(NEW YORK) — After Donald Trump suggested last week that as president “you can declassify just by saying it’s declassified, even by thinking about it,” Republican Wyoming Senator John Barrasso disagreed — but only after George Stephanopoulos pressed him on the issue twice on ABC’s “This Week.”
During an interview on Sunday, Barrasso was asked by Stephanopoulos about Trump’s handling of classified material, which is under federal investigation as Trump denies wrongdoing.
Trump claimed to Fox News’ Sean Hannity last week that while “different people see different things,” his view of this authority was absolute: “If you’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it’s declassified. Even by thinking about it.”
Stephanopoulos asked if Barrasso agreed. The senator said that he had not heard about such an assertion and pivoted to criticizing the Department of Justice’s court-authorized search of Mar-a-Lago.
Barrasso said that he had “never seen anything like that before,” referring to the FBI “raid” Trump’s home, and that it had “become political.”
Stephanopoulos pushed back: “You know that a president can’t declassify documents by thinking about it. Why can’t you say so?”
The senator, who also said that he isn’t versed in the rules of presidential declassification and wants to get a briefing from the DOJ on the investigation, then agreed with Stephanopoulos. He said, “I don’t think a president can declassify documents by saying so, by thinking about it.”
That view lines up with what outside experts have told ABC News: The president must document his declassification process somewhere, whatever his process was.
Barrasso spent much of his “This Week” appearance pushing back on President Joe Biden’s foreign policy, including addressing the potential revival of the 2015 nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran.
Stephanopoulos opened up the interview by having Barrasso respond to Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser. Sullivan was also interviewed on “This Week” on Sunday and said nuclear negotiations — so Iran never has a weapon “they can threaten the world with” — could be effective at the same time the White House was putting public pressure on the country over its treatment of women and protesters.
“Did you find his argument convincing for staying in the Iran nuclear talks?” Stephanopoulos asked Barrasso.
“No deal with Iran, George, is a good deal … They continue to claim ‘death to America.’ We cannot allow them to have a nuclear weapon,” Barrasso said.
Stephanopoulos also sought clarity from Barrasso on the GOP and Ukraine.
Citing criticism of American’s continued aid to Ukraine by some Republicans, like Ohio Senate nominee J.D. Vance, Stephanopoulos asked Barrasso if Democrats were right to warn that the GOP may restrict future support if they retake Congress.
“No. There continues to be bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate for weapons to Ukraine,” Barrasso said.
He said he wanted the White House to be quicker in providing weapons to Ukraine and said “we ought to be producing more American energy to help our European allies” and American consumers who are dealing with the fallout of the conflict with Russia, a major energy provider.
Stephanopoulos asked Barrasso, just as he asked Sullivan: “Do you believe that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s hold on power is secure?”
“I’m not sure,” Barrasso, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said. “He is in a deep hole right now and he’s dug this hole. And I thought his statement to the country there really was desperate. It didn’t show really confidence or strength.”
“The Foreign Relations Committee is going to have a hearing this Wednesday on what additional things we can do in terms of sanctions [on Russia],” Barrasso said. “And also we have a secure briefing on Thursday in the Senate to take a look right at what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine.”
(NEW YORK) — The U.S. is seeing evidence that Russia is “struggling” in its invasion of Ukraine and has warned Moscow that there would be “catastrophic consequences” if it were to use a nuclear weapon in its war against Kyiv, the White House national security adviser said Sunday.
Jake Sullivan, in an interview with ABC “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos, pointed both to the protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s mobilization of 300,000 reservists and to what Sullivan called “sham” annexation referendums in Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine.
“These are definitely not signs of strength or confidence. Quite the opposite: They’re signs that Russia and Putin are struggling badly,” Sullivan said while noting Putin’s autocratic hold on the country made it hard to make definitive assessments from the outside.
“It will be the Russian people, ultimately, who make the determination about how Russia proceeds and the extent to which that there is resistance and pushback to what Vladimir Putin has tried to do, calling up these hundreds of thousands of young men,” Sullivan added.
“Do you want them to rise up and replace Putin?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“At the end of the day, the future of Russian politics is going to be dictated, not by Washington, not by anyone in Europe, but by the people inside Russia,” Sullivan responded. “And what you are seeing in the streets right now is a deep unhappiness with what Putin is doing.”
His comments come amid escalating rhetoric from Putin as Russian forces have been forced to cede large swaths of northeast Ukraine while retreating from a Ukrainian counteroffensive this month.
Last week, Putin called up reservists and suggested that tactical nuclear weapons could be used to change the course of the war, groundlessly accusing the West of threatening Russia’s territorial integrity. Since before attacking Ukraine in February, Putin has cast the invasion as a matter of Russian national security.
“The territorial integrity of our homeland, our independence and freedom will be ensured, I will emphasize this again, with all the means at our disposal. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the prevailing winds can turn in their direction,” Putin said in a speech last week.
“I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and some components are more modern than those of the NATO countries,” Putin added.
On “This Week,” Sullivan declined to explain precisely what warnings have been communicated between Russia and the U.S. but he said that there would be dire repercussions if such a weapon were used.
“We have communicated directly, privately, to the Russians at very high levels that there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. We have been clear with them and emphatic with them that the United States will respond decisively alongside our allies and partners,” Sullivan said.
“So that means taking the fight directly to Russia?” Stephanopoulos asked.
Sullivan demurred: “We’ve been careful in how we talk about this publicly because, from our perspective, we want to lay down the principle that there would be catastrophic consequences but not engage in a game of rhetorical tit-for-tat.”
Stephanopoulos also asked Sullivan if protests in Iran over the death of a woman who was not adhering to the country’s strict female dress code would be enough to topple the government in Tehran.
“The United States … hasn’t necessarily over many decades had a great track record of perfectly predicting when protests turn into political change, and I can’t perfectly predict that sitting here today. What I can say is they do reflect a deep-seated and widespread belief among the population of Iran, the citizens abroad, the women of Iran, that they deserve their dignity and their rights,” Sullivan said.
Stephanopoulos pressed, given the Iranian government’s actions, if the Biden administration should continue seeking to revive the Obama-era nuclear deal which President Donald Trump scrapped. Conservatives have repeatedly criticized those efforts.
Sullivan said that the White House feels diplomacy and political pressure can go hand-in-hand.
“The fact that we are in nuclear talks is in no way slowing us down from speaking out and acting on behalf of the people of Iran,” he said. “We’re not going to slow down one inch in our defense and advocacy for the rights of the women and citizens of Iran.”
(PITTSBURGH) — A gunman was on the run Sunday after shooting three people, including two teenagers, and sparking panic at a crowded amusement park near Pittsburgh, police said.
Gunfire erupted around 10:46 p.m. Saturday at the Kennywood amusement park in the Pittsburgh suburb of West Mifflin, police said.
Witnesses said the shooting occurred in front of the park’s popular Musik Express ride and sent park-goers diving for cover and running to the exits. Police said several people were injured when they were apparently trampled while attempting to get out of harm’s way.
Allegheny County Police Superintendent Christopher Kearns said an altercation occurred and the alleged assailant pulled a handgun and started firing.
At the time of the shooting, West Mifflin and Allegheny County police officers were at the park and quickly responded along with park security to the gunfire, according to a statement released by park officials.
Kearns said officers found two people wounded at the scene. He said a 15-year-old boy and a 39-year-old man were both shot in the leg. The teenager was taken to Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh in stable condition, while the adult victim was treated and released from Mercy Hospital, Kearns said.
A third victim, also a 15-year-old boy, left the park on his own but later showed up at a hospital to be treated for a graze wound to his leg, Kearns said.
Witnesses told investigators the suspected gunman appeared to be a teenager wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt and a COVID-style mask.
A handgun was recovered at the scene, according to police.
Police are investigating how the weapon got into the park. All Kennywood employees and guests must pass through metal detectors at the entrance gate and all backpacks and coolers are subject to inspection, according to the park’s website.
The shooting occurred on the first day of the park’s 20th annual Phantom Fall Fest, a family-friendly Halloween season event, according to the park’s website.
The gunfire broke out about 14 minutes before the park was set to close for the night.
“Most everyone ran. There was, at one point, a hundred people just ran out of the park,” a witness told ABC affiliate station WTAE in Pittsburgh.
Kennywood officials said the amusement park was immediately shut down after the shooting and all visitors were evacuated. The park plans to reopen on Sept. 30, according to the park’s website.
“The safety of our guests and team members are our top priority,” the park’s statement reads.
(ROME) — Giorgia Meloni, leader of Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy), could become the first female prime minister in the history of Italy in an anticipated right-wing surge to the polls on Sunday.
Europe’s attention is trained on Rome, where this potential first is joined by fears that Meloni would restore an ideology not seen in Italy since World War II. Pollsters expect the Sunday vote to deliver a conservative coalition to parliament, with the government guided by Meloni as premier.
The archconservative of Italian politics, Meloni entered politics at age 15 in 1992, joining the neo-fascist Social Movement, a group with pronounced sympathy for Benito Mussolini, the country’s dictator from 1925 to 1945. Fratelli d’Italia’s party imagery evokes Italy’s fascist past, but Meloni has rejected the associations, framing her proposed conservative coalition as a nationalist project that would recover power from Brussels.
A Meloni government would represent a major change in tide from the technocrat government held together by former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi. Meloni’s party was the only opponent to Draghi’s coalition, which fell in July after maintaining a hardline on consensus issues in the European Union – including sending arms to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia.
Observers say EU battle lines may be realigning, with Italy, one of the bloc’s founders and its third-largest economy, cozying more to Hungary and Poland than Germany and France.
The collapse of Draghi’s government in July threw Italy into a familiar political tumult, and a splintered left wing, including the center-left Democratic Party and the populist Five-Star Movement, has not coalesced with a pre-election pact. The Democratic Party leader, Enrico Letta, has trailed consistently in polls and is expected to split ballots cast by liberals with voters for Five-Star and a “Third Pole” coalition.
The right wing, though, has joined forces. Polls indicate Meloni will be the leading conservative finisher on Sunday; her government’s junior partners would be Matteo Salvini, leader of the League, and Silvio Berlusconi, the head of the center-right Forza Italia. Berlusconi, the media tycoon and conservative firebrand, rose to power in 1994 and won three stints as prime minister, in total the longest serving premier in the post-war era. Salvini has been seen as the conservative in the wings of Palazzo Chigi, while Meloni had led the smaller Fratelli d’Italia, distant from the mainstream.
Analysts credit Meloni’s surge past them to her resolute anti-Putin, pro-NATO posture. Berlusconi, a longtime Putin friend, has outright echoed the Kremlin’s war narrative. Salvini has wavered on continuing to send arms to Kyiv.
In the two-month campaign sprint, Meloni has worked to settle fears over the conservative coalition, including those of her own making. If more pugilistic toward Brussels than her recent predecessors, Meloni does not propose a divorce with the EU or an exit from the euro, which is supported by more than 70% of Italians. She has tempered her past hostile tones toward LGBT rights and abortion rights.
Amid rising energy costs hitting Italians particularly hard and long-stagnant wages in the country, Meloni has made her message economic, focusing on tax cuts and investment in nuclear energy.
Anticipation for a far-right surge in Rome, which would follow closely behind Tuesday’s stunning electoral victory for the Swedish Democrats, a party with neo-Nazi origins, has already provoked barbed remarks from Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission chief. Von der Leyen was not keen to veil Brussels’ posture toward a government that could move to subvert democracy.
“If things go in a difficult direction, I’ve spoken about Hungary and Poland, we have tools,” von der Leyen told students in the United States on Thursday. The Commission has recommended exercising an internal sanctions measure on Hungary over corruption it alleges.
Potential clashes with the EU will not be the first order of business should the right-wing coalition win a majority of votes on Sunday. Before it can govern, conservatives will have to organize a government behind Meloni in a process that could take weeks.
Fratelli d’Italia won 4.4% of the vote in the 2018 parliamentary elections, the last time Italians went to the polls. After votes are counted on Sunday, barring a major break from polling, it’s poised to be the nation’s leading political party.
(NEW YORK) — With his party struggling in the midterms, his economic stewardship under fire and his overall job approval under 40%, a clear majority of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the party should replace Joe Biden as its nominee for president in 2024.
In the November midterm election ahead, registered voters divide 47%-46% between the Republican and the Democratic candidate in their House district, historically not enough to prevent typical first-midterm losses. And one likely voter model has a 51%-46% Republican-Democratic split.
Looking two years off, just 35% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favor Biden for the 2024 nomination; 56% want the party to pick someone else.
Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, for their part, split 47%-46% on whether Donald Trump should be their 2024 nominee — a 20-point drop for Trump compared with his 2020 nomination.
The unpopularity of both figures may encourage third-party hopefuls, though they rarely do well.
In a head-to-head rematch, the poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds a 48%-46% Biden-Trump contest, essentially tied. Among registered voters, the numbers reverse to 46%-48%. That’s even while 52% of Americans say Trump should be charged with a crime in any of the matters in which he’s under federal investigation, similar to views after the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
On issues, the survey finds broad opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling eliminating a constitutional right to abortion and a big Democratic advantage in trust to handle the issue. But there’s no sign it’s impacting propensity to vote in comparison with other issues: four rank higher in importance and two of them — the economy, overall, and inflation, specifically — work strongly in the GOP’s favor.
Biden and the midterms
The president’s standing customarily is critical to his party’s fortunes in midterms — and Biden is well under water. Thirty-nine percent of Americans approve of his job performance while 53% disapprove, about where he’s been steadily the past year.
Specifically on the economy, with inflation near a 40-year high, his approval rating is 36% while 57% disapprove — a 21-point deficit.
Each election has its own dynamic but in midterm elections since 1946, when a president has had more than 50% job approval, his party has lost an average of 14 seats. When the president’s approval has been less than 50% — as Biden’s is by a considerable margin now — his party has lost an average of 37 seats.
There’s one slightly better result for Biden: 40% say he’s accomplished a great deal or a good amount as president, up from 35% last fall. This usually is a tepid measure; it’s averaged 43% across four presidents in 11 previous polls since 1993.
There’s something else the Democrats can hang on to; their current results are better than last November, when the Republicans led in national House vote preferences by 10 percentage points, 51%-41% — the largest midterm Republican lead in ABC/Post polls dating back 40 years.
It’s true, too, that national House vote polling offers only a rough gauge of ultimate seats won or lost, in what, after all, are local races, influenced by incumbency, gerrymandering, candidate attributes and local as well as national issues.
Issues
The Democrats are not without ammunition in midterm campaigning: As noted, Americans broadly reject the U.S. Supreme Court ruling eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion — 29% support it, with 64% opposed. (Indeed, 53% strongly oppose it, compared with 21% strongly in support.)
And the public trusts the Democratic Party over the Republican Party to handle abortion by a wide 20 points. In another measure, while 31% say the Democratic Party is too permissive on abortion, many more, 50%, say the GOP is too restrictive.
But if abortion keeps the Republicans from entirely nationalizing the election around the economy, it doesn’t defang the public’s economic discontent.
Seventy-four percent say the economy is in bad shape, up from 58% in the spring after Biden took office. The GOP leads the Democrats by 16 points in trust to handle the economy overall and by 19 points in trust to handle inflation. Equally important, 84% call the economy a top issue in their vote for Congress and 76% say the same about inflation. Many fewer, 62%, call abortion a top issue.
Other issues also differentiate the parties. In addition to the economy, the Republicans can be expected to focus on crime in the campaigns’ closing weeks; they lead by 14 points in trust to handle it, and it’s highly important to 69%.
Democrats, in return, hold a wide 23-point advantage in trust to handle climate change, though it’s highly important to far fewer, 50%.
The parties run closely on two other issues — education and schools, Democrats +6, highly important to 77%; and immigration, essentially an even division, highly important to 61%.
When these are assessed as a combination of importance and party preference, inflation and the economy top the list, followed by abortion, then climate change, crime, education and immigration.
While inflation, the economy and abortion are marquee issues, one stands out for another reason: The Republicans’ 14-point advantage in trust to handle crime matches its largest since 1991. Among independents, it’s a whopping 34-point GOP lead.
Indeed, on abortion, supporters of the Supreme Court ruling are more apt than its critics to say voting is more important to them in this election than in previous midterms, 73% vs. 64%. Also, 76% of the ruling’s supporters say they’re certain to vote, as are 70% of its opponents.
Intention to turn out is influenced by other factors. Among all adults, it’s considerably higher among whites — 72% certain to vote — than among Black people (55%) or Hispanics (46%) — a result that advantages Republicans, whose support is strongest by far among whites.
Groups
Beyond differential turnout, weakness in midterm vote preference among Black and Hispanic voters may compound Democratic concerns.
While Democratic House candidates lead their Republican opponents by 61 points among Black adults who are registered to vote, that compares with at least 79-point margins in exit polls in the past four midterms.
This survey’s sample of Hispanics who are registered to vote is too small for reliable analysis, but the contest among them looks much closer than recent Democratic margins — 40 points in 2018, 27 points in 2014 and 22 points in 2010.
Republican candidates, meanwhile, show some strength among registered voters who don’t have a college degree, +11 points in vote preference compared with an even split in the 2018 ABC News exit poll.
A factor: Non-college adults are 8 points more likely than those with four-year degrees to say they’re not just concerned but upset about the current inflation rate. Results among other groups don’t provide evidence for the hypothesis that the abortion ruling might boost the Democrats, compared with past years, among some women.
Women younger than 40 support the Democratic candidate in their district by 19 points, but did so by 43 points in the 2018 exit poll. Suburban women split about evenly between the parties (44-47% Democratic-Republican), about the same as among suburban men (45-50% Democratic-Republican).
Independent women are +5 GOP in vote preference; independent men, essentially the same, +3. Independents overall — often a swing voter group — divide 42-47% between Democratic and Republican candidates. This is a group that voted Democratic by 12 points in 2018 — but Republican by 14 points in 2014 (when the GOP won 13 House seats) and by 19 points in 2010 (when the GOP won 63 seats).
Lastly, there are some milestones in Biden’s approval rating. He’s at new lows in approval among liberals (68%), Southerners (33%) and people in the middle- to upper-middle income range (34%). And his strong approval among Black adults — among the most stalwart Democratic groups — is at a career-low 31%.
Methodology
This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Sept. 18-21, 2022, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,006 adults, including 908 registered voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions in the full sample are 28%-24%-41%, Democrats-Republicans-independents, and 27%-26%-40% among registered voters.
Rihanna will headline the Super Bowl 57 halftime show.
The singer herself confirmed the news Late Sunday afternoon ET by posting an image on her socialmedia of her tattooed right hand and arm holding a football aloft — the same photo promoter Roc Nation first posted to their Twitter, with the caption “Let’s GO – @Rihanna @NFL #SBLVII @AppleMusic @NFLonFOX.”
“Rihanna is a generational talent, a woman of humble beginnings who has surpassed expectations at every turn. A person born on the small island of Barbados who became one of the most prominent artists ever. Self-made in business and entertainment,” said Roc Nation founder and chair Jay-Z in a statement via the NFL, announcing the news.
The halftime show is a co-production of Roc Nation, Apple Music and the NFL, the first time all three have teamed up for the event.
“Over the coming months, fans can expect to see exclusive details and sneak peeks leading up to the Apple Music Super Bowl Halftime Show by following @AppleMusic on TikTok, Instagram and Twitter,” the NFL statement promises.
Super Bowl LVII is scheduled to take place February 12, 2023, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.
Cars guitarist Elliot Easton and Def Leppard bassist Rick Savage are among the new additions to the lineup for Foo Fighters‘ upcoming Los Angeles-area tribute concert to late drummer Taylor Hawkins, taking place this Tuesday, September 27 at the Kia Forum.
Other artists who’ve joined the bill include Yes vocalist and Hawkins’ childhood friend Jon Davison, Mötley Crüe drummer Tommy Lee, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden drummer Matt Cameron, Soundgarden guitarist Kim Thayil, Tool drummer Danny Carey and The Pretty Reckless‘ Taylor Momsen.
Additionally, The Darkness frontman Justin Hawkins and pop star Kesha, who performed at the London tribute earlier this month, have been added to the LA lineup.
Previously announced participants, many of whom also played the six-hour London concert, include Queen‘s Brian May and Roger Taylor, Def Leppard’s Joe Elliott and Phil Collen, The Police‘s Stewart Copeland, Heart‘s Nancy Wilson, the Joe Walsh-fronted James Gang, Joan Jett, Alanis Morissette, Led Zeppelin‘s John Paul Jones, Rush‘s Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson, David Bowie drummer Omar Hakim, Miley Cyrus and Pink.
Additionally, Dave Grohl‘s daughter Violet and Hawkins’ son Shane will perform.
(WASHINGTON) — Even before Russian troops invaded Ukraine, U.S. officials warned global peace would be endangered if Russian President Vladimir Putin were allowed to brazenly seize another sovereign country.
At the same time, analysts have warned that if he faced no option but defeat in that bid, the outcome could prove to be even more dangerous — a so-called “cornered Putin.”
Ukrainian successes on the battlefield have not only pushed Russian troops back but now have pushed Putin further into a corner — forcing him to take a series of dramatic steps to reinvigorate his brutal campaign: a sweeping military draft, labeled as a “partial mobilization,” to surge thousands of soldiers to the fight, and orchestrating what the West has called “sham” referenda in occupied territories in Ukraine — intended to pave the way for them to be “annexed” — considered, in Putin’s view, to be part of Russia.
Most alarming, in a rare televised address, Putin also issued a new round of thinly-veiled nuclear threats — warning that Russia will use “all available means” to protect what he now portrays as Russian people and territory.
While some of his rhetoric isn’t new, the changed circumstances in the conflict are. ABC News spoke to experts and former U.S. officials about why Putin’s latest saber-rattling escalates risks — for both Putin and the world.
Losing the home crowd
Putin’s “partial mobilization” to send Russians who have gone through military training to serve in Ukraine is broadly seen as a tacit acknowledgement that his military is failing to accomplish Moscow’s goals in Ukraine.
But Max Bergmann, a former State Department official and the director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says it also puts Putin’s control over his own country in question.
“What is clearly happening here is that the Russian military position in Ukraine is collapsing,” he said. “Forcing people to go and fight in Ukraine is an extremely risky political decision. This is one of the most incredibly disruptive things that can be done to a society.”
Although economic penalties for the invasion continue to have a mounting impact, Bergmann says the move will bring the war home to many Russians for the first time. And what’s worse, he adds, is that Putin hasn’t even officially called his invasion of Ukraine a war — still describing it as a “special military operation.”
“There’s a total disconnect between the Russian government messaging that this is just some sort of tactical military effort in Ukraine, versus the need to suddenly rip men that have maybe at one time in their life served in the military for a year away from their families — many with children — and from their jobs, off to a battlefield where tens of thousands of people are dying,” he said.
Despite the Kremlin’s efforts to silence protest, Bergmann says if enough discontent builds, Putin risks losing public support, and with it, his grasp on power.
“He is gambling his entire regime over Ukraine,” he said.
A powerful tool in Putin’s arsenal is the state propaganda machine, but Bergmann believes Putin still has a steep hill to climb in portraying the war as defending the motherland.
“Putin hopes he can harken back to Russia’s past of repelling invaders, whether it’s Napoleon’s army or Hitler’s. But then, Russia was being invaded. It was an existential war. This is a war of imperial ambition,” he said. “He’s going to have to work incredibly hard to convince the Russian public that it’s worth it to lose their husbands, fathers and sons in an oblast in Ukraine.”
While the Russian president still appears to wield uncompromising control, Bergmann warns the tide can shift quickly.
“Autocratic regimes look incredibly stable until they’re not,” he said.
Buying time
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, in his speech this week to the United Nations General Assembly, warned Moscow was trying to wait his fighters out.
“Russia wants to spend the winter on the occupied territory of Ukraine and prepare forces to attempt a new offensive,” he said in a recorded address.
Analysts also say buying time to move newly conscripted troops to the front might be the motivator behind other elements of Putin’s strategy.
“Those troops will take a while to get to the battlefield,” said John Hardie, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Russia Program. “It’s definitely a game on his part.”
Putin’s latest efforts towards annexation, coupled with promises to defend its land, are likely aimed at giving Ukraine second thoughts about pursuing its counteroffensive — and giving the West second thoughts about supporting it, Hardie and Bergmann said. But they say it’s unlikely to prove effective.
“Putin’s hope is that this causes Ukraine and the West to freak out to give some pause about further advances,” Bergmann said. “But I think support for Ukraine will remain strong. And that Ukraine is going to advance militarily as it sees fit.”
One senior administration official called the referenda a “crass and desperate” maneuver that would not alter the U.S. outlook on the conflict, and predicted that other powers around the world — even those more closely aligned with Russia — would not be significantly swayed.
Still farther to fall
If Putin’s attempts to delay Ukraine’s military progress fail, the most pressing question becomes whether he will make good on his threats to go nuclear — and what the U.S. and its allies might do in response.
“It’s something that you have to take very seriously. Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal,” said Bergmann. “And when the Russian president starts making nuclear threats, it’s something everyone has to pay attention to.”
While both Hardie and Bergmann agree Putin doesn’t appear ready to resort to the nuclear option, they say deterrence must be the priority. American officials have publicly and privately warned Moscow against using nuclear weapons, and Hardie said they should also press countries the Kremlin might be more receptive to listening to — such as China and India — to send the same messages.
But the consequences Russia could expect to face are less clear.
“Are we actually ready to do something more than sanctions? I tend to think we are probably not. I think the administration rightly wants to avoid World War III,” said Hardie.
Because of this, the Biden administration’s “strategic ambiguity” on repercussions is the best available avenue, he argues.
“If offers the benefit of leaving doubt in Putin’s mind,” Hardie said.
While Putin could ultimately disregard any doubts, Hardie says it will likely require Putin to grow considerably more desperate.
“I think this would be very much a last resort,” he said, noting the Kremlin might test the waters first with demonstrations before hitting critical infrastructure or troop concentrations. “But I think we’re a long way from that point.”
But Hardie said a significant incursion into Crimea — the peninsula annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014 — would likely move the needle much more, and that it’s possible Putin will decide to protect any newly annexed territory with the same ferocity.
(NEW YORK) — If there was any doubt about where outdoor clothing company Patagonia stood on environmentalism, it was quickly put to rest last week when founder Yvon Chouinard and his family donated their ownership to efforts that would protect the planet.
“Earth is now our only shareholder,” Chouinard wrote on Patagonia’s website.
But can the generous donation from a billionaire — this one valued at more than $3 billion — and the spoils from his successful retail company move the needle on finding solutions to mitigate global warming?
Experts told ABC News that the unprecedented move itself won’t be enough to make significant strides in curbing emissions and the rise in global temperatures. But the domino effect that results from inspiring future philanthropists to make similar donations could reverberate throughout the climate fight, they hypothesized.
The drastic nature of the move is emblematic of the dire consequences that could result if major action is not taken, Hans Cole, head of environmental grants, campaigns and impact for Patagonia, told ABC News.
“It really just acknowledges the increasing urgency around the crisis — around climate, around biodiversity, and around how those impact people and communities around the world,” Cole said.
Here is what experts have to say about the monumental donation:
How the Patagonia donation is different from other billionaire philanthropy
Donations from the wealthiest Americans occur on a regular basis but rarely draw as much attention as the gift made by Chouinard.
The donation differs from most billionaire philanthropy for two key reasons.
First, the donation involves the giving away of Chouinard’s company. Chouinard gave up nearly all of his shares in Patagonia and vowed to donate the company’s annual profits. However, the maneuver draws on a two-tiered stock system of voting and non-voting shares, allowing Chouinard to retain control of the company.
Under the arrangement, Chouinard donated 98% of his non-voting shares in the company to a nonprofit, the Holdfast Collective. However, 2% of the shares — which make up all of the company’s voting shares — will be retained in the Patagonia Purpose Trust.
“The Chouinards have total control of Patagonia through the trust, and they’re giving everything else away,” Daniel Hemel, a law professor at New York University, told ABC News.
The move is “unusual but it’s not unique,” Hemel added, noting that dual-class share structures are used at companies such as Google and The New York Times. He also cited a similar model of philanthropy undertaken by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “Zuckerberg has mostly control of Facebook through the shares he’s retained and he’s giving some of it away,” Hemel said.
Hemel said he lends “credence” to the rationale for continued control of Patagonia offered by Chouinard, who said the maneuver will allow him to protect the company’s commitment to environment-friendly values.
The second feature of the donation that distinguishes it centers on the nonprofit formed by Chouinard, which will allow him to pursue political advocacy and donate to political candidates.
Most large-dollar philanthropy made by wealthy people goes to 501(c)(3) organizations, such as the Gates Foundation, Hemel said. Donations to such organizations are tax-deductible, but the groups are forbidden by law from participating in political campaigns or giving to political candidates.
However, the nonprofit created by Chouinard as the recipient of this donation, the Holdfast Collective, is classified as a 501(c)(4), which means the gift forgoes an income tax deduction but the organization can participate in politics. The Collective “can advocate for causes and political candidates in addition to making grants and investments in our planet,” Patagonia said on its website.
Philanthropists have made giant donations to the climate fight in the past
The donation from Chouinard, valued at more than $3 billion, joins a flurry of large-dollar philanthropy in recent years focused on the climate. While Chouinard’s donation is smaller than that of some of his peers, the Holdfast Collective differs from other climate philanthropy because of its capacity to participate in political campaigns.
In 2020, Amazon Executive Chair Jeff Bezos pledged $10 billion to address climate change with the formation of the Bezos Earth Fund, which does not support political candidates. So far, the organization has granted $1.54 billion to programs that range from restoring mangroves in Columbia and Fiji to empowering grassroots environmental justice groups and providing technology for farmers in India.
Last year, Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of late Apple founder Steve Jobs, pledged $3.5 billion to fight climate change through the Waverley Street Foundation, an organization formed by Jobs in 2016.
It aims to address the problem by supporting local groups in communities worldwide that are “at work in the trenches of the battle for a livable planet,” the organization said last month. As a 501(c)(3), the Waverley Street Foundation is not allowed to participate in political campaigns.
Meanwhile, the ClimateWorks Foundation, which says it has granted over $1.3 billion to more than 600 grantees in over 50 countries, uses environmental expertise to channel donations for projects worldwide. As with the Bezos Earth Fund, the ClimateWorks Foundation supports a wide range of programs, including efforts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reverse forest loss.
The ClimateWorks Foundation doesn’t participate in political campaigns, either, as it’s also a 501(c)(3).
The approach from Chouinard — a significant departure from most billionaire climate giving — allows the organization to amplify its impact, Hemel said.
“What the Chouinards realize is that effective action to protect the planet from climate change is going to need to be government action,” he said. “Three billion dollars potentially can make a difference in elections.”
If they were to spend “a fraction” of the $3 billion on a U.S. Senate race, for example, that ends up changing the Senate majority, “then they could be leveraging that fraction of $3 billion into hundreds of billions in additional climate investment,” Hemel added.
Harvey Dale, a professor of philanthropy and law at New York University, echoed the view that the scale of private giving on climate-related issues pales in comparison with public spending.
“I suppose if you took all the money in all the foundations in the country — many hundreds of billions of dollars — you would say, ‘Wow, how about that,'” Dale told ABC News. “It’s a tiny bit compared to the amount [President Joe] Biden recommended in legislation just a year or two ago.”
To adequately address climate change, the scale of public investment must far outweigh that of the donor community, Dale said.
“The amount of money in the philanthropic sector is a drop in the bucket compared to how much the government would spend,” he added.
The donation follows the company’s ethos of sustainability
Patagonia has decades of experience in working to make its carbon footprint as small as possible in addition to tackling aspects of the environmental crisis, Cole said.
The company says it uses materials with lower environmental impacts, has cleaned up parts of its supply chain and encourages practices such as a program that allows customers to sell or trade their used pieces.
“It has been a 50-year journey for us, absolutely throwing everything we can, all the resources possible,” Cole said.
In the past few years, Patagonia has increased its environmental commitments, even changing its mission statement to saving the planet, Cole said. Customers who wear the Patagonia brand, often those committed to sports and pastimes that keep them out in nature, tend to agree with the goals.
Even after the transfer of ownership, Patagonia will continue to donate 1% of its sales each year to grassroots environmental nonprofits, according to its website.
The unprecedented donation could inspire more
Experts say that Patagonia could inspire other companies and wealthy philanthropists to join the race to mitigate climate change.
Patagonia hopes that as many businesses and organizations as possible will replicate or take pieces of their plan and adapt it to their unique situation, Cole said.
“We want this to have legs,” he said.
Tailoring to the needs of companies of different sizes and operations will also be key, John Forrer, director of the Institute for Corporate Responsibility at George Washington University, said.
“You have your own company interests, you have your own company values, you have what your stakeholders think is a good idea,” he told ABC News.
With any company that dedicates funds and a portion of its mission statement to the climate crisis, it will be important that it’s not done with the sole intent of “corporate greenwashing” as a cheap PR stunt, tax breaks or profit motives, Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program, told ABC News.
Rather, businesses need to really care about issues such as transitioning the economy to clean energy to make a difference — something the Chouinard family has exemplified, Cleetus said, adding that there are many businesses that claim publicly they are for climate solutions but are actually lobbying for policies that undermine climate progress.
“Patagonia is in a whole different class, they’re actually walking the walk. That’s what we need more businesses to do,” Cleetus said.
The world can’t rely on the generosity of billionaires, experts say
Making meaningful gains in the urgent fight against global warming will require much more than donations from a handful of exceptionally rich individuals, the experts said. Especially since just 2% of global giving is allocated toward climate change mitigation, according to a report published in May by the Climate Justice Resilience Fund.
It will take systemic change across many sectors to fix a broken system that causes more harm to the planet, Cleetus said.
“The scale of the immensity and the urgency of the climate crisis is such that it won’t be enough to have a few very rich people donate money,” Cleetus said.
Cole added that the Chouinard family is aware that Patagonia, even with its lofty mission, can’t solve the climate crisis on its own.
“We need, frankly, the entire business community and governments and civil society to work together to get this done,” Cole said. “We can’t do it alone. Patagonia can’t do it alone.”
In addition, those in charge of the funds will need to ensure they are allocated to the most appropriate sectors, the experts said.
Frontline communities — or communities that will be most impacted by climate-related weather events as they intensify in the future — should be prioritized, as well as impoverished and marginalized communities, Cleetus said, adding that the climate crisis is “inequitable at its core.”
“It’s often Black and brown and indigenous communities and very low-income communities — so seeing where the needs are most acute,” she said. “Very often, there are also communities that are bearing the brunt of pollution from fossil fuels and have for a long time.”
Public policy from governments around the world to assertively address the challenge will be necessary, and philanthropy can help move the needle in that regard by providing assistance to governments when conceptualizing those policies, Jennifer Kitt, president of the Climate Leader Initiative, told ABC News.
This was evident two decades ago when philanthropies helped to pass policies to put solar panels on rooftops to generate power, which was a “huge challenge” — especially when incorporating them into building codes, Kitt said.
The money could also be well spent on investing in new technologies that are “actually going to make a difference” in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as batteries and other forms of renewable power, Forrer said.
Educating the public about how the climate crisis affects them — such as how the war in Ukraine is causing oil prices worldwide to skyrocket — will also be a crucial way to use the funds, the experts said.
“Philanthropists can be quite influential in the ways that move too slowly and not to scale,” Kitt said.
(WASHINGTON) — Abortion access, legalized marijuana and antiquated laws on slavery are some of the topics that will be addressed in ballot measures in midterm elections.
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, it ruled there was no right to an abortion granted under the Constitution, leaving it up to states to determine how to regulate the medical procedure.
In an August primary, Kansas became the first state to let voters decide on abortion since the court’s ruling, and residents overwhelmingly rejected a bid to remove abortion protections from its state constitution.
Five more states — California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont — have abortion-related questions on the ballot this November, leaving it up to voters whether to protect or restrict abortion rights in their respective states.
Initiatives to protect or expand abortion rights
California
In California, voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to prohibit the state from denying or interfering with a person’s “reproductive freedom,” granting Californians a fundamental right to choose to get an abortion or use contraceptives.
The measure aims to amend the constitution to protect reproductive rights already granted and protected by state laws.
In The Golden State, abortion is currently legal until fetal viability, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which generally is until 24 weeks’ to 26 weeks’ gestation.
Vermont
In Vermont, voters will decide whether to amend the state’s constitution to include a right to “personal reproductive autonomy,” which will include abortion.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group focusing on sexual and reproductive health, abortion is currently legal during any stage of pregnancy in Vermont, but there is no explicit protection granted under the constitution.
In 2019, Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, signed a bill stating abortion is a “fundamental right” and protecting rights to family planning, contraception and sterilization.
Michigan
Michigan voters will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would add protections for reproductive rights this November.
The proposed amendment defines reproductive freedom as “the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.”
After Michigan’s Board of Canvassers failed to reach a decision on whether to add a question to the ballot, the state’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of adding the question.
A state abortion ban on the books since 1931 is also being challenged in court, but is not currently in effect. Last month, a state judge ruled that the ban is unconstitutional, prohibiting prosecutors from bringing charges against physicians who provide abortion services.
Initiatives to eliminate or restrict abortion rights
Kentucky
Voters in Kentucky will decide on an amendment to the state’s constitution that would specify that a right to abortion does not exist nor is the government required to allocate funding for abortion.
Abortion is currently banned in the state after a trigger law went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.
Under the law, anybody who performs or attempts to perform an abortion will be charged with a Class D felony, punishable by one to five years in prison. The only exception is if the mother’s health is at risk.
This ban and another ban, which prohibits abortions after six weeks, are currently being challenged in court. The Kentucky Supreme Court will hear arguments on Nov. 15 on whether to issue a temporary injunction on the ban until the legal challenges are resolved.
Montana
Montana voters will decide whether to approve of or reject a bill passed by the state legislature which would change the state constitution to define all fetuses “born alive” as legal persons, including those born after an abortion.
The proposal would define “born alive” as the complete expulsion or extraction of a human infant at any stage of development, who after extraction breathes, has a beating heart or has definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut or what the birth method is, according to the bill.
If approved by voters, the bill would grant any infant born alive the right to appropriate and reasonable medical care and treatment. A provider who fails to provide the medical attention could face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to 20 years in prison.
In August, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a district court ruling to block three abortion bans that were passed in 2021 while the litigation plays out.
