Posts tagged with "HuffPost"

‘Make my day, pal’: Joe Biden challenges Donald Trump to a presidential debate

May 15, 2024

On Wednesday, May 15, President Joe Biden released a video challenging presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump to debate him, reports HuffPost.

“Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then he hasn’t shown up to debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again,” Biden said in the video, which was posted to X, formerly called Twitter.

“Well, make my day, pal,” Biden added. “I’ll even do it twice. So let’s pick the dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.”

Not long after posting the video, Biden said on social media that he accepted an invitation from CNN for a June 27 debate: “Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place.”

Biden’s campaign proposed two general election debates to be held in June and September prior to the start of early voting. The campaign also said it wanted the debates hosted by news organizations rather than by the Commission on Presidential Debates because the schedule of three debates proposed by the commission occurred too late, after the start of early voting, an objection also raised by Trump’s campaign.

Trump told Fox News he agreed with Biden’s proposed schedule.

Trump skipped a 2020 presidential debate when the organizers announced it would be held virtually amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The former president also skipped the 2024 GOP primary debates.

But in recent months, Trump has been taunting Biden on the campaign trail—calling for more debates than usual and placing an empty lectern on the stage at his rallies to represent where Biden could stand.

Anytime, anyplace,” Trump said of debating Biden at a rally earlier this year.

Trump also suggested a presidential debate at the courthouse in New York City, where he is on trial for falsifying business records related to hush money paid to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Trump has been occupied with the proceedings every day of the week except Wednesday, when the trial is not in session, giving him a day off.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Trump lawyer tells SCOTUS that even a military coup order would be immune from prosecution

April 25, 2024

An order from a president to the military to conduct a coup to remain in office “might well be an official act,” former President Donald Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court in oral arguments on Thursday, April 25, on the question of whether Trump’s attempted coup is immune from prosecution, reports HuffPost.

Trump’s claims that his actions leading up to the violent assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, are immune from prosecution received skeptical questioning from nearly all of the nine justices—but none more on-point than Elena Kagan’s question about 40 minutes in.

“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.

“That might well be an official act,” Trump attorney John Sauer answered.

Trump was not at the Supreme Court during the oral arguments on Thursday; but rather was in a different courtroom, in lower Manhattan, in the early phase of an unrelated criminal trial.

He has made it clear, though, that he is keenly aware of the import of the high court’s coming decision. On Monday, he posted an all-capital-letters screed demanding that all actions taken by a sitting president be given “complete & total” immunity, even those that “cross the line.” He ended with: “God bless the Supreme Court.”

Thursday morning, just minutes before he was due in the New York City courtroom, he posted three more times about the immunity case: “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!”

Trump has previously stated that he hoped the three justices he nominated―Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett―would be loyal to him and has subsequently complained that they and the others selected by Republican presidents have treated him unfairly in an attempt to appear nonpartisan.

Trump’s lawyers have tried the same immunity arguments twice, before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In both courts, the judges sided with prosecutors who argued that a former president should have no more immunity from prosecution than anyone else and that, specifically in this case, Trump’s actions to overturn an election were an attack on the foundations of the republic.

During the appeals court oral arguments, one of the judges asked Trump’s lawyer if, under Trump’s immunity theory, a president could order SEAL Team Six to murder a political opponent and then never face criminal charges. Trump’s lawyer eventually answered yes, that was a possibility.

With Trump running for his old job, the timing of the high court’s decision may be as important as its substance. A relatively quick ruling simply affirming the appeals court decision that Trump’s action leading up to and on January 6, 2021, are not immune from prosecution could allow Chutkan to begin a trial by late summer, which would likely produce a verdict by Election Day, on November 5.

Although most legal experts doubt that the justices would decide that a president enjoys blanket immunity, some believe they could rule that a president does have immunity for official acts―and then send the case back to Chutkan to hold a hearing to determine whether the charges against Trump involve official actions on behalf of the country or private ones for his own personal or political gain.

Such a hearing, while it would bring forth testimony from former Trump White House officials damaging to Trump, could mean that a trial may not conclude by November 5—particularly if the Supreme Court does not issue a ruling until the close of its term at the end of June.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Bernie Sanders calls on Biden to block U.S. funding for Netanyahu’s ‘war machine’

March 12, 2024

On Sunday, March 10, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) called on President Joe Biden to deny Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more U.S. funding for his “war machine” unless Israel allows for more humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza, reports HuffPost.

In an interview with CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Sanders said the ongoing offensive—which already has killed over 31,000 Palestinians and displaced millions, according to local officials, cannot be allowed to continue with the blessing of the USA.

“We are looking at the possibility of hundreds of thousands of children starving to death,” Sanders said. “The United States of America cannot be complicit in this mass slaughter of children.”

Health officials in Gaza have said 20 people, including children, have died of malnutrition, according to The Associated Press, with many warning the situation is likely to deteriorate even further.

Taking a harsher stance toward Netanyahu to pressure him to take into account the suffering of innocent Palestinians, Sanders added, would be both the moral thing to do and “good politics” for Biden.

“The truth is, whether you’re a conservative Republican or a progressive, you do not want to see children in Palestine starve to death,” Sanders said.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu is planning to expand his country’s offensive to the southernmost city of Rafah, where millions of Palestinians have sought refuge during the conflict, appearing to ignore calls from the USA to back away from that plan.

Sanders warned attacking Rafah would be an “unmitigated disaster,” adding, “My view is, of course, we cannot support an attack of that kind on Rafah,” Sanders told CBS’s Margaret Brennan. “Bottom line is, though, Netanyahu has got to be told no more money for his war machine, unless there is humanitarian aid coming in to feed the people.”

Biden has warned Netanyahu against going ahead with a Rafah offensive—but said, ultimately, even if Israel did proceed with its plans, he wouldn’t pull U.S. funding for the country.

“It is a red line, but I’m never going to leave Israel,” Biden told MSNBC. “The defense of Israel is still critical. So, there’s no red line where I’m going to cut off all weapons so they don’t have the Iron Dome to protect them.”

But Netanyahu told Axel Springer his only “red line” is to make sure Israel never goes through another attack like the one his country experienced on October 7—when Hamas killed 1,200 people in Southern Israel and took hundreds of hostages, some of which still remain in its custody.

So far, cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas brokered by Egypt, Qatar, and the USA , despite earlier hope for a pause to hostilities by the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Justice Department asks Supreme Court to end delays of Trump’s January 6 trial

February 15, 2024

On Wednesday, February 14, federal prosecutors urged the Supreme Court not to delay Donald Trump’s trial for his coup attempt any further—calling a quick resolution of those criminal charges a matter of utmost importance for the country, reports The Huffington Post.

“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy,” Special Counsel Jack Smith wrote in a 39-page brief filed with the court Wednesday evening. He called Trump’s actions an “effort to perpetuate himself in power and prevent the lawful winner of the 2020 presidential election from taking office.

“The national interest in resolving those charges without further delay is compelling,” he wrote.

The former president on Monday asked the high court to freeze that prosecution through two more rounds of appeals—a request that, if granted, could put Trump in a position of ordering the Department of Justice to dismiss all federal cases against him, should he win back the presidency this autumn.

Trump is arguing to the Supreme Court that his riling up his followers with lies about a “stolen” election that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to keep him in power was, in fact, an “official” act of the presidency for which he cannot be prosecuted. He also claims he cannot be prosecuted for his actions because the Senate failed to hit the two-thirds supermajority needed to convict him on that impeachment. What’s more, he argues that the Founders always intended for presidents to enjoy total immunity.

All those arguments were previously rejected by both trial Judge Tanya Chutkan as well as the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That appellate court ruled that the case would return to Chutkan for trial unless the Supreme Court granted him a delay while it considers Trump’s request.

Smith wrote in his new filing that Trump had no grounds to seek another delay at this point. “He has no entitlement to a further stay while seeking discretionary review from this court,” Smith said. “Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict―a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here; as it involves federal criminal charges against a former president for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, including through the use of official power.

Further, Trump had not shown any historical or legal basis for his claim that he is immune from prosecution. “A president’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law.”

Trump’s lawyers have gone beyond merely asking the Supreme Court to review the case and are demanding that Trump first be allowed to appeal to the full appellate court before coming to the high court—all while the January 6 case remains on hold.

But Smith asked the court to treat Trump’s request for a delay as a request for the court to review the three-judge panel’s ruling—thereby eliminating one of the steps Trump was asking for. Smith also asked the justices to decline taking the case at all, given the appellate court’s detailed ruling; but that if did take it, to do so on an expedited basis that would produce a ruling by the end of the court’s term this summer.

“The public interest weighs heavily in favor of this court’s issuance of its decision without delay,” Smith wrote.

The January. 6 case is one of two federal prosecutions Trump could end if he becomes president again. The other is based on his refusal to turn over secret documents he took with him to his South Florida country club upon leaving the White House.

Trump also faces a Georgia state prosecution for his attempt to overturn his election loss there and a New York state indictment accusing him of falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star in the days before the 2016 election.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Trump is privately pressuring GOP Senators to ‘kill’ border deal to deny Biden a win

January 26, 2024

On Wednesday, January 24, Donald Trump privately pressured Senate Republicans to “kill” a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election, reports HuffPost.

Trump directly reached out to several GOP senators on Wednesday to tell them to reject any deal. The GOP presidential frontrunner also personally reached out to some Senate Republicans over the weekend, an anonymous source told HuffPost. “He doesn’t want Biden to have a victory,” said the source. “He told them he will fix the border when he is president…. He said he only wants the perfect deal.”

Trump’s meddling generated an “emotional” discussion in a closed-door meeting among Senate Republicans, as senators vented their frustrations for hours about the largely secret negotiations over emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel, and immigration. The conference is splintering into two camps—those who believe Republicans should take the deal, and those who are opposed at any cost.

“The rational Republicans want the deal because they want Ukraine and Israel and an actual border solution,” said the source. “But the others are afraid of Trump, or they’re the chaos caucus who never wants to pass anything.”

“They’re having a little crisis in their conference right now,” the source added.

A bipartisan group of senators has been working for months to craft a border deal, and Trump has made it no secret that he opposes it. On Wednesday, he wrote on Truth Social, his conservative social media site, “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions and Millions of people.”

What’s different now, though, is that Trump is now directly telling GOP senators to oppose any deal. His meddling has left their conference in even more disarray than it was already in, and a potential border deal in limbo.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) demurred when asked if he thinks it’s constructive for Trump to tell Republicans not to make any border deals: “I could probably go through any number of things that Biden is saying that are not constructive when he’s on the campaign trail, but that’s the nature of campaigns,”

Tillis said. “So I’m not going to criticize President Trump or his positions.”

But, bucking Trump, he said he supported passing the bipartisan border deal, which Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) has been working on with Democrats.

“Based on what I’ve seen and based on the work that James Lankford has put in, it goes far enough for me,” said Tillis. “If anyone’s intellectually honest with themselves, they all know these would be extraordinary tools for President Trump.”

During Wednesday’s meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) referenced comments Trump made as president in 2018 about the difficulty of getting Democrats to agree to changes to immigration laws. McConnell, who is no fan of Trump, was making the case that Republicans should agree to a border deal now, since the likelihood of Democrats potentially cutting a deal with Trump in the White House again would be highly unlikely.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Biden campaign readies abortion rights blitz against Trump

January 23, 2024

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are set to set slam former President Donald Trump over abortion rights this week, with their reelection campaign releasing its first ad wholly focused on the topic and campaign stops planned in Wisconsin and Virginia, reports HuffPost.

The push—built around the 51st anniversary of the now-overturned Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to an abortion—also includes a White House task force on reproductive rights, convened by Biden on Monday, January 22. It comes as Democrats remain anxious about Biden’s campaign, including the president’s comfort level with what many Democratic Party leaders believe is their most effective political message.

“Because of Republican elected officials, women’s health and lives are at risk,” Biden said in a statement on Monday morning. “In states across the country, women are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to go to court to seek permission for the medical attention they need, and made to travel hundreds of miles for healthcare.”

Biden increasingly appears likely to face former President Trump—who appointed three Supreme Court justices key to overturning Roe. Since the court’s decision stripping away abortion rights, Democrats have hammered the GOP over the issue, winning close races in the 2022 midterms and a series of state-by-state referenda on abortion rights.

“[Trump] made a decision to take your freedoms and it is a decision he does not regret,” Vice President Harris is set to say during a speech in suburban Waukesha County, Wisconsin on Monday. “He is proud.”

The issue is set to be central again in 2024, with referenda to protect abortion rights on the ballot in the swing states of Arizona and Florida, and Democrats up and down the ballot preparing to run on it. While polls show Biden and Trump are locked in a close contest, voters overwhelmingly believe the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn Roe.

Biden’s first ad on the issue is straight out of the playbook Democrats have run repeatedly in recent years, featuring an OB-GYN speaking directly to the camera about having to leave her home state of Texas in order  to obtain an abortion after an ultrasound revealed the fetus had a fatal condition.

“That is because of Donald Trump overturning Roe v. Wade,” Dr. Austin Dennard, a mother of three, says in the minute-long ad. “The choice was completely taken away.”

The campaign said the ad was airing during the season premiere of “The Bachelor” on Monday night, January 21, and will air on cable channels with younger female viewerships, including HGTV, TLC, Bravo, Hallmark, Food Network, and Oxygen. The campaign also bought ad time during the NFL conference championship games next Sunday.

Trump has scrambled to distance himself from the massively unpopular Supreme Court decision he enabled, recently criticizing harsh state-level abortion bans. At the same time, he has repeatedly bragged to GOP primary audiences about the central role he played in overturning Roe v. Wade.

“For 54 years they were trying to get Roe v. Wade terminated, and I did it and I’m proud to have done it,” he said during a Fox News town hall before the Iowa caucuses this month.

Research contact: @HuffPost

George Santos is expelled from Congress

December 4, 2023

The House voted on  Friday, December 1, to expel Representative George Santos (R-New York) from Congress—an embarrassing end to his brief legislative career that was built on lies from the start, reports HuffPost.

The final vote was 311 to 114. You can read the expulsion resolution here.

Their action comes after a House Ethics Committee investigation found last month that Santos spent thousands of dollars in campaign funds on personal services and products—such as Botox treatments, Hermès designer products, and access to a website used primarily by sex workers.

The panel also alleged that Santos reported fake donations to his campaign in order to persuade donors to give him even more money―and then kept all of that money for himself.

The Republican chairman of the committee sponsored the resolution to throw Santos out of Congress right after the panel released its report.

There have only been 20 people expelled from Congress in its entire history; and most were in the Senate and kicked out in the 1860s for supporting the Confederacy. The last time a federal lawmaker was expelled was in 2002, when then-Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) was convicted of bribery and racketeering.

Santos is the sixth House member to be expelled, and the first Republican House member. His expulsion may be the least of his woes. He’s facing a 23-count federal indictment that alleges conspiracy, cheating to get unemployment benefits, credit card fraud and other crimes.

Santos has also been accused of lying about his résumé so many times that it’s hard to keep up. He’s misled people about his name, his Jewish heritage; being a descendent of Holocaust survivors from Ukraine; his mother being in the Twin Towers during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; and his mother being the first female executive at a major financial institution. Immigration documents show that his mother worked as a housekeeper.

The New York Republican has consistently denied he’s done anything wrong. Last month, he dismissed the House Ethics Committee’s probe into his finances, calling it “a dirty biased act and one that tramples all over my rights.”

In the wake of that report, though, he did announce he wouldn’t run for reelection.

Research contact: @HuffPost

This is how Americans really feel about tipping—and whom they are likely to tip the most

November 21, 2023

If you feel like you’re expected to tip more often these days, but no longer know what the guidelines are, you have plenty of company out there, reports HuffPost.

Most U.S. adults believe that the expectation to tip has increased during the last few years—yet they feel a lot of uncertainty about when to leave gratuities and how large they should be, according to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

More than 70% of the survey’s respondents said it feels like more businesses expect their workers to be tipped than was the case five years ago. But only around 33% of respondents said it was very easy to know whether to leave a gratuity in a given situation, and roughly the same share said it was very easy to know how big it should be.

Respondents also said they were far more likely to tip certain service workers than others. More than 90% said they always or often leave a tip for a restaurant server; but only 76% said the same for an app-based delivery worker; 61%, for a ride-share driver; and just 25% for a coffee shop barista.

Drew DeSilver, a Pew writer who analyzed the survey results, told HuffPost that the findings dovetail with anecdotal evidence of a tipping culture shift―sometimes dubbed tipflation, tip creep, or tipping fatigue―in which customers feel more pressure, often through point-of-sale touch screens, to leave gratuities for a wider swath of services. (The pilot episode of HuffPost’s new podcast “Am I Doing It Wrong?” explored the confusion around tipping in today’s service economy.)

“It’s one of those things where you have a feeling you know what’s going on, but there’s not really a way to quantify that,” DeSilver said. “Certainly the perception is that people are being asked to tip in more places.”

DeSilver cautioned that the tipping survey has a drawback: This is the first year Pew has done it, so researchers couldn’t perform an apples-to-apples comparison with survey results from prior years. But he said they tried to frame the survey in a way that would capture whether people feel as though tipping expectations have changed.

He said the results reflected a lot of uncertainty around the custom.

“A lot of people say it is not particularly easy to know when to tip or how much to tip,” he said. “There is no authoritative single source on what the rules of tipping are.”

The survey also found that people generally don’t like being prompted with suggested tip amounts (40% oppose this practice, compared with 24% who favor it), and they very much dislike automatic tips or service charges (72% said they oppose them regardless of the size of their party). More restaurants seem to be adding automatic charges to bills―sometimes dubbed service fees or even “living wage” fees linked to minimum wage increases―although they don’t always go to the workers.

Meanwhile, a strong majority overall (72%) said they believe the tips they leave should stay with the restaurant worker who served them. However, this is often not the practice in restaurants that run tip pools; and spread the gratuities among other front-of-the-house workers, like bartenders and food runners.

Most respondants (77%) said they factor the quality of the service they received into how much of a tip they will leave. Only a quarter said a worker’s pre-tip wages serve as a major factor. Many tipped workers are paid a sub-minimum wage ―as low as $2.13 per hour in some states―with gratuities expected to make up the difference.

One of the more surprising findings for DeSilver: A majority of respondents said they were likely to tip 15% or less on a sit-down meal at a restaurant. Only a quarter said they would tip 20% or more.

He expected most people to land in the 18% to 20% range. “I generally thought that was the norm,” he said.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Trump told nuclear sub secrets to Australian billionaire—who went on to tell 45 others

October 9, 2023

Former President Donald Trump reportedly shared details about America’s nuclear submarine program with an Australian billionaire, who then went on to tell journalists, foreign officials, and others about the sensitive information, HuffPost reports.

ABC News first reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith had learned about Trump’s disclosure to the billionaire—a cardboard magnate named Anthony Pratt —as part of his investigation into the former president’s handling of classified documents. Trump allegedly told Pratt several government secrets about the submarines during an event at his Mar-a-Lago Club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida, where the billionaire is a member.

Pratt reportedly told prosecutors and FBI agents that Trump brought up the submarine fleet in April 2021, after he had left the White House. The former president then revealed the supposed number of nuclear warheads that are on board U.S. submarines at any time and how close the vessels can get to a Russian submarine without detection.

The billionaire, ABC News added, shared that information with at least 45 people, including three former Australian prime ministers, a half dozen journalists and other foreign officials. Australia recently inked a deal with the United States to spend up to $245 billion over the next three decades to build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

It’s unclear if the details were accurate, or if they were bluster or exaggerations, but ABC News reported that Pratt was informed by investigators not to share the numbers he was reportedly given.

The New York Times, which confirmed the report with people familiar with the matter, said the details would be highly protected information and could endanger the U.S. nuclear fleet if made public.

A former Australian ambassador to the United States told the paper the information wasn’t new to his country, saying: “If that’s all that was discussed, we already know all that.

“We have had Australians serving with Americans on U.S. submarines for years, and we share the same technology and the same weapons as the U.S. Navy,” the former ambassador, Joe Hockey, said.

The reported information was not included in Smith’s federal indictment of Trump earlier this year related to his handling of classified documents after he left the White House. Trump was charged with 40 counts related to willful retention of documents and obstruction of justice. But it could be used as part of the ultimate case against him to bolster any pattern of Trump’s handling of sensitive material.

A Trump spokesperson told ABC that the former president did “nothing wrong,” adding the report lacked “proper context and relevant information.”

“President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner, according to the law,” the spokesperson told ABC News.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Studio executives finally reach deal with writers to end historic strike

September 26, 2023

Nearly five months after thousands of film and TV writers went on strike over more equitable pay and working conditions in the streaming era—effectively shutting down the entertainment industry—Hollywood studio and streaming executives at long last have reached a tentative deal with the Writers Guild of America-East and West, reports HuffPost.

In an email to members late on Sunday, September 24, the union said it had reached “an agreement in principle on all deal points, subject to drafting final contract language.”

The union said it will share details about what the union negotiators and studio executives agreed to once union leadership reviews the final language in the agreement.

“What we have won in this contract—most particularly, everything we have gained since May 2nd—is due to the willingness of this membership to exercise its power, to demonstrate its solidarity, to walk side-by-side, to endure the pain and uncertainty of the past 146 days. It is the leverage generated by your strike, in concert with the extraordinary support of our union siblings, that finally brought the companies back to the table to make a deal,” the email to members continued.

“We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional—with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership.”

Once ratified by the union members, the agreement could have huge effects—setting historic precedents on major industrywide issues. Throughout the strike, writers have framed the fight as an existential oneshowing the ways longstanding inequities in the industry have jeopardized the future of writing as a profession and restricted the types of people who can make a living as a writer in Hollywood. The issues that led them to strike include dwindling pay while corporate executives reap profits from writers’ work and the need for guardrails around the use of artificial intelligence. (HuffPost’s unionized staff are also members of the WGA East, but are not involved in the strike.)

The resolution to the strike means writers can soon resume work on film and TV shows—putting an end to a monthslong standstill on virtually all film and TV production. Looming deadlines likely motivated the studio executives, represented by the trade group Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, to finally reach a deal with the writers. Had the strike stretched further into the fall, network shows would not have enough time to put together a partial season of programming.

In the email to members, the union said that the writers are technically still on strike, since the agreement is subject to votes from the union’s negotiating committee and then from leaders of the WGA West and East. Those votes are tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, September 26, the WGA said.

Following those votes, union leaders would then authorize a full membership ratification vote on the agreement. During the ratification vote, members would then be allowed to return to work, the union said.

Throughout the strike, writers have had the upper hand in terms of public perception, picketing nearly daily in front of major studios and corporate headquarters in New York and Los Angeles. In addition to laying out the stakes of the strike in no uncertain terms, they were also able to point to the massive corporate greed of Hollywood executives, showing the huge gap between executive salaries and most writers’ relatively meager wages.

It did not help that studio executives continually dug a deeper hole for themselves and added to the public perception of them as cartoon villains—including giving anonymous quotes to Hollywood trade publications asserting the strike was meant to bleed writers dry. For instance, in July, a studio executive anonymously told Deadline: “The endgame is to allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses.”

The writers’ ability to wield the power of public protest also got results. Earlier this week, Drew Barrymore reversed plans to resume her talk show without her striking writers, after she faced a week of massive public backlash. Her announcement set off a domino effect: Several more talk shows that had been slated to return while their writers are on strike also reversed their plans.

Since July, actors represented by the Screen Actors Guild also been on strike over similar issues as the writers. While studio executives will need to reach a separate agreement with SAG-AFTRA, the resolution of the writers strike is an optimistic sign for a similar deal with the actors.

Research contact: @HuffPost