(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — A South Carolina teenager who police say was fatally shot by a gas station owner who they say had falsely accused him of shoplifting was remembered by his middle school as a well-liked student who was “intelligent” and “humorous.”
Cyrus Carmack-Belton, 14, died after being shot in the back on Monday, authorities said. The teen was chased from the gas station by the owner and the owner’s son after they wrongly believed he had shoplifted several bottles of water and was shot during the pursuit, according to the Richland County Sheriff’s Office.
The store’s owner, 58-year-old Rick Chow, has since been arrested and charged with murder in connection with the teen’s death.
Cyrus was a student at Summit Parkway Middle School in Columbia, where he was in its STEM magnet program, the school said.
“He was intelligent, humorous with quick wit and well-liked by his classmates,” the school said in a statement on Facebook Thursday. “We remember his infectious smile and tenacity.”
The teen often spoke of his dreams and aspirations, which included owning a tattoo shop and “being famous one day,” the statement said.
The school said it was “blessed” to have Cyrus as a student and that he “will be remembered forever in our hearts.”
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott told reporters during a press conference Monday that the teenager did not shoplift from the Shell gas station, despite Chow’s belief that he did.
Law enforcement said there was a verbal confrontation inside the store before Cyrus left and took off running.
Lott said that “at some point” during the chase, Chow’s son reportedly said the teen had a gun.
Lott said the convenience store owner, who police said was armed with a pistol, and his son chased after the teenager toward an apartment complex.
Cyrus fell during the chase, got up and was allegedly shot in the back by Chow, police said.
According to law enforcement, a gun was found close to the teen’s body. Lott said Monday that police currently “don’t have anything that says that he did not have that gun on him” when asked if Cyrus was in possession of a gun during the incident.
Richland County coroner Naida Rutherford told reporters at Monday’s press conference that Cyrus died from “a single gunshot wound to his right lower back” that caused “significant damage to his heart and hemorrhaging.”
The Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office said Thursday it will determine whether any additional charges will be made in the incident once it has conducted a full review.
Chow has had two prior confrontations with alleged shoplifters that resulted in him firing a weapon — in 2015 and 2018 — but his conduct in those incidents “did not meet the requirements under South Carolina law to support criminal charges,” Richland County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson Veronica Hill confirmed in a statement to ABC News.
Chow’s attorney declined to comment to ABC News in the wake of the murder charge.
According to a sheriff’s office incident report obtained by ABC News, the shooting was “not a bias motivated incident”; though an attorney for Cyrus’ family contends the teen, who was Black, was racially profiled.
“What happened to [Cyrus] wasn’t an accident. It’s something that the Black community has experienced for generations: being racially profiled, then shot down in the street like a dog,” the attorney, Todd Rutherford, told ABC News in a statement on Wednesday.
“One beacon of hope is seeing the resilience of the Black community as they wrap their arms around this family that has joined the club that no Black family ever wants to be a part of,” the statement added.
ABC News’ Teddy Grant, Deena Zaru and Brittany Gaddy contributed to this report.
(URBANDALE, Iowa) — Former President Donald Trump returned to Iowa on Thursday for a full day of campaign events, taking multiple jabs at 2024 primary rival Ron DeSantis and defending people imprisoned in connection with the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of his supporters.
In particular, Trump took issue with a comment the Florida governor has used on the campaign trail in recent days, when DeSantis has said he’s gunning for “eight years” in office in order to deliver on a myriad of conservative promises — an implicit contrast with Trump, who can only serve one more term.
“You don’t need eight years, you need six months,” Trump said Thursday morning during a breakfast with the Westside Conservative Club in Urbandale.
“We can turn this thing around so quickly. If you need eight years — who the hell wants to wait eight years? You don’t need eight years,” he said to laughter and a few claps.
“He’ll stop saying that — watch,” Trump added during his speech. “Every time I hear, I wince because if it takes eight years to turn around, you don’t want him as president,” to which someone in the crowd yelled, “You’re hired!”
Trump made similar comments earlier Thursday morning as he entered the Machine Shed restaurant for the breakfast, saying, “We only need five months.”
As part of his “eight years” argument, DeSantis has pointed to things like the Supreme Court.
Speaking last month in Florida, he said that the next “two terms” could be especially relevant for whoever is in the White House, because the president may be able to further cement the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in light of some justices’ advancing ages.
“I think if you look over the next two presidential terms, there is a good chance that you could be called upon to seek replacements for Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito and the issue with that is, you can’t really do better than those two,” DeSantis said then, adding that there may also be a chance to “make improvements with those others, and if you were able to do that, you would have a 7-2 conservative majority on the Supreme Court that would last a quarter century.”
Such comments come as DeSantis has become sharply critical of Trump, a former ally. The governor officially entered the 2024 race last week and is traveling through three early nominating states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, this week.
“[Trump] used to say how great Florida was. Hell, his whole family moved to Florida under my governorship. Are you kidding me?” DeSantis told reporters after a campaign kickoff outside Des Moines on Tuesday.
During his own campaign events Thursday, Trump sometimes answered questions from the crowd, including from one girl who said she just graduated from high school.
When a person at one event called for “justice for people that have been in prison since Jan. 6,” Trump repeated his rhetoric of defending the rioters and said the Capitol Police officer who fatally shot one of them, Ashli Babbitt, was a “rogue cop” and a “thug.”
Authorities have said the officer acted lawfully in shooting Babbitt and a federal investigation found that Babbitt and others were trying to break through barricaded entrances near the Speaker’s Lobby that leads to the Chamber of the U.S. House, from which members of Congress were being evacuated.
In Iowa, however, Trump tried to cast the events of Jan. 6 differently, saying those arrested around the riot were being treated worse than in past protests like those related to racial inequality demonstrations.
“You look at what they’ve done to the Jan. 6 people, they’ve destroyed them and destroyed their lives,” he insisted. “And a lot of them didn’t even go into the building. It was a disgrace what’s going on.”
The Department of Justice reports that more than 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with the government’s Jan. 6 investigation.
More than 300 people have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees that day, the DOJ has said, and more than 100 defendants have been accused of using deadly weapons.
Trump was impeached by the House and accused of inciting the events of Jan. 6, but he was acquitted by the Senate. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Elsewhere in Iowa on Thursday, Trump pointed to his experience in Washington as a reason he should earn Iowan votes — a stark pivot from what he’s used as a selling point in the past: his background as a political outsider.
“I’m very experienced now, you know, it’s not like I’m going in and saying, ‘Oh, this nice office, is this the Oval Office?'” he said, adding, “I think within six months you’re gonna see a major part of the comeback.”
Trump attended three total events ahead of a town hall on Thursday night with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
ABC News’ Luke Barr, Chris Boccia, Hannah Demissie and Alexander Mallin contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — With just days until the deadline for the nation to default, the Senate now is racing against the clock to pass a bipartisan debt ceiling agreement and avoid what would be an economically catastrophic failure to pay the country’s bills.
Debate began Thursday morning as the chamber’s leaders urged swift passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, with critics voicing their concerns with the bill.
“Time is a luxury the Senate does not have if we want to prevent default,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in remarks from the floor. “June 5 is less than four days away. At this point, any needless delay or any last minute hold-ups would be an unnecessary and even dangerous risk.”
As the Senate deliberated into Thursday evening, Schumer was working with lawmakers who wanted to offer amendments to give assurances in exchange for limiting time for debate and votes.
Later Thursday, Schumer announced that voting would soon begin — with passage expected within hours, either before or around midnight, after 11 successive rounds of voting on 11 different amendments. None of those looked set to pass but allowed various senators to register their differences with the debt agreement.
“By passing this bill we will avoid default tonight,” Schumer said. “America can breathe a sigh of relief.”
Here’s how it happened.
No room for typical Senate delay
As the drama has played out, there has been almost no room for delay if the bill is to get to President Joe Biden’s desk by Monday, the day Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned the U.S. could run out of money to be able to pay all its bills on time and in full.
In addition to the deadline, it has potentially helped that that’s also supposed to be the start of a three-day weekend for senators — and getting out of Washington is a time-honored motivator for faster action.
Leadership aides previously said a vote could happen as early as Thursday night but that required cooperation from the entire chamber.
Schumer: No changes, ‘plain and simple’
Initially threatening to hold up the process was a possible filibuster or time-consuming debate and votes on amendments being sought by various lawmakers, mainly Republicans, but some Democrats too.
“We’ll be here till Tuesday until I get commitments that we’re going to rectify some of these problems,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., warned at one point on Thursday.
He and other defense hawks spoke out on their frustration with the level of military spending in the bill, but any changes to the bill would force it to be sent back to the House for approval — which would only drive them closer to the default deadline.
“We are going to do everything we can to move the bill quickly,” Schumer told ABC News on Wednesday. “We cannot send anything back to the House. Plain and simple.”
“We must avoid default, we must,” he added then.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had a similar “time is of the essence” message for his own conference.
“I can tell you what I hope happens — is that those who have amendments, if given votes, will yield back time so that we can finish this Thursday or Friday and soothe the country and soothe the markets,” McConnell said Wednesday.
How Senate passage timeline got set before the weekend
Chamber leaders scrambled behind the scenes to secure an agreement to have lawmakers voting on amendments and final passage by Thursday night.
While it was possible that 10 to 12 amendments could be voted on, lawmakers and aides said, ultimately 11 amendments were set for votes.
On Wednesday, Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told ABC News that he thought it would be possible to get it all done by Friday.
Thune said that if Republicans got votes on roughly half a dozen amendments, even GOP opposition wouldn’t block swift passage of the deal.
Despite concerns from some senators on defense and other issues, there appears to have been general agreement on the bottom line: that if the bill changed by even a single letter, it would have to return to the House and at that point — both it and the country would face an uncertain fate.
(NEW YORK) — As debate grows over how gender identity is handled in schools, many employees at educational institutions have said that they feel caught in the middle, and some also say that they’ve been disciplined because of it.
That includes Shua Wilmot, a former residence hall director, who says his former employer, Houghton University, fired him and another residence hall director after they added their gender pronouns to their work email signatures. Houghton University is a private Christian college in upstate New York that is affiliated with the Wesleyan Church, a Methodist denomination.
“While the details of individual personnel matters are confidential, Houghton University has never terminated an employment relationship based solely on the use of pronouns in staff email signatures,” a university spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News. “Over the past years, we’ve required anything extraneous be removed from email signatures, including Scripture quotes. Houghton remains steadfastly committed to offering the Christian education that our students are promised.”
ABC News’ Linsey Davis spoke to Wilmot about what he says led up to his termination. Wilmot shared details about a letter he says he previously sent to the board of Wesleyan Church suggesting changes to their written statement on gender identity and expression.
LINSEY DAVIS: So you say that you were fired from the church, at least, in part, because you put your preferred pronoun in your email signature. Did the school tell you that that was their rationale for ending your career there?
SHUA WILMOT: Yeah. So, actually I was fired from the university, not from the church, but the university is an institution of the Wesleyan Church, and that’s correct. They cited that as one of the two main reasons that I was fired.
DAVIS: A university spokesperson released a statement saying that personnel matters are confidential, but that Houghton has never terminated employment based on use of pronouns and signatures and over the years have required anything additional in signatures, including scriptures, removed. Were you aware of any such policies about signatures?
WILMOT: Yeah, that’s a new policy, though. I mean, the phrase “over the years” kind of surprises me, because that policy was announced in September and sort of passed in October. This is after I had signed my contract for the year, and it was also never added to the employee handbook up until, you know, maybe to this day, but at least until the time that I was told my contract wouldn’t be renewed. It was still not in the employee handbook, but it was communicated as a policy, this academic year, yeah.
DAVIS: I’m curious, did they give you a chance to get rid of that in your signature line – the pronouns in your signature line – before terminating you, or how did that process play out?
WILMOT: Yes. So my supervisor was asked to address it with me and with Reagan [Zelaya]. And so we were asked to comply with this policy, and we declined. And then I personally had to meet with the dean of my department to have a similar conversation. Reagan was never asked to have a conversation like that, because she had already resigned, effective at the end of the academic year.
But I had intended to continue working at Houghton, and so I had this conversation with the dean, and the long and short of it is, eventually I said, “I don’t want to resign, and I don’t want to comply with this policy.” I gave him my reasons why, and he said, “I will take this news to the president and HR.” And then after that, next thing I know, I’m told that my contract won’t be renewed. It was never explicitly said to me that that could be an end result, until it was.
DAVIS: If you knew that you could just remove the pronoun from your signature line and could keep your job, would you have done that?
WILMOT: I think probably not. After a hard conversation with my dean, there were a few days that I did take my pronouns out of my email signature, thinking, “OK, maybe I can concede this one small thing.” But I just didn’t have peace with it throughout that weekend that I had my pronouns removed. I didn’t have peace with it, because I don’t want to actively play a role in making the community any less inclusive.
DAVIS: You’ve said that you believe that another reason for your firing includes a letter that you wrote to church officials about problems that you had with Wesleyan Church’s views on gender identity and expression. You say the entire viewpoint makes unsupported claims to justify trans exclusion. What points do you take exception to?
WILMOT: Yeah, sure. Well, I would say most of my letter to the board of the Wesleyan Church was really making helpful suggestions to improve their view of gender and identity, to improve their statement on the Wesleyan view of gender expression and identity. And some of those suggestions include that — the Wesleyan view claims that transgender and transsexual are synonyms, which they’re not and they long have not been. They also use the phrase “birth designated gender,” which I recommend that they change to “sex assigned at birth,” because doctors assign sex, which is anatomical, physiological, genetic and physical attributes. Doctors don’t assign gender. But there are other things to it as well. I think that their theology on it should be reexamined, but I explicitly state in the letter that I am not asking them to change their convictions. I just want them to have accurate information and to consider making improvements to the statement.
DAVIS: Do you believe that your termination infringes on your First Amendment rights?
WILMOT: Yeah, I would say in a way it does, but Houghton University is a private institution, so free speech is not protected in the same ways that it is at public institutions. I know this, because I studied higher ed law in 2017. So yeah, I mean, that’s not my complaint here.
DAVIS: I just want to follow up on that, because other faith-based organizations have argued for their own First Amendment rights, saying religious freedom protections allow them to create policies to treat LGBTQ and transgender people differently. What’s your response to that argument?
WILMOT: Yeah, I think that they have that right. I don’t think that it’s a good practice. I think that there are plenty of ways in which Christian institutions will and do marginalize people in ways that are antithetical to the way that Jesus would have wanted them to be treated and still wants them to be treated. And that’s a shame, but I think that they should have that right to make different sorts of policies.
DAVIS: Shua Wilmot, we thank you so much for talking with us tonight. Thank you.
(NASSAU, Bahamas) — Five people were rescued after a private plane crashed into waters near the Bahamas on Thursday, the Bahamas’ Aircraft Accident Investigation Authority told ABC News.
The plane was en route to Florida when it crashed into the water about 10 nautical miles north of Andros, an island in the Bahamas, the Royal Bahamas Police Force said during a press conference Thursday.
The passengers were rescued and transported back to Andros Island, authorities said. They are being transported to receive medical care for non-life-threatening injuries, authorities said.
The plane — a single-engine Piper PA-32 aircraft with United States registration — crashed around 3:10 p.m., the Aircraft Accident Investigation Authority said.
The aircraft had departed the San Andros Airport in Andros and was en route to Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach when “the pilot encountered issues and attempted to return to Andros Island,” the agency said.
The crash was caused by “mechanical issues,” the Royal Bahamas Police Force said in a statement
“The pilot was able to land the aircraft safely into shallow waters, without any casualties,” police said.
The U.S. Coast Guard, Royal Bahamas Defence Force and Royal Bahamas Police Force responded to the scene.
The crash remains under investigation.
ABC News’ Jared Higgs and Rachel DeLima contributed to this report.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — The case against the Marine veteran charged in the chokehold death of a homeless man aboard a New York City subway train is now before a grand jury, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Prosecutors are currently trying to secure an indictment after Daniel Penny, 24, was charged with second-degree manslaughter last month in the death of Jordan Neely, 30.
Penny’s lawyers have said the veteran is prepared to testify before the grand jury but no decision had been made.
It is unusual for criminal defendants to testify at the grand jury but, in this case, his lawyers have been considering whether Penny could head off an indictment by explaining his actions.
“Any speculation regarding a client’s intent to testify at this stage would be premature,” Steven Raiser, part of Penny’s legal team, said on May 26.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office declined to comment.
Video showed Penny putting Neely in a chokehold on May 1 for several minutes following reported outbursts from Neely on an F train.
Some witnesses reportedly told police that Neely, who had a documented mental health history, was yelling and harassing passengers on the train, authorities said. Police sources told ABC News that Penny was not specifically being threatened by Neely when he intervened and that Neely had not become violent and had not been threatening anyone in particular.
Neely’s death was ruled a homicide.
Following Penny’s arrest, assistant district attorney Joshua Steinglass said prosecutors conducted a “thorough investigation” that included interviews with eyewitnesses, 911 callers and responding officers before moving forward with the criminal charge.
Attorneys for Penny have said they fully expect him to be exonerated of all charges.
The maximum penalty for second-degree manslaughter is 15 years in prison.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — The family of Marvin Gaye’s co-writer on “Let’s Get it On” intends to appeal a verdict in Manhattan federal court for Ed Sheeran, according to a court filing Thursday.
The family of Ed Townsend filed a notice of appeal after it lost a copyright infringement case involving Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” last month.
The document did not say on what grounds the Townsend family would appeal but it did signal the family would challenge the outcome and several rulings made by the judge.
A Manhattan jury decided in Sheeran’s favor in May when they found that the singer did not engage in willful copyright infringement following a trial that saw Sheeran playing the guitar and singing in court.
“I’m obviously very happy with the outcome of the case. And it looks like I’m not having to retire from my day job after all,” Sheeran told reporters outside the courthouse at the time. “But at the same time, I’m unbelievably frustrated that baseless claims like this are allowed to go to court at all.”
Sheeran insisted he chord progression of his song was common and belonged to no particular artist.
Sheeran also testified that he wrote most of his songs in a day, suggesting under questioning by his attorney, Ilene Farkas, that he did not stop to think about copying elements from “Let’s Get It On” when he composed “Thinking Out Loud,” as alleged by Townsend’s heirs.
Townsend’s family said Sheeran copied the sheet music of “Let’s Get it On” and positioned the case as justice for Townsend’s legacy and Black musicians whose work has been misappropriated by white artists.
Ben Crump, who represented the plaintiffs, said during opening remarks that the suit was about “giving credit where credit is due.”
Sheeran previously won a 2022 copyright infringement case involving “Shape of You,” while Gaye’s heirs, who are not involved in this current lawsuit, won a case in 2015 against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams involving “Got to Give it Up.”
(NEW YORK) — The federal judge in New York who will decide whether to move former President Donald Trump’s criminal case from state court to federal court previously did work for a Trump entity while he was in private practice, according to a court filing Thursday.
The Manhattan district attorney has charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection to a hush payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. Trump has argued that the case belongs in federal court because the alleged crimes occurred while he was president.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein, in a letter addressed to Trump’s attorneys and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said that as a partner at the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, he once performed legal work for Trump Equitable Fifth Avenue, an entity that once owned Trump Tower in Manhattan.
Hellerstein retired from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in 1998.
“In my opinion, my impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned and no appearance of impropriety exists,” Hellerstein wrote in Thursday’s filing.
The judge has scheduled a hearing June 27 to decide whether to grant Trump’s request to move his case to federal court.
The Manhattan district attorney has argued the case belongs in state court because the alleged conduct had nothing to do with Trump’s presidential duties.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge sentenced two Oath Keeper defendants Thursday for their roles in disrupting the certification of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.
Edward Vallejo was sentenced to three years in prison while Roberto Minuta received a term of four years and six months. Both sentences were a significant departure from the 17 years the government requested for each defendant after the two were convicted earlier this year of sedition and conspiracy to derail Joe Biden’s election victory.
Prosecutors argued Minuta was a key leader of the “second wave” of Oath Keepers who stormed the Capitol. He was joined by Joshua James, who pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy last year.
As part of his guilty plea, James admitted he and fellow members brought weapons, including a rifle, shotgun, semi-automatic handgun and ammunition to the greater Washington, D.C., area. James acknowledged he breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, intending to stop the electoral college certification, with Minuta by his side.
At his sentencing, Minuta flatly denied any knowledge of plans between Oath Keepers, including the stockpile some had amassed at a Virginia hotel.
“I did not know about any guns in Virginia whatsoever,” Minuta said.
Minuta continued to insist he went into the Capitol to help police officers in distress. He apologized to the judge for entering the building.
“I shouldn’t have and I’m sorry that I did,” he said. “I was presented with an opportunity to help police and I blew it.”
“I did not want to advance into the building, and I left James in there as soon as I could get out,” he added.
Judge Amit Mehta said he found no evidence that Minuta entered the building to help police.
“You and I will have to agree to disagree about that,” Mehta said.
Mehta also found no evidence that Minuta himself brought a weapon into the district or served as a critical leader of the group. However, Mehta did apply a terrorism enhancement to the sentence that was ultimately handed down.
Vallejo himself wasn’t accused of taking any violent actions on Jan. 6, but prosecutors argued his position as a leader of the “quick reaction force” was even more serious. Oath Keepers amassed a cache of weapons at a Virginia hotel where Vallejo awaited orders from those in Washington, D.C., prosecutors alleged.
Defense attorney Matthew Peed argued that Vallejo was influenced by Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and then-President Donald Trump to think what he was doing was patriotic. As an example of his respect for the democratic process, Peed said Vallejo had been a major supporter of former Rep. Ron Paul, even attending a national political convention on his behalf.
“He just thought that something different (on Jan. 6) was happening because the President had told him,” Peed said.
Vallejo was also sentenced to three years of supervised release following his prison term, including time on home confinement.
“He has had an impeccable pre-trial record,” Mehta said, before allowing Vallejo to walk out of court and self-surrender.
Last week, Rhodes received the longest sentence of any Jan. 6 defendant to date at 18 years, a decision that was also handed down by Mehta.
Serhii Mykhalchuk/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Paramilitary organizations making the largest cross-border attack inside Russia since the war began have maintained they’re fighting for Ukraine and reportedly claimed to have conducted another operation Thursday.
But more than a week after verified images appeared to show that the fighters were equipped with U.S.-supplied military vehicles in their initial incursion, the Biden administration has yet to say whether the groups are formally fighting in coordination with Kyiv.
The incidents raise questions about whether they put at risk the main U.S. strategic goal of avoiding escalation with Moscow — “World War III” as the White House has warned — and they come just when the conflict appears poised to intensity with Ukraine’s long-awaited spring offensive.
And, they raise practical concerns about whether that goal could be undermined given questions about how well the U.S. keeps track of the billions in arms and equipment it has sent to Ukraine.
Any assessment from Washington on whether the groups are operating within the Ukrainian government’s chain of command could have significant impact in determining whether any end-use violation or breach of agreement occurred if the fighters were given access to the equipment or pave the way for Kyiv to openly outfit the fighters with donated weaponry, while the persisting lack of clarity raises questions about how effectively these arms are monitored.
Gaps in monitoring, potential for escalation
When pictures surfaced appearing to show U.S.-manufactured Humvees and MRAP armored vehicles used in the Belgorod incursion, the administration initially showed strong skepticism. But after the photographic evidence was vetted by various major media organizations, officials promised to investigate.
“We’re looking into those reports that the U.S. equipment and vehicles could have been involved,” White House spokesperson John Kirby told reporters.
Asked on Thursday about the status of that investigation, a State Department spokesperson said there were no updates to share.
The Ukrainian government has denied playing any part in the first wave of raids on Belgorod, which were carried out by groups made up of anti-Kremlin Russian nationals known as the Free Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps, the latter of which has been linked to neo-Nazi sentiments.
On Thursday, the pro-Ukrainian militants appeared to shell towns in Belgorod, prompting a partial evacuation of civilians from the area. While the groups seemed to be heavily armed with sophisticated weaponry, there were no immediate signs that American arms were used in the attacks.
Although U.S. officials have not publicly characterized Ukraine’s role in the incursions, they have repeatedly said that the U.S. does not support attacks on Russian territory.
“We have been very clear with the Ukrainians privately, we certainly have been clear publicly, that we do not support attacks inside Russia,” Kirby said on Wednesday, after announcing the latest drawdown of equipment for Ukraine in the White House briefing room. “We certainly don’t want to see attacks inside Russia that are, that are being propagated, that are being conducted, using US-supplied equipment.”
Kirby said that stance was rooted in the president’s goal to “avoid World War III.”
“I think we can all agree that a war that escalates beyond that — that actually does suck in the West and NATO and the United States is not only not good for our national security interest, it is not good for the Ukrainian people,” he said.
Beyond close coordination with the Ukrainian government, U.S. officials have touted close monitoring of military aid shipped to Ukraine. But their flip-flopping on the possibility that some of the armored fighting vehicles used in Belgorod could have been supplied to Ukraine by Washington and their inability to provide any conclusions after a week has opened the Biden administration up to criticism.
Republicans have zeroed in on accountability but have largely centered their focus on avoiding waste rather than preventing escalation.
“I do not conduct this oversight to undermine or question the importance of support for Ukraine, but rather — to the contrary — oversight should incentivize the administration and Ukraine to use funds from Congress with the highest degree of efficiency and effectiveness,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said at a hearing in late March.
While the Department of Defense’s top watchdog testified during that hearing that he had not seen any illicit diversion of the over $20 billion worth of American weapons and other military equipment provided to Ukraine, previous reports have indicated that only around 10% of high-risk munitions have been inspected by U.S. monitors and only a handful of the weapons are legally subject to enhanced end-use tracking.
Defense officials have also noted that carrying out oversight in an active war zone with a very limited American footprint comes with challenges and potential blind spots. Ukraine’s history of past corruption has also stoked some unease across Washington.
State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller was asked last Thursday whether the time that had elapsed in the investigation into the incident raised red flags for the administration regarding the effectiveness of its tracking measures.
“No, I think it raises the fact that we are looking into it and haven’t yet reached a conclusion,” he responded.
One way that the U.S. tracks sensitive items to Ukraine is by the placement of barcodes on each item that contain unique identifying information, such as serial numbers, and by providing Ukraine with ways to track the equipment it has been given by the U.S.
Ukraine keeps stock of its Humvees and MRAP armored vehicles, and regularly reports battlefield losses to American officials.
ABC News reached out to Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a member of Ukraine’s parliament seated on a committee charged with monitoring weapons supplied by foreign governments but did not receive a response.
A shortfall in tracking weapons
Despite the administration’s apparent hesitancy to draw firm conclusions, experts closely studying the conflict say some key answers are obvious.
“It is a shortfall in tracking of weapons and munitions,” Mark Cancian, a senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ International Security Program, said. “War is complicated — there is no guarantee that weapons will not be used in ways that we don’t approve, and this is clearly one of them.”
“It would strain credulity to me to think there is not command control here from Kyiv—or at least from Ukrainian military intelligence,” said John Hardie, the director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Russia program.
Cancian echoed that conclusion, adding that any disconnects within Ukraine’s military could present serious problems.
“It’s not impossible that there are fractures within the Ukrainian government. If that’s the case, it is quite disturbing — because that means that the Ukrainians are not in full control of military forces on their territory,” he said. “It opens the possibility of what we’re seeing in Russia, where you have militias that are acting independently and confronting even in some ways undermining the central government.”
Cancian says that repeated incidents of American military gear surfacing in the hands of paramilitary groups would be telling.
“If this happens again, then it’s not just happenstance — it’s a pattern. And that would indicate that they have not been able to get control,” he said.
Or, Hardie posited, the Biden administration could seek to allow Ukraine to leverage ambiguous attacks on Russia while publicly standing by its policy against such actions.
“Perhaps U.S. officials look the other way,” Hardie said.
Beyond Belgorod, apartment buildings in the heart of Russia’s capital were the target of a drone strike on Tuesday. Though Ukrainian authorities did not take responsibility, the country’s officials have not masked their pleasure.
“If the Russians can make Kyiv a nightmare, why do the people of Moscow rest?” Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv, said in a televised address following the strike.
While the spike in attacks waged by Ukraine on Russia drastically pales in comparison to those waged on Ukraine by Russia through the course its 15-monthlong invasion, Kyiv has much more to lose in terms of public opinion since its war efforts depend on support from dozens of allies who largely see the country as a besieged victim rather than a tit-for-tat combatant.
Conversely, by bringing the war full circle, strikes into Russia might erode its population’s support for the Kremlin — something some indicators show has already been happening in recent weeks.
So far, the Biden administration appears to be sticking to an increasingly familiar strategy.
“We’re still trying to get information here and develop some sort of sense of what happened,” Kirby said when asked about the Moscow drone strikes on Wednesday.
ABC’s Matthew Seyler and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.
