengers to test whether the safety measures can effectively prevent a mass spread for future cruises.

The CDC first barred cruise sailing in mid-March, later renewing the order in April and July.

Cruise ships proved to be a dangerous vessel of contamination and spread of the coronavirus early in the pandemic after hundreds on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan fell ill with the virus in February.

Several ships docked outside U.S. waters faced similar complications before cases started ramping in the nation, such as the Holland America Zaandam ship quarantined off Florida’s coast.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced a peace deal with Azerbaijan early Tuesday local time after six weeks of military conflict between the two countries.

Reuters reported that Pashinyan said Armenia signed the agreement with Azerbaijan and Russia to end the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region after Azerbaijan advanced into the territory, a breakaway region controlled by ethnic Armenians. Azerbaijan did not provide an official response to the deal, but a Kremlin spokesperson also confirmed it, according to Russian agencies.

“The decision is made basing on the deep analyses of the combat situation and in discussion with best experts of the field,” Pashinyan said on social media.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This is not a victory, but there is not defeat until you consider yourself defeated. We will never consider ourselves defeated and this shall become a new start of an era of our national unity and rebirth,” he added. 

Arayik Harutyunyan, who heads the Nagorno-Karabakh region, said he accepted the agreement “to end the war as soon as possible.”

On Monday, Azerbaijan officials said its troops had taken over dozens more settlements in the region after declaring victory in the battle for the second-largest city. Armenia has denied the extent that Azerbaijan has advanced in the territory.

The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region began on Sept. 27 and sparked concerns about a wider war with Russia defending Armenia and Turkey backing Azerbaijan.

The U.S. helped negotiate a previous cease-fire between the countries last month, but the agreement fell apart within minutes.

Negotiations for control over the territory have been stalled for 30 years under the support of the Minsk Group, co-chaired by the U.S., France and Russia.

Progressive groups are blasting Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenMore than 300 military family members endorse Biden Five takeaways from the final Trump-Biden debate Biden: ‘I would transition from the oil industry’ MORE’s plan to form a commission to study judiciary reforms and whether justices should be added to the Supreme Court.

As Senate Republicans prepare to confirm President TrumpDonald John TrumpMore than 300 military family members endorse Biden Five takeaways from the final Trump-Biden debate Biden: ‘I would transition from the oil industry’ MORE’s third Supreme Court justice, progressives are calling on Democratic leaders to add justices to the Supreme Court if they win the White House and Senate.

For weeks, Biden has steadfastly refused to answer whether he supports “court packing.” Rather, the Democratic nominee said in an interview with “60 Minutes” released Thursday that he’d create a bipartisan panel to study it if he’s elected.

ADVERTISEMENT

Progressives at leading left-wing groups panned the idea.

“We don’t need to be promised a nice report about reform delivered to the White House, we need Vice President Biden to assure Americans that he will take bold action to ensure our courts don’t remain dominated by a right-wing fringe installed by Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellMcConnell says ‘no concerns’ after questions about health Overnight Health Care: Trump says he hopes Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare | FDA approves remdesivir as COVID-19 treatment | Dems threaten to subpoena HHS over allegations of political interference at CDC The Hill’s Campaign Report: Trump, Biden face off for last time on the debate stage MORE to attack abortion rights, destroy health care reform, and dismantle our democracy,” said Yvette Simpson, the CEO of the progressive group Democracy for America.

Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said there’s no way Republicans on the proposed panel will join progressives in the effort to “restore balance” to the courts.

Click Here: Maori All Blacks Store

“Joe Biden’s nonpartisan court commission is a gambit,” Green said. “He basically says that if you put conservative legal thinkers in a room with progressive ones, they will agree that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans have politicized the courts in order to take away health care, worker rights, and voting rights — and that America needs to unpack the courts and restore balance.”

Demand Justice called the plan a “punt.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“We certainly do not need a commission to tell us that Republicans are on the verge of stealing their second Supreme Court seat in four years and that the Roberts Court routinely sides with voter suppression schemes that advantage the Republican party,” said executive director Brian Fallon.

“This proposed commission runs the risk of stalling momentum for serious reform. The window when Democrats may have the power to implement Court reform may be short, and the timeline for a commission would only constrict the window further. Chief Justice Roberts has proven adept at keeping the Court’s public profile low whenever scrutiny mounts, and then resuming the Court’s rightward march when attention recedes. A commission that would allow opponents of structural reform to run out the clock is not a solution; it’s a punt.”

Still, some of the nation’s leading progressives have sided with Biden.

Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersBiden defends his health plan from Trump attacks Progressives blast Biden plan to form panel on Supreme Court reform Sanders: Progressives will work to ‘rally the American people’ if Biden wins MORE (I-Vt.) has said he opposes adding justices because subsequent administrations will continue to add until it “delegitimizes the court.”

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenBiden defends his health plan from Trump attacks Progressives blast Biden plan to form panel on Supreme Court reform Biden endorses Texas Democratic House candidate Julie Oliver MORE (D-Mass.) told The Hill that Biden’s idea “is aiming in the right direction.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“There are lots of ways to get there and I think that the Vice President is aiming in the right direction and that is making sure that we have courts that we can trust. And understand,” Warren said. “The problems are not just at the Supreme Court level. Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans have been ramming through people who are openly racist, sexist, homophobic, opposed to voting, ramming those people through for lifetime appointments. We have a lot to think about in our court system.”

For several weeks now, Biden has declined to say whether he supports adding justices to the Supreme Court, saying it would take attention away from GOP efforts to confirm a Supreme Court justice at this late date in the election cycle.

It’s a thorny question for Biden, who risks angering the left if he comes out in opposition to court packing, and risks turning off swing voters if he says he supports it.

A New York Times-Siena College survey released this week found that 58 percent of all voters oppose adding justices to the Supreme Court if Judge Amy Coney BarrettAmy Coney BarrettBiden defends his health plan from Trump attacks Hillicon Valley: Five takeaways on new election interference from Iran, Russia | Schumer says briefing on Iranian election interference didn’t convince him effort was meant to hurt Trump | Republicans on Senate panel subpoena Facebook, Twitter CEOs | The Hill’s Campaign Report: Trump, Biden face off for last time on the debate stage MORE is confirmed, compared to only 31 percent who support it. Fifty-seven percent of Democrats support court packing, but 65 percent of independents oppose it.

In the “60 Minutes” interview, Biden said he’d ask a bipartisan commission of “scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal [and] conservative” for recommendations on how to reform the courts.

Happy Tuesday and welcome to Overnight Defense. I’m Ellen Mitchell, and here’s your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. CLICK HERE to subscribe to the newsletter.

THE TOPLINE: The Army’s top civilian, Ryan McCarthy, on Tuesday said the National Guard has received no requests from federal agencies to potentially provide security or quell any unrest after the presidential election next month.

“There have been no requests from other agencies to support at this time, but we’re always available to support whether it’s [a metropolitan police department] or other federal agencies,” McCarthy told reporters at the Pentagon.

McCarthy also said he didn’t foresee the military playing a role in squashing possible post-election chaos and said the role of the Guard was only to help protect federal property and to support law enforcement.

“We support law enforcement, whether that is at the federal or state and local levels,” McCarthy said. “We don’t police American streets.”

Attempts at assurances: McCarthy is the latest senior military official to attempt to dispel fears that the military will step in should the Nov. 3 election become disputed and turmoil ensues.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said earlier this week that he saw “no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election. Zero.”

“This isn’t the first time that someone has suggested that there might be a contested election,” Milley said in an interview with NPR that aired on Monday. “And if there is, it’ll be handled appropriately by the courts and by the U.S. Congress.”

Public fears: But some fear the days and weeks after the election could prove to be chaotic as President Trump has continued to refuse to say he will accept the results or commit to a peaceful transition of power.

Trump has also cast doubt on the integrity of mail-in ballots despite no evidence of widespread fraud.

The president last month said he would accept the results of a “free and fair election” but has continued to rail against mail-in ballots, throwing doubts on whether he will consider the election “free and fair,” and whether he will step aside should he lose.

In addition, Trump has repeatedly used or threatened to use the military in domestic issues, including in the nationwide protests over racial injustice this summer after the death of George Floyd.

Context: In June, the National Guard were ordered to back federal law enforcement agents in clearing protesters from Lafayette Square shortly before Trump posed for photos in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church, which had been partially damaged by the protests.

Milley, who appeared alongside Trump in the walk to the church, later apologized and said he regretted participating in the photo opportunity.

The Pentagon has since launched an investigation into the National Guard’s role in the June protests, as military helicopters were also used to hover over protesters in a “show of force.”

McCarthy said the Army has completed its portion of the Defense Department Inspector General investigation and it’s currently with the DOD inspector general.

Other administration issues: Trump’s reelection campaign has also used Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Milley in a new online advertisement as recently as Monday, violating a standing Pentagon policy that prohibits military officers from participating in political activity while in uniform. 

Esper sidesteps the question: Defense Secretary Mark Esper sidestepped lawmakers’ questions about potential military involvement in the election, saying only that the military will follow the law.

Esper was responding to questions for the record from Reps. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) that the pair submitted to him after a House Armed Services Committee hearing in July.

Slotkin and Sherrill, who released Esper’s written answers Tuesday, asked the secretary if he would refuse an order to send active-duty troops to the polls on Election Day and whether he would commit to facilitating a peaceful transition of power.

“The U.S. military has acted, and will continue to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law,” Esper wrote as the answer to both questions.

 

DEMS ACCUSE VA HEAD OF MISUSING RESOURCES TO STUMP FOR TRUMP, SENATORS: Democrats are accusing Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie and other VA officials of using their office to boost President Trump and vulnerable Republican senators in their reelection bids.

In a letter to Wilkie on Tuesday, House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Jon Tester (D-Mont.) raised “serious concerns” that official travel and other actions are being taken for political purposes.

“We write today to express our serious concerns that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may have misused taxpayer funds and other government assets in an effort to benefit the reelection of President TrumpDonald John TrumpLabor secretary’s wife tests positive for COVID-19 Russia shuts down Trump admin’s last-minute push to strike nuclear arms deal before election Trump makes appeal to suburban women at rally: ‘Will you please like me?’ MORE and certain Republican candidates seeking office in 2020,” they wrote.

“To maintain the integrity of the department you lead, we are requesting a full accounting of taxpayer-funded travel, attendance at events, and related activities by you and other department senior leaders that appear to be in violation of the Hatch Act and relevant regulations,” they added.

What the lawmakers asked for: The lawmakers, who also sent copies of the letter to the VA inspector general and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, asked for a slew of documents, including records for all of Wilkie and other senior officials’ travel until Election Day, information on any Hatch Act training or guidance, and any communication through unofficial means such as personal cellphones or emails.

The VA’s response: In response to the letter, the VA accused the lawmakers of partisanship.

“Secretary Wilkie’s official travel is available online for everyone to see, and these trips to hear firsthand from our employees in the field are a fundamental responsibility of any VA secretary,” VA press secretary Christina Noel added. “The notion that these visits are somehow improper is absurd.”

Accusations against the administration: Democrats have accused several Trump administration officials of using their post for political activity, which is barred by the Hatch Act.

Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, are investigating whether Secretary of State Mike Pompeo illegally campaigned for Trump with official speeches and travel.

Takano and Tester’s letter also cited the Office of Special Counsel recently finding that Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue recently violated the Hatch Act by encouraging voters to support Trump at an event to promote the Farmers to Families Food Box Program.

“In an era when norms and customs, if not laws and regulations, are regularly flaunted by many in the executive branch, it is imperative for senior officials at the department to follow both the spirit and the letter of the law and to avoid the appearance of partisanship, as well as to uphold the highest ethical standards,” the pair wrote.

Singling out Wilkie’s trips: The lawmakers specifically called out three official trips Wilkie took to battleground states.

In August, Wilkie went to North Carolina for the dedication of a nonprofit veterans’ transition facility with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who is in a tight reelection race. Wilkie also participated in a fireside chat with Tillis, for whom he used to be a senior adviser before joining the Trump administration.

Also in August, Wilkie went to Maine for the groundbreaking of a new national cemetery, appearing alongside Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is also in a tight reelection race.

In September, Wilkie went to Montana for VA meetings and also made appearances on VA grounds with Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who is similarly in a competitive reelection campaign.

Takano and Tester acknowledged that the trips “contain substantial veterans-related policy discussions or departmental management matters for which we have no objection,” but added the itineraries appear “to mix those policy matters with overtly political activities” that “must not be paid for with taxpayer funds.”

Other concerns: They also raised concern about travel by Wilkie or other VA officials to other battleground states including Ohio, South Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kentucky and Florida, saying those events “require further scrutiny to understand their origins, objectives and how they were planned, sequenced, prioritized and financed.”

In her statement, Noel said Wilkie’s travel schedule since August has included North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Tennessee, Connecticut, Montana, Maryland, Colorado, Wyoming, California and Florida.

“During his time in office, Secretary Willkie has traveled in a non-partisan fashion to 49 states—including Montana and California at the request of Senator Tester and Chairman Takano, respectively,” she said.

Takano and Tester also accused the VA of blocking Democratic lawmakers from visiting local VA facilities for oversights, while allowing Republicans to visit.

For example, they said the VA backed out of participating in a virtual town hall organized by Takano’s staff about the Loma Linda, Calif., facility, but on the same day participated in a Republican lawmaker’s event about a facility in Louisiana.

 

COVID HAVING EFFECT ON TROOP SUICIDES, MCCONVILLE SAYS: Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville said Tuesday that he sees a direct correlation between COVID-19 and the rise in troop suicides.

“I am very concerned about the behavioral health impacts of COVID and its effect on our soldiers,” McConville told reporters at the Pentagon.

“Some of the scientists have said they’ve not been able to show causation between COVID and suicide, but I would argue, at least my sense is, it is having an effect because it disconnects people.”

Growing concern: Army leadership has voiced concern about the increase in suicides in its ranks since March, when many people were told to stay home due to the coronavirus pandemic and the Pentagon began to limit movement of forces.

The Associated Press first reported last month that military suicide deaths since early spring were up as much as 20 percent compared with the same period in 2019. Among Army active-duty troops, that increase was around 30 percent, with 114 suicides as of Aug. 31, compared to 88 last year.

July saw the most suicides at 35 — more than one a day.

Following the report’s release, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and McConville said that the service has moved to improve access to behavioral health care “in the face of additional stress of a pandemic.”

Hesitations: But officials have been hesitant to link COVID-19 to the increase in military members taking their own lives. 

Earlier this month, Defense Suicide Prevention Office Director Karin Orvis told reporters that it was too early to make a connection, as suicide counts “do not account for changes in population size or provide enough time for essential investigations to determine cause of death.”

McConville’s view: McConville, however, said when looking at the after-action reports of soldiers who have died of suicide, “it tends to be situations where relationships have gone bad, where they start to feel that they don’t belong, that they’re a burden,” a feeling that can be amplified in the time of a pandemic.

With COVID-19, “especially during the beginning part, people were disconnected. The connection might only be a text between a leader and that’s why in some ways we thought it was very, very important to get back to training our soldiers, bringing teams back together to that they can take care of each other,” he added.

Asked if he partly blamed the pandemic-imposed lockdown across much of the country this spring for the rise in soldier suicides, McCarthy, who spoke alongside McConville, said he couldn’t “categorically say that.”

“We’re concerned about the isolation and that’s we’re trying to find effective ways to communicate with each other,” McCarthy said.

Fresh out of quarantine: McConville, who himself just completed a self-imposed quarantine after possibly being exposed to the illness in a senior level meeting, said he tested negative for the virus multiple times in the past two weeks, including Tuesday morning, and was cleared by doctors to return to the Pentagon.

Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday, meanwhile, chose to do a press event from home at the same time McConville and McCarthy held their media briefing.

“I’m not going to speak for the other members. Each one, depending on the advice of their doctors … is executing CDC guidelines,” McConville said.

He added that while military officials take the illness “very, very seriously,” there are scenarios where they must be present and unable to work from home.

 

ON TAP FOR TOMORROW

The virtual 2020 Association of the U.S. Army Annual Meeting will continue with virtual remarks by Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville, among other senior officials, beginning at 10 a.m.

The U.S. Representative Office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran will hold a webinar on “An Effective Iran Policy: Sanctions or No Sanctions?” with former Defense Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman and former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph at 11 a.m.

 

ICYMI

– The Hill: Supreme Court hears dispute over military rape prosecutions

– The Hill: Wireless industry calls on Trump to oppose efforts to nationalize 5G amid Pentagon push

– The Hill: Trump campaign ad features military chiefs, violating Pentagon policy

– The Hill: Pompeo calls for Azerbaijan, Armenia to implement cease-fire

Click Here: Maori All Blacks Store

– The Hill: US rebukes Turkey for ‘calculated provocation’ in eastern Mediterranean

– The New York Times: For Nagorno-Karabakh’s Dueling Sides, Living Together Is ‘Impossible’

– Washington Post: Threat from nuclear weapons and missiles has grown since Trump entered office

– Defense News: US-developed hypersonic missile hit within 6 inches of target, says Army secretary

President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenPence to attend Senate GOP lunch on Tuesday Biden transition team to mull legal action over agency’s transition delays: reports Manchin shoots down chance that Senate Democrats nix filibuster, expand court MORE is expected to take a hard line against foreign election interference by pushing back against persistent cyber adversaries like Russia and Iran.

Biden took a hard line on the issue in the lead-up to last week’s election, warning as recently as October that countries seeking to interfere in U.S. elections would “pay a price.”

But beefing up cyber protections could set off a funding battle on Capitol Hill, one that has led to partisan deadlock in recent years over whether to provide states with steady security funds.

ADVERTISEMENT

For some of Biden’s congressional allies, the first step is just talking publicly about the threat.

“Something that has been absent here is the president’s willingness to talk about election interference. That will not be the case under President Biden,” Rep. Jim LangevinJames (Jim) R. LangevinBiden’s hard stand on foreign election interference signals funding fight DOJ: Russian hackers targeted 2018 Olympics, French elections Hillicon Valley: Trump refuses to condemn QAnon | Twitter revises its policy, lets users share disputed article | Google sees foreign cyber threats MORE (D-R.I.), chairman of the House Armed Services’s subcommittee on intelligence and emerging threats and capabilities, told The Hill.

Earlier in the 2020 campaign, Biden laid out steps his administration would take on election interference, including sanctions, responses in cyberspace and asset freezes.

“I am putting the Kremlin and other foreign governments on notice,” Biden said over the summer. “If elected president, I will treat foreign interference in our election as an adversarial act that significantly affects the relationship between the United States and the interfering nation’s government.”

Jamal Brown, the national press secretary for the Biden campaign, said Monday that Biden intended to follow through on that pledge.

“President-elect Biden recognizes that foreign interference in our electoral process is a direct assault on our democracy, and will take action to deter and defend against attacks that impact our economy, our national security, and our way of life,” Brown said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Faith in our free and fair elections is the bedrock of our democracy and Biden will bring cybersecurity back to the fore as a national priority to ensure this faith is strengthened,” he added.

Biden’s stance on foreign election interference stands in contrast to that of President TrumpDonald John TrumpPence to attend Senate GOP lunch on Tuesday Biden transition team to mull legal action over agency’s transition delays: reports Trump campaign lawyers worry about pushing lawsuits that could undermine election: report MORE, who has been criticized by Democrats and election experts alike for not doing enough to push back against the 2016 Russian interference, which included hacking and disinformation.

Still, the Treasury Department levied sanctions against individuals and groups involved in election interference, including the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a troll farm behind many election disinformation efforts.

Trump also confirmed during an interview with The Washington Post earlier this year that U.S. Cyber Command took steps to disrupt internet access for the building in St. Petersburg that houses the IRA on the night of the U.S. 2018 midterm elections, halting efforts to spread disinformation as Americans went to the polls.

But those actions did little to shake the image of Trump standing next to Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinPutin withholding recognition of Biden win until legal challenges resolved China, Brazil, Russia, among countries yet to congratulate Biden Why this election won’t bring us together MORE at a press conference in Helsinki, where Trump refused to denounce the 2016 Russian election interference efforts.

The New York Times reported last year that former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen NielsenKirstjen Michele NielsenThe ‘Anonymous’ saga ended with a dud — a perfect example of the problem of Trump-era media Who is ‘Anonymous’ author Miles Taylor? CNN’s Cuomo asks Miles Taylor why network should ‘keep you on the payroll’ after lying about op-ed MORE tried to discuss Russian election interference with Trump but was told not to bring up the subject due to the president’s sensitivity to the topic.

That sensitivity extended to Capitol Hill, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over how to respond to potential election interference.

In the four years since Russian agents interfered in the 2016 election, Congress has appropriated over $800 million to help states address election security, along with approving a handful of measures, including one signed into law by Trump last month making hacking a federal voting system a federal crime.

“I think part of the challenge has been that the Republicans have been somewhat constrained by the White House not wanting to engage on this issue,” said Michael Daniel, a former special assistant to President Obama and cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council.

“In some ways this may give the Republicans more space to negotiate,” Daniel, who is now president and CEO of the Cyber Threat Alliance, said of the incoming Biden administration.

Election interference was a key concern in the lead-up to last week’s election, particularly after the announcement by Director of National Intelligence John RatcliffeJohn Lee RatcliffeEsper firing hints at broader post-election shake-up Officials on alert for potential cyber threats after a quiet Election Day Federal official says voting security remains strong as polls begin to close MORE in October that Iran and Russia had successfully gained access to U.S. voter registration information, and in Iran’s case had used that information to target threatening emails at voters in at least three states.

But Election Day was mostly quiet in terms of security incidents, something experts credit to increased coordination between all levels of government in recent years and upgrades to cyber defenses.

Congressional funds were used to purchase new election equipment and invest in cybersecurity, though election experts have said the $800 million was not nearly enough to cover the full expenses of securing the process.

With a new administration in power and a new Congress, funding is likely to be back in the spotlight.

“I am hoping that that is going to be much easier going forward. As you know, there was money this year that went out to the states…but there needs to be more,” Sen. Angus KingAngus KingRep. Jared Golden wins reelection in Maine Alaska Senate race sees cash surge in final stretch Bitter fight over Barrett fuels calls to nix filibuster, expand court MORE (I-Maine), a top lawmaker on cyber issues, told reporters during a press call Friday.

He cautioned that “we don’t want to create a moral hazard, we don’t want to have the states rely entirely on the federal government for what is essentially a state responsibility,” and emphasized that states should provide some level of matching funds.

Langevin on Friday described the $800 million from Congress as “just a down payment,” emphasizing that “what we need is $2 billion or $3 billion for new election equipment and things like securing our voter registration systems.”

“I believe that President Biden will take a very active interest in securing our election equipment and processes, and he’ll push back against any enemy or adversary that is looking to interfere in our elections, and be willing to respond with sanctions…that would make any enemy or adversary think twice,” Langevin added.

Daniel said he would push for continuous federal funding for election security, instead of funding bills here and there. A committed revenue stream, he said, would sidestep partisan battles going forward.

“The best thing is to put this squarely in the nonpartisan bucket. The past is the past and we are where we are now, and the real goal is to figure out how to continue to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes,” Daniel said. “That is really where the focus has to be.”

Two people were killed and one was injured when a Russian military helicopter was shot down near the Armenia and Azerbaijan border on Monday, according to Moscow’s Defense Ministry.

Moscow said the Mi-24 helicopter was hit by a shoulder-launched missile and crashed in Armenia, whose forces are fighting Azerbaijan in a monthlong war over the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh. The breakaway region within Azerbaijan is controlled by ethnic Armenians, who refer to the area as Artsakh.

The helicopter went down outside the combat zone as it was escorting a motorcade to a Russian military base, according to RT News, a Kremlin-financed news operation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry later announced that the helicopter was downed by mistake, and the government is prepared to compensate Moscow for the accident, Russia’s state Tass news agency reported.

Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, meanwhile, condemned what it called an “assault towards the Russian Armed Forces by the Azerbaijani armed forces within the sovereign territory of Armenia.”

“We are convinced that the use of force against the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will receive an adequate response,” the ministry said in a statement.

Azerbaijan and Armenian separatists have stepped up their fighting in a battle over Nagorno-Karabakh, which has resulted in nearly 1,000 reported military casualties on the side of Armenia and dozens of civilians killed and hundreds wounded on both sides. Azerbaijan does not publicize its military casualties. 

Negotiations for control over the territory have been stalled for 30 years under the support of the Minsk Group, co-chaired by the U.S., France and Russia.

The United States has attempted to negotiate a cease-fire in the fighting, though such an agreement fell apart minutes after its implementation late last month. 

–Updated at 3:28 p.m.

Even though Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE lost the presidential election to Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE, a new poll finds more Americans preferred her campaign over the president-elect’s. 

Click Here: All Blacks Rugby JerseyADVERTISEMENT

Only 30 percent of those surveyed in a new Pew poll gave Trump an “A” or “B” grade for his campaign, while 35 percent gave him an “F.” 

Meanwhile, 43 percent gave Clinton either an “A” or “B,” the first time in the history of Pew’s post-election poll that the losing candidate scored better than the winner. 

The poll also found that 50 percent were happy that Trump won the election while 48 percent were unhappy with the outcome. 

Overall, 56 percent of those polled expect Trump to have a successful first term. 

Of the Trump supporters who were polled, 97 percent said they expect his first term to be successful. 

Almost 9 in 10, 88 percent, said they are confident in the type of president Trump will be, and 90 percent expressed confidence in his ability to address crucial issues in office. 

But Clinton supporters are much less likely to think Trump will be successful. 

Seventy-six percent said they expect Trump to be unsuccessful in his first term, while 58 percent said they are willing to give him a chance. 

Almost 40 percent said they could not give Trump a chance, however, “because of the kind of person he has show himself to be.” 

The poll was conducted from Nov. 10 to 14 among 1,254 Americans who voted in the presidential election. The margin of error for the poll was 3.4 percentage points.