30 Things Joe Biden Did as President That You Might Have Missed

9 months ago

Joe Biden has been president now for three years, and you might think you’ve heard everything there is to know about his presidency.

You probably haven’t.

Most of the work of government doesn’t go viral on social media or become fodder for TV talking heads. Every president’s administration makes changes both significant and trivial that largely escape the public’s attention — yet many have long-lasting impact.

So we asked POLITICO’s newsroom, including the reporters who track the minutiae of government policy, to tell us about the major but under-the-radar changes made so far during Biden’s tenure that most of us might have missed. And there was a lot, from building drone armies to making birth control pills available in drug stores to lowering overdraft fees and loosening restrictions on marijuana. His administration even made a big decision on the colors for Air Force One, the president’s official aircraft.

Here’s what they said. (And if you’re curious, here’s a similar listwe compiled for Donald Trump’s presidency.)

Labor

Expanded overtime guarantees for millions

President Barack Obama late in his second term oversaw a regulation that called for workers making up to $47,476 to be automatically entitled to time-and-a-half overtime pay. The move infuriated businesses and Republicans, who sought to block the rule in both Congress and the courts. Donald Trump’s election and a Texas judge’s ruling in 2016 led the Labor Department to revisit the matter and set a significantly lower threshold of $35,568.

The move: Biden’s Department of Labor reopened the issue and proposed a rule at the end of August that would push up that cutoff by nearly $20,000 — to $55,000. The draft regulation, which still needs to be finalized, would also include a mechanism to automatically adjust that level every three years by yoking it to the 35th percentile of annual income.

The impact: The proposed rule would pave the way for roughly 3.6 million additional workers to be eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay than were eligible under the 2019 policy, according to the Labor Department. It stands to be one of the most concrete policies to boost workers’ wages under Biden’s term, as other ambitious proposals like raising the minimum wage have been bottled up in Congress.

The upshot: The Biden administration is aiming to finalize the rule in April, but the agency will have to figure out a way to defend it against legal arguments similar to the ones that stymied the similar Obama rule. Additionally, any internal delays could expose the regulation to being later overturned by lawmakers using the Congressional Review Act, a tool that was successfully used in recent years to undo rules issued under both Obama and Trump.

— Nick Niedzwiadek

Health Care

First over-the-counter birth control pill to hit U.S. stores in 2024

The push to make an oral contraceptive available without a prescription predates Biden’s presidency. But the issue took on fresh urgency when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, particularly as conservatives openly questioned the legal precedent establishing the right to privacy for birth control access. Within weeks of the ruling, a contraceptive maker, which had spent more than six years studying consumers’ ability to use the product correctly without a doctor’s supervision, applied to the FDA for over-the-counter approval.

The move: Despite concerns from FDA scientists about consumers’ comprehension of the drug’s proper use and risks, in July 2023 the agency endorsed making the pill available over the counter.

The impact: CVS and Walgreens, two of the country’s biggest retail pharmacies, have pledged to carry the contraceptive, called Opill, once it’s available in early 2024. Reproductive rights advocates say an OTC oral contraceptive will help make birth control access more equitable by reaching people who can’t afford or easily visit a health care provider for a prescription.

The upshot: Opill’s success will come down to its retail price and whether public and private insurers opt to cover it. The Affordable Care Act requires most private health plans to cover contraception at no cost to consumers, but insurers generally don’t cover OTC medications unless they’re prescribed. Advocates for greater contraception access say those policies create a barrier for the uninsured, teenagers and people of color. But mandating no cost-sharing could create challenges at the point of sale for pharmacists and insurance plans. The Biden administration is considering requiring no-cost coverage of OTC items like Opill without a prescription by most commercial plans.

— Lauren Gardner

School Safety

Gun violence prevention and gun safety get a boost

After the 2022 massacre of 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, the Biden administration called for stricter gun legislation. Uvalde spurred the first significant gun safety law in 30 years, which Biden signed in June of 2022, and the president took further action on his own.

The move: Biden established the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, and in 2023 schools were awarded $286 million in federal dollars to support student wellness and school mental health professionals.

The impact: Biden proclaimed that kids' safety from gun violence is “on the ballot” when he announced the creation of the new office — and that proclamation has seeped into official White House business and his reelection campaign. Vice President Kamala Harris has taken the lead on mobilizing young Americans concerned about gun violence, visiting schools around the nation and touting new money awarded from the gun safety bill.

The upshot: Schools will continue to receive millions of dollars over the next five years to address youth mental health and student wellness as the remaining cash from the legislation’s $1 billion in funding is distributed.

— Mackenzie Wilkes

Climate

Renewable power is the No. 2 source of electricity in the U.S. — and climbing

Biden entered the White House putting climate change and job creation from the expansion of a clean energy economy at the top of his agenda — an about-face from energy policy during the Trump administration. At the time, renewable energy sources were already on the rise and the industry was optimistic about its future, especially buoyed by promises from the new president to invest trillions of dollars into clean energy development and research, and the global trend toward cleaner forms of power.

The move: Across the Biden administration, agencies and officials have made the transition to green energy a central tenet, reinvigorating programs left dormant under Trump and accelerating approval of renewable energy projects, like offshore wind. And Democratic lawmakers passed landmark legislation — the Inflation Reduction Act — to reduce greenhouse gases that are driving climate change and provide support for green power sources. That legislation included billions for new programs and lucrative tax incentives to boost technologies, like solar and wind, as well as next-generation sources like green hydrogen.

The impact: Renewable energy growth has ramped up across the United States. Electricity generation from renewable energy sources — including wind, solar and hydropower — surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time in 2022, making it the second-biggest source behind natural gas generation. Renewables also passed nuclear power generation for the first time in 2021 and widened that gap the next year. The IRA also spurring a wave of private sector investment in U.S. clean energy manufacturing facilities for solar, wind and electric vehicle parts, the majority of which will be located in Republican congressional districts represented by lawmakers who voted against the bill.

The upshot: The Biden administration is continuing to roll out policies and programs focused on the energy transition, including detailing provisions under the Inflation Reduction Act that will help clarify the law so that new investments in the U.S. can move forward.

— Kelsey Tamborrino

Housing

Preventing discriminatory mortgage lending

In 1977, Congress passed a law to combat a practice known as redlining, where for decades the government had discouraged lenders from extending mortgage loans to borrowers in Black neighborhoods. The law requires banks to lend to creditworthy lower-income people in the same neighborhoods where they have branches that take deposits. But the growth of the internet and mobile banking have made those rules increasingly obsolete. Banks, in effect, had a major presence in many neighborhoods where they had no branches.

The move: The Federal Reserve and its fellow independent bank regulators drafted a new anti-redlining framework, which will go into effect starting in January 2026. It requires banks to lend to lower-income communities in areas where they have a concentration of mortgage and small-business loans, rather than just where they have physical branches.

The impact: While the update hasn’t taken effect yet, the hope is that it will quickly begin to direct more dollars into areas where banks haven’t previously faced obligations to lend more equitably.

The upshot: Financial agencies are still trying to figure out the best way to ensure access to credit within poorer communities nearly 50 years after the Community Reinvestment Act was passed. Indeed, the racial homeownership gap is actually wider now than it was in 1968, when redlining was still legal.

— Victoria Guida

Consumer Banking

A sweeping crackdown on “junk fees” and overdraft charges

Biden touted his campaign to eliminate so-called junk fees — the hidden charges that often come as a surprise to the consumer, taking aim at the fees levied by airlines, cable companies, concert ticket-sellers and hotels, among other businesses. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2022 launched an initiative to expand the crackdown to target financial fees, training its scrutiny in particular on credit card late charges and the insufficient-fund fees that banks impose.

The move: The CFPB in January released a long-awaited proposal to cut the fees that large banks and credit unions can charge consumers for overdrawing their accounts. The proposal would allow banks to charge fees to cover the cost and losses associated with courtesy overdrafts — either a “breakeven” fee based on the bank’s own calculation or a benchmark fee — both of which would be lower than the punitive $30 or $40 fees that many banks impose now. The CFPB proposed several options for the benchmark fee, ranging from $3 to $14. The agency is also expected to finalize a proposal cutting credit card late fees to $8.

The impact: The CFPB expects its overdraft rule to save consumers up to $3.5 billion a year. While large banks have already dramatically pared back overdraft fees in recent years, they remain a source of significant income for many smaller banks and the financial services industry is gearing up for a major fight over the proposed rule. Lenders argue that unlike hidden resort or concert charges, the fees they impose are disclosed and serve a purpose by deterring poor financial behavior.

The upshot: Republicans have already pushed back on the proposals, arguing they will reduce access to credit and raise the cost of banking for all consumers, including those who make prompt credit card payments and don’t overdraw their bank accounts. A GOP administration would likely try to roll back both rules.

— Katy O'Donnell

Wall Street

Forcing Chinese companies to open their books

Since the Enron and WorldCom scandals, the U.S. has allowed companies to publicly list their stocks only if they agree to let federal watchdogs review their auditors’ work. Yet for years, Beijing authorities, citing national security concerns, refused to allow U.S. inspectors to examine the books of China- and Hong Kong-based companies. Biden’s regulators finally forced their hand with the help of Congress and even former President Donald Trump.

The move: Washington negotiators secured a landmark deal in August 2022 that would give American inspectors at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the top U.S. accounting watchdog, unprecedented access to the audits of Chinese and Hong Kong-based firms trading on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. The deal was reached after passage of a 2020 bill, which Trump signed into law in his administration’s waning days, that would have given the noncompliant companies the boot if they didn’t acquiesce.

The impact: China has held up its end of the deal. Four months after the agreement, the PCAOB confirmed it was able to fully review the Chinese companies’ audits. The inspections eventually resulted in $7.9 million in fines and sanctions against three China-based firms and four individuals. SEC Chair Gary Gensler, whose agency oversees the PCAOB, has touted the deal as a success that has better protected American investors.

The upshot: Whether China’s cooperation continues is still a concern for U.S. regulators — and will likely linger no matter who is president come 2025. Trump’s first time in office paved the way for the eventual deal struck by Biden’s regulators, suggesting that the SEC and PCAOB will probably keep the pressure on Beijing.

— Declan Harty

Elections

Preventing another Jan. 6

Trump and his supporters caused chaos throughout the certification of the 2020 election in Congress, pushing slates of “fake electors,” pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to toss out the votes from legitimate electors, and even after the counting of electoral votes was interrupted by insurrectionists, pro-Trump Republicans in both chambers voted to object to the results. When it was over, there was a sense that the holes in our election certification process needed to be plugged.

The move: A bipartisan group in Congress worked toreform the Electoral Count Act, a byzantine 19th century law that governs how Electoral College votes are tallied. The changes include making clear that the vice president’s role is “solely ministerial,” requiring that electors in states are picked “in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day” and raising the threshold for how many members of Congress are needed to object to a state’s slate. The act also allows for the “apparent successful candidate” to more easily receive funding from the government to build a transition office, after Trump officialsdragged their feet for weeks in providing the funds Biden needed for his transition work.

The impact: The law will make it harder for Trump, or any other presidential candidate, to pressure state and local election officials — or Congress — to overturn elections.

The upshot: The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act did address significant weaknesses that Trump exploited in his last-gasp attempts to hold on to power. However, Biden had committed to passing broader voting rights legislation to forestall other types of election misdeeds and fell short. His administration went all-in onpassing various iterations of a bill that would have dramatically remade American elections, but those efforts were rebuffed in the Senate by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) who refused to gut the filibuster to do so. Meanwhile, Republicans were furious after Biden accused them of presiding over “Jim Crow in the 21st century.”

— Zach Montellaro

Defense

Building armies of drones to counter China

Defense officials have for years talked about how drones will play a central role in future wars, but other than fiddling at the margins, little has been done to build a large, AI-enabled network of military uncrewed vehicles. The worry in Washington has been that Beijing is ahead of the United States in developing the military use of drones and its growing drone fleets could swarm and confuse the radars and air defenses of U.S. warships, and critical bases in Guam and Japan.

The move: Biden’s Pentagon unveiled the Replicator program, an effort to build thousands of relatively cheap and quickly replaceable drones that can work together to attack, swarm and bedevil enemy defenses. The goal is to have the drones up and flying within two years. The program, which Pentagon officials say is more reliant on AI software installed on existing drones than actually buying new systems, would be a game-changer for the normally slow, risk-averse Pentagon procurement bureaucracy.

The impact: Once implemented, the U.S. would potentially be positioned to assume real leadership in uncrewed and AI-enabled technology, an area where it has always been strong but where other countries have started moving faster.

The upshot: Tech firms and lawmakers still want more specifics on how this is all supposed to work. But if things go as planned, the success of the program would be a major win for the White House, which has been eager to display American technological and industrial might.

— Paul McLeary

Climate

The nation’s farms get big bucks to go “climate-smart”

Agriculture produces about 10 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, and it’s been a priority of Biden’s climate plan to nudge the nation’s farmers and ranchers toward greener, less carbon-intensive ways of producing food.

The move: The Democrats used their marquee climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, to authorize funding to jump-start the transition of American agriculture toward less carbon-intensive practices. In total, the IRA aims to spend roughly $20 billion on climate smart agriculture over the next eight years, and will also target $300 million to develop more reliable and accurate standards for measuring, monitoring, reporting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions reductions in agriculture.

The impact: The money will bankroll farmers’ transition to practices the USDA deems climate-smart, like planting cover crops, reducing tilling and rotating cattle grazing zones, all of which can reduce and sequester emissions of atmosphere-warming carbon, nitrous oxide and methane.

The upshot: Biden’s climate agenda for agriculture relies heavily on a voluntary transition prodded along by large-scale incentives like the ones found in the IRA. The approach has been highly popular with farm groups, who prefer incentive-based approaches over punitive regulations. However, some climate advocates are skeptical of the program’s real potential to reduce emissions; once the USDA develops clearer measuring standards, both climate advocates and investors looking to green their supply chains may be granted more certainty. Meanwhile, the IRA money faces a more existential threat from congressional Republicans who hope to tap some of it to fund other priorities in the next farm bill, which is slated to be reauthorized later this year.

— Garrett Downs

Air Force One

Biden scraps Trump’s paint scheme for Air Force One

Trump got personally involved in negotiations for Boeing’s Air Force One replacement soon after he took office, bragging on Twitter that he had successfully reduced the price of the contract with Boeing by “over $1 billion.” Soon after, Boeing agreed to a $3.9 billion contract with the Air Force stipulating the company would be responsible for any cost overruns on the planes. But Trump’s involvement in the project didn’t stop there. In 2019, he told ABC News he wanted a new red, white and blue paint scheme, which bore a striking resemblance to his private 757. When Biden took office, he was faced with a decision on whether to keep Trump’s paint scheme, or go back to the traditional colors.

The move: Biden opted not to go with Trump’s darker paint scheme, after a study showed it could drive up the cost of the planes, POLITICO scooped in June 2022.

The impact: Biden got to scrap a personal Trump project, while taking credit for saving taxpayer dollars. It’s also one less headache for Boeing to worry about. Trump’s plan called for dark blue paint covering the plane’s underbelly and engines, which could have contributed to excessive temperatures on the aircraft — so the company would have had to pay out-of-pocket for the extra cooling costs.

The upshot: The new Air Force One fleet, when it arrives later this decade, will keep its iconic JFK-era light blue-and-white look.

— Lara Seligman

Environment

The Biden administration helps broker a deal to save the Colorado River

Climate change and decades of overuse have shrunk the Colorado River and are forcing the seven states that use the river to negotiate how to divvy up cuts or risk it going dry. At stake is the water for 40 million people from Wyoming to the U.S.-Mexico border as well as powerhouse farming operations that irrigate some of the country’s most productive farmland.

The move: The Bureau of Reclamation, led by a Biden appointee, issued an ultimatum last summer, when reservoir levels were careening toward crisis points, and put legal teeth behind a threat to intervene unilaterally. That forced recalcitrant negotiators to the table. The Biden administration and Congress also successfully muscled through a $4 billion pot of money to help pay for conservation efforts.

The impact: Last spring, the states agreed to a short-term deal to head off the crisis for a couple years, a pact sweetened by the federal cash. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton has been on a PR spree across the West to promote the administration’s deals with water agencies in key swing states like Arizona.

The upshot: Negotiators are now starting to figure out what to do after the deal runs out in 2026. They face a spring deadline to agree on how to share the Colorado River’s dwindling flows over the next 20 years. But the federal government will not likely face any big decisions until after the presidential election.

— Camille von Kaenel

Agriculture

Giving smaller food producers a boost

Soaring food prices and supply chain crunches for meat and other staples during the Covid-19 pandemic drew attention to the highly consolidated agriculture sector, in which key sectors like meatpacking are dominated by a handful of "Big Ag" behemoths. Biden entered office promising to crack down on food monopolies and support small and midsize U.S. farmers, whose numbers have cratered in recent decades.

The move: In 2021, Biden signed an executive order directing agencies across the government to promote competition and take on monopolies. That included reviving a set of USDA regulations, first proposed during the Obama administration, to promote fairness and increase transparency in meat and poultry markets. In addition, legislation negotiated by the Biden administration is providing billions for rural communities, including at least $1 billion to help small and midsize meatpackers compete in a highly consolidated market. The laws also provide millions in debt relief for farmers who have faced discrimination, funded record increases in farm conservation efforts and boosted programs that help shorten supply chains, directing food from local farms to nearby schools and food banks.

The impact: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s stump speech outlines a vision for bolstering rural economies by promoting two “companion” systems for producing food: small producers who have multiple revenue streams from high-value products, conservation practices and local buyers, and larger producers who earn money from exports and efficiency. Billions of dollars have now gone toward building this vision. USDA has also introduced new regulations to bolster organic markets and build transparency for consumers, which supporters say will help American farmers command premium prices.

The upshot: Despite record government money pouring into rural communities, critics say the Biden administration has not turned things around for small farmers. For one, USDA has yet to propose a key regulation intended to make agriculture markets more competitive. If it isn’t finalized soon — and a Republican president takes power — some farmers fear that much of the Biden administration’s anti-monopoly legacy in the agriculture sector could be temporary.

— Marcia Brown

Cannabis

Biden recommends loosening federal restrictions on marijuana

Since the Nixon administration, marijuana has been classified in federal law in the same category as LSD and heroin — drugs categorized as having a high propensity for addiction and no known medical value. In October 2022, as more and more states have moved to legalize cannabis, Biden issued an executive order directing the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a review of all available cannabis science and recommend whether the classification of marijuana should be changed.

The move: HHS issued its recommendation in August 2023 that marijuana should be moved from the most prohibitive level on the Controlled Substances Act (Schedule I) to a middle category (Schedule III). Schedule III drugs — which include ketamine and testosterone — have “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.” It’s now up to the Drug Enforcement Administration to make a final determination about the proper classification of cannabis, with a decision expected sometime in 2024.

The impact: A move to Schedule III would be the biggest change in U.S. drug policy in more than half a century. It would make marijuana much easier for researchers to study — which could give politicians and regulators a better idea of how best to write laws concerning cannabis. It would also lift arduous tax burdens on the cannabis industry that apply only to the more severe Schedule I and II drug categories. If that tax burden is lifted, there is a strong possibility the struggling weed industry suddenly would see its financial prospects brighten. Changing the classification of cannabis, however, would not have any impact on federal illegality.

The upshot: Despite more and more states legalizing and regulating cannabis in recent years, federal law has remained unaltered for decades. A reschedule of cannabis would be a seismic shift in America’s drug laws, changing the perception of the drug, the trajectory of the industry and the potential for Congress to act in the future.

— Natalie Fertig

Education

A penalty for college programs that trap students in debt

For decades, the federal government has gone back and forth on the best way to solve the problem of workers who struggle to earn a living after graduating from the country’s for-profit colleges or career training programs. The Obama administration first laid out specific metrics requiring schools who want access to a lucrative stream of government funds to prove that its graduates are prepared for “gainful employment” and don’t end up with lots of student debt relative to their income. But Obama’s team never fully implemented its rules after lengthy legal fights. The Trump administration eventually scrapped the effort. Then Biden won office, and revived Obama’s plan — with a twist.

The move: Starting in July 2024, career training programs could lose federal funding if their graduates leave with lots of student debt relative to their earnings — or if the typical graduate earns roughly less than $25,000. A similar concept would also apply to many colleges and universities that receive federal aid: Schools would have to warn students if they fail Biden’s new debt and earnings metrics — though only low-rated career programs would face a loss of funding.

The impact: The Education Department has estimated that nearly 1,700 programs would fail to meet the administration’s new standards. Another 400 graduate programs at nonprofit and public universities would also be forced to notify their students that they failed. More than 800,000 students are collectively enrolled in these programs. The department also estimates the policy will save federal taxpayers nearly $14 billion over the next decade by reducing defaults on federally backed student loans.

The upshot: Cosmetology schools, truck-driving programs and top-flight graduate institutions could soon be held publicly accountable for how their students fare in the workforce. But angry conservatives and for-profit colleges despise this looming Biden administration policy, and could launch a legal challenge to stop the rule from taking effect.

— Juan Perez Jr.

Technology

Biden moves to bring microchip production home

The Covid pandemic sharpened bipartisan fears in Washington about U.S. reliance on microchips produced overseas — primarily in China or Taiwan. As factories shut down in Asia and supply chains snarled, U.S. automakers and other manufacturers were unable to get the chips they needed, idling their plants and spiking prices for cars and other goods. That led the Biden administration and lawmakers from both parties to consider policies to bring production of the most advanced microchips back to the U.S.

The move: The administration and a bipartisan group of lawmakers coalesced around legislation that became known as the CHIPS and Science Act, which offered more than $50 billion to subsidize the construction of new microchip facilities in the U.S. and boost research and development across a series of national research facilities. After two years of debate, lawmakers passed it in July 2022 with solid bipartisan majorities. It was a remarkable endorsement of industrial policy — government support for selected industries — that U.S. lawmakers had largely shunned for decades.

The impact: The expectation of new subsidies has led major chipmakers to announce plans for new semiconductor plants in the U.S. — like an Intel campus near Columbus, Ohio, and a facility from Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC in Arizona. More than a dozen new tech research hubs are also planned based on the CHIPS Act’s funding. And the administration recently announced its first actual CHIPS Act grant — $35 million to defense contractor BAE to expand a facility that supplies Air Force fighter jets.

The upshot: The CHIPS Act was a landmark move for Biden’s new industrial policies that sought to decrease U.S. reliance on China and boost manufacturing at home. Its passage showed that lawmakers in both parties are now willing to spend huge sums to ensure the manufacturing of essential goods like microchips happens in the U.S. — and certainly not in China. The administration is set to continue rolling out CHIPS Act grants in 2024 in an attempt to gain electoral advantage from the subsidy package. But it remains to be seen if the effects of the law — like new jobs from plants coming online — will come quickly enough to be felt by voters in swing states.

— Gavin Bade

Trade

Tech firms face new international restrictions on data and privacy

The rapid growth of e-commerce in recent decades has been accompanied by an increase in digital trade barriers. Those include requirements for companies to store their data in the country where it is collected or to hand over their source code to a joint venture partner in order to do business in a particular market. Until now, the United States has been a leading voice on the international stage pushing back against such provisions, which it argued not only hurt big tech companies but small and medium-size companies that increasingly rely on the internet to do business.

The move: With the support of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and some other progressive Democrats, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative withdrew longtime bipartisan positions on data flows and source code in digital trade talks among 90 members of the World Trade Organization. The Biden administration said withdrawing the proposals would allow “policy space” for Congress, as well as other WTO members, to legislate and regulate in the tech space without bumping into trade commitments.

The impact: The move represents a significant shift in the U.S. stance on global tech policy as the motives and actions of big tech companies come under increasing scrutiny. Key members of Congress, including the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Digital Trade Caucus, harshly criticized the move, which they said would hurt U.S. competitiveness and give China and Russia more scope to craft harmful digital trade rules. It also signaled a broader retreat on the issues in U.S.-led trade talks, including the administration’s proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework with 13 other countries in the region.

The upshot: The decision aligns the Biden administration’s trade policy with its antitrust actions against big U.S. tech firms. However, it also has triggered a debate that could play out in future administrations over whether the U.S. will continue to defend the interests of its own domestic tech industry in foreign markets as part of future trade agreements.

— Doug Palmer

Africa

Preventing a cobalt crisis in Congo

Rebels in eastern Congo and the Congolese army have been fighting since the 1990s. The fighting escalated in 2022 as Rwanda-backed rebels, known as M23, invaded and took over several villages. The violence escalated further last summer when M23 moved closer to the area near Goma, one of the largest cities in the region. A war between Congo and Rwanda would not only be a humanitarian disaster, but it would upend the administration’s efforts to get into the cobalt market — a key component for electric vehicle batteries. Congo is home to about 70 percent of the world’s cobalt reserves, and China, one of Washington’s biggest trade competitors, is its main producer and is supporting M23 with drones.

The move: The president dispatched one of his top intelligence officials to the region last year to broker a pause in fighting. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines met with the presidents of Congo and Rwanda and laid out a plan for deescalation, including that Rwanda move its military back from the frontlines and Congo ground its drones. Leaders agreed to the broad strokes of the deal.

The impact: Hostilities continue but have quieted some, despite a national election last year that was marred by logistical problems.

The upshot: A direct conflict between Rwanda and Congo would likely spill over into other countries in the region and would also force the U.S. into an indirect confrontation with China at a time when Washington is trying to reset relations with Beijing.

— Erin Banco

Cybersecurity

Cracking down on cyberattacks

During Biden’s first six months in office, government agencies and critical companies were beset by cyberattacks. These incidents included the SolarWinds hack, which involved Russian government hackers infiltrating around a dozen agencies for at least a year. Ransomware attacks were also a major source of concern, with the administration forced to reckon with Colonial Pipeline, the source of almost half of the East Coast’s fuel supply, shutting down operations in May 2021. In the years since, cybersecurity concerns have only increased, including a Chinese-linked breach last year that impacted email accounts at the Commerce and State departments, skyrocketing new vulnerabilities opened up by the use of artificial intelligence technologies, and new geopolitical-linked targeting of critical systems.

The move: In March 2023, the White House released a national cyber strategy, the first since 2018. The strategy has five pillars including strengthening international cyber diplomacy efforts, securing emerging critical technologies and taking more aggressive steps to disrupt hacking groups. The strategy also made clear that the Biden administration intends to take a strong approach to issuing new regulations for critical sectors, for example health care or electricity.

The impact: The strategy outlined the goals and established a path for the federal government to reduce the threat of cyberattacks; when paired with an implementation plan for the strategy released in July, there are now firm agenda items for enhancing security.

The upshot: While cyberattacks have not slowed down since the release of the strategy, the federal government now has a solid road map for the years to come on how to respond to attacks. However, if Biden is not reelected next year, a new administration may seek to change the goals of the strategy, or even put out a new one.

— Maggie Miller

Indo-Pacific

Countering China with a new alliance between Japan and South Korea

South Korea and Japan have a mutual antipathy that goes back decades, linked to Japan’s brutal colonial rule of Korea from 1910-1945 as well as long-simmering territorial disputes in the East China Sea. That has fueled such acrimony in South Korea that until relatively recently public opinion polls in the country have rated Japanese leaders only slightly more popular than North Korea’s.

The move: Biden devoted significant diplomatic capital to courting both Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol with an eye to easing that mutual hostility. Those efforts allowed Biden to broker the first-ever trilateral summit between the three countries aimed at unifying the two countries in an alliance implicitly aimed at countering China’s rising diplomatic, economic and military power in the Indo-Pacific.

The impact: Japan and South Korea committed to allying against China using a language of cooperation that would have been impossible just two years ago. The two countries have aligned their foreign policies and agreed to a significant expansion of bilateral security cooperation to offset China’s perceived regional threat. The two countries have also committed to defense spending increases aimed at addressing Beijing’s dramatic expansion of its military forces.

The upshot: Biden’s diplomacy has — for now at least — created a narrative for regional support for his “rules-based international order” that has persuaded two key allies that border China to transition from reflexive hostility to (fragile) harmony.

— Phelim Kine

Health Care

Reinvigorating cancer research to lower death rates

As vice president, Biden launched an accelerated cancer research effort that was known as the “cancer moonshot” after his son Beau died of brain cancer in 2015. In 2022, he reignited it as president. Biden set a lofty goal for Moonshot 2.0: reducing the cancer death rate by half over 25 years. A National Cancer Institute assessment last year found that’s within the realm of possibility — if scientists and public health officials find ways to drive down cancer rates faster and develop new treatments and testing tools.

The move: The White House has announced dozens of federal and private moonshot programs, including several that rely on the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, an agency Biden created to take on high-risk, high-reward research. The White House has tasked ARPA-H with building a national clinical trial network and partnering with the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute to create a biomedical data toolbox for cancer research. ARPA-H is also putting an additional $240 million from its budget toward cancer-related research. Those commitments come on top of a series of cancer-related awards and programs ARPA-H funded last year, such as researching the use of bacteria to target tumor cells, developing an implant to better dose cancer medicine, harnessing mRNA technology and honing surgical tools.

The impact: Evaluating whether the new moonshot programs can make a dent in the cancer death rate will take time. However, the fruits from ARPA-H's investment will come long before 2047. The agency's mission is to pivot quickly if its research fails and to get innovative treatments and technologies to patients within years, not decades. In the meantime, the United States has made serious progress on cancer, with the death rate falling 33 percent over the past three decades.

The upshot: While cancer research has historically enjoyed bipartisan support, Republicans have proposed budget cuts for health agencies this year. Meanwhile, the moonshot's original funding has run out and Congress has not authorized new funds.

— Erin Schumaker

Health care

Making medication more accessible through telemedicine

During the Covid public health emergency, the federal government took several steps to make it easier to access health care via telemedicine. Most of those measures have ended. But one of the regulations that Biden held in place allows many controlled substances like Adderall for ADHD treatment, testosterone for gender-affirming care and buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder to be prescribed without first having an in-person visit. In-person-visit requirements have traditionally been used to prevent fraud and abuse.

The move: Ahead of the emergency’s end in May, the Drug Enforcement Administration proposed requiring that patients see a doctor in person after an initial 30-day supply of medication obtained virtually for buprenorphine, testosterone and ketamine for depression, and requiring in-person visits for Adderall to be prescribed. That sparked a firestorm of criticism from treatment advocates and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The DEA has now extended the eased prescribing rules through the end of 2024. It plans to issue final regulations this year.

The impact: Treatment advocates say that prescribing addiction treatments via telehealth offers improved access to care, especially for hard-to-reach patients like those with opioid addiction, and removes barriers associated with travel. After several years, many patients have become accustomed to receiving such care virtually. But some startups have drawn DEA scrutiny after allegedly overprescribing powerful stimulants like Adderall.

The upshot: Telehealth has become a booming industry since the pandemic, with telehealth usage about 30 times higher than before the pandemic. The DEA says it hopes to balance expanding access to treatment with avoiding misuse.

— Ben Leonard