President Biden will sign three executive orders on Tuesday focused on reforming the immigration system and undoing actions of the Trump administration, including establishing a family reunification task force and calling for a review of the public charge rule.

One of the orders will create a task force focused on identifying all of the minor children separated from their parents or guardians due to the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy in 2018, which a senior Biden administration official called a “moral failure and a national shame.”

The task force will be charged with reuniting the hundreds of migrant children who still have yet to be brought together with their families, and it will provide regular updates to the president on how to prevent future family separations.

ADVERTISEMENT

The task force will be led by Alejandro MayorkasAlejandro MayorkasThe Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Republicans squeeze Biden with 0 billion COVID-19 relief alternative This week: Biden, Democrats face decision point on coronavirus relief Senate delays vote to confirm Biden’s DHS pick amid snowstorm MORE, Biden’s pick for secretary of Homeland Security.

Mayorkas is expected to be confirmed to the position on Tuesday. The task force, a key campaign promise for Biden, was originally planned to be announced on Friday but was delayed while Mayorkas’s nomination was held up.

Thousands of migrant children were separated from their parents at the southern border during the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy. Images of children being held in separate detention facilities sparked bipartisan outrage, eventually forcing former President TrumpDonald TrumpGraham shoots down request for Merrick Garland confirmation hearing Feb. 8 Trump lawyer to make First Amendment case at impeachment trial Biden faces crossroads on virus relief bill MORE to halt the separations.

But the Trump administration struggled to reunite many families, and court documents released in October found that the parents of 545 of the separated migrant children still had not been found.

Biden will also sign an order on Tuesday to address the public charge rule put into place by Trump that limits immigrants ability to get green cards if they were deemed likely to rely on public services like food stamps or other social safety nets.

The rule has been branded a wealth test for immigrants by critics and has been heavily litigated by opponents.

ADVERTISEMENT

While the orders rescind Trump’s memorandum requiring family sponsors to repay the government if relatives receive public benefits, it stops short of doing so with the public charge rule, instead directing the Department of Homeland Security to review the rule. 

The third order to be signed on Tuesday is aimed at addressing the root causes of migration that draw individuals from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The situation at the border will not transform overnight, due in large part to the damage done over the last four years,” an administration fact sheet states. “But the President is committed to an approach that keeps our country safe, strong, and prosperous and that also aligns with our values.”

The order also promises a replacement for Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which forced migrants to apply for asylum from Mexico rather than in the U.S.

The Trump administration returned more than 60,000 asylum-seekers to Mexico under the program, leaving people waiting at the border while their case is adjudicated.

The White House on Monday asked the Supreme Court to cancel its upcoming hearing on the policy, but Tuesday’s orders offered few details on the scope of the policy that would replace it. 

One White House official said they would seek a policy “that enables them to pursue their cases and does not mean that they simply languish in Mexico.”

Tuesday’s orders build on initial actions Biden took upon taking office to undo key Trump administration policies. The president rescinded the Trump administration’s travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries and ended a national emergency declaration that had allowed funds to flow to construction of a wall along the southern border.

Biden has also sent a legislative proposal to Congress that would create a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, invest in technology at the border and send resources to Northern Triangle countries to address poverty, violence and causes of migration. 

President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief proposal would restore the economy to pre-pandemic levels by this summer, according to an analysis published Monday by S&P Global.

“We find that if the $1.9 trillion package were put into law, the U.S. economy would reach pre-crisis levels in the second quarter of 2021, with a stronger demand-driven path of growth through 2023,” the report said.

Biden’s proposal would also set the economy on course to exceed its pre-pandemic growth path until the end of 2022, when it would start to slow, S&P said.

ADVERTISEMENT

On the jobs front, S&P said the injection of government funds would likely push unemployment down below 4 percent by mid-2023, a year earlier than its current forecast. The nationwide unemployment rate stood at 6.7 percent in December, the most recent figures available from the Labor Department.

S&P also analyzed the $618 billion counter-proposal for COVID-19 relief offered by a group of 10 Republican senators.

That measure would also boost growth, but maintain a lower growth path over time, according to S&P’s projections.

“While the policies accelerate ‘filling in the demand hole’ this year, they are temporary, and GDP will drift back to a lower pace of growth,” the report said.

The report comes the same day a Congressional Budget Office report forecast that the economic output gap would be $808 billion over the coming four years, meaning a smaller stimulus package than the one proposed by Biden could be enough to restore economic growth to potential.

The S&P analysis, however, found that Biden’s proposal would maintain a higher growth trajectory.

Former President TrumpDonald TrumpPalm Beach reviewing Trump’s residency at Mar-a-Lago Immigration reform can’t wait On The Money: Five questions about the GameStop controversy | Biden, Yellen call for swift action on new aid MORE left office as numerous lawsuits against him and his administration still hung in the balance, a result that legal experts say was part of a calculated strategy to run out the clock and avoid accountability while in the White House.

By dragging his feet in court, Trump evaded subpoenas for his tax returns and dodged a final ruling on whether his continued business dealings violated the Constitution’s ban on profiting off the presidency.

His administration also upended the legal process, experts say, by treating emergency requests to the Supreme Court as a standard litigation move, often with success.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The administration foot-dragged and played the courts in very different ways in these cases,” said Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “But the bottom line was always the same: drag these disputes out in court and effectively achieve their policy goals.”

Some legal actions focused on Trump, like efforts to obtain his tax returns, are expected to continue post-presidency. But experts say that while he was in office, Trump’s drain-the-clock strategy allowed him to avoid accountability and carry out policies before their lawfulness was ultimately resolved, leaving key questions about executive power unanswered as President Biden took office Jan. 20.

“The goal was to stretch this out until after the election,” said Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the center-right American Enterprise Institute.

Shortly after Trump’s presidency ended, so too did a pair of lawsuits claiming he used the Oval Office to enrich himself. Those disputes dealt with the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which bars federal officeholders from accepting certain gifts and payments to safeguard against undue influence.

On Monday, five days after Trump’s departure, the Supreme Court dismissed a pair of emoluments cases against him, ruling that the lawsuits were moot now that Trump is a private citizen.

One of the litigants, the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, had filed the suit during Trump’s first week in office. The group’s president, Noah Bookbinder, said the dismissal of the case reflected Trump’s “concerted strategy of using delay and obstructive tactics.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“While going to court and taking advantage of available procedures can be appropriate,” he said, “the Trump administration’s moves seemed calculated to run out the clock so his abuses would not be addressed while he was president. It was a cynical and damaging strategy.”

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law professor, said Trump’s approach worked in part due to some of the legal vulnerabilities in these cases. Embedded in the emoluments disputes, for instance, were thorny questions about who had a legal right to sue.

“Sometimes the claims about Trump’s actions had some weak spots,” Tushnet said. “Maybe not enough to lead to an inevitable defeat for Trump, but enough to take up time in litigating.”

A separate case, which ping-ponged between the lower and upper courts, concerned a New York grand jury subpoena for Trump’s tax returns.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance obtained the August 2019 subpoena as part of a criminal probe into hush money that Trump allegedly paid to two former mistresses ahead of the 2016 election. Vance is also believed to be investigating possible financial crimes by the Trump Organization.

Trump responded to the subpoena against his accounting firm, Mazars USA, by filing a lawsuit in a New York federal court. When he lost there, he appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He lost again and appealed to the Supreme Court.

The justices last year ruled 7-2 against Trump, rejecting his claim that presidents have total immunity from the criminal process. But they left Trump wiggle room, saying he could lodge additional legal objections in lower court proceedings.

Trump did exactly that. Once again, he lost in the district court and the Second Circuit before turning to the Supreme Court.

By the time Trump left office, an emergency request was pending from Trump to the justices asking them to shield his financial records. The court has yet to act on the application, which was filed in October.

Trump could not have succeeded in running out the clock without judges who were willing to let the disputes drag on, said Tushnet.

“Any litigant, not just Trump, can file motions and the like with the intent to slow the pace of litigation down,” he said. “But they can succeed only if the courts are willing to go along.”

ADVERTISEMENT

When lower courts handled Trump-related suits, they often responded in kind to signaling from the Supreme Court that “the very fact that the presidency was involved should make them careful and deliberate in their actions.”

The justices were also largely acquiescent in the face of Trump’s record number of emergency requests.

Before Trump took office, it was rare for presidents to ask the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a lower court ruling, which has the effect of allowing a federal policy to go forward while a legal challenge plays out. But Trump treated these requests as a standard litigation tactic.

The combined administrations of former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama made just eight such requests over 16 years, with only four requests being granted, according to University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck.

In Trump’s first three years in office, his Justice Department asked for 29 emergency stays. In response, the court granted relief 17 times, Vladeck wrote in a June opinion piece for The New York Times.

“It was a partial stay from the Supreme Court that allowed President Trump to put much of his travel ban into effect until the policy was revised in late 2017,” Vladeck wrote. “A stay from the Supreme Court allowed the president to divert military construction funds to help build his border wall.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A number of stays were still in effect when Trump’s term ended Jan. 20, meaning a final ruling is unlikely to ever be reached in the underlying cases.

Tushnet said it was difficult to predict whether Trump’s litigation strategy would be emulated by other presidents.

“Litigators know that slow-walking things is always possible,” he said. “Whether other presidents try the same tactics will depend upon their sense of political and personal responsibility.”

A top Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official said Friday that the agency will try to have a “streamlined” process for authorizing any updates that are required for COVID-19 vaccines to adapt to the threat of new variants.

“We would intend to try to be pretty nimble with this,” said Peter Marks, the head of the FDA center that reviews vaccines, during a webinar hosted by the American Medical Association.

Marks said the agency would work to “get these variants covered as quickly as possible.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Experts have not yet said that updated vaccines are necessary, but they are monitoring the situation closely, particularly a variant first identified in South Africa that has been shown to diminish the effect of vaccines to varying extents.

Moderna, for example, said that while its studies have shown a reduced antibody response to the South African variant, its vaccine still appears to be protective, but “out of an abundance of caution” it is testing an updated vaccine specifically targeted against the new variant.

Relatively speedy authorization from the FDA would therefore also be important if vaccines need to be updated to adapt to new variants.

Marks said Friday the agency is “working on kind of finalizing what that will look like.”

He said for sure, though, that the updated vaccine would not have to go through another full-scale phase three trial to test its efficacy.

Instead, he said the agency could require “some small clinical trials” to ensure that the updated vaccine is triggering an immune response, and to see if it protects against both the new variant and the original virus.

ADVERTISEMENT

The type of vaccines used by Moderna and Pfizer, known as mRNA vaccines, are relatively easy to update for new variants.

However, experts say it is best to vaccinate as many people as quickly as possible with the current vaccines to cut down on the opportunities for the virus to continue spreading and mutating.

Basic precautions like mask wearing, avoiding indoor gatherings and maintaining six feet of distance from others are also crucial in slowing the spread and reducing further mutation.

Some experts have called for giving people only one dose of the two-dose regimen as a starting point so that the limited supply can be stretched to more people.

Marks again pushed back on that idea on Friday, saying when there is 95 percent efficacy with two doses, “you don’t want to try to mess with success.”

With just one dose “we don’t know the duration of that protection,” he said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle erupted in anger Thursday after online stock trading platforms barred users from buying skyrocketing shares of companies targeted by a Reddit forum.

The decisions allowed hedge funds and other well-established investors to continue buying the stocks, spurring charges of hypocrisy across the political spectrum from such figures as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezGOP congressman demands Ocasio-Cortez apologize following Twitter exchange with Cruz New York attorney general’s office ‘actively reviewing’ Robinhood activity On The Money: Economy shrank 3.5 percent in 2020 | Lawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop | Budget rules, politics threaten per hour minimum wage MORE (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzGOP congressman demands Ocasio-Cortez apologize following Twitter exchange with Cruz On The Money: Economy shrank 3.5 percent in 2020 | Lawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop | Budget rules, politics threaten per hour minimum wage Lawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop MORE (R-Texas.)

The Democratic leaders of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees announced they would each convene hearings on the state of the stock market, online trading platforms and how Congress should bolster financial rules meant to protect amateur investors.

ADVERTISEMENT

“People on Wall Street only care about the rules when they’re the ones getting hurt. American workers have known for years the Wall Street system is broken – they’ve been paying the price. It’s time for the SEC and Congress to make the economy work for everyone, not just Wall Street,” said Sen. Sherrod BrownSherrod Campbell BrownNew York attorney general’s office ‘actively reviewing’ Robinhood activity Lawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop Hillicon Valley: Robinhood restricts trading of companies targeted by Reddit users | Facebook reverses some decisions on removed posts | Lawmakers introduce bill to massively increase mail-in voting MORE (D-Ohio), who will soon become chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

House Financial Services Committee chair Maxine WatersMaxine Moore WatersLawmakers remember actress Cicely Tyson Lawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop Robinhood faces backlash from both parties for limiting trades MORE (D-Calif.) announced soon after that she would “convene a hearing to examine the recent activity around GameStop (GME) stock and other impacted stocks with a focus on short selling, online trading platforms, gamification and their systemic impact on our capital markets and retail investors.”

Robinhood joined other platforms in temporarily barring users from acquiring Gamestop stock Thursday morning after a volatile month where its value has gone up nearly 2,000 percent.

“We continuously monitor the markets and make changes where necessary,” the trading app wrote in a blog post announcing the decision to stop users from buying a baker’s dozen of stocks including Gamestop, Nokia and AMC.

The stock purchases had been popularized by the Reddit forum r/WallStreetBets, which had targeted hedge funds shorting the stocks.

“In light of recent volatility, we are restricting transactions for certain securities to position closing only,” Robinhood said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Users will be able to make “limited buys” of the stocks starting Friday morning, the company said in a blog post Thursday evening.

“To be clear, this was a risk-management decision, and was not made on the direction of the market makers we route to,” it added.

Sen. Pat ToomeyPatrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyGovernment used Patriot Act to gather website visitor logs in 2019 Appeals court rules NSA’s bulk phone data collection illegal Dunford withdraws from consideration to chair coronavirus oversight panel MORE (R-Pa.) called Robinhood’s move “disturbing.”

“[R]etail investors should be free to purchase even highly-speculative stocks, just as hedge funds should be free to short them,” he tweeted.

Cruz (R-Texas) was one of the first to express skepticism about the move, while Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeLawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop Incoming Senate Banking panel chair to hold hearing on stock market amid GameStop controversy Senate committee advances Biden’s DHS pick despite Republican pushback MORE (R-Utah) retweeted a post from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro adding that an investigation is needed.

Rep. Ken BuckKenneth (Ken) Robert BuckLawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop Incoming Senate Banking panel chair to hold hearing on stock market amid GameStop controversy Progressive groups warn against appointing tech insiders to key antitrust roles MORE (R-Colo.) took a different approach, suggesting that Robinhood should be hit with an antitrust investigation.

“There is nothing more fundamentally anti-competitive than blocking consumers from the marketplace,” tweeted Buck, the top-ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee tasked with antitrust issues.

Democrats said Robinhood should be forced to explain why it slammed the brakes on purchases of those stocks and how it plans to make it up to customers slighted by the decision.

“We now need to know more about @RobinhoodApp ’s decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit,” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez, who call the initial decision “unacceptable.”

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenOn The Money: Economy shrank 3.5 percent in 2020 | Lawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop | Budget rules, politics threaten per hour minimum wage Lawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop Warren calls CNBC reporter’s ‘bluff’ on rich leaving US over wealth tax MORE (D-Mass.) also criticized Robinhood for forcing customers to sign a clause forfeiting their right to sue the company and instead handle disputes through arbitration.

Even so, Warren put most of the blame on the SEC for failing to curb what she condemned as decades of market manipulation and failing to effectively enforce financial rules.

“The bigger issue for me is the SEC’s inability and unwillingness to deal with market manipulation. It’s not just what’s happened in the last couple of weeks,” she said in an interview with CNBC. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“What we need is a healthy stock market and to have a healthy stock market, you gotta have a cop on the beat. That should be the SEC. They need to step up and do their job.”

Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaLawmakers rip Robinhood’s decision on GameStop Robinhood faces backlash from both parties for limiting trades GameStop shares fall 60 percent as Reddit-fueled rally reverses MORE (D-Calif.) struck a similar tone, saying that lack of regulation had stacked the deck against day traders.

Robinhood will likely face pressure from all sides during the upcoming congressional hearings, which have not yet been scheduled. Brown and Waters could also call Robinhood executives to testify, giving both parties and chambers a chance to unload their rage.

Congressional grillings rarely bode well for companies in the hot seat, and both big tech and the financial sector are useful foils for lawmakers. But the lack of consensus among lawmakers over who is at fault has put the onus on the SEC.

The SEC is likely to be inundated with complaints from Robinhood users, but may also face pressure to investigate whether the Reddit-inspired trades that fueled Thursday’s meltdown violated the law.

Chester Spatt, a finance professor at Carnegie Mellon University and former SEC chief economist, said Robinhood likely faced serious risks regardless of the decision it made Thursday morning.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think the problem is they can screw up their business model either way,” Spatt said.

“On the one hand, they need to protect themselves against regulatory action that they weren’t properly handling these customer accounts…and they need to be able to ensure that they can perform on the contracts that are taken out of the hands of its investors.”

The backlash to Robinhood Thursday wasn’t limited to Washington.

Angry day traders filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York almost immediately, accusing the app of manipulating the market and demanding an award for plaintiffs. A subreddit dedicated to suing Robinhood launched earlier Thursday already has 30,000 members.

Dozens of celebrities also weighed in, urging investors to hold their GameStop stock and bashing Robinhood.

Robinhood declined to comment when asked about Congressional hearings and the class-action lawsuit.

 

— Former WWE Diva Ashley Massaro is scheduled to appear at Dawn Marie’s Wrestlers Rescue event next Sunday. Dawn Marie’s goal is to help raise money to provide health care for professional wrestlers. The event’s website, WrestlersRescue.org, has an interesting description regarding Ashley. Apparently, she has plans to release a music album soon and appear on a reality show in 2009. Here is what they wrote: “Ashley is a Playboy Magazine Celebrity Cover Girl, has co-starred on hit TV series such as “Smallville” and “Survivor China,” hosted E! Entertainment’s “Wild On E!”, graced the covers of and been featured in Flex, Femme Fatles, Maxim, FHM, is a former Miss Hawaiian Tropic USA and Canada, and will be starring in a new TV series premiering in early 09, as well as releasing her first album, and much, much more!”

Massaro wrote a blog last Friday saying she had a secret. She also noted her appearance at Dawn Marie’s charitable event.

— UGO.com has an interview with Paul Heyman, which you can read at this link. On a recent edition of WWE 24/7’s Legends Roundtable show, Lawler said he purposely broke Heyman’s jaw back in 1988. When asked about it, Heyman responded, “Well, he broke my jaw BEFORE the scaffold match. He’s always taken liberties with other people, especially those who by the nature of the situation had to place some trust in him. F*** him. I don’t spend any time in my life thinking about him. He’s in the past where he belongs. And no, I’m not surprised he’s still talking about me. If half HIS locker room banged MY wife, I guess I’d hold a grudge, too.” Heyman also talks about his online show, being a “hustler,” MMA, and more.

— Devin Cutting sent in the following… The “Killer” Kowalski Memorial Wrestling Show takes place on Sunday, October 26th, 2008 at the Irish-American Club in Malden, Massachusetts. Bell time is 2 PM. All proceeds will benefit the Walter “Killer” Kowalski Memorial Fund. Scheduled to appear are Tito Santana and Nikolai Volkoff. Go to http://www.superstarprowrestling.com for full information and http://prowrestlingevents.webs.com for a list of upcoming wrestling shows worldwide.

Click here to see video of Candice Michelle’s botchfest on Raw!