U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has led a congressional delegation to Kyiv to meet with Ukraine's president before heading to Poland for talks with officials there on Sunday.

Pelosi, a California Democrat who is second in line to the presidency after the vice president, is the most senior American lawmaker to visit Ukraine since Russia's war began more than two months ago. Her visit to Kyiv on Saturday marks a major show of continuing support for the country's struggle against Moscow.

“Our delegation traveled to Kyiv to send an unmistakable and resounding message to the entire world: America stands firmly with Ukraine,” Pelosi said in a statement released Sunday.

Footage released by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office showed Pelosi and other U.S. legislators in Kyiv. In video later released by Pelosi’s office, the speaker and Zelenskyy both thanked each other for their support in the war.

“We’ll win and we’ll win together,” Zelenskyy said.

Pelosi added: “We are here until victory is won.”

The full congressional delegation included Democratic Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Adam Schiff, of California who chairs the House Intelligence Committee; Jim McGovern of Massachusetts who chairs the House Rules Committee; Jason Crow of Colorado; Barbara Lee of California; and Bill Keating of Massachusetts.

“You all are welcome,” Zelenskyy told the delegation.

Pelosi told Zelenskyy: “We believe that we are visiting you to say thank you for your fight for freedom."

“We are on a frontier of freedom and your fight is a fight for everyone. Our commitment is to be there for you until the fight is done,” Pelosi added.

The visit wasn't previously announced.

The delegation continued its trip in southeast Poland, and Pelosi said they would later visit the capital, Warsaw, to meet with President Andrzej Duda and other senior officials. Poland has received more than 3 million refugees from Ukraine since Russia launched its war on Feb. 24.

“We look forward to thanking our Polish allies for their dedication and humanitarian efforts,” she said.

In a news conference in Poland, Pelosi said she and others in the delegation applauded the courage of the Ukrainian people. She added that the delegation brought Zelenskyy “a message of appreciation from the American people for his leadership.”

Schiff said the U.S. lawmakers had a three-hour meeting with Zelenskyy and his administration, talking about sanctions, weapons and aid assistance. Schiff promised that intelligence sharing would continue between Ukraine and the U.S.

“This is a struggle of freedom against tyranny,” Schiff said. “And in that struggle, Ukraine is on the front lines.”

McGovern said Russia's war had repercussions far beyond Ukraine, saying it was exacerbating a food crisis that would be disastrous for poor people across the globe.

“Putin’s brutal war is no longer only a war against the people of Ukraine,” McGovern said. “It’s also a war against the world’s most vulnerable.”

He added that Ukraine is a “breadbasket of the world.”

“I don’t think that Putin cares if he starves the world,” McGovern said.

Sen. Susan Collins is being criticized for the Supreme Court ruling allowing states to ban abortion because the moderate Republican voted to confirm two of the justices who were in the majority opinion.

Critics attacked the Maine senator on social media, and some called for her resignation. The Maine Democratic Party and others cast some of the blame on Collins because her vote was crucial in confirming Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Collins also voted to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch, who also sided with the majority opinion.

Collins says in a statement that the overturning of Roe is a "sudden and radical jolt to the country" that will sow division.

Collins is a Republican and has been a supporter of a woman’s right to an abortion. She has also crossed the aisle on key issues like splitting with Republicans on former President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several Muslim countries, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and on whether to convict Trump after his impeachment following the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

The senator said in a statement Friday that she had received assurances from Kavanaugh and Gorsuch that Roe v. Wade was an established legal precedent, the Associated Press reported.

“Throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a century is not conservative,” she said. “It is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to political chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government.”

WASHINGTON —

Democrats pushed their election-year economic package to Senate passage Sunday, a hard-fought compromise less ambitious than President Joe Biden’s original domestic vision but one that still meets deep-rooted party goals of slowing global warming, moderating pharmaceutical costs and taxing immense corporations.

The estimated $740 billion package heads next to the House, where lawmakers are poised to deliver on Biden's priorities, a stunning turnaround of what had seemed a lost and doomed effort that suddenly roared back to political life. Democrats held united, 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote.

“It's been a long, tough and winding road, but at last, at last we have arrived,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ahead of final votes.

“The Senate is making history. I am confident the Inflation Reduction Act will endure as one of the defining legislative measures of the 21st century.”

Senators engaged in a round-the-clock marathon of voting that began Saturday and stretched late into Sunday afternoon. Democrats swatted down some three dozen Republican amendments designed to torpedo the legislation. Confronting unanimous GOP opposition, Democratic unity in the 50-50 chamber held, keeping the party on track for a morale-boosting victory three months from elections when congressional control is at stake.

“I think it’s gonna pass,” Biden told reporters as he left the White House early Sunday to go to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, ending his COVID-19 isolation. The House seemed likely to provide final congressional approval when it returns briefly from summer recess on Friday.

The bill ran into trouble midday over objections to the new 15% corporate minimum tax that private equity firms and other industries disliked, forcing last-minute changes.

Despite the momentary setback, the “Inflation Reduction Act” gives Democrats a campaign-season showcase for action on coveted goals. It includes the largest-ever federal effort on climate change — close to $400 billion — caps out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors on Medicare to $2,000 a year and extends expiring subsidies that help 13 million people afford health insurance. By raising corporate taxes, the whole package is paid for, with some $300 billion extra revenue for deficit reduction.

Barely more than one-tenth the size of Biden’s initial 10-year, $3.5 trillion rainbow of progressive aspirations in his Build Back Better initiative, the new package abandons earlier proposals for universal preschool, paid family leave and expanded child care aid. That plan collapsed after conservative Sen. Joe. Manchin, D-W.Va., opposed it, saying it was too costly and would fuel inflation.

Nonpartisan analysts have said the “Inflation Reduction Act” would have a minor effect on surging consumer prices.

Republicans said the measure would undermine an economy that policymakers are struggling to keep from plummeting into recession. They said the bill's business taxes would hurt job creation and force prices skyward, making it harder for people to cope with the nation's worst inflation since the 1980s.

“Democrats have already robbed American families once through inflation, and now their solution is to rob American families a second time," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., argued. He said spending and tax increases in the legislation would eliminate jobs while having an insignificant impact on inflation and climate change.

In an ordeal imposed on all budget bills like this one, the Senate had to endure an overnight “vote-a-rama” of rapid-fire amendments. Each tested Democrats' ability to hold together a compromise negotiated by Schumer, progressives, Manchin and the inscrutable centrist Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz.

Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., offered amendments to further expand the legislation's health benefits, and those efforts were defeated. Most votes were forced by Republicans and many were designed to make Democrats look soft on U.S.-Mexico border security and gasoline and energy costs, and like bullies for wanting to strengthen IRS tax law enforcement.

Before debate began Saturday, the bill's prescription drug price curbs were diluted by the Senate's nonpartisan parliamentarian. Elizabeth MacDonough, who referees questions about the chamber's procedures, said a provision should fall that would impose costly penalties on drug makers whose price increases for private insurers exceed inflation.

It was the bill's chief protection for the 180 million people with private health coverage they get through work or purchase themselves. Under special procedures that will let Democrats pass their bill by simple majority without the usual 60-vote margin, its provisions must be focused more on dollar-and-cents budget numbers than policy changes.

But the thrust of their pharmaceutical price language remained. That included letting Medicare negotiate what it pays for drugs for its 64 million elderly recipients, penalizing manufacturers for exceeding inflation for pharmaceuticals sold to Medicare and limiting beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs to $2,000 annually.

The bill also caps Medicare patients' costs for insulin, the expensive diabetes medication, at $35 monthly. Democrats wanted to extend the $35 cap to private insurers but it ran afoul of Senate rules. Most Republicans voted to strip it from the package, though in a sign of the political potency of health costs seven GOP senators joined Democrats trying to preserve it.

The measure's final costs were being recalculated to reflect late changes, but overall it would raise more than $700 billion over a decade. The money would come from a 15% minimum tax on a handful of corporations with yearly profits above $1 billion, a 1% tax on companies that repurchase their own stock, bolstered IRS tax collections and government savings from lower drug costs.

Sinema forced Democrats to drop a plan to prevent wealthy hedge fund managers from paying less than individual income tax rates for their earnings. She also joined with other Western senators to win $4 billion to combat the region's drought.

Several Democratic senators joined the GOP-led effort to exclude some firms from the new corporate minimum tax.

The package keeps to Biden's pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $400,000 a year.

It was on the energy and environment side that compromise was most evident between progressives and Manchin, a champion of fossil fuels and his state's coal industry.

Clean energy would be fostered with tax credits for buying electric vehicles and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. There would be home energy rebates, funds for constructing factories building clean energy technology and money to promote climate-friendly farm practices and reduce pollution in minority communities.

Manchin won billions to help power plants lower carbon emissions plus language requiring more government auctions for oil drilling on federal land and waters. Party leaders also promised to push separate legislation this fall to accelerate permits for energy projects, which Manchin wants to include a nearly completed natural gas pipeline in his state.

Overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating affirmative action in higher education had been leading goals of the conservative legal movement for decades.

In a span of 370 days, a Supreme Court reshaped by three justices nominated by President Donald Trump made both a reality.

Last June, the court ended nationwide protections for abortion rights. This past week, the court’s conservative majority decided that race-conscious admissions programs at the oldest private and public colleges in the country, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, were unlawful.

Precedents that had stood since the 1970s were overturned, explicitly in the case of abortion and effectively in the affirmative action context.

“That is what is notable about this court. It’s making huge changes in highly salient areas in a very short period of time,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas.

As ethical questions swirled around the court and public trust in the institution had already dipped to a 50-year low, there were other consequential decisions in which the six conservatives prevailed.

They rejected the Biden administration's $400 billion student loan forgiveness program and held that a Christian graphic artist can refuse on free speech grounds to design websites for same-sex couples, despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and other characteristics.

The court, by a 5-4 vote, also sharply limited the federal government's authority to police water pollution into certain wetlands, although all nine justices rejected the administration's position.

Affirmative action was arguably the biggest constitutional decision of the year, and it showcased fiercely opposing opinions from the court's two Black justices, Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

They offered sharply contrasting takes on affirmative action. Thomas was in the majority to end it. Jackson, in her first year on the court, was in dissent.

The past year also had a number of notable surprises.

Differing coalitions of conservative and liberal justices ruled in favor of Black voters in an Alabama redistricting case and refused to embrace broad arguments in a North Carolina redistricting case that could have left state legislatures unchecked and dramatically altered elections for Congress and president.

The court also ruled for the Biden administration in a fight over deportation priorities and left in place the Indian Child Welfare Act, the federal law aimed at keeping Native American children with Native families.

Those cases reflected the control that Chief Justice John Roberts asserted, or perhaps reasserted, over the court following a year in which the other five conservatives moved more quickly than he wanted in some areas, including abortion.

Roberts wrote a disproportionate share of the term's biggest cases: conservative outcomes on affirmative action and the student loan plan, and liberal victories in Alabama and North Carolina.

The Alabama case may have been the most surprising because Roberts had consistently sought to narrow the landmark Voting Rights Act since his days as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. As chief justice, he wrote the decision 10 years ago that gutted a key provision of the law.

But in the Alabama case and elsewhere, Roberts was part of majorities that rejected the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by Republican elected officials and conservative legal advocates.

The mixed bag of decisions almost seemed designed to counter arguments about the court's legitimacy, raised by Democratic and liberal critics — and some justices — in response to last year's abortion ruling, among others. The narrative was amplified by published reports of undisclosed, paid jet travel and fancy trips for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from billionaire Republican donors.

“I don’t think the court consciously takes opinion into account,” Grove said. “But I think if there’s anyone who might consciously think about these issues, it’s the institutionalist, the chief justice. He’s been extremely concerned about the attacks on the Supreme Court.”

On the term's final day, Roberts urged the public to not mistake disagreement among the justices for disparagement of the court. “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote in the student loans case in response to a stinging dissent by Justice Elena Kagan.

Roberts has resisted instituting a code of ethics for the court and has questioned whether Congress has the authority to impose one. Still, he has said, without providing specifics, that the justices would do more to show they adhere to high ethical standards.

Some conservative law professors rejected the idea that the court bowed to outside pressures, consciously or otherwise.

“There were a lot of external atmospherics that really could have affected court business, but didn't,” said Jennifer Mascott, a George Mason University law professor.

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, pointed to roughly equal numbers of major decisions that could be characterized as politically liberal or conservative.

Levey said conservatives “were not disappointed by this term.” Democrats and their allies “warned the nation about an ideologically extreme Supreme Court but wound up cheering as many major decisions as they decried,” Levey wrote in an email.

But some liberal critics were not mollified.

Brian Fallon, director of the court reform group Demand Justice, called the past year “another disastrous Supreme Court term” and mocked experts who “squint to find so-called silver linings in the Court’s decisions to suggest all is not lost, or they will emphasize one or two so-called moderate decisions from the term to suggest the Court is not as extreme as we think and can still be persuaded from time to time.”

Biden himself said on MSNBC on Thursday that the current court has “done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history.” He cited as examples the overturning of abortion protections and other decisions that had been precedent for decades.

Still, Biden said, he thought some on the high court “are beginning to realize their legitimacy is being questioned in ways it hasn’t been questioned in the past.”

The justices are now embarking on a long summer break. They return to the bench on the first Monday in October for a term that so far appears to lack the blockbuster cases that made the past two terms so momentous.

The court will examine the legal fallout from last year's major expansion of gun rights, in a case over a domestic violence gun ban that was struck down by a lower court.

A new legal battle over abortion also could make its way to the court in coming months. In April, the court preserved access to mifepristone, a drug used in the most common method of abortion, while a lawsuit over it makes its way through federal court.

The conservative majority also will have opportunities to further constrain federal regulatory agencies, including a case that asks them to overturn the so-called Chevron decision that defers to regulators when they seek to give effect to big-picture, sometimes vague, laws written by Congress. The 1984 decision has been cited by judges more than 15,000 times.

Just seven years ago, months before Trump's surprising presidential victory, then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected on the term that had just ended and made two predictions. One was way off base and the other was strikingly accurate.

In July 2016, the court had just ended a term in which the justices upheld a University of Texas affirmative action plan and struck down state restrictions on abortion clinics.

Her first prediction was that those issues would not soon return to the high court. Her second was that if Trump became president, “everything is up for grabs.”

Ginsburg's death in 2020 allowed Trump to put Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court and cement conservative control.

Commenting on the student loan decision, liberal legal scholar Melissa Murray wrote on Twitter that Biden's plan “was absolutely undone by the Court that his predecessor built.”

Speaking last year on the House floor, Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan angrily bemoaned the lack of bipartisanship after the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and said Republican opposition to an investigative commission was a “slap in the face” to the law enforcement officers assaulted by then-President Donald Trump's supporters that day.

Ryan has trodden more carefully this year as he runs for the U.S. Senate in Ohio, a onetime battleground state that has trended rightward in the Trump era. At a recent debate, his Republican opponent, JD Vance, charged that Ryan has an “obsession” with the insurrection and called the Jan. 6 House committee’s investigation a “political hit job” on Trump.

“I don’t want to talk about this any more than anybody else,” Ryan shot back. “I want to talk about jobs. I want to talk about wages. I want to talk about pensions ... but, my God, you’ve got to look into it.”

Ryan's cautiousness is a reflection of the political divide that remains nearly two years after the violent Capitol insurrection spurred by Trump's lies of a stolen 2020 presidential election. Many Republicans still falsely believe the vote count was rigged against Trump, and GOP lawmakers have repeatedly downplayed the violent attack, which left at least five people dead, injured more than 100 police officers and sent lawmakers running for their lives.

But some Democrats' reluctance to talk about Jan. 6 on the campaign trail is an acknowledgment that voters are primarily focused on pocketbook issues, like gas prices and rising inflation, in a midterm year that is typically a referendum on the president in power. That dynamic has created a delicate balance for Democrats, especially those like Ryan who are running in more Republican-leaning areas or swing states.

“The public sees this as something in the past, whereas they are dealing with inflation right now,” says GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who has conducted focus groups on the Jan. 6 attack. If you can’t afford to feed your family or fill your tank with gas, Luntz says, “arguing something that happened two years ago isn’t prone to be high on your list.”

Still, some candidates are betting that voters will care.

Independent Evan McMullin, a former Republican running against Utah Sen. Mike Lee, has made the issue a central part of his campaign. In a debate this month, McMullin said Lee had committed a “betrayal of the American republic” after it was revealed that the GOP senator had texted with White House aides ahead of the insurrection about finding ways for Trump to overturn his defeat. Lee demanded an apology, which McMullin did not offer, and noted that he had voted with most senators to certify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.

McMullin also appeared with Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans on the Jan. 6 panel, at an event in Salt Lake City. Speaking to an audience that included supporters carrying signs that read “Country First,” the two men framed the midterms as a fight for democracy.

“If you’re Mike Lee, it’s still acceptable to say that Donald Trump is the future of the party and the leader of the party,” Kinzinger said.

In a debate earlier this month, Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., defended her work as a member of the House Jan. 6 panel by saying it is “the most important thing that I have done or ever will do” professionally, beyond her military service. Her campaign later ran an ad showing footage of her opponent, Republican Jen Kiggans, refusing to say whether Biden was fairly elected.

“I’m not your candidate if you stand with insurrectionists,” Luria said at the debate. “I’m not your candidate if you’d rather have Donald J. Trump as president again.”

In Wisconsin, Democrat Brad Pfaff is struggling against his opponent, Republican Derrick Van Orden, but is betting that more people will vote against Van Orden if they find out that he was among the Trump supporters outside the Capitol on Jan. 6. One Pfaff ad shows images of the violence and a veteran criticizing Van Orden.

Another ad in Wisconsin targets Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who is running for reelection and has repeatedly downplayed the violence of the attack. “Ron Johnson is making excuses for rioters who tried to overthrow our government,” a police officer says in the ad, paid for by Senate Majority PAC, which is associated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says that the democracy issue has proven salient among Democratic voters, particularly among older and suburban women who have less favorable views of Trump. “They are talking about it as a get-out-the-vote issue,” Lake said.

John Zogby, also a Democratic pollster, agrees that the threat to democracy is a top-tier issue for many Democrats. But he has seen less interest among the independent voters who could decide the most competitive elections.

“I don’t know that it gains any new voters for Democrats,” Zogby says.

Like Ryan, the chair of the House spending subcommittee that oversees the Capitol Police, some Democrats who have been outspoken about the insurrection while in Washington have been talking about it less on the campaign trail.

New Hampshire Rep. Annie Kuster and Michigan Rep. Dan Kildee have spoken about their post-traumatic stress from being trapped in the House gallery as rioters tried to beat down the doors on Jan. 6. Now in competitive reelection races, neither has focused much on the attack or threats to democracy — though both have occasionally mentioned it.

Kildee noted that police protected him that day in a debate against his opponent, Republican Paul Junge, as he spoke about his opposition to efforts to defund law enforcement. “People wearing uniforms saved my life on Jan. 6,” Kildee said. “I know what the police can do.”

Answering a question on support for Ukraine, Kuster said that she thinks the United States also needs to fight for democracy at home and that she is a “survivor, witness, victim of the insurrection on Jan. 6 in our Capitol.”

Vermont Rep. Peter Welch, who was trapped alongside Kuster and Kildee and others that day, has chosen a different strategy as he runs for Senate in his liberal-leaning state. He talks about his experience often.

Asked about the committee’s work in a recent debate, Welch told the audience that “I was there” and that it was a violent assault on the peaceful transfer of power.

“A big issue in this election is the American people coming together and fighting to preserve that democracy that has served us so well,” Welch said.

His opponent, Republican Gerald Malloy, responded that criminals should be held to account but that Americans have a right to peacefully assemble.

“I am not calling this an insurrection,” Malloy said.

WASHINGTON — It's a busy week in politics with 36 gubernatorial races, 35 Senate contests and 435 House seats up for grabs across the country.

So with just a few hours left in the campaign — what advantages and disadvantages are both political parties facing?

GOP ADVANTAGES

All signs point to a historic turnout for a midterm election and all signs point to a good night for Republicans, especially in the House of Representatives.

One reason? Recent history.

Presidents tend to have rough midterm elections during their first term in office.

George Herbert Walker Bush and his Republican party didn't win in 1990.

Bill Clinton's Democrats lost big in '94.

So did the Democrats in 2010 when Obama was president.

Former President Donald Trump lost the House '18.

George W. Bush is the only recent president not to suffer a setback, but 9/11 happened and his approval rating was above 60%.

Another advantage for Republicans is the economy and inflation.

While you can debate what role Democrats actually played in creating inflation, the reality is voters in nearly every poll care about this issue more than any other.

Republicans maintain the edge in most polling when it comes to who Americans think can fix it.

DEMOCRATS STILL HAVE ADVANTAGES

However, don't count out the Democratic party, especially when it comes to control of the Senate.

Democrats have a friendlier map this cycle.

Of these nine swing states — Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Wisconsin — Democrats currently control 5 of them and all their candidates have a real shot at reelection.

If Democrats just win what they already control, they'll keep control of the Senate.

Democrats could also even flip a red state or two on election night — like Pennsylvania.

Another reason is Democrats have a slight advantage when it comes to candidate experience.

Republican Senate candidates in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Hampshire are all running what experts think are solid campaigns, but not one of them has actually held elected office before.

The final advantage for Democrats — and in turn disadvantage for Republicans — is an unprecedented concern about democracy.

This is the first major federal election since the January 6th attack at the Capitol and it is still unclear if Republicans will be penalized for their alleged role on that day.

One thing is clear, the White House will have to work with whichever party controls Congress after Tuesday's election.

If Republicans take back just one political chamber it will create new political debates in this country over everything from the IRS to the border.

For more updates on outstanding races across the country, click here.Control of the Senate hinged on a series of tight races Wednesday after a midterm election that defied expectations of sweeping conservative victories driven by frustration over inflation and President Joe Biden’s leadership.Either party could secure a Senate majority with wins in both Nevada and Arizona — where the races were too early to call. But there was a strong possibility that, for the second time in two years, the Senate majority could come down to a runoff in Georgia next month, with Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker failing to earn enough votes to win outright.In Pennsylvania, Democrats won the governorship and Senate in the key battleground state. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke five months ago, flipped a Republican-controlled Senate seat, topping Trump-endorsed Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz. In the governor’s race Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro beat Republican Doug Mastriano, an election denier who some feared would not certify a Democratic presidential win in the state in 2024.Georgia, meanwhile, was set for yet another runoff on Dec. 6. In 2021, Warnock used a runoff to win his seat as did Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff — which gave Democrats control of the Senate. Both Warnock and Walker were already fundraising off the race stretching into a second round.Both Republicans and Democratic incumbents maintained key Senate seats. In Wisconsin, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson prevailed over Democratic Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, while in New Hampshire, Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassen beat Don Bolduc, a retired Army general who had initially promoted Trump’s lies about the 2020 election but tried to shift away those views closer to Election Day.

WASHINGTON —

Video above: Nancy Pelosi speaks about attack on her husband

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to address her plans with colleagues on Thursday in the wake of Democrats narrowly losing control of the House to Republicans in the midterm elections.

Pelosi’s decision to either seek another term as the Democratic leader or to step aside has been widely anticipated. It would come after the party was able to halt an expected Republican wave in the House and Senate but also in the aftermath of a brutal attack on her husband, Paul, late last month in their San Francisco home.

“The Speaker plans to address her future plans tomorrow to her colleagues. Stay tuned,” Pelosi's spokesman Drew Hammill tweeted late Wednesday. He did not provide additional information about the time or location of the announcement.

The speaker “has been overwhelmed by calls from colleagues, friends and supporters,” Hammill said, and noted that she had spent Wednesday evening monitoring election returns in the final states where ballots were still being counted.

The California Democrat, who rose to become the nation’s first woman to wield the speaker’s gavel, is a pivotal figure in U.S. politics.

By announcing her decision, Pelosi could launch a domino effect in House Democratic leadership ahead of internal party elections next month as Democrats reorganize for their new role as the minority party in the new Congress.

Pelosi’s leadership team, with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, has long moved as a triumvirate. Hoyer and Clyburn are also making decisions about their futures.

All now in their 80s, the three House Democratic leaders have faced restless colleagues eager for them to step aside and allow a new generation to take charge.

Democrats Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Rep. Pete Aguilar of California have similarly moved as a trio at times, all working toward leadership roles themselves.

First elected to the House in 1987, Pelosi has long been ridiculed by Republicans as a San Francisco liberal while steadily rising as a skilled legislator and fundraising powerhouse. Her own Democratic colleagues have intermittently appreciated but also feared Pelosi’s powerful brand of leadership.

WASHINGTON —

There are two searing scenes of Nancy Pelosi confronting the violent extremism that spilled into the open late in her storied political career. In one, she's uncharacteristically shaken in a TV interview as she recounts the brutal attack on her husband.

In the other, the House speaker rips open a package of beef jerky with her teeth during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, while on the phone with Mike Pence, instructing the Republican vice president how to stay safe from the mob that came for them both. "Don’t let anybody know where you are,” she said.

That Pelosi, composed and in command at a time of chaos, tart but proper at every turn, is the one whom lawmakers have obeyed, tangled with, respected and feared for two decades.

She is the most powerful woman in American politics and one of the most consequential legislative leaders. Now, at 82, in the face of political loss and personal trauma, she is closing her era.

Pelosi announced Thursday she would not seek a Democratic leadership position in the Congress that convenes in January, when Republicans take control. Pelosi will remain in Congress.

“Never would I have thought that I would go from homemaker to House speaker,” she allowed. On her future, she told reporters: "I like to dance, I like to sing. There’s a life out there, right?”

Polarizing and combative, Pelosi nevertheless forged compromises with Republicans on historic legislation, on health care, roads, student debt relief, climate change and more.

Even former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, a self-described “partisan conservative who thinks that most of her positions are insane,” said Pelosi had a “remarkable” run.

“Totally dominant,” Gingrich said of her. “She’s clearly one of the strongest speakers in history. She has shown enormous perseverance and discipline."

Bono, who worked with Pelosi over the years on combating AIDS, said in a statement to the AP after a performance Thursday night in Scotland: “When the story of the end of AIDS is written, Nancy Pelosi’s name will stand out in boldface.”

“I am honored to have learned so much from her grit and grace, and to call her a friend,” he added.

Many fellow Democrats, at one point or another, earned her look of icy disapproval, not just the other side.

“Politics is tough,” she said in 2015, “but intraparty? Oh, brother.”

Pelosi prevailed — for nearly 20 years as House Democratic leader including nearly eight as speaker in two stints — with hard-nosed sentiments like these:

“Whoever votes against the speaker will pay a price.” — to Democrats who resisted her push for a select committee on climate change early in her speakership.

“Nobody’s walking out of here saying anything, if they want to keep an intact neck.” — to negotiators trying to work out a 2007 House-Senate compromise to restrain pork, according to the notes of John A. Lawrence, her then-chief of staff and author of a new insider book on her speakership, “Arc of Power."

Sometimes, she could snap her lawmakers into line without a word.

A flick of her hand silenced Democrats who cheered when the House first passed articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, for Pelosi was a stickler for decorum. But not always.

She ripped her copy of Trump's 2020 State of the Union speech, on the dais behind him, on camera. The theatrical protest raised questions about whether Pelosi, in that moment, had become what she despised in Trump.

“He has shredded the truth in his speech, shredded the Constitution in his conduct — I shredded the address,” she said crisply. “Thank you all very much.”

Republicans pilloried her as “Darth Nancy” back in 2006 and the villainization got uglier, complete with gun imagery, as the years passed.

“She was, she is, the personification of the San Francisco liberal,” Lawrence said. “It was made to order for them."

But "there was a viciousness. The fact that she fit that bill so perfectly — a smart, attractive, effective woman ... they knew they could caricature and stigmatize things about her, her appearance and style, in a way that was a very effective dog whistle of misogyny.”

She would never publicly attribute the attacks to the fact she's a woman, Lawrence said. “She would say, ‘They did it because I’m effective.'" Then “pretend to flick dust” off her immaculate jacket.

“Darth Nancy” was a quaint, faraway insult by the time the pro-Trump mob came looking for her that Jan. 6. Their sign at the Capitol said, “Pelosi is Satan.”

Rifling through her desk, they found a pair of boxing gloves. Pink ones.

Pelosi honed the art of aiming high, then disappointing one faction of her party or another without losing core support. Rare is the major achievement that was as far left as the party's left wing wanted.

But many are the achievements. She settled for an “Obamacare” bill, for example, that did not give everyone the option of government health insurance, but did, over time, expand access to health care.

She crushed toes along the way.

“Her instincts are to find a path and if you happen to be standing in the hole, she’s going to treat you like a running back," said political scientist Cal Jillson at Southern Methodist University. "If she can go through you, fine. If not, you’re headed to the medicine tent.”

Pelosi faced none of the questions about sharpness that dog Biden, 80 on Sunday. She still races around Congress, in high heels, at a pace people half her age can find hard to match.

But concern had grown in the ranks about the crowd of older Democratic leaders still in charge.

Leon Panetta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said Pelosi “probably could have spent more time building a stronger bench in terms of leadership in the House and trying to make sure that others could follow in her path.”

Her fundraising prowess was one key to success.

“This is why the Democrats had more money than God," said Republican Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan. "She was magic, and I don’t think she lost a vote.”

AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced Tuesday that she will not run for reelection in 2024, but will serve out the remainder of her term.

The Democrat said she will spend her remaining time in the Senate working on issues she campaigned on in 2018, including combating wildfires, responding to the homeless crisis, and ensuring all Americans have access to health care.

"Congress has enacted legislation on all of these topics over the past several years, but more needs to be done – and I will continue these efforts," Feinstein said in a statement.

Feinstein, 89, is a historic political figure. In 1992, she became the first woman from California to be elected to the Senate. She was also the first woman ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committe and the first woman chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Feinstein is a major supporter of gun control legislation, and she said she will continue "fight the epidemic of gun violence."

"That’s what I’ve done for the last 30 years, and that’s what I plan to do for the next two years," Feinstein said.

The senator's announcement was not unexpected. Two Democrats had already announced their intention to run for the seat.

Rep. Katie Porter promised to keep her campaign a "grassroots" effort and said she would refuse corporate PAC money, donations from federal lobbyists, and money from executives of oil and pharmaceutical companies.

Rep. Adam Schiff also announced last month that he would run for the Senate seat. Cornerstones of his campaign include "protecting democracy," combating climate change and taxing the rich.

COLUMBUS, Ohio —

The political fight over Ohio's congressional districts rages on in hearings contemplating who's map is in voters' best interest.

"The only reason that we are in this state is not because of the constitution and the provisions that were overwhelmingly passed by Ohio voters, it's simply because we have commissioners who do not want to follow the constitution," said Minority Leader District 24 (D) Rep. Allison Russo.

"This is not a clear path forward, and I do not agree that members of this commission have not tried to do this in good faith," said Co-Chair District 4 (R) Rep. Robert Cupp.

Wednesday, all five Republicans on the commission voted down a Democratic proposed map that would give the GOP an edge in eight of the 15 seats.

The map accepted has 10 Republican districts, two Democratic districts and three toss-up districts that lean Democratic.

"This constitutional plan is designed to create a series of incentives on both sides to make an agreement. The big incentive for the majority to make an agreement is if you don't get enough support from the minority party, your map only lasts for four years," said (R) Sen. Matt Huffman District 12.

Russo pushed back with the goal of a resolution on a bipartisan map that would last 10 years.

"So essentially what we are hearing is that commissioner Huffman is arguing that there is no need to follow any of the anti-gerrymandering provisions of the constitution, including what the court specifically stated in their decision that the plan that they overruled unduly favored the republican party over the Democratic party. That is essentially like me robbing a bank and saying that is my money," Russo said.

The approved map will likely result in at least a 10-5 GOP-favored map. The Ohio Supreme Court will decide if this map makes the cut.

Without maps, Ohioans can't vote on statehouse and congressional races on the May 3rd primary.

Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York announced she will not run for reelection in this year's midterms.

Rice said she will remain focused on "protecting democracy" and serving her constituents for the remainder of her term.

"As I turn to the next chapter of my own personal and professional story, I do so with profound thanks to the community leaders, colleagues and staff who have lived our shared commitment to service with courage and humility," Rice said in a statement Tuesday.

Rice was first elected to Congress in 2014.

She is now the 30th Democrat who has announced plans to leave the House.

As President Biden faces declining poll numbers, the Democrats are expected to face an uphill battle in their attempt to keep control of the House.

Currently, Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency.

A son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson is seeking the Democratic nomination for the Chicago-area congressional seat held by Bobby Rush, who is retiring.Jonathan Jackson on Friday announced his intentions to replace Rush in Illinois' 1st District, the Chicago Tribune reported.Jackson, 56, owns a construction business and is a leader in his father's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. He said in a statement that he would focus on job creation and expanding access to health care and day care.About a dozen people have filed as candidates for the redrawn congressional district which stretches from Chicago's South Side and southwest suburbs toward Kankakee. They include Chicago Alderman Pat Dowell, state Sen. Jacqueline Collins and Chicago and Cook County workforce development chief Karin Norington-Reaves, according to the newspaper.Rush announced earlier this month that he would not seek a 16th term in the U.S. House. The former Black Panther first won election in 1992.

COLUMBUS, Ohio —

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Redistricting Commission failed for a second time on Saturday to reach the bipartisan consensus necessary to pass 10-year maps of state legislative districts based on 2020 census totals.

Despite being scolded by the state’s high court, the seven-member panel approved new maps along party lines in the face of a court-set Saturday deadline. That means the maps would again be good for just four years, rather than the 10 intended through the census-driven redistricting process.

In a strange twist, the commission returned and took its vote just as the Cincinnati Bengals were scoring a tie-breaking field goal as time expired to land their first AFC championship slot in 33 years.

The high court has reserved the right to review the new maps after voting rights and Democratic groups successfully challenged an earlier round of maps as an extreme partisan gerrymander.

Though the second round of boundaries got closer to the state’s 54% Republican to 46% Democratic partisan breakdown than the first set, they still created heavy GOP majorities in both the Ohio House and Ohio Senate: 57 Republican and 42 Democratic House seats and 20 Republican and 13 Democratic Senate seats. Many districts are so closely divided that they could be election toss-ups.

The first round of maps included 62 of 99 Ohio House seats that favored Republicans, or about 62%, and 23 of 33 Ohio Senate seats that favored the GOP, or nearly 70%.

House Democratic Leader-elect Allison Russo, who cast a no vote, called Saturday’s action shameful.

“Ultimately, this is not an issue of geography or technical inability to draw fair maps,” she said, on behalf of opponents. “It is a lack of political courage and a blatant disregard for the court’s order and the will of the Ohio voters.”

Republican Senate President Matt Huffman, who voted yes, said the maps “address” the court’s opinion.

“Commission members and their respective staff together worked tirelessly over the last week to produce a constitutional plan that no one else, including the Democrats’ highly compensated outside contractors, could produce, including a six figure payment to their main consultant,” said his spokesman, John Fortney.

That consultant, Chris Glassburn, endured hours of grilling on Saturday, particularly by Huffman — repeatedly offering to work cooperatively with the GOP on their concerns to bring the two parties’ proposals together.

“I believe we in our proposal have gone a long way to demonstrate it simply is not necessary to gerrymander or do dramatically strange things to achieve the proportionality as outlined in the Supreme Court,” he said.

Republicans defended their own maps of districts as the only ones that abided by all the elements of the Ohio Constitution, pointing to the fact that they did deliver Democrats more seats than the previous plan.

The two parties failed to come together despite extensive behind-the-scenes negotiations. Panelists said those talks took place between the staffs of commissioners of both parties for nearly all 10 of the days since the court’s ruling. The transparency was a distinct change from the last time in September, when three Republican statewide officials on the panel said GOP lawmakers largely shut them out of backroom map-making deliberations.

Senate Finance Director Ray DiRossi helped lead Republican map-drawing efforts. He repeatedly declined to provide specific evidence of what exactly prevented the GOP from attempting to get closer to the state’s 54% Republican-46% Democratic political divide with its maps.

“We have done nothing but attempt for the last nine-and-a-half days,” he said. “Every ounce of our effort, collectively and individually, and all of the other staff have been towards complying with the court rulings. Everything we’ve done has done that, so my life for the last nine-and-a-half days would be my evidence.”

Ohio is using a new redistricting process for this first time this year for both legislative and congressional maps established through statewide ballot issues in 2015 and 2018 that received overwhelming voter support were left with little choice.

WASHINGTON —

Democrats are mounting an impassioned bid to overhaul Senate rules that stand in the way of their sweeping voting legislation, arguing dark forces unleashed by Donald Trump’s falsehoods about the 2020 election demand an extraordinary response.

In fiery speeches and interviews, President Joe Biden and top congressional Democrats have seized on the one-year anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection as a reason to advance their long-stalled voting, ethics and elections package. Senate Republicans, who have repeatedly blocked the legislation, excoriate the measures as a “partisan power grab” and warn that any rule changes will haunt Democrats someday under a GOP majority.

Trump’s false claims of a stolen election not only incited the mob that stormed the Capitol, Democrats say. His unrelenting campaign of disinformation also sparked a GOP effort to pass new state laws that have made it more difficult to vote, while in some cases rendering the administration of elections more susceptible to political influence.

Democrats’ voting legislation would usher in the biggest overhaul of U.S. elections in a generation, striking down hurdles to voting enacted in the name of election security, reducing the influence of big money in politics and limiting partisan influence over the drawing of congressional districts. The package would create national election standards that would trump the state-level GOP laws. It would also restore the ability of the Justice Department to police election laws in states with a history of discrimination.

Many Democrats say the moment has come to act decisively in what they view as the civil rights fight of the era. Changing Senate rules early in 2022 offers perhaps the last best chance to counteract Republicans' state-level push before the midterm elections, when Democrats' House majority and slim hold in the 50-50 Senate could be wiped out.

“If Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the chamber to prevent us from protecting our democracy, then the Senate will debate and consider changes to the rules,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday.

Yet what action they will take remains highly uncertain, depending on the often elusive support of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Key Democrats have been meeting with Manchin for weeks, brainstorming options while also enlisting outside allies to lobby his support.

Manchin has made no firm commitments. He has repeatedly said he will not support lowering the filibuster's 60-vote threshold for passing most legislation, a stance shared by fellow centrist Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. Until the threshold is lowered, enacting election legislation could prove difficult, if not impossible.

But Democrats say they are focused on what's achievable now, amid escalating pressure from allies for action. Even modest changes to Senate rules, they say, would be a significant step forward.

Leaning into the fight, Biden is set to deliver a speech in Atlanta on Tuesday focused on voting rights. And Schumer has added to the civil rights symbolism by setting the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, on Jan. 17, as the deadline to either pass the voting legislation or consider revising the rules. The Senate is likely to hold a series of test votes this week intended to underscore Republican opposition.

“I'm not going to say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ because I don’t know what votes will come to the floor," Manchin said last week, noting that he has supported some changes to Senate rules in the past. One proposal Democrats are discussing would eliminate the filibuster on the so-called “motion to proceed” that is needed before a bill can be debated on the Senate floor.

Republicans say invoking the Jan. 6 insurrection is offensive. The voting bills, they say, were largely written before the attack and include a liberal wish list of priorities that will do little to combat vulnerabilities in the law exposed by Trump's attempts to overturn the election.

“It is beyond distasteful for some of our colleagues to ham-fistedly invoke the Jan. 6 anniversary to advance these aims," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “The fact that violent criminals broke the law does not entitle Senate Democrats to break the Senate.”

The renewed focus on voting rights comes as much of Biden's agenda has stalled out in Congress. Before Christmas, Manchin singlehandedly halted work on Biden's roughly $2 trillion package of social and environmental initiatives, delaying the bill indefinitely.

Civil rights activists are deeply frustrated by the turn of events, saying precious months have been wasted. They view the GOP-backed changes in voting laws as a subtler form of ballot restrictions like literacy tests and poll taxes once used to disenfranchise Black voters, a key Democratic constituency.

“Unfortunately many policymakers have not truly appreciated the gravity of where we are in this nation at this moment,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in an interview, singling out both Biden's White House as well as Senate Democrats. “African Americans have seen this before. We've experienced this before. We must get beyond procedural conversations and get to the substance of protecting this fragile thing called democracy.”

McConnell has ridiculed "scary stories that liberal activists keep repeating about how democracy is at death’s door.” He recently dangled the possibility of narrower bipartisan action to shore up a convoluted 19th century law called the Electoral Count Act that governs the certification of presidential elections — a law Trump sought to exploit to overthrow his 2020 defeat. A compromise on that could be attractive to Manchin, who has said any election legislation ought to be enacted on a bipartisan basis.

Last week, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine held bipartisan talks with Republican Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Mitt Romney of Utah, as well as Manchin and fellow Democrats Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. An update to the Electoral Count Act was part of the discussion, according to a person familiar with the discussion who insisted on anonymity to reveal details about the deliberations.

Democrats have blasted the GOP overture on the Electoral Count Act as a “cynical” political maneuver aimed at doing the bare minimum at the federal level while leaving laws in place in GOP-controlled swing states like Georgia.

“What good is it to certify the election, if I don’t get to cast my vote in the first place?” said Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, the first African American to represent Georgia in the Senate. He is up for reelection this year.

Republicans warn that Democrats will come to regret any changes to the filibuster, which is intended to foster compromise by making legislation intentionally difficult to pass.

“They barely have a majority now,” said Sen. John Thune, of South Dakota, the chamber's No. 2 Republican. “Even the strongest majorities eventually end up back in the minority.”

LAS VEGAS —

The life of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who rose from childhood poverty and deprivation in Nevada to become one of the nation's most powerful elected officials, will be celebrated by two American presidents and other Democratic leaders on Saturday, a testament to his impact on some of the most consequential legislation of the 21st Century.

President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are scheduled to speak Saturday during an invitation-only memorial for the longtime Senate leader who died Dec. 28 at home in Henderson, Nevada, at age 82 of complications from pancreatic cancer. Former President Barack Obama, who credits Reid for his rise to the White House, is scheduled to deliver the eulogy.

"The president believes that Harry Reid is one of the greatest leaders in Senate history," Deputy White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Friday. "So he is traveling to pay his respects to a man who had a profound impact on this nation."

Biden served for two decades with Reid in the Senate and worked with him for eight years when Biden was vice president.

Along with Obama, Elder M. Russell Ballard, a senior apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, will speak at the 2,000-seat concert hall about Reid's 60 years in the Mormon faith. Vice President Kamala Harris also will attend.

"These are not only some of the most consequential leaders of our time — they are also some of Harry's best friends," Reid's wife of 62 years, Landra Reid, said in a statement announcing plans for the Smith Center for the Performing Arts event. "Harry loved every minute of his decades working with these leaders and the incredible things they accomplished together."

Reid's daughter and four sons also are scheduled to speak.

Obama, in a letter to Reid before his death, recalled their close relationship, their different backgrounds and Reid's climb from an impoverished former gold mining town of Searchlight in the Mojave Desert to leadership in Congress.

"Not bad for a skinny, poor kid from Searchlight," Obama wrote. "I wouldn't have been president had it not been for your encouragement and support, and I wouldn't have got most of what I got done without your skill and determination."

Reid served for 34 years in Washington and led the Senate through a crippling recession and the Republican takeover of the House after the 2010 elections.

He muscled Obama's signature health care act through the Senate; blocked plans for a national nuclear waste repository in the Nevada desert; authored a 1986 bill that created Great Basin National Park; and was credited with helping casino company MGM Mirage get financial backing to complete a multibillion-dollar project on the Strip during the Great Recession.

Harry Mason Reid hitchhiked 40 miles to high school and was an amateur boxer before he was elected to the Nevada state Assembly at age 28. He had graduated from Utah State University and worked nights as a U.S. Capitol police officer while attending George Washington University Law School in Washington.

In 1970, at age 30, he was elected state lieutenant governor with Democratic Gov. Mike O'Callaghan. Reid was elected to the House in 1982 and the Senate in 1986.

He built a political machine in Nevada that for years helped Democrats win key elections. When he retired in 2016 after an exercise accident at home left him blind in one eye, he picked former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to replace him.

Cortez Masto became the first woman from Nevada and the first Latina ever elected to the U.S. Senate.

"Most of all, you've been a good friend," Obama told Reid in his letter. "As different as we are, I think we both saw something of ourselves in each other — a couple of outsiders who had defied the odds and knew how to take a punch and cared about the little guy."

Singer-songwriter and environmentalist Carole King, and Brandon Flowers, lead singer of the Las Vegas-based rock band The Killers, are scheduled to perform during the memorial.

"The thought of having Carole King performing in Harry's honor is a tribute truly beyond words," Landra Reid said in her statement. Reid is survived by his daughter, sons and numerous grandchildren.

Flowers, a longtime friend, shares the Reids' Latter-day Saints faith and has been a headliner at events including a Lake Tahoe Summit that Harry Reid founded in 1997 to draw attention to the ecology of the lake, and the National Clean Energy Summit that Reid helped launch in 2008 in Las Vegas.

Among other songs, Flowers was scheduled to sing the Nevada state anthem, "Home Means Nevada."

Stephen J Cloobeck, a close family friend and founder and former chief executive of a Las Vegas-based timeshare company, said he was sponsoring a gathering Friday for several hundred former Reid congressional staffers at the Bellagio resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

Those flying to Las Vegas will arrive at the newly renamed Harry Reid International Airport. It was formerly named for Pat McCarran, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Nevada who once owned the airfield and whose legacy is clouded by racism and antisemitism.

____

Associated Press writer Colleen Long in Washington contributed to this report.

Video above: Dems' Build Back Better bill passes divided House

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday he cannot back a $2 trillion social safety net bill, dealing a potentially fatal blow to President Joe Biden’s signature legislation.

Manchin told “Fox News Sunday” that he always has made clear he had reservations about the legislation and that now, after five-and-half months of discussions and negotiations, “I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation.”

The West Virginia senator cited a multitude of factors weighing on the economy and the potential harm he saw from pushing through the “mammoth” bill, such as persistent inflation, a growing debt and the latest threat from the omicron variant.

“When you have these things coming at you the way they are right now, I’ve always said this ... if I can't go home and explain it to the people of West Virginia, I can’t vote for it," he said.

“I tried everything humanly possible. I can’t do it,” he said. “This is a no on this legislation. I have tried everything I know to do."

Last week, Biden all but acknowledged that negotiations over his sweeping domestic policy package would likely push into the new year amid Manchin's unyielding opposition. But the president had insisted that Manchin reiterated his support for a framework that the senator, the White House and other Democrats had agreed to for the flagship bill.

On Sunday, Manchin made clear those were Biden's words, not his own.