The Morning Dispatch: Evacuation Deadline Approaching

Plus: Moderate and progressive House Democrats strike a deal to move both infrastructure and Biden’s budget forward.

Happy Wednesday! We’re well aware that this newsletter has been filled with some pretty grim news of late, so let’s start today off with a palate cleanser: CORGI RACING.

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • The Pentagon announced on Tuesday that U.S. and coalition forces had combined to evacuate just under 22,000 people from Afghanistan over the past 24 hours, bringing the total number of evacuations since August 14 to over 70,000. President Joe Biden rebuffed calls from lawmakers and allies to extend his administration’s self-imposed withdrawal deadline beyond August 31—which the Taliban now views as a “red line”—saying the U.S. is “currently on pace” to achieve its objectives by then. He did, however, say he asked the Pentagon and State Department to prepare contingency plans in case the timeline needs to be adjusted.
  • A Taliban spokesman said yesterday that the group will continue to permit foreign nationals to access Hamid Karzai International Airport until the aforementioned August 31 deadline, but that they are “not allowing the evacuation of Afghans anymore.” The White House, however, said it continues to be the Biden administration’s “expectation” that Special Immigrant Visa applicants “should be able to get to the airport.”
  • The World Bank announced on Tuesday it is freezing its aid to Afghanistan “in line with [its] internal policies and procedures,” which dictate that it cannot disburse funds when there is disagreement among member countries over the legitimacy of a given government.
  • The House voted along party lines on Tuesday to advance a procedural motion instructing committees to begin drafting Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package. The final vote was delayed several hours by Democratic moderates, who had pledged not to support the move until Speaker Nancy Pelosi committed to hold a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package.
  • The House also voted along party lines Tuesday to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would restore certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court and require states to receive federal “preclearance” before changing their election laws. The bill will likely not advance past the Senate.
  • The Washington Post reported Tuesday night that President Biden received a report from the intelligence community that failed to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the origins of the coronavirus. Portions of the report will likely be declassified in the coming days.
  • The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay a lower court order requiring the Biden administration to continue enforcing the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy—while the appeals process continues. MPP requires many asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants to await the outcome of their cases outside the United States. The court’s three liberal justices indicated they would have granted the Biden administration’s application for a stay.
  • new CDC study looking at 43,000 infections in Los Angeles County found that, in late July, the COVID-19 hospitalization rate among unvaccinated people was more than 29 times that of fully vaccinated people. The report also determined infection rates to be about five times higher among the unvaccinated, but noted that the vaccines’ overall efficacy against infection diminished over time and amid the spread of the Delta variant.
  • The National Institutes of Health’s director, Francis Collins, predicted Tuesday that the FDA will likely not authorize COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 to 11 until the end of 2021.
  • Former University of Georgia running back and Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker filed paperwork to run against Sen. Raphael Warnock in 2022. Walker, a Republican, enters the multi-candidate GOP field with the backing of former President Donald Trump.

Biden Recommits to August 31 Withdrawal Deadline

(Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images.)

President Biden had a decision to make on Tuesday: Would he extend his administration’s self-imposed August 31 Afghanistan withdrawal deadline to ensure every last American and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holder could be evacuated?

Congressional Republicans—including Sen. Ben SasseMinority Leader Mitch McConnellSen. Lindsey GrahamRep. Dan Crenshaw, and Sen. Rob Portman—argued he should.

Congressional Democrats—including Rep. Elise SlotkinRep. Jimmy PanettaRep. Tom MalinowskiRep. Seth Moulton, and Rep. Adam Schiff—argued he should.

International allies—including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian—argued he should.

But Suhail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesman, said an extension would “create mistrust” and result in “consequences.”

Biden rejected calls to extend the deadline after a virtual meeting with G7 leaders, explaining in a speech Tuesday evening that “the sooner we can finish, the better.”

The White House’s case is a bit more complicated than that, but not much. Biden claims that U.S. forces are currently “on pace to finish” the evacuation by the end of the month—and that “each day of operations brings added risk to our troops.” Biden had on Monday dispatched CIA Director William Burns to Kabul for clandestine negotiations with Taliban leader Abdul Ghani Baradar—presumably regarding the August 31 cutoff point.

“Every day we’re on the ground is another day we know that ISIS-K is seeking to target the airport and attack both U.S. and Allied forces and innocent civilians,” Biden said in remarks yesterday, delivered after a five-hour delay. “Additionally, thus far, the Taliban have been taking steps to work with us so we can get our people out—but it’s a tenuous situation. We already had some gun fighting break out. We run a serious risk of it breaking down as time goes on.”

House Dems Paper Over Spending Schism—For Now 

With everything going on in Afghanistan, you’d be forgiven for forgetting that Congress is working to authorize about $4 trillion in spending—but Tuesday was a big day on that front.

House Democrats voted yesterday to adopt a rule that will allow them to move forward on a $3.5 trillion budget framework, overcoming a day-long delay caused by a group of moderate Democrats that revolted against advancing the Biden administration’s sweeping budget proposal without first passing the bipartisan infrastructure deal that received Senate approval earlier this month.

The measure passed entirely along partisan lines, 220-212, with both moderates and progressives within the Democratic caucus claiming they won the short-lived standoff.

Harvest and Ryan broke down how we got to this point—and what comes next—in yesterday’s Uphill.

The stand-off between moderate Democrats and House leadership started two weeks ago, when a group of nine centrist Democrats, led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, sent a letter to Pelosi urging her to not delay the vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal.

“We simply can’t afford months of unnecessary delays and risk squandering this once-in-a-century, bipartisan infrastructure package,” they said. “We will not consider voting for a budget resolution until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes the House and is signed into law.”

They doubled down right before the House came back in town, releasing a Washington Postop-ed on Sunday: “We are firmly opposed to holding the president’s infrastructure legislation hostage to reconciliation, risking its passage and the bipartisan support behind it.”

How did Democrats resolve the disagreement?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to woo the centrists by promising a vote on the infrastructure package before current transportation programs expire in October. But it wasn’t until Tuesday that a specific date was promised as a concession for moderates: The House Rules Committee passed a nonbinding resolution calling for a vote on the infrastructure deal by September 27. Then, barely an hour later, the moderates decided they needed a stronger commitment, forcing the Rules Committee to meet again. This time, lawmakers negotiated a provision that made it directly into the rule itself saying the House will consider the bipartisan infrastructure bill no later than September 27.

Gottheimer et al. declared victory Tuesday afternoon. “We have established a path forward that ensures we can pass this once-in-a-century infrastructure investment by September 27, allowing us to create millions of jobs and bring our nation into the 21st century,” the congressman wrote. “It will receive standalone consideration, fully delinked, and on its own merits.”

But Democrats aren’t out of the woods yet. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, reiterated in a statement yesterday that they view the two pieces of legislation as inextricably linked. “We will only vote for the infrastructure bill after passing the reconciliation bill,” she wrote. It’s unclear if the Caucus’s 90-plus members all share that view.

Worth Your Time

  • Even the most entrenched media critics on the right would likely concede that the “mainstream” press has been pretty tough on the Biden administration’s Afghanistan withdrawal. So much so, in fact, that Biden’s defenders have resorted to accusing the media of having a hawkish bias. But Ramesh Ponnuru argues in Bloomberg that it’s a lot simpler than that. “The news that’s being reported is just bad,” he writes. “Biden wouldn’t have had to send troops back to Afghanistan if it weren’t. When Republicans in Trump’s first weeks in office complained that the press was not letting him have a traditional presidential honeymoon, it rang hollow: When your national security adviser has to go after 23 days on the job, there’s no way to make it a positive story. There’s no way to make this story good either. Biden’s problem isn’t a biased press; it’s a recalcitrant reality.”

Presented Without Comment

Toeing the Company Line

  • In yesterday’s French Press (🔒), David writes about what he sees as a paradox in our debates about free speech. “It’s clear that a large number of Americans are afraid to share their views, and for good reason. A recent Cato Institute survey found that 62 percent of Americans agree that ‘the political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive,’” he notes. “At the same time, however … a visitor from another planet would open Twitter or Facebook, look at American discourse and think, ‘If this is restraint, I’d hate to see freedom.’ The online world is awash not just in political opinion, but in extreme vitriol, vicious hatred, and extraordinarily profane and pornographic expression.”

Reporting by Declan Garvey (@declanpgarvey), Andrew Egger (@EggerDC), Charlotte Lawson (@charlotteUVA), Ryan Brown (@RyanP_Brown), Harvest Prude (@HarvestPrude), and Steve Hayes (@stephenfhayes).