A former Biden White House official says that a new asylum rule announced by the administration normalizes white nationalist beliefs about migrants — part of a wave of left-wing criticism hitting the administration over the proposed rule.

‘When I joined the Biden Administration, we cared about preserving access to asylum, not only because it was the law, but because we had evidence that banning new asylum seekers was not an operational solution to the challenge of irregular migration,’ Andrea Flores tweeted.

‘Today, rather than make progress on addressing regional mass migration, the Biden Administration has resurrected a transit ban that normalizes the white nationalist belief that asylum seekers from certain countries are less deserving of humanitarian protections,’ she said.

Flores, who worked in the Obama and Biden administrations on immigration matters, was reacting to the announcement of a new proposed rule on Tuesday.

That rule would make migrants automatically presumed to be ineligible for asylum if they have crossed into the U.S. illegally and have also failed to claim asylum in a country through which they have already traveled.

Unaccompanied children are exempt, and there would be other factors that could rebut the presumption, including an acute medical emergency, being a trafficking victim, and facing an ‘extreme and imminent’ threat to life or safety. 

Migrants can still enter the U.S. to claim asylum if they have been denied by a third country, if they present themselves at a port of entry after scheduling an appointment via the new CBP One App or if they are paroled into the U.S. They can also challenge the presumption. 

The policy is a temporary two-year policy and designed to replace the Title 42 public order, which has been used to quickly expel migrants due to the COVID-19 emergency and is due to end on May 11.

Immigration advocates and Democrats have reacted with dismay to the policy, which is similar to the ‘transit ban’ which was proposed by the Trump administration and ultimately blocked by the courts.  Administration officials have repeatedly rejected comparisons to the transit ban, citing the existence and expansion of legal pathways available to migrants. They have argued that, unlike in the Trump administration, pathways remain open to claim asylum.

‘We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws. We are strengthening the availability of legal, orderly pathways for migrants to come to the United States, at the same time proposing new consequences on those who fail to use processes made available to them by the United States and its regional partners,’ Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement. 

‘As we have seen time and time again, individuals who are provided a safe, orderly, and lawful path to the United States are less likely to risk their lives traversing thousands of miles in the hands of ruthless smugglers, only to arrive at our southern border and face the legal consequences of unlawful entry,’ he said.

But that explanation has failed to satisfy activists, who have accused the administration of chipping away at a right to asylum.

‘For an Administration that strives to uphold racial equity, it is deeply disheartening to watch them normalize the dehumanizing narrative that Black and brown migrants at the southern border deserve to be punished for seeking out a legal pathway that Congress provided for them,’ Flores tweeted.

‘Our asylum system is deeply broken, just as broken as the rest of our immigration system. But this new transit ban & CBP One will do nothing to reduce the legal and operational failures of the current system,’ she said.

Flores’ criticism was similar to Democrats in both the House and the Senate, who have also criticized the policy.

‘We are deeply disappointed that the Administration has chosen to move forward with publishing this proposed rule, which only perpetuates the harmful myth that asylum seekers are a threat to this nation,’ Sens. Bob Menendez, D-NJ, Cory Booker, D-NJ, Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M and Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said in a statement.

 ‘In reality, they are pursuing a legal pathway in the United States. We have an obligation to protect vulnerable migrants under domestic and international law and should not leave vulnerable migrants stranded in countries unable to protect them. We urge President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas to reverse course and pave a better path forward that protects the right to asylum while addressing the real operational challenges at our Southern Border.’

U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price on Wednesday warned there would be ‘consequences’ if China were to provide lethal aid to Russia in its war against Ukraine, but when pressed on just what those consequences might be, he was more ambiguous. 

Wednesday’s comments came after Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who met with China’s top diplomat Wang Yi in Munich over the weekend, said the U.S. has evidence China is considering providing lethal support to Russia. 

Price clarified that the U.S. has not seen concrete evidence of direct support, but added ‘we don’t believe they’ve taken it off the table, either.’

Price said China’s providing of lethal weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine ‘would cause real consequences in our bilateral relationship.’ 

‘The [People’s Republic of China] understands what’s at risk were it to proceed with providing material support to Russia’s war against Ukraine,’ he said. ‘We’ve been clear we will not hesitate to target Chinese companies or individuals that violate our sanctions, and we’re monitoring very vigilantly for potential violations.’ 

Price predicted that China would suffer ‘reputational costs’ if it were to follow through with providing Russia with lethal aid. 

‘Already, it is providing diplomatic support. It is providing economic support. It is … spewing propaganda that serves to amplify the lies, the distortions, the myths, the half-truths that are emanating from Moscow,’ he said. 

Later in the press conference, a reporter questioned what possible leverage the U.S. has as a deterrent if China sides with Russia. 

Price said there was ‘an advantage to some degree of ambiguity.’ 

‘We have been clear with the PRC about the fact that consequences would befall them if they were to provide lethal assistance, but we think it’s most effective if we leave that ambiguous and we continue to warn consistently of those consequences,’ Price said. 

Experts have argued that the Biden administration might have forced China’s hand after revealing its suspicions that China was considering providing Russia with lethal aid. 

The U.S. and its NATO allies have repeatedly warned that any nation — including China — will see severe economic sanctions if they are found aiding Russia’s war against Ukraine. 

China has toed the line when it comes to the war in Ukraine, refusing to condemn Russia’s invasion but also, so far, failing to provide arms to its chief international partner. 

Fox News’ Caitlin McFall and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

A West Virginia legislative panel on Wednesday advanced a bill that would let the state establish ‘baby box’ safe surrender locations.

The House Judiciary Committee forwarded the bill to the full House of Delegates.

West Virginia’s Safe Haven Law already allows children less than 30 days old to be turned over to a hospital, health facility or fire department that is staffed 24 hours a day.

Under the bill, a baby box would be placed in each of West Virginia’s 55 counties at one of those locations. The box would have to be padded, heated and equipped with a notification system to alert those on site that a child has been placed inside the box.

Woodburn, Indiana-based Safe Haven Baby Boxes has established 130 baby boxes and drawers across nine states. Founder and CEO Monica Kelsey said 24 babies have been surrendered at the devices nationwide.

Kentucky now has 16 baby box locations. Kelsey said the state saw its first infant anonymously dropped off at one of the locations earlier this month.

New York officials gave final approval Wednesday for a measure that will lower the hourly threshold for when farm workers qualify for overtime pay.

Under the adopted measure, the overtime pay threshold will gradually be reduced to 40 hours by 2032. Starting on Jan. 1, 2024, farm workers will be eligible for overtime pay after 56 hours worked per week.

Right now, farm workers in the state qualify for overtime pay after working more than 60 hours per week.

The state’s Department of Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon, who approved of a recommendation to reduce the overtime threshold in September, said it would ‘ensure equity for farm workers, who are the very backbone of our agriculture sector.’ The gradual transition should give farmers time to make appropriate adjustments, she said.

The overtime rule has been applauded by labor movement advocates who say farm workers deserve the same benefits long enjoyed by other workers. But many farm owners say the new measure will drive up labor costs and threatens family farms in the state.

‘Our family farmers are already struggling with skyrocketing inflation, high unemployment insurance taxes, and a severe worker shortage. This is one more burdensome mandate passed on by unelected bureaucrats that will cause more harm,’ state Senate GOP Leader Rob Ortt said in a statement.

Gov. Kathy Hochul in her budget plan proposes expanding tax credits for farmers to ensure the new standards are implemented smoothly.

Farm owners will be able to tap into a tax credit of $1,200 per employee. A refundable overtime tax credit was also established to help cover the costs of farm employers who will have to pay overtime hourly wages.

The Department of Defense has released of a photo of the Chinese spy balloon that was shot down earlier this month off the coast of South Carolina after it had traversed the country. 

The photo, obtained by Fox News Digital, was taken Feb. 3 by one of the U-2 pilots. It shows a U.S. Air Force pilot looking down at the suspect Chinese surveillance balloon as it hovered over the central continental U.S. 

The following day, an F-22 fighter jet fired a single A9X missile to bring down the balloon at 58,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean. 

The shootdown triggered three subsequent shootdowns of unidentified objects and forced the U.S. military to reevaluate its guidelines for monitoring and reacting to unknown aerial objects. 

U.S. officials later admitted that the three later objects shot down likely had a ‘benign purpose’ and were detected after the U.S. military set its radar system to detect slow-moving balloons. 

The missile attacks were the first known peacetime shootdowns of unauthorized objects in U.S. airspace. 

The downing of the Chinese spy balloon has also ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Beijing, which accused the former’s handling of the situation as ‘hysterical’ and ‘absurd.’ 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled a trip to a trip to Beijing over the incident. Over the weekend, Blinken met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich. 

Per the State Department, Blinken ‘made clear the United States will not stand for any violation of our sovereignty, and that the PRC’s high-altitude surveillance balloon program — which has intruded into the airspace of over 40 countries across 5 continents — has been exposed to the world.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

National groups on both sides of the abortion fight on Wednesday pledged significant spending in the race for a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, tossing the perennial battleground state into the spotlight of the searing debate over abortion access.

The winner of the April 4 general election will determine majority control of the court, which is expected to rule on cases affecting abortion, gerrymandered legislative districts and voting rights heading into the 2024 presidential election. The court, with a 4-3 conservative tilt, came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s win in the state in 2020, and both major parties are preparing for another close margin in next year’s presidential contest.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz, who campaigned as an abortion rights supporter and received the most votes in Tuesday’s primary, wasted no time attacking her Republican-backed opponent, Dan Kelly. Both are seeking to replace a retiring conservative justice.

Protasiewicz (pronounced Pro-tuh-SAY-witz) launched a pair of new television ads Wednesday, including one labeling Kelly an ‘extremist’ because of his position on abortion. Kelly is endorsed by the state’s three largest anti-abortion groups, while Protasiewicz is endorsed by EMILY’s List, which works nationwide to elect Democratic abortion rights supporters.

State and national Planned Parenthood political groups say they expect to spend in the seven figures, but would say only that their total would be more than $1 million to support Protasiewicz. Their strategy will include radio, TV and online advertising, plus direct mail. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin has hired staff across the state to support door-to-door and other campaign efforts.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the most influential groups in the anti-abortion movement, said it had committed ‘six figures’ to helping elect Kelly during the primary campaign through mailers, phone calls and text messages. The group said in a statement that it plans to continue supporting Kelly during the general election through its Women Speak Out campaign organization.

Protasiewicz told supporters at her victory party that if Kelly wins, he will vote to uphold Wisconsin’s 1849 law banning abortions, a claim repeated in her new ad. The law, enacted a year after Wisconsin became a state, went back into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. A Democratic-backed lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban is expected to make its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court this year or the next.

Kelly has expressed opposition to abortion in the past, including in a 2012 blog post in which he said the Democratic Party and the National Organization for Women were committed to normalizing the taking of human life. Kelly also has done legal work for Wisconsin Right to Life.

He has cited Protasiewicz’s support for abortion rights as evidence that she’s willing to rule based on ‘personal tastes and desires’ rather than what the law dictates.

‘It is just unbelievable that a judicial candidate would do that,’ Kelly said Wednesday on WTMJ-AM radio. ‘But that’s the fight. It really is to maintain the constitutional order in the state of Wisconsin, to make sure that we live under the rule of law and not the rule of Janet.’

Spending on the race is expected to to shatter the previous high for a state supreme court race, which was $15.2 million in Illinois in 2004.

More than $9 million has already been spent on the primary for television ads by both sides, according to a tally by AdImpact Politics. Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein has given at least $1.5 million to Fair Courts America, a group that ran ads supporting Kelly.

Outside groups spent about $2.5 million to benefit Kelly and about an equal amount attacking his conservative primary challenger, whom Democrats viewed as a tougher potential general election opponent. While the race is officially nonpartisan, the candidates have clear positions that lean liberal or conservative on some major topics.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party endorsed Protasiewicz immediately after her win and is also poised to spend big on the race. It raised $3.5 million in the first five weeks of the year, compared with just $56,000 by the Wisconsin Republican Party.

While turnout in off-year spring elections is always fairly low, there are signs it will be higher this year. Turnout for Tuesday’s primary neared 21%, the highest in at least 20 years.

Republicans are trying to motivate conservative voters by placing two measures opposed by Democrats on the April ballot, including one asking if certain adults must be searching for work to receive ‘welfare benefits.’

In a potentially positive sign for Democrats, the total primary votes for Protasiewicz and another liberal candidate who finished a distant fourth were nearly 8 percentage points higher than the votes for Kelly and the other conservative.

Kelly was endorsed by Trump in 2020, when he was on the same ballot as the Democratic presidential primary and trying to win a full term on the court after serving four years following an appointment.

He ended up losing that race to Justice Jill Karofsky by more than 10 percentage points. Afterward he worked for both the state and national Republican parties, including advising on the scheme in Wisconsin to have fake electors cast ballots for Trump.

‘This is an election that we know is going to largely focus on abortion and the ability to make a healthcare decision, and other important issues like voting rights and redistricting,’ Democratic strategist Melissa Baldauff said. ‘These are issues that the people of Wisconsin are very clear on their position and are not aligned with Dan Kelly.’

Republican leaders urged unity following the bitter primary battle between Kelly and conservative Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow.

‘Now is the time to unite and ensure our Supreme Court stays in conservative hands,’ Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson tweeted Wednesday.

Dorow urged her supporters to back Kelly.

Wisconsin is not the only battleground state with a high-stakes supreme court election this year.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans are hoping to win a vacant seat to narrow the Democratic majority from 4-2 to 4-3. The primary is May 16 and the general election is Nov. 7.

That court has handled a number of high-profile election cases in the past two years, including deciding disputes over the state’s mail-in voting law and rejecting bids to effectively overturn Biden’s victory.

Indiana voters would have to submit more identification information to obtain mail-in election ballots under a bill Republicans are advancing through the state Legislature.

The Indiana House voted 64-27 along party lines Wednesday in favor of a bill that would require voters submitting a paper application for a mail ballot to include a photocopy of a government-issued identification card or at least two ID numbers, such as their 10-digit driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

Bill sponsor Republican Rep. Tim Wesco of Osceola said the step was aimed at increasing voter confidence in elections by putting identification requirements for mail-in ballots in line with those for in-person voting.

Democrats argued that the additional requirements may disenfranchise some people, especially older voters who find it difficult to navigate the additional requirements. Voting-rights groups maintain that the ID requirements aren’t necessary because county election workers already must confirm that a person’s signature on the application matches that from their voter registration record.

House members voted Tuesday to remove provisions that would have prohibited a spouse or other family member from requesting a mail ballot application for a voter and ban any portion of the application form being highlighted.

The bill now goes to the state Senate for consideration.

Attorney General Merrick Garland will testify for first time in the 118th Congress before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week, it was announced Wednesday. 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced that Garland will testify March 1 at 10:00 a.m. ET when the Senate returns from recess as part of the committee’s oversight of executive agencies, including the Justice Department. 

Garland has incurred multiple requests from Republicans on the committee to return to testify on several matters including protests against Supreme Court justices and FACE Act prosecutions of pro-life protesters. 

The Justice Department on Wednesday indicted eight people under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or the FACE Act, for an incident that took place outside an abortion clinic in Michigan in 2020, adding to the growing list of the DOJ’s prosecutions of abortion clinic protesters.

Garland last appeared before the committee in October 2021.

He answered questions then about his memo to Department of Justice employees addressing a federal response to violence and intimidation of school board officials — despite the National School Boards Association apologizing for the letter that inspired the memo.

The committee’s then-ranking member, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, claimed that the DOJ memo had a ‘poisonous, chilling effect’ on speech, as it specifically dealt with opposition to school board officials.

Garland defended the memo, claiming that it was a response ‘to concerns about violence, threats of violence, other criminal conduct.’

Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.

Legislation considered Wednesday in a Missouri state Senate committee would bolster the state’s abortion ban.

Republican Sen. Mike Moon’s measure would add a line to the Missouri Constitution that says: ‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion.’

‘Let the voters weigh in on this,’ Moon said. ‘They will confirm with us that life is precious, and it should not be snuffed out prematurely through abortive actions.’

Abortion is already outlawed in Missouri. A law banning the procedure kicked in last year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Since then, abortion-rights advocates have been talking about trying to restore access to abortion via ballot measures, although no proposals have been filed yet.

In Missouri, citizens can amend laws and the Missouri Constitution by going directly to voters through referendums or initiative petitions.

Ballot measures allow voters to sidestep lawmakers, a tool that has previously been used to address policy issues that voters disagree with the Legislature on or politically sticky issues that lawmakers refuse to take up.

Moon’s measure would also need voter approval if it’s passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature by the end of session in mid-May.

Abortion-rights advocates asked lawmakers to vote down the proposal.

‘Here we are explaining again that abortion bans have devastating consequences for the patients and communities being denied this essential care,’ said Vanessa Wellbery, vice president of policy and advocacy at Advocates of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri.

A female Tanzanian fashion designer based in Houston alleged Wednesday that clothing worn by former Department of Energy (DOE) official Sam Brinton had been contained in her luggage that she reported missing in Washington, D.C., in 2018.

Asya Khamsin, who has designed and hand-made her own clothing line for years, said she recently saw a report that Brinton had been charged with stealing multiple pieces of luggage across the country and noticed that the former official appeared to be wearing her clothes in several photos. Khamsin said she had packed the same clothes in a bag that vanished on March 9, 2018, at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

‘I saw the images. Those were my custom designs, which were lost in that bag in 2018,’ she told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘He wore my clothes, which was stolen.’

Khamsin added that she had flown to Washington, D.C., to attend an event where she was invited to put her clothing on display. However, the disappearance of her bag prevented her from participating.

Shortly after the apparent theft of her bag, she and her husband filed a police report with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department, but the case was never solved. They also filed a claim with Delta Air Lines, which is the airline that she used to travel from Houston to Washington, D.C.

In communications between Khamsin and Delta Air Lines officials from March 2018 shared with Fox News Digital, Khamsin pleaded for help locating her bag, saying that it contained expensive clothes, shoes, jewelry and other personal belongings.

After seeing her clothing that resembled the ones in her lost bag in the recent media reports about Brinton, Khamsin filed a complaint with the Houston Police Department on Dec. 16. She then received a phone call regarding the complaint in late January from the FBI field office in Minneapolis, according to Khamsin’s husband.

‘Houston police, I guess, they [sent] the case to the FBI in Minnesota,’ Khamsin’s husband told Fox News Digital. ‘He called to say, ‘I’m [with] the FBI, I’m working on this case.’ Then my wife gave him the information and we didn’t hear anything. We don’t know whether the case is on. We don’t know whether the case is cold.’

The FBI declined to comment, citing its policy against confirming or denying investigations. As of publishing time, Brinton has not been charged with any crime related to Khamsin’s claims.

Meanwhile, Brinton – who was selected to serve as the DOE’s deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition over the summer – is facing significant prison time and hefty fines in relation to two separate baggage theft cases.

On Oct. 26, Minnesota prosecutors charged Brinton with stealing a suitcase worth $2,325 from a Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport baggage carousel in September. Brinton faces up to five years in prison for the alleged crime and was released without bail following a court hearing last week.

Then, in early December, Nevada prosecutors charged Brinton with grand larceny of an item valued between $1,200 and $5,000. Brinton was accused of stealing a suitcase with a total estimate worth of $3,670 on July 6 at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas. Brinton was released after a judge set bail in the case at $15,000 and ordered Brinton to ‘stay out of trouble.’

In both the Minnesota and Nevada cases, Brinton had traveled on flights from Washington, D.C., before allegedly swiping the bags from the airports’ baggage carousels, according to criminal complaints.

The DOE announced on Dec. 12 that Brinton had departed the agency but wouldn’t comment on the reason for the departure after the charges in Minnesota and Nevada. A spokesperson for the DOE said the agency wasn’t allowed to comment on personnel matters.

Brinton’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.