Tag Archives: President Donald Trump

Trump administration denies California request for more wildfire aid

By Nichola Groom

(Reuters) – The Trump administration has denied a request by California for additional wildfire recovery relief, saying the September blazes, part of the state’s record-setting fire year, were not severe enough.

“The early September fires were not of such severity and magnitude to exceed the combined capabilities of the state, affected local governments, voluntary agencies and other responding federal agencies,” Federal Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Lizzie Litzow said in an emailed statement on Friday.

More than 4.1 million acres have burned in California this year, shattering a previous record.

President Donald Trump issued a major disaster declaration for some parts of the state in August. California Gov. Gavin Newsom sent him a request on Sept. 28 seeking another major disaster declaration for seven counties affected by fires that ignited earlier that month.

A major disaster declaration provides federal assistance for individuals, infrastructure and emergency and permanent work, according to FEMA’s web site.

“The more recent and separate California submission was not supported by the relevant data that States must provide for approval and the President concurred with the FEMA Administrator’s recommendation,” White House spokesman Judd Deere said in an email.

California officials were not immediately available for comment.

(Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by David Gregorio)

Strong retail sales boost optimism before U.S. election, but it may be short lived

By Jonnelle Marte

(Reuters) – In an ordinary presidential election, Friday’s retail sales report would have been a dream for an incumbent like Republican President Donald Trump. Headline sales topped expectations by a wide margin and spending was up from August in all but one of the major categories.

Still, this is no ordinary election. Despite the gains seen in September, spending in key sectors that suffered massive job losses during the pandemic, such as restaurants and clothing stores, remain deeply below last year’s levels.

The report from the Commerce Department offered a reminder that millions of Americans are still out of work, leaving them with less money to spend on dinners out or new outfits. Without a vaccine or effective treatment, many consumers also hesitate to head out to stores or restaurants where they may be exposed to the virus.

On the one hand, the retail report showed that overall retail spending is now above pre-pandemic levels. That is a sign that some people may have spent the $300 supplement the federal government temporarily added to unemployment benefits. Other people may have boosted spending after being called back to work.

If more people continue to see their finances improve, that could bode well for the economy and for the overall outlook people carry when they vote in the Nov. 3 election.

But some economists are also questioning whether the increase in spending seen in September will continue with virus infections rising, job growth stalling and government aid fading.

Enhanced unemployment benefits and direct cash payments distributed as part of the CARES Act made it possible for jobless Americans to boost spending and pad their savings. But much of those savings were spent in August after the supplement to unemployment benefits expired, according to a study released Friday by the JPMorgan Chase Institute.

The White House and Congress have yet to reach a deal on another package. Job growth is also slowing and the number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits reached a two-month high last week.

“The progress we’ve made, which has been better than expected, may be slowing,” said John Briggs, head of strategy for the Americas at NatWest Markets. “I don’t know how much it hurts Trump’s chances, but I don’t see how it can help him.”

(Reporting by Jonnelle Marte; Editing by Andrea Ricci)

Explainer: ‘Dueling electors’ pose risk of U.S. vote deadlock

By Tom Hals

(Reuters) – In the United States, a candidate becomes president by securing the most “electoral” votes rather than winning a majority of the national popular vote. Known as the Electoral College, the system allots electors to the 50 states and the District of Columbia largely based on their population.

It is theoretically possible for the governor and legislature, each representing a different political party, to submit two different election results, leading to so-called “dueling slates of electors.”

Below are details of how that might play out.

What are electors?

The U.S. president is selected by 538 electors, known as the Electoral College, with electors apportioned based on each state’s population. The popular vote in each state typically determines which candidate receives a state’s electoral votes.

The U.S. Constitution and the 1887 Electoral Count Act govern the counting of electoral votes and any related disputes. The electors will meet on Dec. 14 to cast votes, which are then counted by Congress on Jan. 6 in a process overseen by Vice President Mike Pence in his role as Senate president.

What are dueling electors?

States with close contests between Republican President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Joe Biden could produce competing slates of electors, one certified by the governor and the other by the legislature.

The risk of this happening is heightened in the battleground states of Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which have Democratic governors and Republican-controlled legislatures.

Some election law experts are concerned that an unprecedented volume of mailed-in votes and legal challenges will delay the outcome of the election for weeks, creating an extended period of uncertainty.

Trump has repeatedly said the election is rigged and made unfounded attacks on mail-in voting, which tends to favor Democrats.

If early returns show a Trump lead, experts say the president could press Republican-controlled legislatures to appoint electors favorable to him, claiming the initial vote count reflects the true outcome.

Governors in those same states could end up backing a separate slate of electors pledged to Biden if the final count showed the Democratic candidate had won.

Both sets of electors would meet and vote on Dec. 14 and the competing results would be sent to Congress.

Which set of electors would prevail?

Both chambers of Congress could accept the same slate of electors, which would almost certainly put the matter to rest.

The chambers could also split, which is more likely if the Republicans retain control of the Senate and Democrats hold onto their House majority.

If lawmakers cannot agree on a set of electors, the country will find itself in uncharted territory.

The Electoral Count Act, often described by academics as “unintelligible,” seems to favor the slate of electors certified by the state’s governor, according to Ned Foley, a professor at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

But Foley notes that some scholars and an analysis by the Congressional Research Service have rejected that conclusion.

Academics have sketched out several scenarios. Under one, Pence as president of the Senate could throw out both sets of a state’s electors. Another contemplates that the House of Representatives would end up choosing between Biden and Trump. There is even a scenario in which the Speaker of the House, currently Democrat Nancy Pelosi, could become acting president.

Would the U.S. Supreme Court get involved?

The Supreme Court may be called upon to interpret the Electoral College Act to break any deadlock.

A Supreme Court ruling helped resolve the 2000 election in favor of George Bush over Al Gore, but that case was about a recount in Florida and the decision was reached before electors met to cast their votes.

“I think there will be legal challenges,” said Jessica Levinson, director of Loyola Law School’s Public Service Institute. “But I could see a court saying this would really be better left up to Congress.”

Has this happened before?

In 1876, dueling electors in three states were deadlocked until a deal was brokered days before Inauguration Day.

The dispute was resolved after Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for withdrawing U.S. troops left over from the Civil War from Southern states.

“I hope it’s a very low probability event but 1876 is a reminder that it is not zero and we have come very close to falling over that cliff in our history,” Foley said.

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Aurora Ellis)

Q&A: Where are we in the COVID-19 vaccine race?

By Carl O’Donnell

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Drugmakers and research centers around the world are working on COVID-19 vaccines, with large global trials of several of the candidates involving tens of thousands of participants well underway.

As some companies close in on unveiling their initial findings – with Canadian and European regulators already reviewing early data on some vaccines – the following is what we know about the race to deliver vaccines to help end the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed over a million lives:

Who is furthest along?

U.S. drugmaker Pfizer Inc with German partner BioNTech SE, U.S. biotech Moderna Inc and Britain-based AstraZeneca Plc in conjunction with University of Oxford researchers could provide early analyses of data from their various large trials as early as October or November. Johnson & Johnson is a bit further behind.

What happens in these trials?

The companies are testing their vaccines against a placebo – typically saline solution – in healthy volunteers to see if the rate of COVID-19 infection among those who got the vaccine is significantly lower than in those who received the dummy shot. Neither trial participants nor researchers know who has received the vaccine or placebo until the data is ready for review, or unblinded. The studies rely on subjects becoming naturally infected with COVID-19, so how long it takes to generate results largely depends on how pervasive the virus is where the trials are being conducted. In areas with large outbreaks and community spread, infections will pile up faster.

How will we know if the vaccine works?

The United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and the World Health Organization have all set similar minimum standards for effectiveness. Vaccines must demonstrate at least 50% efficacy – meaning at least twice as many infections among volunteers who got a placebo as among those in the vaccine group. Independent panels oversee the trials to monitor for safety and effectiveness since the data is hidden from companies and researchers. These data safety monitoring boards take a peek at the interim results at pre-determined milestones, such as after a certain number of people have become infected. If the vaccine is looking significantly better than the placebo, the companies can apply for emergency use, and the study may be halted or continue to its intended conclusion. A trial can also be halted if the panel determines the vaccine to be unsafe.

Will regulators ensure a vaccine is safe before making it available to the public?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it will not approve a vaccine unless it is both effective and safe. Earlier this month, it added more stringent safety guidelines for U.S. vaccines. The FDA wants developers to follow trial subjects for at least two months after they receive their final vaccine dose to check for any side effects that may crop up. The agency will consider an emergency use authorization (EUA) once that data is collected from at least half of the trial’s participants. The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency will review the vaccines for the UK and the European Medicines Agency will review vaccines for European Union use.

When will regulators decide?

Regulators will review the vaccines after the companies have enough data to submit applications seeking an EUA or formal approval. Moderna’s first look at data is more likely to come next month. AstraZeneca could provide a look at late-stage data in November. Pfizer/BioNtech said it may have data as early as October, but that it would wait for safety data it expects in the third week of November to file with U.S. regulators.

Regulators for Europe and Canada are considering data on a rolling basis, as it becomes available. The UK and the United States both expect speedy reviews of initial data for possible emergency use before more traditional lengthy reviews for formal commercial approvals.

Could these be the first approved coronavirus vaccines?

Yes, although China and Russia are on a similar timeline. China launched an emergency use program in July aimed at essential workers and others at high risk of infection that has vaccinated hundreds of thousands of people. At least four vaccines are far along including from China National Biotec Group [CHNAPF.UL] (CNBG), CanSino Biologics <6185.HK> and Sinovac. Sinovac and CNBG have said to expect early trial data as soon as November. Russia’s Gamaleya Institute has begun a 40,000-person late-stage trial and is expected to have early data at the end of October or early November. Russia has also given the vaccine to at least hundreds of “high-risk” members of the general population.

Is U.S. authorization up to President Trump?

The FDA must make sure that the benefits of a vaccine outweigh the risks before authorization since they are intended to be given to hundreds of millions of healthy people. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the authority to override the FDA’s recommendation. President Donald Trump has complained about the new safety guidelines, which delay any vaccine availability until after the Nov. 3 presidential election at the earliest. The Trump administration can hire and fire HHS officials, opening the possibility of political pressure to approve a vaccine.

(Reporting by Carl O’Donnell in New York; Additional reporting by Julie Steenhuysen in Chicago, Michael Erman in New York, Ludwig Burger in Frankfurt, Alistair Smout in London and Polina Ivanovo in Moscow; Editing by Caroline Humer, Bill Berkrot and Frances Kerry)

NIH tests therapies to help cut hospital stays for COVID-19 patients

(Reuters) – The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has started a late-stage trial to evaluate if immune-modulating therapies from three drugmakers can help reduce the need for ventilators for COVID-19 patients and shorten their hospital stay.

The NIH said on Friday it has selected three agents for the study – Johnson & Johnson unit Janssen Research’s Remicade, Bristol Myers Squibb’s Orencia and Abbvie Inc’s experimental drug cenicriviroc.

The study will enroll up to 2,100 hospitalized adults with moderate to severe COVID-19 symptoms in the United States and Latin America.

Immune-modulating therapies are medications that alter the way the immune system works. Severe infections are believed to be triggered by an over-reaction of the immune system, known as a “cytokine storm,” and drugs that suppress certain elements of the immune system can play a role in arresting a rapid escalation of symptoms.

This can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ failure, among other life-threatening complications.

The NIH said its clinical trial – ACTIV-1 Immune Modulators (IM) – will last six months, and the agency will study if the therapeutics can restore balance by modulating that immune response.

All patients will be given Gilead Sciences Inc’s antiviral drug remdesivir – the current standard of care – and also be randomly assigned to receive a placebo or one of the immune modulators as an add-on treatment, the NIH said in a statement.

Remdesivir was one of the drugs used to treat U.S. President Donald Trump’s coronavirus infection, and has been shown in previous studies to have cut time to recovery, though the European Union is investigating it for possible kidney injury.

(Reporting by Vishwadha Chander in Bengaluru, Editing by Sherry Jacob-Phillips)

Pfizer says earliest COVID-19 vaccine application to U.S. regulators would be after election

By Manas Mishra and Michael Erman

(Reuters) – Pfizer Inc said on Friday it may file for U.S. authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine it is developing with German partner BioNTech in late November, making it unlikely a vaccine will be available before the U.S. election as President Donald Trump has promised.

Pfizer said that it may say if the vaccine is effective as soon as this month based on its 40,000 person clinical trial but that it also needs safety data that will not be available until November at the earliest.

The Pfizer news, published in a letter from its chief executive on its website, lifted the U.S. stock market and the company’s shares. Shares were up slightly in rival vaccine maker Moderna Inc, which is close to Pfizer in its vaccine development.

“So let me be clear, assuming positive data, Pfizer will apply for Emergency Authorization Use in the U.S. soon after the safety milestone is achieved in the third week of November,” Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla said.

Trump has said repeatedly that there would be a vaccine available before the election, but health officials and companies had only said that data might be available this month. The possibility of further delays was raised after trials for two rival vaccines were put on hold in the United States this fall.

The president’s rush to a vaccine has also raised concerns that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, acting in haste, might not conduct an adequate review of the vaccine.

U.S. health officials have sought to assuage those concerns out of fear that not enough Americans would take a vaccine early on. Earlier this month, the FDA formalized a requirement that the vaccine makers collect two months of safety data on one-half of trial participants.

Pfizer’s comments on its time line raise the possibility of U.S. authorization of a coronavirus vaccine this year, a key step in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more than a million people and ravaged the global economy.

Moderna could also apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) this year. It has said that it may have interim data on its 30,000 person trial as soon as November.

Both companies are also applying for approval in Europe, where they are racing against AstraZeneca PLC. AstraZeneca’s U.S. trial has been on hold since September.

After the FDA announced the two-month requirement on Oct. 6, which was approved by the White House but undercut the likelihood of a vaccine before voters go to polls on Nov. 3., Trump called the move a ‘political hit job.’

In addition to safety and efficacy, the FDA will also examine Pfizer’s manufacturing operations for the vaccine.

Bourla said the filing depended on several other factors, including initial data on effectiveness that may or may not be available by late October.

He said the company plans to share efficacy data with the public as soon as practical. (https://bit.ly/31bWdpP)

A BioNTech spokeswoman confirmed the time frame for the possible EUA application to the FDA.

Pfizer’s shares rose 2.1% in premarket trading, while BioNTech’s U.S-listed shares were up 4% before the opening bell. Moderna was unchanged and U.S. futures were higher.

(Reporting by Manas Mishra, Manojna Maddipatla in Bengaluru and Michael Erman in New Jersey, Patricia Weiss in Frankfurt; writing by Caroline Humer in New York; Editing by Patrick Graham, Saumyadeb Chakrabarty and Steve Orlofsky)

Twitter unblocks Trump campaign account

(Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s Twitter election campaign account was unblocked on Thursday after the social media campaign temporarily restricted it saying a video from the account about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son violated its rules.

The video posted by the @TeamTrump account referred to a New York Post story from Wednesday that contained alleged details of Hunter Biden’s business dealings with a Ukrainian energy company and said the former vice president had met with an adviser of the company.

The Trump campaign, with 2.2 million followers, said in a new tweet it was “re-posting the video Twitter doesn’t want you to watch.” Twitter did not respond to a request for a comment about why the account had been unblocked.

“Joe Biden is a liar who has been ripping off our country for years,” the video was captioned.

Twitter said earlier the video violated its rules against posting private information, adding the account may need to delete the post in order to continue tweeting.

“It’s going to all end up in a big lawsuit and there are things that can happen that are very severe that I’d rather not see happen, but it’s probably going to have to,” Trump said, when asked about the move by Twitter.

Twitter said on Wednesday the Post story violated its “hacked materials” policy, which bars the distribution of content obtained through hacking that contains private information or trade secrets, or puts people at risk of physical harm.

Facebook Inc and Twitter took proactive steps on Wednesday to restrict dissemination of the Post story in the hours after it was published.

Twitter had placed similar restrictions on the account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday, after she shared the Post story.

Other Twitter, users, including a journalist, said their accounts had been suspended because they had posted a link to the New York Post story. The accounts were unblocked after they deleted the offending tweets.

After Twitter imposed the restrictions, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee moved to subpoena Twitter’s Chief Executive Jack Dorsey.

Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Republican senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley said the committee will vote on sending the subpoena on Tuesday, Oct. 20 and plans to have Dorsey in front of the committee by Oct. 23.

Dorsey said on Twitter Wednesday “our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable.”

(Reporting by Munsif Vengattil in Bengaluru, Elizabeth Culliford in London, and Nandita Bose and David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli and Lisa Shumaker)

Split screen: Trump and Biden to headline dueling town halls

By Joseph Ax

(Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden will hold dueling prime-time town halls on Thursday instead of their second presidential debate, which was canceled after Trump declined to take part in a virtual matchup.

With less than three weeks to go until the Nov. 3 vote, the Republican president is searching for ways to change the dynamics of a race in which Biden has a double-digit advantage in some national polls.

Nearly 15 million Americans, a record for this date, have cast ballots, according to the U.S. Elections Project at the University of Florida, as voters seek to avoid in-person lines on Election Day because of concerns about the novel coronavirus.

North Carolina, a highly competitive state, began more than two weeks of in-person early voting on Thursday. Local news reports showed long lines of voters eager to cast ballots, and Trump was due to hold an afternoon rally in Greenville in the eastern part of the state.

Trump’s campaign is counting on a surge of last-minute votes. But Reuters/Ipsos polling conducted between Oct. 9 and Oct. 13 shows there are far fewer undecided likely voters this year – around 8% – and they are just as likely to pick Biden as they are Trump.

Four years ago at this stage of the campaign, more than twice as many people were similarly wavering between Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The Reuters/Ipsos polling shows Biden holding a 10 percentage-point lead nationally, with a tighter margin in the battleground states that will help decide the election.

Both candidates have been visiting those states this week, with Trump holding rallies in Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa and Biden traveling to Ohio and Florida.

Trump has pulled into a statistical tie with Biden in Florida, a key battleground, with 47% support versus Biden’s 49%, and a credibility interval of 4 points, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll showed.

Thursday’s town halls, in which each candidate will field questions from voters, will take place at 8 p.m. EDT (0000 GMT), with Trump on NBC from Miami and Biden on ABC from Philadelphia.

Trump pulled out of the scheduled debate when the commission in charge of organizing the event said it would be held virtually after the president contracted the coronavirus. A final debate is still scheduled for Oct. 22 in Nashville, Tennessee.

On Thursday, the Biden campaign said two people involved in the campaign had tested positive for COVID-19, including one on the staff of U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate.

Although neither Biden nor Harris was in close contact with the people, the campaign said it was cancelling Harris’ travel until after Sunday, “in line with our campaign’s commitment to the highest levels of precaution.”

Trump has returned to the campaign trail after spending several days being treated for the virus in a military hospital.

NBC said on Wednesday that Clifford Lane, clinical director at the National Institutes of Health, and the government’s top infectious disease specialist, Anthony Fauci, had concluded “with a high degree of confidence” that Trump was no longer “shedding infectious virus.”

The election could be the most closely contested in recent memory due to a deeply divided electorate and the possibility that Trump will challenge widely used mail-in ballots, claiming without evidence they are fraudulent.

(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt and Chris Kahn in New York and Doina Chiacu and James Oliphant in Washington; Writing by Joseph Ax and Sonya Hepinstall; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Matthew Lewis)

Trump’s son Barron tested positive for COVID-19, says Melania Trump

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s 14-year-old son, Barron, tested positive for COVID-19 but exhibited no symptoms after both of his parents contracted the virus, first lady Melania Trump said on Wednesday.

“Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms,” Melania Trump said in a statement. She said she and Barron had since tested negative for the virus.

Donald Trump told a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, that Barron “is just fine now” and said it was an example of why schools should reopen.

“I don’t even think he knew he had it, because they’re young and their immune systems are strong and they fight it off,” Trump said. “Get the kids back to school,” he said.

Melania Trump said her symptoms were “minimal” and that she hoped to resume her duties as first lady “as soon as I can.”

“I experienced body aches, a cough and headaches, and felt extremely tired most of the time,” she said.

“I chose to go a more natural route in terms of medicine, opting more for vitamins and healthy food,” Melania Trump said.

Donald Trump spent three nights in a military hospital after announcing on Oct. 2 that he and Melania had tested positive.

To treat the virus, he received an experimental dual antibody therapy developed by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc and Gilead Sciences Inc’s antiviral remdesivir, as well as the steroid dexamethasone.

“In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together,” Melania Trump said.

(Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Leslie Adler and Peter Cooney)

Trump’s Supreme Court pick lauded as ‘unashamedly pro-life’ in hearing’s third day

By Lawrence Hurley, Patricia Zengerle and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett faced fresh questioning at her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, with the panel’s Republican chairman lauding her as “unashamedly pro-life” even as Democrats worry that she could vote to overturn the 1973 ruling legalizing abortion nationwide.

Barrett, a conservative federal appellate judge who is the Republican president’s third selection for a lifetime job on the top U.S. judicial body, was in the third day of her four-day Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.

“This is history being made folks,” Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the panel, said. “This is the first time in American history that we’ve nominated a woman who is unashamedly pro-life and embraces her faith without apology, and she’s going to the court. A seat at the table is waiting for you.”

“It will be a great signal to all young women who share your view of the world,” Graham added.

Under questioning by Graham, Barrett reiterated her comments from Tuesday that the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to abortion was not a “super-precedent” that could never potentially be overturned.

Barrett, a devout Catholic and a favorite of religious conservatives, told the committee on Tuesday she could set aside her religious beliefs in making judicial decisions.

Barrett would be the fifth woman to serve on the court and the second Republican appointee.

During 11 hours of questioning on Tuesday, she sidestepped questions on contentious social issues and told the committee she had no agenda on issues such as the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Democrats say Barrett’s confirmation would threaten healthcare for millions of Americans and they have said the Senate should not consider filling the vacancy until after the presidential election.

Barrett, 48, would tilt the court even further to the right, giving conservative justices a 6-3 majority. Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett’s confirmation a virtual certainty.

Barrett has declined to say whether she would recuse herself from the major Obamacare case to be argued on Nov. 10, in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the law. She said the case centers on a different legal issue than two previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld Obamacare that she has criticized.

In response to Democratic suggestions that she would vote to strike the entire law down if one part is found to be unlawful, Barrett on Wednesday told Graham that when judges address the legal question raised in the case, the “presumption” is that Congress did not intend the whole statute to fall.

Barrett agreed with Graham that if a statute can be saved, it is a judge’s duty to do so. Barrett indicated she was in favor of a broad reading of the “severability doctrine” in which courts assume that when one provision of a law is unlawful, Congress would want the rest of the statute to remain in place.

“I think insofar as it tries to effectuate what Congress would have wanted, it’s the court and Congress working hand in hand,” Barrett said of the doctrine.

Barrett on Tuesday also refused to say whether the 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide was wrongly decided. Barrett deflected Democrats’ questions about whether she would participate in any dispute resulting from the Nov. 3 presidential election, promising only to follow rules giving justices the final say on recusal.

Trump has urged the Senate, controlled by his fellow Republicans, to confirm Barrett before Election Day. Trump has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the election’s outcome as he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

The hearing is scheduled to end on Thursday with testimony from outside witnesses, with Republicans already preparing for committee vote next week.

Trump nominated Barrett to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26 to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day confirmation hearing is a key step before a full Senate vote due by the end of October on Barrett’s confirmation.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and Lawrence Hurley and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)