Moscow officially began mass distribution of its coronavirus vaccine on Saturday, making the Sputnik V COVID-19 shot available to the public at 70 different clinics within the city.

Doctors, teachers, medical workers and others with a high risk of exposure to the virus are set to be the first to receive the shot, the city announced in a press release.

“Over the first five hours, 5,000 people signed up for the jab – teachers, doctors, social workers, those who are today risking their health and lives the most,” Mayor Sergei Sobyanin wrote on his personal blog on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Moscow has been an epicenter for the virus spread in Russia and reported a record daily high of 7,993 infections on Saturday, The Associated Press reported. Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinHow Trump’s election lawsuits became his worst nightmare Enforcing the Presidential Records Act is essential for preserving our democracy’s transparency, history Putin says doctors and teachers will get first COVID-19 vaccines in new immunization campaign MORE earlier this week signaled the beginning of the “large-scale” vaccination campaign.

The two-shot vaccination will be available to those between the ages of 18 and 60 who do not have a chronic illness or are pregnant or breastfeeding. Those who receive the vaccination will be required to get the second of the two shots 21 days after the initial injection, according to the release.

Russia’s Health Minister Mikhail Murashko said on Wednesday that nearly 100,000 people in the country already have received the shots.

The vaccine has received scrutiny from scientists who have argued that Russia moved too quickly to produce vaccinations without undergoing a thorough trial period. Sputnik V received government approval in August, while it was still being tested, and developers have said that it is 91.4 percent effective, according to the AP.

Russia has seen over 2.3 million COVID-19 cases and more than 41,000 virus-related deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. 

Progressives are pushing for direct payments to Americans to be included in a COVID-19 package, as lawmakers work to secure a deal before the end of the year.

Congress in March enacted legislation that provided for a single round of stimulus payments of up to $1,200 per adult and $500 per child. There has been bipartisan interest in subsequent months in authorizing a second round of payments.

However, the $908 billion bipartisan proposal unveiled earlier this week by House and Senate moderates, which is at the center of the current negotiations over a relief package, does not include any direct payments.

ADVERTISEMENT

Progressives see this omission as a shortcoming and are calling for additional direct payments, saying that they could help people cover basic expenses.

“The millions of people who are most desperately impacted need a check,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezProgressives push for direct payments to be included in COVID-19 relief deal Rubio and Ocasio-Cortez spar on Twitter: ‘Work more, tweet less’ Harry Styles hits back at criticism over wearing dress on Vogue cover MORE (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday.

She said that other types of assistance, such as aid to state and local governments, are important, but that people also need relief that will help them solve their immediate issues.

Ocasio-Cortez also made similar comments on Twitter. 

Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersOn The Money: Unemployment gains lower than expected | Jobs report lights fire under coronavirus relief talks Sanders says he can’t support bipartisan COVID-19 relief proposal in its current form Progressives push for direct payments to be included in COVID-19 relief deal MORE (I-Vt.) said in a statement Friday that he can’t support the moderates’ proposal in its current form, citing the lack of direct payments.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Tens of millions of Americans living in desperation today would receive absolutely no financial help from this proposal,” he said. “That is not acceptable.”

Rep. Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibProgressives push for direct payments to be included in COVID-19 relief deal Biden Cabinet picks largely unify Democrats — so far Democrats brush off calls for Biden to play hardball on Cabinet picks MORE (D-Mich.) said on Twitter that ideally Congress should enact recurring direct payments to Americans. She referenced a Gallup survey conducted in August that found majority support for a second round of payments.

The congressional moderates’ proposal includes funds for state and local governments, unemployment insurance, the Paycheck Protection Program and vaccine development and distribution, among other things. It also would provide short-term protection for businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits to give states time to develop their own liability-protection rules.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Joe ManchinJoseph (Joe) ManchinSanders says he can’t support bipartisan COVID-19 relief proposal in its current form Progressives push for direct payments to be included in COVID-19 relief deal Rubio and Ocasio-Cortez spar on Twitter: ‘Work more, tweet less’ MORE (D-W.Va.), an author of the proposal, told HuffPost the priority was to prevent assistance programs from expiring, but that he hopes another round of direct payments is enacted once President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenAppeals court OKs White House diverting military funding to border wall construction Federal student loan payment suspension extended another month Pentagon: Tentative meeting between spy agencies, Biden transition set for early next week MORE takes office.

President-elect Joe Biden said Friday that he thinks a relief package “would be better if they had the $1,200” and said “that may still be in play.” But Biden also said that it’s important to get a relief package on which an agreement can be reached.

“You got to find the sweet spot where you have enough people willing to move in a direction that gets us a long way down the road but isn’t the whole answer,” he said.

Updated at 4:32 p.m.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday refused to halt its previous ruling rejecting a last-ditch GOP bid to prevent further action on the certification of the 2020 election results in the state.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom WolfTom WolfPennsylvania Supreme Court refuses to halt GOP defeat in election lawsuit Pennsylvania Supreme Court strikes down GOP bid to stop election certification Trump says he’ll leave White House if Biden declared winner of Electoral College MORE (D) certified President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden says GOP senators have called to congratulate him Biden: Trump attending inauguration is ‘of consequence’ to the country Biden says family will avoid business conflicts MORE’s win early last week, making it unclear what effect, if any, the long-shot Republican legal challenge would have on the race.

Still, GOP challengers will file an emergency injunction request Thursday afternoon to the U.S. Supreme Court before filing a more formal appeal request to the justices, their attorney Gregory Teufel told The Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to election law experts, courts are extremely reluctant to disturb election results that have already been certified.

Among the plaintiffs in the suit in the Keystone State is President TrumpDonald John TrumpBiden says GOP senators have called to congratulate him Biden: Trump attending inauguration is ‘of consequence’ to the country Biden says family will avoid business conflicts MORE’s ally Rep. Mike KellyGeorge (Mike) Joseph KellyPennsylvania Supreme Court refuses to halt GOP defeat in election lawsuit Cruz urges Supreme Court to take up Pennsylvania election challenge Lieutenant governor: Trump campaign would get its ‘clock cleaned’ if it appeals Pennsylvania ruling to Supreme Court MORE (R-Pa.). The challengers’ original complaint, filed in Pennsylvania state court late last month, sought to strike down an expanded mail ballot policy that Pennsylvania put in place in 2019 after it was passed by the state’s GOP-held legislature.

Biden won three of every four mail-in ballots cast in the state, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Last week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed the case, citing the litigants’ undue delay in bringing the challenge. The court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning its ruling was final and that litigants would be prohibited from trying another lawsuit in state court based on the same grounds.

The court’s decision Thursday to deny Republicans’ stay request is likely the last meaningful activity the case will see at the state level.

The defeat Thursday was just the latest blow to an increasingly desperate legal effort by the Trump campaign and its Republican allies to use lawsuits to try to overturn the result of the national election that Biden won by more than 6 million votes.

In at least one of its post-election lawsuits, opposing counsel asked a court to impose sanctions on the Trump campaign for unprofessional conduct, though a federal judge in Michigan overseeing the case declined to do so.

New York is leading a group of states in a Facebook antitrust investigation and the states plan to sue the tech giant next week, Reuters reported Thursday, citing unnamed sources. 

The state-led complaint would be the second major lawsuit filed against a major tech company in the U.S. this year, following the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Google in October.  

More than 40 states plan to sign the lawsuit, a source told Reuters. The source did not name which states will be part of the effort. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Spokespeople for Facebook and the New York attorney general’s office declined to comment to Reuters, and the spokespeople did not immediately respond for comment when contacted by The Hill. 

Details of what the states plan to include in the complaint is not known, Reuters reported. 

Facebook, one of four big tech companies investigated by the House Judiciary panel on antitrust, has faced allegations that the social media company strategically sought to buy smaller potential rivals including Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. 

The House report released in October unearthed emails that showed senior employees, including CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergFacebook-backed cryptocurrency Libra changes names Democrats urge YouTube to remove election misinformation, step up efforts ahead of Georgia runoff Democrats press Facebook, Twitter on misinformation efforts ahead of Georgia runoff MORE, describing acquiring Instagram in 2012 as a way to neutralize a competitive threat.

The report also uncovered an internal memo from October 2018 that claimed the company faced more competition within its own products, including Instagram and WhatsApp, than externally. 

Zuckerberg, who has frequently testified in front of Congress, has defended the company against antitrust allegations over the acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing it helped expand the companies. 

The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission also began antitrust investigation into Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google in 2019. A group of states launched a joint probe of Facebook.

Ford Motor Company cited the incoming Biden administration as it encouraged other automakers to drop their involvement in a suit challenging California’s right to set more rigorous tailpipe emissions standards.

“During the last year and a half of the Trump Administration, we essentially split into two camps,” Kumar Galhotra, Ford’s president of Americas and International Markets Group, wrote in a letter to other automakers obtained by The Hill. 

“With the election settled, the preemption fight is now, at least for the next set of years, essentially moot,” he said. “The more relevant issue is thus the question of the standards.”

ADVERTISEMENT

As the Trump administration rolled back ambitious mileage targets set for automakers under the Obama administration, it also revoked the waiver that for decades allowed California to craft tougher emissions standards that were in turn adopted by more than a dozen other states.

While numerous automakers joined in the suit to back President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump alludes to possible 2024 run in White House remarks Trump threatens to veto defense bill over tech liability shield Tiger King’s attorney believes they’re close to getting pardon from Trump MORE, other automakers signed a deal with California agreeing to meet emissions standards set closer to those under Obama.

Automakers have long sought one national standard, something Galhotra said in the letter would have “enormous value for the industry.” 

“The Biden Administration will not let the Trump standards stand, and either by way of litigation and/or a regulatory reboot, the new team will move in a different, more stringent direction. And they will do so with California integrated in the effort, whether that is formal or informal,” he wrote.

Ford’s letter comes ahead of a meeting of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing auto manufacturers, and after an announcement from General Motors that they would leave the suit challenging California’s right to a waiver.

“To better foster the necessary dialogue, we are immediately withdrawing from the preemption litigation and inviting other automakers to join us,” GM said last week. 

In March, the Trump administration finalized standards asking automakers to craft fleets reaching about 40 miles per gallon by 2026, bringing mileage below what automakers have said is possible for them to achieve. Those standards are now being challenged in another suit.

Five automakers, including Ford, have since signed agreements with California committing to reach mileage closer to the 55 mpg by 2025 required under Obama.

YouTube will begin warning users before they post comments that may be offensive to other people, the company announced Thursday.

The new feature is part of the video-sharing platform’s efforts to address widespread racist and homophobic harassment targeted at creators by commenters and other accounts.

YouTube will also begin proactively asking users to provide demographic information in an effort to find patterns of hate speech “that may affect some communities more than others.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The company last December beefed up its policy on harassment, saying it would be taking a stricter stance on “veiled or implied threats” moving forward.

The company touts that since the beginning of 2019 it has increased the number of daily hate speech comment renewals by 46-fold.

However, hateful content remains rampant on the platform.

The strategy of warning users that their comments may be offensive has been tested by other platforms.

Instagram began giving users pop-ups asking if they are sure they want to post comments that might violate the app’s guidelines in July 2019. It expanded these “nudge warnings” this October.

Instagram has said that early trials of the pop-up yielded positive results.

ADVERTISEMENT

A study conducted by OpenWeb and Google’s AI conversation platform released in September attempted to quantify the effects of comment feedback by analyzing 400,000 comments on news websites.

The study found that for roughly a third of commenters, seeing a warning caused them to revise their comments. A little over half of those who edited their comments changed them in a way that no longer violated community standards, while roughly a quarter simply reworked their comments to avoid triggering the automated system.

Thirty-six percent of users exposed to the warnings posted the comment anyways.

Those results seem to line up with previous research by Coral, a commenting platform owned by Vox Media that is used by many media sites.

That 2018 study found that over a six-week period, 36 percent of those who received feedback on one of McClatchy’s websites edited their comment to reduce toxicity.

Rep. Deb HaalandDebra HaalandHaaland has competition to be first Native American to lead Interior  Lujan Grisham turned down Interior post, says transition source Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun stumps for Interior post: ‘A natural fit for me’ MORE (D-N.M.) has won headlines as she’s emerged as a leading contender to become President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenLawsuit alleges 200K Georgia voters were wrongly purged from registration list GOP lawmaker blasts incoming freshman over allegations of presidential voter fraud Haaland has competition to be first Native American to lead Interior  MORE’s Interior secretary, but a second public figure could win the post and become the first Native American to lead the department.

Former Interior Deputy Secretary Michael Connor, a descendant of the Taos Pueblo tribe who served during the last three years of the Obama administration, is also being seriously considered to lead the department.

Connor has largely flown under the radar while potential picks like Haaland have gathered momentum and attention, particularly as Biden has pledged to deliver a Cabinet that “looks like America.”

ADVERTISEMENT

But sources say Haaland’s endorsement by progressive groups could complicate her confirmation process, while Connor, who was Senate-confirmed in 2014, could offer the same historic weight by placing a Native American in charge of a department with great responsibility to tribes.

Haaland has been endorsed by the Sunrise Movement, a youth climate organization, which, alongside Justice Democrats, has produced a list of progressive-backed candidates for different Cabinet posts.

“They run the risk of not thinking through the consequences of supporting Rep. Haaland so publicly,” one conservation source in close contact with congressional offices told The Hill.

“She is undoubtedly qualified and we are long overdue for a Native American Interior secretary, but drawing so much attention to her over a number of other qualified people as well would potentially put a target on her back for Senate Republicans who would love nothing more than to turn the confirmation hearing on a nominee into a referendum on the Green New Deal,” the source said. “The strong endorsement from Sunrise runs the risk, ironically, of making her harder to confirm.”

Sunrise did not respond to a request for comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Two other New Mexico lawmakers are also seen as being in the mix: Sens. Tom UdallThomas (Tom) Stewart UdallHaaland has competition to be first Native American to lead Interior  Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun stumps for Interior post: ‘A natural fit for me’ Five House Democrats who could join Biden Cabinet MORE (D), who is retiring at the end of this Congress, and Martin HeinrichMartin Trevor HeinrichHaaland has competition to be first Native American to lead Interior  Incoming Congress looks more like America Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun stumps for Interior post: ‘A natural fit for me’ MORE (D). Both are white men.

Connor first came to Interior in 1993, working his way up the chain before a several-year stint as counselor for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee starting in 2001. Upon returning to Interior in 2009, he served as head of the Bureau of Reclamation before being confirmed as deputy secretary in 2014, serving until the start of the Trump administration. 

“Understanding the roles of the different departments and different assistant secretaries and looking at the chemistry of each department is really valuable,” one former high-ranking Interior official told The Hill.

“You get to understand how things get done, how to get things done, the areas where you have to pay close attention, and the people you can have faith are going to do the job without a lot of supervision. So Michael serving in the deputy secretary role would have seen all that. That’s an important asset he brings to table,” the official said.

Others described Connor as being well-liked and respected within the department.

ADVERTISEMENT

“He was always very respectful of career people. Very sharp, just a wonderful man and it was a pleasure working with him,” said Steve Ellis, who served as the highest-ranking career official with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) during the Obama administration.

Good relationships with career employees could be particularly important for the incoming administration, as morale for some Interior employees has hit a low under the Trump administration.

The Biden team is already looking to fill BLM’s leadership position with someone familiar with the bureau in order to stabilize the agency — a thought process that could be seen elsewhere at Interior as the transition team makes other selections for the department.

Neither Connor nor the Biden transition team responded to a request for comment.

Connor works as an attorney with WilmerHale, where he specializes in natural resources and Native American law. 

He also spent time as an Environment Program Fellow with the Walton Family Foundation, a nonprofit funded by the family behind the Walmart empire dedicated to protecting waters and improving education. He also serves on the board of the Audubon Society. 

Though Connor’s practice primarily involves water law, his law firm offers legal services to oil and gas companies. That could be an issue, as progressives have urged the Biden administration to avoid those with any connection to the industry.

But not all share the view that lobbying from progressives — whether directed for or against a potential nominee — will make much of a difference.

“I don’t think those things matter as much. I think the administration has to choose people they have the most faith in that will be able not only to do the job but implement the agenda laid out in the election. Experience is a valuable asset, but lots and lots of people weigh in on who should be in what role and someone like President-elect Biden, with decades of experience in office, he’s been through this and seen the endorsements and commentary and I’m confident he and his team will make his own judgment,” the former Interior official said.

“They’re in the best position to make those judgments regardless of who said what about whom.”

IBM on Thursday warned that it uncovered a “global phishing campaign” targeting the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain.

The company wrote a blog post saying that the scheme was targeting the vaccine “cold chain,” which ensures that vaccines are preserved in temperature-controlled environments during storage and transportation.

IBM said the hackers impersonated an executive from Haier Biomedical, which is reportedly the world’s only complete cold chain provider. The person then sent phishing emails to organizations believed to be providing material support to meet transportation needs within the chain.

ADVERTISEMENT

Among the hacker’s targets was the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union. The group has set the rules on vaccine importation, according to Reuters.

IBM analyst Claire Zaboeva told Reuters that the hackers went through “an exceptional amount of effort.” The scammers researched the correct make, model and pricing of various refrigeration units.

“Whoever put together this campaign was intimately aware of whatever products were involved in the supply chain to develop a vaccine for the global pandemic,” she told the news outlet.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an alert advising organizations involved in Operation Warp Speed to review IBM’s blog post.

It’s unclear who was behind the phishing campaign.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that North Korean hackers attempted to hack at least six pharmaceutical companies developing COVID-19 treatments.

Microsoft previously warned that North Korean and Russian hacking groups were targeting pharmaceutical companies and COVID-19 vaccine researchers.

A must-pass defense bill is in potential jeopardy — again — as President TrumpDonald John TrumpFederal watchdog accuses VOA parent company of wrongdoing under Trump appointee Lawsuit alleges 200K Georgia voters were wrongly purged from registration list Ivanka Trump gives deposition in lawsuit alleging misuse of inauguration funds MORE ties the legislation to his crusade against social media companies.

Lawmakers moved ahead Wednesday with finalizing the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) despite a threat by Trump the previous day to veto the legislation.

Trump has threatened to block the bill unless it repeals Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a key liability protection for online tech platforms. The president previously threatened to veto the bill over language requiring the Pentagon to rename Confederate-named military bases.

ADVERTISEMENT

But lawmakers had already closed in on a deal before Trump’s latest threat that included requiring the bases be renamed and excluded Section 230 reforms. Congressional negotiators began signing the compromise bill, known as a conference report, Wednesday evening without any language on Section 230, a House aide confirmed.

If Trump follows through on his veto, it is unclear if Republicans are willing to override him, risking 2020 being the first time in 60 years an NDAA is not signed into law. At least one Republican, Rep. Adam KinzingerAdam Daniel KinzingerDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill GOP urges Trump not to tank defense bill over tech fight First release from Fox News Books reaches No. 2 on Amazon top-seller list MORE (Ill.), has committed to overturning a hypothetical veto.

“One way or the other we have to pass the defense authorization bill,” said Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill Overnight Defense: Defense bill moving forward despite Trump veto threat over tech fight | Government funding bill hits snag | Top general talks Afghanistan, Pentagon budget Funding bill hits snag as shutdown deadline looms MORE (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican. “There will be enormous support for getting the defense authorization bill passed and hopefully signed into law.”

Thune said he doesn’t “think the defense bill is the place to litigate” Section 230 but also said he doesn’t know if it will pass with a veto-proof majority and was “not going to speculate” on that.

Congress has little time left in its calendar to pass the bill and override a possible veto. The House is scheduled to leave town Dec. 11, giving lawmakers just six more days when both chambers will be in session this year. Because a new Congress starts in January, lawmakers would have to start from scratch on the defense bill if they do not finish this year.

The NDAA is considered must-pass legislation because it authorizes a slew of routine and important Pentagon programs, as well as a pay raise and hazard pay for troops.

ADVERTISEMENT

“For 59 straight years, the NDAA has passed because members of Congress and presidents of both parties have set aside their own policy objectives and partisan preferences and put the needs of our military personnel and America’s security first,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill Overnight Defense: Defense bill moving forward despite Trump veto threat over tech fight | Government funding bill hits snag | Top general talks Afghanistan, Pentagon budget House Armed Services chairman, top Republican urge passage of compromise defense bill without Section 230 repeal MORE (D-Wash.) and Rep. Mac ThornberryWilliam (Mac) McClellan ThornberryDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill Overnight Defense: Defense bill moving forward despite Trump veto threat over tech fight | Government funding bill hits snag | Top general talks Afghanistan, Pentagon budget House Armed Services chairman, top Republican urge passage of compromise defense bill without Section 230 repeal MORE (Texas), the top Republican on the panel, said in a joint statement formally announcing the compromise bill.

“The time has come to do that again,” they added.

The deal reached by lawmakers requires bases named after Confederate figures to be changed, separate from talks over Section 230, a Democratic House aide told The Hill.

The deal reached by lawmakers mirrors language the Senate approved in July, House aides said. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill Hillicon Valley: GOP chairman says defense bill leaves out Section 230 repeal | Senate panel advances FCC nominee | Krebs says threats to election officials ‘undermining democracy’ Overnight Defense: Defense bill moving forward despite Trump veto threat over tech fight | Government funding bill hits snag | Top general talks Afghanistan, Pentagon budget MORE (R-Okla.) and Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill Overnight Defense: Defense bill moving forward despite Trump veto threat over tech fight | Government funding bill hits snag | Top general talks Afghanistan, Pentagon budget Katie Porter in heated exchange with Mnuchin: ‘You’re play-acting to be a lawyer’ MORE (D-Mass.), who authored the Senate language, also confirmed Wednesday that her language is in the compromise NDAA.

The Senate version mandated changes in three years and created a commission tasked with developing a plan to “remove names, symbols, displays, monuments or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.”

Both the House and Senate versions of the NDAA included language requiring the Pentagon to rename military bases and other property bearing Confederate monikers. The House version would have required changes in one year.

The language, which most prominently would affect 10 Army bases named after Confederate military officers, was added to the bills with bipartisan support amid nationwide racial justice protests that reinvigorated an examination of America’s legacy of slavery. 

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany highlighted Trump’s past objection to Warren’s language on Confederate-named bases, but said she was unsure if his position has changed amid the Section 230 fight.

As formal negotiations on the defense bill kicked off last month, chief of staff Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill EPA chief quarantining after exposure to someone who later tested positive for COVID-19 The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Mastercard – Barr splits with Trump on election; pardon controversy MORE floated the idea that Trump could drop his objections to renaming bases if lawmakers agree to repeal Section 230. Lawmakers threw cold water on the idea because Section 230 is outside the jurisdiction of the bill.

The 1996 law, which has little if anything to do with national security or defense, gives online platforms liability protection for content posted by third parties while allowing them to make good-faith content moderation efforts.

Trump and his Republican allies argue that Section 230 allows social media companies to discriminate against conservative content, a claim that has not been substantiated.

The president’s fixation with the law, considered a bedrock of the modern internet, started in May after Twitter added labels to several of his posts alleging without evidence that mail-in voting is fraudulent.

ADVERTISEMENT

Soon after the first label was applied, Trump signed an executive order targeting the law. That order is likely to be either defeated in the courts or simply ignored by President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenLawsuit alleges 200K Georgia voters were wrongly purged from registration list GOP lawmaker blasts incoming freshman over allegations of presidential voter fraud Haaland has competition to be first Native American to lead Interior  MORE.

“We’ve all been talking about this for quite some time,” White House economic adviser Larry KudlowLarry KudlowMORE told reporters Wednesday when asked about the veto threat. “It’s certainly odd that big social media companies seem to be censoring conservative points of view, and we don’t like that one bit.”

The administration is looking for a “much, much more limited liability shield,” Kudlow added.

Pressed on how the issue is relevant to the NDAA, Kudlow said, “It’s a vehicle.”

“Sometimes you hang things on large trees,” he added of the NDAA, one of the last major bills expected to get a vote during Trump’s presidency.

McEnany added in a later press briefing that Trump is “serious” about his veto threat, saying he will “put the pressure on Congress to step up on this.”

ADVERTISEMENT

But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are imploring Trump not to torpedo the defense bill over an unrelated issue.

The showdown is forcing Republicans into a balancing act with control of the Senate in the next Congress hinging on two Georgia runoffs in January. Failing to pass a bill that supports the troops could open Republicans up to attack from opponents, but bucking Trump risks an attack from him.

Inhofe said he told Trump that Section 230 should be left out of the NDAA.

“First of all, 230 has nothing to do with the military. And I agree with his sentiments; we ought to do away with 230, but you can’t do it in this bill. That’s not a part of the bill,” Inhofe told reporters.

But Inhofe also said he does not know if Trump will ultimately sign the bill.

“We just had an honest disagreement, very friendly,” Inhofe said of his talk with Trump.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Roger WickerRoger Frederick WickerDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill GOP lawmaker patience runs thin with Trump tactics Republicans start turning the page on Trump era MORE (R-Miss.) told reporters Wednesday he had been tapped by the White House to help devise a potential Section 230 amendment to the NDAA. 

A spokesperson for the lawmaker told The Hill the proposed text was very similar to his Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act. That bill would restrict the content that platforms can act on by striking the “otherwise objectionable” clause from the law.

Some staunch Trump allies are backing his play. Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill GOP chairman: Defense bill to include renaming Confederate bases, but not Section 230 repeal Time to bring federal employees home for every holiday MORE (R-Mo.) tweeted he “cannot support” the NDAA because it doesn’t contain Section 230 reforms but “DOES contain Elizabeth Warren’s social engineering amendment.”

Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill GOP urges Trump not to tank defense bill over tech fight Republican frustration builds over Cabinet picks MORE (R-S.C.) said he was supportive of Trump “using all the leverage he can” to reform Section 230.

Democrats, meanwhile, chastised Trump for endangering the defense bill over what they view as a personal vendetta.

“To be clear, Mr. President, Section 230 repeal wasn’t included in the House OR Senate version of the NDAA,” Smith tweeted Wednesday. “You’re mad at Twitter. We all know it. You’re willing to veto the defense bill over something that has everything to do with your ego, and nothing to do with defense.”

Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenDespite veto threat, Congress presses ahead on defense bill ACLU sues DHS for records on purchased cell phone data to track immigrants DHS watchdog to probe agency’s tracking of Americans’ phone data without a warrant MORE (D-Ore.), who co-authored Section 230, called Trump’s threat “pathetic.”

“I’d like to start for the Blazers, but it’s not going to happen either,” Wyden said in a statement. “It is pathetic that Trump refuses to help unemployed workers, while he spends his time tweeting unhinged election conspiracies and demanding Congress repeal the foundation of free speech online.”

Jordain Carney contributed.

Nasdaq on Tuesday filed a proposal asking the Security and Exchange Commission for authority to require diversity on the boards of listed companies. 

The exchange said the goal of the proposal was to provide a better understanding of a company’s board composition and “enhance investor confidence” that listed companies are considering diversity when selecting directors. 

Under the proposal, Nasdaq-listed companies would be required to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” about their board of directors, the exchange said in a statement. In addition, most Nasdaq-listed companies would be required to explain why they do not have at least two diverse directors. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The proposal would require listed companies to have one director who identifies as female and one who identifies as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+. Foreign companies and smaller reporting companies would be given more flexibility, and would be able to meet the requirement by having two female directors. 

Companies listed on the Nasdaq global Select Market and Nasdaq Global Market will be expected to have at least two diverse directors within four years of the SEC approving the listing rule, Those listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market will be expected to have two diverse directors with five years of the rule’ approval. 

All listed companies will have to publicly disclose its diversity statistics within one year of the SEC approving the rule. Companies that do not meet the requirements will not be subjected to delisting if they provide a public explanation of why they cannot meet those objectives. 

 

The proposal makes Nasdaq the first exchange to pursue such a requirement, according CNBC. A report from the New York Times found that over 75 percent of listed companies do not meet the proposed requirements. 

Nasdaq’s proposal comes as ESG investing—when a company’s environmental, social and governance factors are taken into account— is increasing, CNBC notes. Companies are noticing the boom. 

Goldman Sachs said in January that it would only finance initial public offerings for companies that have at least one nonwhite male board member.