Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration on Tuesday warned the U.S. Supreme Court that “survival of the nation is at stake” in a dispute with the state of Texas over a federal law meant to protect military service members from job discrimination after completing a tour of duty.

The case involves a former Texas state trooper and Army reservist, Le Roy Torres, who was deployed in 2007 to Iraq, where he suffered lung damage from exposure to burn pits. Upon return to civilian life, Torres was effectively forced out of his old job after the troopers refused to accommodate his medical condition.

The government says the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, gives military reservists and National Guard members the ability to sue employers who deny them the right to return to work after serving the country.

The Pentagon says the mechanism is critical for recruitment of an all-volunteer force that is increasingly reliant on National Guard members and reservists.

“These are people who work for civilian employers at the same time they have jobs. They’ve never been more important to the military than they are right now,” said Assistant Solicitor General Christopher Michel.

“One of the first questions that people like that will ask when they’re considering whether to join the military is, ‘well, do I get to keep my job?” Michel told the justices. “It really does matter in the real world for the Army to be able to tell them, ‘yes, your employer does have to do that.'”

Texas argues it is protected from employment discrimination claims by service members in state courts because of state sovereign immunity under the Constitution. The claim is rooted in the meaning of Congress’ constitutional war powers, which the state argues do not extend to lawsuits.

“No one disputes the importance of war powers or that USERRA [the law] advances constitutional ends,” said Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone. But “neither precedent nor history show that the states authorized Congress to use the means of subjecting states to private damages actions by delegating the ends of raising an army to Congress.”

The gravity of the case did not appear lost on the justices on the bench, a majority of whom appeared inclined to side with Torres and the government. But their views were not always clear and did not break along traditional ideological lines.

“This has the potential of being a pretty important case for the structure of the United States of America,” declared Justice Stephen Breyer, the only member of the high court to have served on active duty.

“We have to be thinking about the next 50 years,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “It’s important to recognize the ability to wage war successfully is getting people to sign up.”

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the federal government had broad leeway in managing and protecting its military force, noting the very existence of the Constitution followed the failure of the Articles of Confederation to do the job.

“The strongest argument is the very reason the [Constitutional] convention was called,” Roberts said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared to be the most skeptical of Torres and the administration’s argument, disputing the necessity of state discrimination suits for building and maintaining an army.

“If it’s essential to the war powers… that an individual be able to sue the state, in this case for forms of discrimination, why wouldn’t it be equally essential to allow veterans to sue for making sure our highway are in good order so that we can deal with invasions on the West Coast? I mean, that was the whole point of the interstate highway system,” Gorsuch hypothesized.

“What’s the limit?” he said later.

The trial court in the case sided with Torres and the government, but a federal appeals court reversed it.

The administration repeatedly warned Tuesday that rejecting Torres’ claim could discourage public employees nationwide — who now disproportionately make up members of the Guard and Reserves — from enlisting in the military in the first place.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The late Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the longest-serving Republican in the history of the House of Representatives, was remembered by Capitol Hill colleagues on Tuesday as his body lies in state in National Statuary Hall.

Young died at 88 on March 18 after losing consciousness on a flight to Seattle as he was heading back to Alaska with his wife, Anne, his office said. He is also survived by his two daughters, Joni and Dawn.

Young’s casket arrived on the Hill just before 11 a.m., and lawmakers, including Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, gathered nearby to watch the honor guard carry him up the east front steps. A small group of family, including his wife with her hand over her heart, waited near the top of the stairs for the arrival procession.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office said a formal ceremony will be open to the Young family and invited guests on Tuesday before all members of Congress are welcomed to visit Young as he lies in state, an honor reserved for the more revered Americans.

President Joe Biden’s scheduled afternoon trip to pay his respects on Tuesday marks the third time as president he has visited Capitol Hill for a former congressional colleague’s funeral service. Biden also visited former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole, R-Kansas, and Harry Reid, D-Nev., and he left the presidential campaign trail in 2020 to honor the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.

“Don’s legacy lives on in the infrastructure projects he delighted in steering across Alaska,” Biden said in a statement. “In the opportunities he advanced for his constituents. In the enhanced protections for Native tribes he championed. His legacy will continue in the America he loved.”

Young was one of 13 House Republicans to vote for Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill late last year.

Pelosi said in a statement that Young’s “reverence and devotion to the House shone through in everything that he did,” calling him “an institution in the hallowed halls of Congress.”

Young, who was “dean of the House” when he died, was first elected to Congress in 1973. Reelected to his 25th term as Alaska’s only member of the House in 2020, he was known for a brusque style and for bringing federal investments home to Alaska.

He said in 2016: “I’ll defend my state to the dying breath, and I will always do that and they know that.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden will sign the Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act into law Tuesday, making lynching a hate crime under federal law.

Congress failed to pass anti-lynching legislation over 200 times before the bill finally moved forward this year. The bill is the first legislation of its kind in more than 100 years that will be signed into law.

Lynchings were used to murder and terrorize the Black community in the U.S., predominantly in the South, from the 1880s to 1960s, the NAACP states.

The Equal Justice Initiative, a racial justice advocacy and research organization, has documented nearly 6,500 racial terror lynchings in the U.S. between 1865 and 1950.

Under the bill, an offense can be prosecuted as a lynching when the offender conspires to commit a hate crime that results in someone’s death or serious bodily injury under this bill. This includes kidnapping and aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to kidnap, abuse, or kill.

A perpetrator can be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison for lynching alone, raising the maximum sentence by 20 years from previous versions of the legislation.

The act is named after 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was kidnapped, beaten and killed in Mississippi in August 1955 after being accused of whistling at a white woman.

His death remains a symbol of racism and brutality against Black people in the U.S.

“While this will not erase the horrific injustices to which 10s of 1000s of African Americans have been subjected over the generations, nor fully heal the terror inflicted on countless others, it is an important step forward as we continue the work of confronting our nation’s past in pursuit of a brighter and more just future,” said Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor.

Black Americans remain the most targeted group in the U.S. when it comes to reported hate crimes. They made up 2,871 of the 8,263 reported hate crimes in 2020 — or 34% — according to the FBI.

The Senate passed the bill unanimously on March 7.

Congressmembers applauded the bill’s progress following several years of attempts to pass it. Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., who has been sponsoring such a bill since the 115th Congress, said that the bill is one step toward correcting “historical injustice.”

“By passing my Emmett Till Antilynching Act, the House has sent a resounding message that our nation is finally reckoning with one of the darkest and most horrific periods of our history and that we are morally and legally committed to changing course,” said Rush after the House passed the bill in February.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign from the nation’s highest court as a growing number of Democrats demand he recuse himself from some cases following revelations that his wife urged then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to help overturn the 2020 election results.

Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called on Democrats to explore impeachment if he doesn’t step down — noting that Thomas was the lone dissenting vote on the court earlier this year to block the Jan. 6 committee from obtaining Trump White House records.

“Clarence Thomas should resign. If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment,” she wrote in a tweet Monday morning.

“Congress must understand that a failure to hold Clarence Thomas accountable sends a loud, dangerous signal to the full Court – Kavanaugh, Barrett, & the rest – that his acts are fair game,” she added. “This is a tipping point. Inaction is a decision to erode and further delegitimize SCOTUS.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to resign—and urges Democrats to explore impeachment if he doesn’t. https://t.co/OgLydDrOXF pic.twitter.com/oQrCdK7kta

— ABC News (@ABC) March 29, 2022

The call from Oscaio-Cortez comes on the heels of two dozen other congressional Democrats sending a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Thomas on Monday evening requesting the justice recuse himself in all cases related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election. The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., also asks Roberts to create a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court by April 28, “that includes (1) enforceable provisions to ensure that the Justices comply with this Code and (2) a requirement that all Justices issue written recusal decisions.”

While it’s unlikely that Thomas would resign or Democrats would have enough support to impeach him, calls from Ocasio-Cortez and other high-profile Democrats could pressure more to pressure party leaders to take up the issue ahead of the midterms.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., meanwhile, defended Thomas’ ability to rule fairly on Friday during a press conference at a House GOP retreat.

“I think Justice Thomas could make his decisions like he’s made…every other time. It’s his decision based upon law,” McCarthy said.

On Monday, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also called on Thomas to recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases, telling reporters it would be “for the good of the court” and added that the committee might take action after Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the situation “a textbook case for” recusal in an interview with This Week co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview on Sunday.

Sources familiar with text messages sent from Virginia “Ginni” Thomas to Meadows, which were obtained by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, confirmed their authenticity to ABC News. The content of the messages was first reported by The Washington Post and CBS News.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!” Thomas wrote to Meadows on Nov. 10 after the election was officially called for Joe Biden. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

“Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs,” Meadows wrote. “Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, John Santucci and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack recommended on Monday that the full chamber hold senior Trump White House officials in contempt of Congress for their refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas for records and testimony related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The panel released a 34-page report on Sunday laying out congressional investigators’ interest in Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, and how both Trump loyalists rebuffed requests for their cooperation, ahead of Monday night’s vote on whether to refer the matter to the House.

Both men “stonewalled” the committee, Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Monday.

“They’re not fooling anybody. They are obligated to comply with our investigation. They have refused to do so. And that’s a crime,” he said.

A successful House vote would send the referrals to the Justice Department, which would decide whether to pursue criminal charges. Each contempt charge could carry up to a $100,000 fine and up to one year in jail.

Navarro, who officially served as a trade adviser to then-President Donald Trump in the White House’s West Wing, produced a report alleging that the presidential election was stolen from Trump — which he said Trump distributed to all Republican members of Congress prior to Jan. 6.

The committee said it had evidence that Navarro’s work was distributed by then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and attorney John Eastman, who also worked on Trump’s effort to overturn the election results.

The committee wrote in its report that Navarro also worked closely with Trump ally Steve Bannon to delay Congress’ certification of the election and to overturn the results, a plan Navarro dubbed the “Green Bay Sweep” in his book, “In Trump Time.” According to the committee, Navarro spoke to Bannon on Jan. 6, encouraged Trump associates to contact Trump ally Roger Stone to discuss Jan. 6 plans, and encouraged hundreds of state legislators to “take action” ahead of the certification of the election results.

The Justice Department has indicted Bannon for refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena. The trial for Bannon, who has pleaded not guilty, could begin this summer.

The DOJ has not taken action on a referral from the House over Meadows’ refusal to fully cooperate with the committee’s subpoena.

Navarro has repeatedly rebuffed the committee and has refused to comply with its subpoena, arguing that Trump invoked executive privilege over their communications, even though he detailed parts of his work in his book — and even though President Joe Biden, as the current commander-in-chief, declined to invoke privilege over his testimony.

“My position remains this is not my Executive Privilege to waive and the Committee should negotiate this matter with President Trump.” Navarro said in a statement Sunday, in response to the committee’s report. “If he waives the privilege, I will be happy to comply; but I see no effort by the Committee to clarify this matter with President Trump, which is bad faith and bad law.”

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., on Monday called Navarro a “key witness” who had “written a book boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of Jan. 6, and yet he does not have the courage to testify here.”

The Supreme Court previously rejected Trump’s claims of privilege and refused to block the committee from some Trump White House records. The panel has also argued that Navarro’s election-related work was not done in his capacity as a government official and would not be covered by executive privilege.

“We want to talk to Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro about their roles in an attempt to overturn an election. The American people didn’t pay their salaries to do that,” Thompson said, dismissing their claims of privilege.

The committee wrote in its report that Scavino, a deputy chief of staff and longtime Trump aide, was “uniquely positioned to illuminate” Trump’s knowledge and actions leading up to Jan. 6.

Scavino also played a central part in amplifying Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread election fraud in his role managing the then-president’s Twitter and other social media accounts.

“President Trump, working with Mr. Scavino, successfully spread distrust for our courts — which had repeatedly found no basis to overturn the election. And Trump’s stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on Jan. 6. On this point, there is no doubt — the Committee has videos, interviews, and sworn statements from the violent rioters demonstrating these facts,” Cheney said.

According to the committee’s report, the panel has obtained evidence that Scavino spoke to Trump “several times” on Jan. 6 and was with him at the White House as he faced public and private calls to help stop the violence at the Capitol.

Pointing to his online presence and links to Trump’s following on social media, the committee said it had “reason to believe” that Scavino “may have had advance warning of the possibility of violence on Jan. 6,” given online activity on pro-Trump forums that suggested potential violence in Washington.

“Whether and when the President and other senior officials knew of impending violence is highly relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation and consideration of legislative recommendations,” the committee wrote.

The panel issued three subpoenas to Scavino — including one delivered by U.S. Marshals to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida — and agreed to delay his deposition and document production deadline half a dozen times last year. Yet the committee said in its report that Scavino had “not produced a single document, nor has he appeared for testimony.”

Scavino also sued Verizon in January to stop the carrier from turning over his cell phone records to the committee.

Although Scavino, Navarro, and several other Trump allies have refused to cooperate with the probe, investigators have questioned more than 750 witnesses, including senior Trump White House and administration officials, as the committee works to wrap up the first phase of its inquiry ahead of public hearings and the issuance of a final report later this year.

“We’re now in a critical phase of our investigation,” Cheney said.

An attorney representing Scavino did not respond to requests for comment from ABC News.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Dick Durbin, is calling on Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases following reports that Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, had exchanged texts with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to attempt to overthrow the 2020 election results.

Durbin said Monday that the development “raises a serious question about conflict of interest for Justice Thomas.”

“To think that he would consider a case where his wife is frequently contacting the chief of staff for the president and giving advice on matters that are going to be ultimately litigated by the court,” he told reporters on Capitol Hill. “For the good of the court, I think he should recuse himself from those cases.”

Sources familiar with the text messages, which were obtained by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, confirmed their authenticity to ABC News. The content of the messages was first reported by The Washington Post and CBS News.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!” Thomas wrote to Meadows on Nov. 10 after the election was officially called for Joe Biden. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

“Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs,” Meadows wrote. “Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

The Supreme Court then declined to block the Jan. 6 committee from obtaining Trump White House records in January over the objection of only one justice: Clarence Thomas.

Pressed as to whether the Senate Judiciary intends to take action on or investigate the matter, Durbin said the committee would have those discussions once they deal with the pending nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court.

“There’s plenty of time and plenty of reason for us to debate this in the future,” Durbin said. “But for the time being. I want to make sure this vacancy is filled with Judge Jackson.”

Durbin added there are “a lot of things for which we will discuss” after Jackson’s confirmation vote, but that he is “troubled to say the least by the disclosures about what Justice Thomas’s wife has been doing.”

President Biden, meanwhile, is attempting to stay out of the debate over whether Thomas should recuse himself, saying Monday at a White House event unveiling his budget that he would “leave that to two entities.”

“One, the January 6th committee and two the Justice Department. That’s their judgment, not mine to make,” Biden said.

The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack is also debating whether or not to ask Ginni Thomas for her voluntary cooperation and is meeting on Monday evening to discuss whether to hold former Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress for their refusal to comply with subpoenas.

Sources say there are others on the panel who believe the committee should take the more aggressive step of attempting to compel her testimony via subpoena.

Pressed further on Monday to take his own position, the president was unwavering.

“I told you those things get into legal issues. That, in fact, I told you I would not tell the Justice Department what position to take or not take. And I’m not going to instruct the Congress either,” he said to reporters.

The messages — more than two dozen between Thomas and Meadows in November of 2020, and one from Jan. 10 — were among the thousands of pages of text messages, emails and documents Meadows voluntarily turned over to the committee last year, before he reversed course and decided not to cooperate with the inquiry.

Thomas did not respond to an earlier request for comment from ABC News. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment on the messages or their contents.

“There were some eyebrows raised when Justice Thomas was that lone vote,” said Kate Shaw, ABC News Supreme Court analyst and Cardozo Law professor. “But he did not explain himself, so we don’t actually know why he wished to take up the case.”

There are no explicit ethics guidelines that govern the activities of a justice’s spouse, experts say, but there are rules about justices avoiding conflicts of interest. Federal law requires that federal judges recuse themselves from cases whenever their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Benjamin Siegel, Devin Dwyer, Justin Gomez and Libby Cathey contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Capitol finally reopened its doors Monday after being closed for nearly two years due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

It will be a limited reopening that will involve member-led and staff-led tours of up to 15 people as well as school groups that have registered in advance, according to a statement from Maj. Gen. William Walker, the House sergeant-at-arms, and Dr. Brian Monahan, the Capitol’s attending physician.

Attestation of a daily negative health screening form is “recommended” for all visitors, as COVID-19 restrictions in Washington, D.C., and across the country are lifted.

“We appreciate your continued patience and cooperation as we work together to resume public tours of the Capitol for the American people in a way that protects the health and safety of visitors and institutional staff alike,” Walker and Monahan wrote in the statement.

Both officials said the choice to reestablish limited tours was coordinated with congressional leaders, the U.S. Capitol Police and the board that oversees that force, Capitol Visitor Services and the attending physician.

Reservations are required and must be made through a senator or representative’s office. The U.S. Capitol Visitor Center website still states that it is not accepting tour reservations.

This is the first phase of the planned reopening of the Capitol to visitors. The second phase is expected to commence at the end of May.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is expected to ask the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, for her cooperation following revelations of messages obtained by congressional investigators in which she repeatedly urged then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to sources familiar with committee members’ deliberations.

While the committee was debating asking Thomas for her voluntary cooperation, there are others on the panel who believe the committee should take the more aggressive step of attempting to compel her testimony via subpoena, the sources say.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!” Thomas wrote to Meadows on Nov. 10 after the election had been officially called for Joe Biden. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

Meadows, who did not respond to all of Thomas’ missives, texted in late November that Trump’s challenge of the election results was “a fight of good versus evil.”

The text messages were among the thousands of pages of text messages, emails and documents Meadows voluntarily turned over to the committee last year before he reversed course and decided not to cooperate with the inquiry. Sources familiar with the messages confirmed their authenticity to ABC News.

“Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs,” Meadows wrote in one text. “Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

“Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now … I will try to keep holding on. America is worth it,” Thomas replied.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon has been providing daily updates on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Ukraine’s efforts to resist.

Here are highlights of what a senior U.S. defense official told reporters Friday on Day 33:

Ukraine retakes town south of Sumy

The U.S. assesses that Ukrainian forces retook the town of Trostyanets, south of Sumy, in northeast Ukraine, from Russian forces.

“They continue to make progress in that regard,” said the official, who could not confirm reports of other areas having been retaken by the Ukrainians as was reported by Ukraine this weekend.

The official added that Russian forces remain around in a defensive posture, “and the Ukrainians are continuing to try to take back ground,” which they’ve seen in the south and north.

Last Friday, the official said Russian troops north of Kyiv had moved into defensive positions around the city and were putting a priority on operations in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

The official said Monday that Russian troops around Kyiv have stopped making advances towards the city, though they continue using long-range fires. Russian troops remain 15-20 miles north/northwest of the city and about 35 miles east. Russia has now fired more than 1,370 missiles into Ukraine.

“Static situation on the ground there, except for the fact that we continue to see Ukrainians defend the city and try to to push Russians back as well,” said the official.

The southern strategic city of Kherson remains “contested territory,” said the official. On Friday, the official said Kherson, which was seized by Russia early in the fighting, was no longer under full control of Russian forces.

Russia prioritizing the Donbas, but US not sure why

The official said Russian forces appear to have prioritized operations in eastern Ukraine. The official described Russian forces moving southeast from Izyum as making “incremental progress” towards Donbas.

“We’re not exactly sure what’s behind this reprioritization. All I can tell you is what we’re seeing,” said the official.

The U.S. believes it could be to attempt to cut off Ukrainian troops in the east from the rest of the country, to gain leverage for future peace talks or to refocus their strategic goals.

Heavy fighting and shelling continues in Mariupol

“The Ukrainians are slugging it out in Mariupol and they are keeping the Russians at bay there so far,” said the official.

Russian troops entered the southern port city after pounding with artillery and long-range missiles, apparently destroying entire sections of the city. “We continue to see Mariupol getting slammed by long-range fires,” the official said.

“We are certainly aware of reports that inside Mariupol the Ukrainians are not only fighting very, very hard, but that they are experiencing their own challenges because you’re surrounded,” the official added. “It is under incredible pressure by the Russians, but the Ukrainians continue to defend it.”

US troop extensions in eastern Europe?

A major decision of last week’s NATO leaders summit in Brussels was that the alliance would establish a long-term presence in eastern Europe as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This includes an additional 6,000 American ground forces moved into eastern Europe to reassure NATO countries that border Russia ahead of that invasion.

Now, there are questions about if they will remain there longer than what has been described by the Pentagon as a temporary deployment.

The official noted that when Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered additional troops to Europe in recent months, “We made it clear at the time that they will be there for as long as we believe they were necessary to be there, and the secretary continues to believe that they’re necessary.”

The official characterized them as temporary deployments and said Austin is constantly discussing U.S. troop posture with Gen. Tod Wolters, the commander of U.S. European Command and the top commander of NATO forces, and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Those troops are still there and the secretary assesses that they need to stay there, and so I have no announcements or changes to that posture except for those six Growlers that we talked about this morning and as we as we can talk about, we certainly will,” said the official.

On Monday, the Pentagon announced that six U.S. Navy EA-18 Growler aircraft capable of jamming radars with electronic warfare equipment were being deployed to Germany to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank and to deter Russia.

“They are not being deployed to be used against Russian forces in Ukraine,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby stressed in making the announcement. “They are being deployed completely in keeping with our efforts to bolster NATO’s deterrence and defense capabilities along that Eastern flank. They are not being sent because of some sort of acute threat that was perceived or some specific incident that happened.”

“This is in order to bolster readiness, enhance NATO’s collective defense posture and further increase air integration capabilities with our allied and partner nations,” Kirby said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden appeared to want to both ways when he fielded a barrage of questions Monday asking him to clarify his remarks that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power.”

He stood by his words “expressing moral outrage” but also clarified that the U.S. is not supporting regime change in Russia.

In a rare move for the White House, Biden — who made the apparently unscripted comment in Poland on Saturday — took questions from reporters Monday afternoon at an event unveiling his latest budget proposal, which includes $6.9 billion to help Ukraine fight Russian aggression.

The first question to Biden was: “Do you believe what you said, that Putin can’t remain in power, or do you now regret saying that? Because your government has been trying to walk that back, did your words complicate matters?”

Pres. Biden says he was not “articulating a policy change” when he said Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power.”

“I was expressing the moral outrage that I feel and I make no apologies for it.” https://t.co/fkOQn5T5Lj pic.twitter.com/2wmnvZBDds

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) March 28, 2022

“Number one, I’m not walking anything back. The fact of the matter is I was expressing the moral outrage I felt toward the way Putin is dealing and the acts of this man just — brutality, half the children in Ukraine. I had just come from being with those families, and so — but I want to make it clear, I wasn’t then nor am I now articulating a policy change. I was expressing the moral outrage that I feel, and I make no apologies for it,” Biden said.

Biden went on to say that he does not think the comment complicates the diplomacy of this moment.

“The fact is that we’re in a situation where it complicates the situation at the moment is the escalatory efforts of Putin to continue to engage in carnage. The kind of behavior that makes the whole world say, ‘My God, what is this man doing?’ That’s what complicates things a great deal and — but I don’t think it complicates it all,” Biden added.

“I was expressing my outrage. He shouldn’t remain in power. Just like, you know, bad people shouldn’t continue to do bad things. But it doesn’t mean we have a fundamental policy to do anything to take Putin down in any way,” Biden said.

Pressed by ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Mary Bruce if he’s confident Putin doesn’t see his words as escalatory, Biden said, “I don’t care what he thinks.”

“Given his behavior, people should understand that he is going to do what he thinks he should do, period. He’s not affected by anybody else including, unfortunately, his own advisers. This is a guy who goes to the beat of his own drummer. And the idea that he is going to do something outrageous because I called him for what he was and what he’s doing, I think is just not rational,” Biden said.

He told Bruce that another meeting with Putin, “depends on what he wants to talk about.”

Asked why he made the comment closing out his four-day alliance-building trip that was not in his prepared remarks, Biden said he was “talking directly to the Russian people.”

Pressed further, Biden repeated he was “expressing the moral outrage I felt toward this man” and “wasn’t articulating a policy change.”

“The last part of the speech was talking to the Russian people, telling them what we thought. I was communicating this to not only the Russian people but the whole world. This is — this is just stating a simple fact that this kind of behavior is totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. And the way to deal with it is to strengthen and put — keep NATO completely united and help Ukraine where we can.”

Biden told reporters Sunday evening he was not calling for Putin’s removal from office, after the White House and some Democrats scrambled to explain the president was not endorsing regime change in Russia as a policy goal.

“The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change,” a White House official said after the speech.

“I think the president, the White House made the point last night that, quite simply, President Putin cannot be empowered to wage war or engage in aggression against Ukraine or anyone else,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday. “As you’ve heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else, for that matter. In this case, as in any case, it’s up to the people of the country in question. It’s up to the Russian people.”

Putin’s allies, meanwhile, have appeared to take the comment as escalatory rhetoric, and the fallout could undermine diplomatic efforts to end the war.

“That’s not for Biden to decide. The president of Russia is elected by Russians,” said Kremlin spokesperson Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Biden also called Putin a “butcher” over the weekend, prompting some world leaders to distance themselves from the rhetoric, with France’s Emmanuel Macron saying, “I wouldn’t use this type of wording.”

The dustup comes as recent polls have shown growing frustration with Biden’s handling of Ukraine, even while most Americans favor specific steps the president has taken. According to recent ABC News/Ipsos data, 70% of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of gas prices, for instance, though even more respondents — 77% — support his proposal to ban Russian oil, even if it means paying more at the pump.

Biden has stepped up his rhetoric in recent weeks as the fighting in Ukraine has worsened. At least twice in the last month, he has called the Russian president a “war criminal,” adding he thinks Putin “will meet the legal definition.” The State Department announced last week Russian forces have committed war crimes in Ukraine but did not specially name Putin.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.