President Biden and the White House face a political threat over the fallout from the administration’s response to the Norfolk Southern train derailment that has left residents of East Palestine, Ohio, scared and frustrated.
Republicans have gone on the attack over the Feb. 3 derailment, questioning the urgency of the administration’s response and asking why Biden has not visited the impacted community.
Former President Trump on Wednesday accused the Biden administration of “indifference and betrayal” toward East Palestine during a visit there, while the mayor of the village called it a “slap in the face” that Biden went to Europe before visiting the site of a potential environmental disaster. The White House said Biden has not spoken to the mayor.
It’s not as if Biden is at a political low point.
He returned late Wednesday from a dramatic trip to Ukraine and Poland to mark the anniversary of Russia’s invasion, completing a secretive and complex visit to an active war zone with no U.S. military presence.
That visit was a sign of the president’s strength and will be used by the White House and Biden allies to both shore up support for the Western effort to back Kyiv and to counter any suggestion that Biden lacks the strength and energy to do his job.
It is part of a broadly successful several weeks for Biden, who put Republicans on defense over Social Security and Medicare during his State of the Union address. The president’s approval rating increased to 49 percent, according to an NPR poll released Wednesday; it’s his highest mark in nearly a year.
Yet there are real risks to the train derailment story, which took place in the traditional swing state of Ohio that has in the last decade seemingly turned against the president’s party. Fallout from the train derailment has also hit the swing state of Pennsylvania.
Republicans have made pointed arguments directed toward both Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who visited East Palestine on Thursday. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has called on the secretary resign.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who represents the area where the derailment occurred, gave Buttigieg an “F” for his response to the toxic chemical spill in an interview with Fox News on Feb. 18.
“I mean, he hasn’t shown up,” Johnson said.
Trump, who is running for president next year, clearly saw a political opportunity in his visit, meeting with first responders, local officials and Ohio Republicans and promising to deliver his namesake water to the community.
Separately, reporters peppered White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with questions about why Biden does not yet have plans to visit Ohio. She argued there was no reason to “struggle” over why the president hasn’t been there yet.
Buttigieg himself admitted Thursday that he could have spoken out sooner about the crash.
At the same time, both Buttigieg and Jean-Pierre sought to go on offense on Thursday, focusing on what the administration has done while taking to task Trump and other Republicans for opposing safety regulations.
Buttigieg called on the former president to support the Biden administration reversing Trump-era deregulation, saying “we’re not afraid to own our policies when it comes to raising the bar on regulation.”
Jean-Pierre said attacks on Buttigieg were in “bad faith” because former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao wasn’t attacked when similar types of chemical spills occurred during her time as head of the agency.
“There’s been a lot of bad faith attacks on Secretary Buttigieg. Why we believe it’s bad faith is if you remember, Elaine Chao … she was the head of the Department of Transportation and when there was these types of chemical spills, nobody was calling for her to be fired,” Jean-Pierre said.
“It is pure politics,” she added.
Jean-Pierre spent much of Thursday’s press briefing focused on visits this week by both Buttigieg and Environmental Protection Agency head Michael Regan.
Buttigieg’s visit aligned with the release of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) initial findings from the investigation into the derailment that tentatively corroborated reports that a wheel bearing severely overheated ahead of the accident.
The Transportation Department also defended the timing of the secretary’s trip, saying Buttigieg wanted to “go when it is appropriate and wouldn’t detract from the emergency response efforts.”
The White House and the Transportation Department have both said that the EPA is taking the lead on the federal response to hold Norfolk Southern accountable, noting those officials arrived at the site early on Feb. 4, hours after the crash.
Others argued that Buttigieg represented the White House well when he went to East Palestine.
“His presence represents not only transportation, but also represents the White House’s commitment to this issue,” said Brandon Neal, an Obama Transportation Department alum and former Buttigieg campaign adviser.
The White House in recent days has blamed Republicans for pushing to loosen railway and environmental regulations. Railway companies themselves have spent millions on lobbying efforts to kill bills in Congress and in state legislatures that aim to implement any further safety standards.
Andrew Bates, a deputy White House press secretary, accused Republicans of laying the groundwork for the situation in East Palestine by opposing tougher regulations on the rail industry and seeking to rollback environmental rules around drinking water.
Abdullah Hassan, an assistant press secretary at the White House, shared a readout on Wednesday detailing what the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration have been doing on the ground to aid an investigation into the derailment.
“While some have been exploiting the people of East Palestine for their own self-interest, others have been doing the actual work of holding Norfolk Southern accountable for the company’s mess,” Hassan tweeted.
Biden lost Ohio in 2020 to Trump, who received more than 53 percent of the vote. A Democrat hasn’t won Ohio in a presidential race since 2012, but Democrats were surprisingly competitive there in last year’s Senate race, where Republicans spent big to ensure GOP Sen. J.D. Vance defeated former Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan.
East Palestine is located in Columbiana County where 71 percent of voters backed Trump in 2020. It also sits near the border of Pennsylvania, another high-stakes state crucial to victory.
At least one Democrat has joined the Republican chorus of criticizing the Biden administration for the timing of its response. Marjorie Taylor Greene to introduce bill to audit US aid to Ukraine Club Q shooting suspect to be held without bond ahead of jury trial
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va), whose state also sits on the border with Ohio, said in a statement that the Biden administration had failed to “step up to the plate.”
“[I]t is unacceptable that it took nearly two weeks for a senior Administration official to show up,” Manchin said the day Regan visited the site on Feb. 16. “The damage done to East Palestine and the surrounding region is awful and it’s past time for those responsible to step up to the plate.”
This week, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, the only other GOP-declared 2024 contender besides Trump, quipped: “Biden’s over in Poland but shouldn’t he be with those people in Ohio?”
A total of 36,816 migrants crossed the English Channel to the UK in 2024, provisional government figures show.
The figure is up 25% on 2023 when 29,437 people arrived in small boats.
The number successfully making the journey in 2024 is the second-highest since records began in 2018. The total, however, is down 20% on the record 45,774 arrivals in 2022.
The number of people who died while making the hazardous journey across the busiest shipping lane in the world was not published in the Home Office data, though 2024 was considered the deadliest for Channel crossings.
According to the French coastguard 53 people died across the 12 months.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:47
‘I was totally lost because of panic’, man who crossed Channel told Sky’s John Sparks.
The number of people who have made the crossing has jumped significantly in recent years.
In 2018, when the figures were first collated, there were 299 people who arrived, in 2019 there were 1,843 which more than quadrupled to 8,466 in 2020 before tripling to 28,526 individuals in 2021.
More on Migrant Crossings
Related Topics:
Those fleeing countries such as Ukraine and Afghanistan have safe and legal routes to the UK open to them.
Refugees recognised by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and close family members of refugees can apply to legally settle in the UK, as can people escaping Hong Kong.
Others can arrive via alternative routes, but these are sometimes illegal and can rely on criminal gangs and people smugglers.
The last crossings of the year took place on 29 December, when 291 people made the journey from France in six boats.
Weather is a large determinant of whether people risk the voyage. Stormy weather means fewer take a chance, while calmer conditions see more boats launching.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The people-smuggling gangs do not care if the vulnerable people they exploit live or die, as long as they pay. We will stop at nothing to dismantle their business models and bring them to justice.”
The National Crime Agency said it has around 70 live investigations into organised immigration crime or human trafficking.
Both biggest UK political parties have vowed to bring down the number of people crossing the Channel with Labour saying they’ll “smash the gangs”.
Former prime minister Rishi Sunak made stopping small boat crossings one of the five key pledges of his premiership.
Last September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB-1271, which redefines and adds to several electric bicycle regulations in the state. Chief among them is a clarification of the three-class e-bike system, which is likely to now rule that many of the throttle-enabled electric bikes currently available and on the road in California will no longer be street legal.
As a refresher, California has long used the same three-class system employed by most states in the US to classify electric bicycles and ensure their road-legal status.
Class 1 e-bikes have been limited to 20 mph (32 km/h) on pedal assist, while Class 2 e-bikes can reach the same 20 mph speed but with a throttle (a hand-activated device to engage the motor without pedaling). Class 3 e-bikes have been permitted to reach faster speeds of up to 28 mph (45 km/h) on pedal assist, but can’t use a throttle to reach that speed. All three have been limited to a generally accepted “continuous power rating” of 750W, or one horsepower. That’s important, but more on that in a moment.
The main issue over the years with interpreting the three-class system is whether or not Class 3 e-bikes are permitted to have throttles installed at all, even if they don’t work above 20 mph. Most e-bike makers in the US interpret the law to mean that Class 3 e-bikes can have a handlebar-mounted throttle, but that it must cut out at 20 mph. After that point, the motor can help to achieve faster speeds of up to 28 mph, but only when the rider is pedaling.
California’s new clarification of the three-class system now codifies that Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes can not be capable of operating on motor power alone. In other words, a Class 1 or Class 3 e-bike can not have any functional hand throttle to power the motor without pedal input, regardless of the speed the throttle can help the bike reach. Throttles are still legal, but purely on e-bikes marketed and sold as Class 2 e-bikes.
The text of the law has now been updated to read that Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes are bicycles “equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle,” with one specific exception.
That exception is a throttle or walk button that powers the bike up to 3.7 mph. Why 3.7 mph? Likely because that is exactly 6 km/h, which is the regulation used in most EU countries that allow throttles to operate up to 6 km/h. That regulation exists because in such cases, the walking-speed throttle can essentially be used as a parking assist feature or to slowly roll the bike under its own power for repositioning purposes.
Under the new California law, Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes with throttles can only be powered by the throttle up to 3.7 mph. Class 2 e-bikes remain permitted to feature throttles that allow the e-bike to be exclusively powered by the throttle up to 20 mph.
The law also affects motor power ratings, removing some ambiguity in the way manufacturers have often rated electric bicycle motor power output. The new law removes the word “continuous” from the legal definition, instead defining an e-bike as a bicycle with operable pedals and “an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.”
In the past, most e-bike legal definitions in the US have limited electric bicycle motors to a maximum “continuous power” rating of 750W, or approximately one horsepower. The continuous power is the amount of power a motor can output indefinitely, without overheating. However, depending on their designs, electric motors are capable of outputting higher power for shorter periods of time. For example, many nominally 750W electric motors with sufficient thermal mass for effective cooling can output over 1,000W of power for several minutes or 1,500W for several seconds. This extra power is often useful when climbing hills or accelerating from a stop, scenarios that generally require only a few seconds or minutes of higher power.
The actual amount of power output by a nominally 750W motor depends on the motor’s design as well as the electronic limits programmed by the e-bike maker.
This is why it is common to see electric bicycles in the US advertised as featuring 750W motors that output several hundred watts higher of peak power. In practice, nearly all 750W nominally-rated e-bike motors found in the US output higher peak ratings.
The same game is played in Europe, albeit less openly, when it comes to the lower EU-defined e-bike power limit of 250W. Major German motor makers such as Bosch and Brose manufacture a range of e-bike motors rated at 250W, but that can be easily dynamometer-tested to reveal an output of several hundred watts higher under peak loading conditions.
The new California law is likely to create uncertainty in the US e-bike industry, where nearly all e-bike companies offer their products in many states and generally don’t produce multiple formats to comply with different state laws.
Unlike in Europe, the US e-bike market is dominated by throttle-controlled electric bicycles. And unlike Europeans, Americans largely operate e-bikes by throttle.
Of course, plenty of Class 1 throttle-less e-bikes exist and have been sold in the US, but sales figures clearly underscore the trend that throttle-enabled electric bikes are the predominant type of e-bikes in the US. Among those, Class 3 e-bikes capable of 28 mph (45 km/h) have proven incredibly popular, with riders often cruising at 20 mph (32 km/h) on throttle only when not accessing the higher top speed enabled by pedaling on most Class 3 e-bikes.
Under the new law, Class 3 electric bicycles capable of speeds up to 28 mph will no longer be able to feature a functional throttle. That means starting today, if a manufacturer wants to sell a Class 3 e-bike in California, it must come without a functional throttle. And if a rider in California wants to use a Class 3 e-bike on California roads and bike lanes, but it is found to have functional throttle, that rider could be on the hook for a non-compliant vehicle.
It is not clear whether previously manufactured e-bikes could be grandfathered in under the new law, similar to how pre-1985 cars in California aren’t required to have seatbelts.
Can e-bike makers still skirt around the new law?
Yes, they can.
The way the law is written, there is limited yet sufficient room for e-bike makers to wiggle around the letter of the law in California. Yes, retailers will no longer be able to market or sell a Class 3 e-bike with a functional throttle. But even today, most companies ship their 28 mph-capable electric bikes as Class 2 e-bikes that are limited to 750W and 20 mph, throttle included.
Riders who wish to reach higher speeds of up to 28 mph are then required to enter the settings menu of their e-bike and adjust the speed limiter up to a higher figure, usually maxing out at 28 mph.
Many of the most popular Class 3 e-bikes we think of in the US market are technically marketed as Class 2 e-bikes that are merely capable of having their pedal assist speed unlocked to 28 mph. This practice would technically meet the requirements of the new California law.
Technically, the new California law would not prevent the sale of user-modifiable Class 2 e-bikes as long as the throttle-enabled electric bike 1) is listed as Class 2 in its marketing, 2) could only be user-modified to reach speeds above 20 mph on pedal assist and not by throttle, and 3) the motor remained limited to 750W of power even after user modification. The bikes couldn’t be marketed by the manufacturer as Class 3 e-bikes if they have a throttle, but as long as they are marketed as Class 2 e-bikes, the language of the law as written does not prevent them from being sold with programming that allows them to be modified to reach speeds up to 20 mph on throttle and to reach speeds higher than 20 mph on pedal assist, provided that the motor power does not surpass 750W. Thus, the biggest immediate impact of this law on many manufacturers is that they would no longer be able to advertise their peak power ratings, and would need to hide behind a generic “750W” label.
That isn’t to say that the e-bike would still fit the legal definition of an electric bicycle in California after being “unlocked” for higher-speed pedal assist. It would no longer be a legal e-bike in California, since it can exceed 20 mph AND would have a functional throttle installed (even if the throttle is inactive above 20 mph). However, at that point, it would have become the rider’s responsibility to physically remove the throttle from the bike so that it again conforms to the new law as a now throttle-less Class 3 e-bike.
This is because the law only outlaws the sale of e-bikes that are intended to be unlocked to reach speeds above 20 mph with a throttle, or which are intended to be unlocked to power levels above 750W. As long as the e-bike’s throttle still cuts out at 20 mph and the motor doesn’t exceed 750W, the bike could technically be capable of being unlocked to travel at higher speeds (actually, even higher than 28 mph) purely on pedal assist and still be permitted for sale – even if it would no longer be considered legal for riding on public roads in its unlocked state.
Theoretically, manufacturers could also be compliant by adjusting their e-bikes’ firmware so that unlocking the 28 mph speed would also electronically remove throttle functionality above 3.7 mph, but this would likely be a no-go for most American e-bike shoppers who rely on occasional or frequent throttle use at speeds up to 20 mph. Practically speaking, most are likely to either advise their customers to remove their throttle in California if unlocking 28 mph speeds, or simply avoid addressing the issue altogether as the law then puts the onus on the rider.
To summarize, e-bike makers could legally sell throttle-enabled electric bikes that conform to Class 2 regulations, but that are user-modifiable to faster than 20 mph on pedal assist, and the bike would only become illegal under California law once that modification is performed, which has now become the responsibility of the rider.
I’m not saying this is right or fair. I’m merely saying that it doesn’t take an expensive law degree to see the cargo bike-sized gap in the language of this new law.
What does this mean for the industry?
Because the user-unlocking higher speed pedal assist loophole still exists for the sale of throttle e-bikes in California, this law will first impact the e-bikes that are capable of operating at more than 20 mph on throttle only. Some popular US-based electric bike brands, such as SUPER73, are well known for offering “off-road modes” that allow faster throttle operation, though this is more common among Asian-based electric bike brands. We’ve seen plenty of these types of e-bikes before, and while they are widely considered to be outside the three-class system, there is no shortage of options on the market.
The new law clearly outlaws such e-bikes from being sold in California, and riders of these out-of-class electric bikes will now find that their e-bike is no longer considered an e-bike under California law. The feature to reach more than 20 mph on throttle-only is likely to begin fading from future models as companies realize they need to comply with the laws in the largest e-bike market in the US.
The bigger question will be how this affects future legislation in other states or at the federal level, and if the user-unlocking workaround is addressed in the future. Additionally, whether or not this new law is actually enforced will also determine its impact in practice.
Of note, as these new e-bike regulations are currently being implemented, California law still allows anyone holding a basic Class C driver’s license, obtainable at age 16, to operate large cars, SUVs, and trucks weighing up to 26,000 lb (12,000 kg) on public roadways.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.