70 years ago, school integration was a dream many believed could actually happen. It hasn’t

posted in: News | 0

By ANNIE MA (AP Education Writer)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Seventy years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled separating children in schools by race was unconstitutional. On paper, that decision — the fabled Brown v. Board of Education, taught in most every American classroom — still stands.

But for decades, American schools have been re-segregating. The country is more diverse than it ever has been, with students more exposed to classmates from different backgrounds. Still, around 4 out of 10 Black and Hispanic students attend schools where almost every one of their classmates is another student of color.

The intense segregation by race is linked to socioeconomic conditions: Schools where students of color compose more than 90% of the student body are five times more likely to be located in low-income areas. That in turn has resounding academic consequences: Students who attend high-poverty schools, regardless of their family’s finances, have worse educational outcomes.

Efforts to slow or reverse the increasing separation of American schools have stalled. Court cases slowly have chipped away at the dream outlined in the case of Brown v. Board, leaving fewer and fewer tools in the hands of districts to integrate schools by the early 2000s.

The arc of the moral universe, in this case, does not seem to be bending toward justice.

“School integration exists as little more than an idea in America right now, a little more than a memory,” said Derek Black, a law professor at the University of Southern California. “It’s actually an idea that a pretty good majority of Americans think is a good idea. But that’s all.”

MORE THAN JUST DIVERSE SCHOOLS

The dream of Brown was never as simple as diversity. It was about equality, and the opportunity that came with it.

From the beginning, funding and integration have been inseparable.

“Whiter schools and districts have more resources, and that is wrong,” said Ary Amerikaner, a former Obama administration official and the founder of Brown’s Promise. “But it is a reality. And that undermines opportunity for students of color, and it undermines our future democracy.”

We remember Brown v. Board as the end of segregated schools in the United States. But stating values does not, alone, change reality. Though the case was decided in 1954, it was followed by more than a decade of delay and avoidance before school districts began to meaningfully allow Black students to enter white schools.

It took further court rulings, monitoring and enforcement to bring a short-lived era of integration to hundreds of school districts. For the students who took part in those desegregation programs, their life trajectory changed — the more years spent in integrated schools, the better Black children fared on measures like educational attainment, graduation rates, health, and earning potential, with no adverse effects on white children.

For a brief period, it seemed the country recognized the deeper remedies required. “All things being equal, with no history of discrimination, it might well be desirable to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in Swann v. Mecklenburg, a 1971 decision that upheld the use of busing to integrate schools in North Carolina. “But all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation.”

But not long after, another series of court decisions would unwind those outcomes. Fifty years ago, in Milliken v. Bradley, the court struck down a plan for integrating Detroit public schools across school district lines. The ruling undermined desegregation efforts in the north and Midwest, where small districts allowed white families to escape integration.

Other decisions followed. In Freeman v. Pitts, the court ruled resegregation from private choice and demographic shifts could not be monitored by the court. More than 200 districts were released from court-monitored desegregation plans. By 2007, when the court ruled in Parents Involved v. Seattle Public Schools, even voluntary integration plans could no longer consider assigning students on the basis of race.

“If you have the tools taken away from you … by the Supreme Court, then you really don’t have a whole lot of tools,” said Stephan Blanford, a former Seattle Public Schools board member.

ONE DISTRICT AS A MICROCOSM

The arc of history is clear in the city where the landmark Swann busing case originated.

At its peak, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools was considered such a success at integrating classrooms and closing the gap between Black and white students that educators around the country came to tour the district. Today, more than 20 years after a court ruling overturned busing students on the basis of race, CMS is the most segregated district in North Carolina.

While there are no laws that keep kids siloed by race and income, in so many schools that is the reality.

Charlotte’s sprawling, complex busing plan brought Black and white students into the same schools — and by extension, made white children’s resources available to Black students for the first time. The district’s integration program ended when white families sued after their children did not get their top choice of school placement in a lottery that considered race.

Instead, the district created a school assignment process that said diversity “will be based on the family’s decisions.” It left the families of Mecklenburg County, some of whom have always had better choices than others, on their own. In the first year of the district’s choice program, Black families were more likely to try to use the choice plan to pick an alternative school. They were also more likely to get none of the magnet schools they wanted.

In the decades that followed, the district re-segregated. Years of busing had unwound the segregated makeup of the schools, but the underlying disparities and residential segregation had been left untouched.

Charlotte is a place where the divide between affluence and poverty, and the clear racial lines that mirror it, are so stark that people who live there refer to the city in two parts — the well-off “wedge” and the poorer “crescent.” How could anything other than an explicit consideration of those conditions ever hope to ameliorate them?

Solutions to segregated schools exist in this context, often relying on individual families to make choices that are limited by their circumstances. Magnet schools and inter-district transfers — two common policies that may create great individual opportunities — are limited and will always leave some students behind.

Wherever you look, families are divided in how they view integration. For white and affluent families, it can exist as a noble idea, one filled with self-reflection. But for families of color or poor families — those with less of a safety net — the point of integration often is to place their children somewhere better.

Efforts to integrate schools can take two paths, Stefan Lallinger, executive director of Next100, a public policy think tank, says. They either fight around the margins, creating slightly less segregated spaces, or they address the problem head on, which in many parts of the country would mean tackling boundaries deliberately drawn to separate rich from poor.

FILE – Mothers carrying protest signs accompany their children to Graymont Elementary School in Birmingham, Ala., which was opened on an integrated basis, Sept. 4, 1963. Friday, May 17, 2024, marks 70 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separating children in schools by race was unconstitutional. On paper, Brown v. Board of Education still stands. In reality, school integration is all but gone, the victim of a gradual series of court cases that slowly eroded it, leaving little behind. (AP Photo, File)

FILE – Third-grade students do school work during class at Hanby Elementary School, Feb. 15, 2011, in Mesquite, Texas. Friday, May 17, 2024, marks 70 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separating children in schools by race was unconstitutional. On paper, Brown v. Board of Education still stands. In reality, school integration is all but gone, the victim of a gradual series of court cases that slowly eroded it, leaving little behind. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)

of

Expand

HOW TO MOVE FORWARD IN A SYSTEM THAT RESISTS?

Amerikaner and Saba Bireda founded Brown’s Promise on the idea of bridging the divide between funding and integration, leveraging state courts to obtain the tools the Supreme Court has taken away from districts.

Their strategy has some precedence. In Connecticut, a 1989 lawsuit in state court resulted in the creation of an inter-district transfer program, which allows students in Hartford to transfer into suburban schools and magnet programs, breaking up concentrations of poverty and racially isolated schools.

“This country had to be moved to integration,” Bireda said. “And unfortunately, 70 years later, we feel like we still need litigation. We need the push of the courts.”

More recent lawsuits have taken place in New Jersey and in Minnesota. In 2015, Alex Cruz-Guzman became a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging segregation in Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools. Cruz-Guzman immigrated to the United States from Mexico as a teenager. As a parent, he noticed his children’s schools consisted almost entirely of other Latino students. When he tried to place them in more integrated schools, the family faced long waitlists.

The case wound its way through court for nearly a decade, almost reaching a settlement in the legislature before that bill failed to pass.

Cruz-Guzman recalls people asking why he would join a case that likely would not resolve in time to benefit his own children, who struggled with learning English for a time in predominantly Latino schools. To him, the arc of the case is about the kids whose lives could change in the future.

“It’s not only my kids. My grandkids will benefit from it,” he says. “People for generations will benefit.”

How far those legal cases can reach remains to be seen. Actual solutions are imperfect. But integration is something this country has tried before, and while it lasted, by many measures, it worked.

Anniversaries are moments to stop and contemplate. Seventy years after Brown, the work towards achieving its vision remains unfinished. Where there are no perfect, easy answers, what other choice is there besides trying imperfect pathways that bring about an increasingly diverse country somewhere closer to the promise of Brown?

“What’s the alternative?” Bireda said. “We are headed towards a country that is going to be majority people of color. … We can be a strong multiracial democracy, but we cannot be that if we continue to allow most children in the United States not to go to school with children who are from different backgrounds.”

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Biden administration is moving ahead on new $1 billion arms sale to Israel, congressional aides say

posted in: Politics | 0

By SEUNG MIN KIM, ELLEN KNICKMEYER and ZEKE MILLER (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration has told key lawmakers it plans to move forward on a new $1 billion sale of arms and ammunition to Israel, three congressional aides say.

It’s the first arms shipment to Israel to be pushed ahead since the administration put another arms transfer, consisting of 3,500 bombs of up to 2,000 pounds each, on hold this month. The Biden administration, citing concern for civilian casualties in Gaza, has said it paused that bomb transfer to keep Israel from using those particular munitions in its offensive in the crowded southern Gaza city of Rafah.

The new package disclosed Tuesday includes about $700 million for tank ammunition, $500 million in tactical vehicles and $60 million in mortar rounds, the congressional aides said. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an arms transfer that has not yet been made public.

The administration’s notice to lawmakers this week isn’t the final, formal notification before a sale, one of the congressional aides said. The deal would be an entirely new sale, the aide said. That means any weapons that are part of it could take years to be delivered.

Once a transfer is informally notified to Congress, the leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee or the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can block it by placing a hold on the package, and the State Department generally will not proceed if that occurs.

The Biden administration has come under criticism from both sides of the political spectrum over its military support for Israel’s now seven-month-old war against Hamas in Gaza — at a time when President Joe Biden is battling for reelection against former President Donald Trump. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Some of Biden’s fellow Democrats have pushed him to limit transfers of offensive weapons to Israel to pressure the U.S. ally to do more to protect Palestinian civilians. Protests on college campuses around the U.S. have driven home the message this spring.

Republican lawmakers have seized on the administration’s pause on the bomb transfers, saying any lessening of U.S. support for Israel — its closest ally in the Middle East — weakens that country as it fights Hamas and other Iran-backed groups. In the House, they are planning to advance a bill this week to mandate the delivery of offensive weaponry for Israel.

Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., the GOP whip, told reporters Wednesday that initiating the process for this round of arms sales “doesn’t make up” for the Biden administration withholding the previously approved sales.

Despite the onetime suspension of a bomb shipment, Biden and administration officials have made clear they will continue other weapons deliveries and overall military support to Israel, which is the largest recipient of U.S. military aid.

Related Articles


Palestinians mark 76 years of dispossession as a potentially even larger catastrophe unfolds in Gaza


Thomas Friedman: Biden’s real mistake in pausing military aid to Israel


Misery deepens in Gaza’s Rafah as Israeli troops press operation


Letters: Boorish behavior disrupts graduation, undermines support for the cause


Seth Greenland: Have we learned nothing? The protester’s taunt, ‘Go back to Poland,’ is grotesque

Biden will see to it that “Israel has all of the military means it needs to defend itself against all of its enemies, including Hamas,” national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters Monday. “For him, this is very straightforward: He’s going to continue to provide Israel with all of capabilities it needs, but he does not want certain categories of American weapons used in a particular type of operation in a particular place. And again, he has been clear and consistent with that.”

The Wall Street Journal first reported the plans for the $1 billion weapons package to Israel.

In response to House Republicans’ plan to move forward with a bill to mandate the delivery of offensive weapons for Israel, the White House said Tuesday that Biden would veto the bill if it were to pass Congress.

The bill has practically no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But House Democrats are somewhat divided on the issue, and roughly two dozen have signed onto a letter to the Biden administration saying they were “deeply concerned about the message” sent by pausing the bomb shipment.

One of the letter’s signers, New York Rep. Ritchie Torres, said he would likely vote for the bill, despite the White House’s opposition.

“I have a general rule of supporting pro-Israel legislation unless it includes a poison pill — like cuts to domestic policy,” he said.

In addition to the written veto threat, the White House has been in touch with various lawmakers and congressional aides about the legislation, according to an administration official.

“We strongly, strongly oppose attempts to constrain the President’s ability to deploy U.S. security assistance consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this week, adding that the administration plans to spend “every last cent” appropriated by Congress in the national security supplemental package that was signed into law by Biden last month.

Associated Press writers Stephen Groves, Lisa Mascaro and Aamer Madhani contributed.

From Hogan to a Trumpier Senate: Takeways from Tuesday’s primaries

posted in: News | 0

By NICHOLAS RICCARDI (Associated Press)

The presidential primary may be decided, but election season marches on.

Voters in several states, including Maryland and West Virginia, chose nominees Tuesday in critical races that could decide the balance of power on Capitol Hill next year.

Here are some takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries:

HOGAN: GAME-CHANGER OR SACRIFICIAL LAMB?

Maryland’s former Republican governor, Larry Hogan, easily won his party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate seat opened by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin’s retirement. The Senate race in the solidly Democratic state would normally be a snoozer, but Hogan is a candidate unlike any other Republican.

Over his two terms as governor, Hogan won a significant number of Democratic votes and remained popular among a wide swath of the left-leaning state. He’s been a sharp Trump critic, which endears him to a segment of the Democratic electorate and can blunt attacks from the left. That’s why Senate Republicans wooed him relentlessly to run for the newly open seat, as part of their plan to flip control of the chamber from Democrats, who currently have a two-seat majority.

Candidates with cross-party appeal like Hogan used to be a staple of national politics, but they are fading fast in an era where voters routinely vote on a straight party line rather than for individual politicians. During the last two presidential elections, only one senator — Maine Republican Susan Collins — won a state that also backed a presidential candidate of a different party.

There are recent cautionary tales of popular, moderate minority-party governors failing to win Senate seats in recent elections, evidence that voters are far more willing to vote their partisan politics for federal offices than state ones. In Montana and Tennessee, former Democratic governors Steve Bullock and Phil Bredesen, respectively, both ran for open Senate seats in deep-red states in 2020 and 2018 respectively. Both lost badly.

For the Maryland version of this, expect Democrats who previously praised Hogan’s anti-Trump stances to paint him as a threat to abortion rights and entitlements because he has said he’d caucus with Republicans, which could give the GOP a Senate majority. That could make for a tough road for Hogan to win a state that Biden won by 33 percentage points.

Still, Hogan will undoubtedly shake up the Senate map and put Democrats even more on the defensive. They have to defend three seats in states that Donald Trump has won, including a newly open seat in Trump’s best state, West Virginia.

HISTORY IN MARYLAND

Hogan will face Democrat Angela Alsobrooks, who notched a striking win in a contentious primary in which she was dramatically outspent.

If she wins in November, Alsobrooks would be the first Black senator from Maryland, which has one of the largest Black populations in the country. The lone Black woman currently in the U.S. Senate, Laphonza Butler of California, is stepping down after her appointed term ends in December. The chamber has three Black male senators.

Alsobrooks defeated Rep. David Trone, who spent more than $61 million of his own money on his Democratic primary bid for the Senate nomination. She overcame Trone’s financial advantage by winning endorsements from the state’s top Democrats, including Gov. Wes Moore, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Steny Hoyer. She campaigned on growing economic opportunity, education and abortion rights and slammed Trone for donating to Republicans around the country, including ones who oppose abortion rights.

Trone, 68, who is white, had his share of stumbles, including using a racial slur in front of a Black witness during a committee hearing in the House of Representatives. Trone said he was trying to use a similar-sounding word.

THE SENATE GETS TRUMPIER

The biggest shift in the U.S. Senate may have already happened Tuesday night, when West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice formally won the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Biden and Trump agree on debates on June 27 and in September, but details could be challenging

National Politics |


Biden team’s tightrope: Reining in rogue Obamacare agents without slowing enrollment

National Politics |


Mistrust, fights and blood sport: How COVID-19 trauma is shaping the 2024 election

National Politics |


Michael Cohen testifies he discussed hush money reimbursements with Trump at the White House

National Politics |


Primaries in Maryland and West Virginia will shape the battle this fall for a Senate majority

Manchin was a centrist Democrat who was a lightning rod for the left and the right but survived politically as his state shifted far to the right. It’s likely that he was the only Democrat who could win a senate election in the state and that now Justice will replace him.

That’ll swing the Senate even more in Trump’s direction, regardless of whether the GOP flips additional seats to give it 50 or more senators. Trump endorsed Justice, a wealthy coal magnate-turned-Democratic politician-turned-Republican whose folksy demeanor and omnipresent English bulldog — named Babydog — endeared him to West Virginia’s voters.

Like Trump, Justice has been trailed by legal controversy — his firms have been sued for not paying their debts and tax authorities have placed liens on his properties. And like Trump, Justice has strayed from GOP orthodoxy. He embraced the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Biden signed and has become a cornerstone of the incumbent president’s campaign. That earned him attacks from his rival, Rep. Alex Mooney, but it wasn’t enough to blunt Justice’s advantages.

Justice will join a senate Republican caucus that’s grown steadily Trumpier as critics of the former president have retired and been replaced by allies who win party primaries. There’s no way to know how he’ll vote on every issue, but in that respect, he also fits in Trump’s mold.

THE GHOST OF HALEY

It’s been two months since former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination but she keeps racking up votes from Republicans who don’t want to cast their ballot for former President Donald Trump.

Fresh off a stunning 21% tally in last week’s Indiana Republican primary, Haley received tens of thousands of votes in West Virginia and Maryland on Tuesday night. Maryland, a heavily educated, D.C.-adjacent state, is particularly tailor-made for Haley’s less ideological, technocratic approach. But even then, Haley’s strength is eye-catching.

The persistent votes for Haley could be a warning sign for Trump. Even as the Republican party coalesces around him, a chunk of its voter base still wants to vote against him. However, it’s possible many of these voters are Biden voters already who have simply chosen to vote in the GOP primary and delight in embarrassing Trump. If that’s the case, the protest vote won’t mean much in November.

Biden has been the target of his own protest campaign against his handling of the war in Gaza. Disillusioned Democrats have urged primary voters to cast ballots for “uncommitted” where the option is available. It was in Maryland, but the percentage of those votes was relatively low.

In West Virginia, Biden won handily but about a fifth of the Democratic electorate chose other candidates. That’s not unusual for an incumbent Democratic president in an ancestrally Democratic state that’s moved sharply to the right — Barack Obama only won 59% of the Democratic primary vote there in 2012, when he was running for his second term.

This story was first published on May 14, 2024. It was published again on May 15, 2024, to correct that in last week’s Indiana Republican primary Nikki Haley got 21%, not 15%, of the vote.

Biden and Trump agree to presidential debates in June on CNN and in September on ABC

posted in: Politics | 0

By ZEKE MILLER, JILL COLVIN and JOSH BOAK (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Wednesday agreed to hold two campaign debates in June and September — the first on June 27 hosted by CNN and the second on Sept. 10 hosted by ABC — setting the stage for the first presidential face-off in just weeks.

The quick agreement on the timetable to meet followed the Democrat’s announcement that he will not participate in fall presidential debates sponsored by the nonpartisan commission that has organized them for more than three decades. Biden’s campaign instead proposed that media outlets directly organize the debates with the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees, with the first to be held in late June and the second in September before early voting begins. Trump, in a post on his Truth Social site, said he was “Ready and Willing to Debate” Biden at the proposed times.

Hours later, Biden said he accepted an invitation from CNN to a debate on June 27, adding, “Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, anytime, any place.” Trump said on Truth Social he’d “be there, adding: “Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!”

And soon after they agreed to the second debate on ABC. Trump said on Truth Social it was his “great honor” to accept the CNN and ABC debates.

Biden said he, too, had received and accepted the invitations. “Trump says he’ll arrange his own transportation. I’ll bring my plane, too. I plan on keeping it for another four years,” he wrote on X.

Still, the two sides appeared to be hold some differences on key questions of how to organize the debates, including agreeing on moderators and rules — some of the very questions that prompted the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates in 1987.

Biden’s campaign had proposed excluding third-party candidates, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from the debates outright. Under the debate commission’s rules, Kennedy or other third-party candidates could qualify if they secured ballot access sufficient to claim 270 Electoral Votes and polled at 15% or higher in a selection of national polls.

CNN said that the debate would be held in its Atlanta studios and that “no audience will be present.” It said moderators and other details would be announced later. The network held open the door to Kennedy’s participation if he or any other candidate met polling and ballot access requirements similar to the commission’s.

As recently as Wednesday morning, Trump expressed his desire for a large live audience.

“I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds – That’s only because he doesn’t get them,” Trump said. “Just tell me when, I’ll be there.”

Trump has been pushing for more debates and earlier debates, arguing voters should be able to see the two men face off well before early voting begins in September. He has repeatedly said he will debate Biden “anytime, anywhere, any place,” even proposing the two men face off outside the Manhattan courthouse where he is currently on criminal trial in a hush money case. He also has been taunting Biden with an empty lectern at some of his rallies.

Biden’s campaign has long held a grudge against the nonpartisan commission for failing to evenly apply its rules during the 2020 Biden-Trump matchups — most notably when it didn’t enforce its COVID-19 testing rules on Trump and his entourage — and Biden’s team has held talks with television networks and some Republicans about ways to circumvent the commission’s grip on presidential debates.

Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon on Wednesday sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates to say that Biden’s campaign objected to the fall dates selected by the commission, which come after some Americans begin to vote, repeating a complaint also voiced by the Trump campaign. She also voiced frustrations over the rule violations and the commission’s insistence on holding the debates before a live audience.

“The debates should be conducted for the benefit of the American voters, watching on television and at home — not as entertainment for an in-person audience with raucous or disruptive partisans and donors,” she said. ”As was the case with the original televised debates in 1960, a television studio with just the candidates and moderators is a better, more cost-efficient way to proceed: focused solely on the interests of voters.”

There was little love lost for the commission as well from Trump, who objected to technical issues at his first debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was upset after a debate with Biden was canceled in 2020 after the Republican came down with COVID-19. The Republican National Committee had already promised not to work with commission on the 2024 contests.

The commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

The Trump campaign issued a statement on May 1 that objected to the scheduled debates by the commission, saying that the schedule “begins AFTER early voting” and that “this is unacceptable” because voters deserve to hear from the candidates before ballots are cast.

O’Malley Dillon said the debates “should be one-on-one, allowing voters to compare the only two candidates with any statistical chance of prevailing in the Electoral College – and not squandering debate time on candidates with no prospect of becoming President.”

Kennedy, in a statement, said “Presidents Trump and Biden are colluding to lock America into a head-to-head match-up that 70% say they do not want. They are trying to exclude me from their debate because they are afraid I would win. Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy.”

Related Articles

National News |


Justice Department says Boeing violated deal that avoided prosecution after 737 Max crashes

National News |


Miniature poodle named Sage wins Westminster Kennel Club dog show

National News |


Sidewalk video ‘Portal’ linking New York, Dublin by livestream temporarily paused after lewd antics

National News |


This giant gas planet is as fluffy and puffy as cotton candy

National News |


Cargo ship that caused Baltimore bridge collapse had power blackouts hours before leaving port

The Biden campaign also proposed that the Biden-Trump debates this year be hosted by “any broadcast organization that hosted a Republican Primary debate in 2016 in which Donald Trump participated, and a Democratic primary debate in 2020 in which President Biden participated — so neither campaign can assert that the sponsoring organization is obviously unacceptable: if both candidates have previously debated on their airwaves, then neither could object to such venue.”

Those criteria would eliminate Fox News, which did not host a Democratic primary debate in 2020, and potentially NBC News, which did not host a GOP one in 2016 — though its corporate affiliates CNBC and Telmundo were co-hosts of one debate each that year.

In teeing up the debates, both Biden and Trump traded barbs on social media — each claiming victory the last time they faced-off in 2020.

“Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020, since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate,’ Biden said in a post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal.”

Trump, for his part, said Biden was the “WORST debater I have ever faced – He can’t put two sentences together!”

The Democrat suggested that the two candidates could pick some dates, taking a dig at Trump’s ongoing New York hush money trial by noting that the Republican is “free on Wednesdays,” the usual day off in the trial.

The president first indicated he would be willing to debate Trump during an interview with the radio host Howard Stern last month, telling him that “I am, somewhere. I don’t know when. But I’m happy to debate him.”

Biden indicated again last week that he was preparing to debate, telling reporters as he was leaving a White House event: “Set it up.”