More stories

  • in

    ‘Putin chose this war,’ Biden says as he announces new sanctions against Russia – US politics live

    Key events

    Show

    4.18pm EST

    16:18

    Obama condemns Russia’s ‘brutal onslaught’ against Ukraine

    1.50pm EST

    13:50

    ‘Putin chose this war,’ Biden says as he announces new sanctions against Russia

    1.45pm EST

    13:45

    Biden delivers national address on Russian invasion of Ukraine

    12.45pm EST

    12:45

    McConnell: withdrawal from Afghanistan was an invitation to autocrats to make a move

    12.30pm EST

    12:30

    Today so far

    12.05pm EST

    12:05

    House intelligence chairman calls for tougher sanctions against Russia

    10.07am EST

    10:07

    Biden to address nation as Russia invades Ukraine

    Live feed

    Show

    Show key events only

    4.50pm EST

    16:50

    Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, spoke to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken today to discuss the latest round of US sanctions against Russia in response to the invasion.
    “Call with @SecBlinken on ways to stop Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine,” Kuleba said on Twitter.
    “Secretary informed me on the new U.S. sanctions on Russia, as well as plans to deliver new defensive weapons to help Ukraine defend itself. Ukraine holds ground. We need the world to help us.”

    Dmytro Kuleba
    (@DmytroKuleba)
    Call with @SecBlinken on ways to stop Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Secretary informed me on the new U.S. sanctions on Russia, as well as plans to deliver new defensive weapons to help Ukraine defend itself. Ukraine holds ground. We need the world to help us.

    February 24, 2022

    4.33pm EST

    16:33

    Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, sharply criticized Joe Biden for not issuing direct sanctions on Vladimir Putin in response to his invasion of Ukraine.
    “We should not be seeking permission from allies to go after Putin and his cronies. We should move ahead forcefully against Putin, a war criminal, and demand our allies join us,” Graham said.
    “When it comes to sanctions against Putin: If we are not doing everything possible, we are not doing enough. Time is not on our side.”
    Biden said today that his administration is not eliminating the possibility of issuing direct sanctions against Putin, but he ignored questions about why he was not taking that step now.
    Graham also reiterated that he would work with his congressional colleagues in both parties to quickly pass a bill providing emergency supplemental aid to Ukraine in response to the invasion.
    “How we deal with Putin determines what happens in other regions like Asia and the Middle East,” Graham said. “We need to get this done in the Senate next week.”

    4.18pm EST

    16:18

    Obama condemns Russia’s ‘brutal onslaught’ against Ukraine

    Barack Obama has released a new statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Vladimir Putin’s military actions represent a threat to democracies around the world.
    “Last night, Russia launched a brazen attack on the people of Ukraine, in violation of international law and basic principles of human decency,” the former president said.
    “For exercising rights that should be available to all people and nations, Ukrainians now face a brutal onslaught that is killing innocents and displacing untold numbers of men, women and children.”

    Barack Obama
    (@BarackObama)
    Last night, Russia launched a brazen attack on the people of Ukraine, in violation of international law and basic principles of human decency. Here’s my statement on what it means, and what should happen next. pic.twitter.com/Wa0C8XGwvK

    February 24, 2022

    Obama warned that the invasion of Ukraine “threatens the foundation of the international order and security,” underscoring how the “forces of division and authoritarianism” are mounting an assault on global democratic values.
    “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows where these dangerous trends can lead — and why they cannot be left unchallenged,” Obama said. “People of conscience around the world need to loudly and clearly condemn Russia’s actions and offer support for the Ukrainian people.”
    Obama called on “every American, regardless of party” to support Joe Biden’s latest sanctions against Russia, which target some of the country’s largest banks and more elite Russian families.
    “There may be some economic consequences to such sanctions, given Russia’s significant role in world energy markets,” Obama acknowledged. “But that’s a price we should be willing to pay to take a stand on the side of freedom.”

    3.56pm EST

    15:56

    House speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded Joe Biden’s latest round of sanctions against Russia in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, expressing support for the Ukrainian people.
    “The leadership of President Biden and our allies to demonstrate overwhelming resolve is crucial in this moment of heartbreak and suffering for the Ukrainian people,” Pelosi said in a statement.
    “We are united with unprecedented strength and coordination in our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
    Pelosi noted that House members received a briefing from the Biden administration on the Ukraine crisis today and will receive a classified, in-person briefing next week.
    “President Biden has made clear throughout Russia’s escalation that we will continue to impose costs on Russia that will leave it weakened in every way,” Pelosi said. “The United States Congress joins President Biden and all Americans in praying for the Ukrainian people.”

    3.38pm EST

    15:38

    Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chairman, said the US sanctions against Russia need to go even further than those announced by Joe Biden today.
    “I think the package of sanctions that the president announced is the most severe we’ve ever levied against Russia and many times more devastating than anything that was implemented after their last invasion in 2014,” Schiff told MSNBC.
    “Nevertheless, I favor going further. I favor expelling them from Swift. I favor imposing sanctions directly on Vladimir Putin. This is an unprecedent situation, and even though we don’t generally sanction heads of state, on occasion we do, and I think it’s merited here.”
    Biden said during his event this afternoon that direct sanctions on Putin were one possibility the US may explore, but he ignored a question about why he is not authorizing those sanctions now.

    Updated
    at 3.39pm EST

    3.17pm EST

    15:17

    After his speech on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden was asked by a reporter why the US and its allies are not moving to block Russia out of Swift (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication).
    “The sanctions that we have proposed on all of their banks are of equal consequence, maybe more consequence, than Swift,” Biden said.
    He added, “It is always an option, but right now that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take.”
    The West’s refusal to crack down on Russia’s use of Swift has outraged the Ukrainian government. The Guardian’s Daniel Boffey and Jessica Elgot report:

    Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, voiced his anger as EU heads of state and government appeared likely to decide against blocking Russia from an international payments system through which it receives foreign currency.
    With casualties mounting, Kuleba warned that European and US politicians would have ‘blood on their hands’ if they failed to impose the heaviest toll on Moscow by cutting Russia from the so-called Swift payments system.
    ‘I will not be diplomatic on this,’ he tweeted. ‘Everyone who now doubts whether Russia should be banned from Swift has to understand that the blood of innocent Ukrainian men, women and children will be on their hands too. BAN RUSSIA FROM SWIFT.’

    2.57pm EST

    14:57

    The US Treasury noted that the latest sanctions against Russia will impact nearly 80% of all banking assets in the country, fundamentally threatening the Russian economy and weakening the Kremlin’s geopolitical posture.
    “Treasury is taking serious and unprecedented action to deliver swift and severe consequences to the Kremlin and significantly impair their ability to use the Russian economy and financial system to further their malign activity,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said.
    “Our actions, taken in coordination with partners and allies, will degrade Russia’s ability to project power and threaten the peace and stability of Europe.”
    Yellen said the US is also “prepared to impose further costs on Russia in response to its egregious actions” if Vladimir Putin pursues further aggression against Ukraine.
    “We are united in our efforts to hold Russia accountable for its further invasion of Ukraine while mitigating impacts to Americans and our partners,” Yellen said.

    2.43pm EST

    14:43

    The White House has released a fact sheet on the latest round of sanctions against Russia in response to Vladimir Putin launching a fuller-scale invasion of Ukraine.
    The sanctions call for Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, to be severed from the US financial system, restricting the bank’s access to transactions made in the American dollar.
    Meanwhile, full sanctions will be imposed on four other financial institutions, including Russia’s second-largest bank of VTB. That measure will freeze any of the banks’ assets touching the US financial system and prohibit Americans from dealing with them.

    The White House
    (@WhiteHouse)
    In response to President Putin’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, the United States, along with Allies and partners, is imposing severe and immediate economic costs on Russia.Read more: https://t.co/L83Q2uFwKx pic.twitter.com/kpxfNmQvxM

    February 24, 2022

    2.29pm EST

    14:29

    Joe Biden was asked whether Vladimir Putin’s latest military actions in Ukraine and the resulting sanctions on Russia represent a complete rupture in US-Russian relations.
    “There is a complete rupture right now in US-Russian relations if they continue on this path that they’re on,” Biden said.

    CSPAN
    (@cspan)
    President Biden: “There is a complete rupture right now in U.S.-Russian relations…It’s going to be a cold day for Russia.” pic.twitter.com/GbVF9jW81f

    February 24, 2022

    Addressing the possibility of another Cold War starting, Biden said the vast majority of the world does not support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
    “So it’s going to be a cold day for Russia,” Biden said. “You don’t see a whole lot of people coming to his defense.”
    After taking several questions from reporters, Biden concluded the event and walked away from his podium in the East Room.

    2.23pm EST

    14:23

    Another reporter pressed Joe Biden on the fact that Vladimir Putin has so far been undeterred by the threat of sanctions, asking what might be effective at stopping the Russian leader.
    “No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening. This could take time, and we have to show resolve so he knows what’s coming, and so the people of Russia know what he’s brought on them. That’s what this is all about,” Biden said.
    “He’s going to test the resolve of the West to see if we stay together, and we will. We will, and it will impose significant costs on him.”

    2.15pm EST

    14:15

    Joe Biden warned that Vladimir Putin is likely looking far beyond Ukraine as Russia launches a full-scale invasion of its neighboring country.
    “He has much larger ambitions than Ukraine. He wants to, in fact, re-establish the former Soviet Union. That’s what this is about,” Biden said.
    “And I think that his ambitions are completely contrary to the place where the rest of the world has arrived.”

    2.13pm EST

    14:13

    Joe Biden took several questions from reporters after finishing his prepared remarks on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which included an announcement of additional sanctions on Russia.
    Asked whether he intends to speak to Vladimir Putin in the near future, Biden said, “I have no plans to talk with Putin.”

    CSPAN
    (@cspan)
    President Biden: “I have no plans to talk with Putin.” pic.twitter.com/ZicZMrsRyS

    February 24, 2022

    Another reporter asked Biden whether the US is urging China, which has traditionally aligned itself with Russia, to help the West isolate Putin.
    “I’m not prepared to comment on that at the moment,” Biden said.

    2.08pm EST

    14:08

    Joe Biden pledged that Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine would cost Russia “dearly, economically and strategically,” as the US and its allies announce new sanctions against the country.
    “Putin will be a pariah on the international stage,” Biden said, warning that any countries affiliating themselves with Russia would be “stained by association”.
    “When the history of this era is written, Putin’s choice to make a totally unjustifiable war on Ukraine will have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger,” Biden said.

    2.04pm EST

    14:04

    Joe Biden emphasized the importance of the US and its allies standing up to Russian aggression, arguing that Vladimir Putin’s military maneuvers in Ukraine threaten freedom everywhere.
    “This aggression cannot go unanswered. If it did, the consequences for America would be much worse,” Biden said. “America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.”

    CSPAN
    (@cspan)
    President Biden: “This aggression cannot go unanswered. If it did, the consequences for America would be much worse. America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.” pic.twitter.com/cXTN5Xltah

    February 24, 2022 More

  • in

    Biden interviews three Black women as potential supreme court picks – reports

    Biden interviews three Black women as potential supreme court picks – reportsThe White House is urging liberal groups to support nominees against critics’ attacks, CNN reports Joe Biden has interviewed at least three potential supreme court nominees and is expected to reveal his decision by the end of this month, according to multiple sources close to the president.Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger and J. Michelle Childs – all Black women – were among the contenders who spoke with the president, those familiar with the matter told CNN and the Washington Post.Jackson, who has widely been considered the frontrunner, currently sits on the US court of appeals for the DC circuit after replacing the attorney general, Merrick Garland, in June 2021.Kruger is an associate justice of the California supreme court and has served as the acting principal deputy solicitor general under the Barack Obama administration.Childs currently sits on the US district court for the district of South Carolina and was previously nominated by Biden for a seat on the DC circuit court of appeals.The impending retirement of supreme court associate justice Stephen Breyer has given Biden has the opportunity to fulfill one of his campaign promises: to appoint a Black woman to the supreme court.On Sunday evening Cedric L Richmond, director of the White House office of public engagement, told members of the organization Win With Black Women that “we’re close”.“We know what some of the attacks are going to be: not qualified, affirmative action pick… Well, it wasn’t ‘affirmative action pick’ when we just picked friends, white friends of the president, for all these decades. You know, it was just patronage or whatever they wanted to call it,” Richmond said, according to a source who has direct knowledge of the private conference call.Biden, who is dealing with a growing crisis between Ukraine and Russia, has set the end of February as his deadline to pick a nominee. According to CNN, White House officials have reached out to liberal groups to inform them that Biden will not be shifting from his timeline and urged them to support “top tier” candidates against critics’ attacks.In a statement on Tuesday, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, said Biden has not yet made a decision.“The President has not yet chosen a nominee. He continues to evaluate eminently qualified individuals in the mold of Justice [Stephen] Breyer who have the strongest records, intellect, character, and dedication to the rule of law that anyone could ask for – and all of whom would be deserving of bipartisan support. He looks forward to announcing a nominee this month.”TopicsUS supreme courtBiden administrationLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Why the White House stopped telling the truth about inflation and corporate power | Robert Reich

    Why the White House stopped telling the truth about inflation and corporate powerRobert ReichStarbucks, McDonald’s, Chipotle, Amazon – all protect profits by making customers pay more. We need the political courage to say they can and should cover rising costs themselves The Biden White House has decided to stop tying inflation to corporate power. That’s a big mistake. I’ll get to the reason for the shift in a moment. First, I want to be clear about the relationship between inflation and corporate power.Share the Profits! Why US business must return to rewarding workers properly | Robert ReichRead moreWhile most of the price increases now affecting the US and global economies have been the result of global supply chain problems, this doesn’t explain why big and hugely profitable corporations are passing these cost increases on to their customers in the form of higher prices.They don’t need to do so. With corporate profits at near record levels, they could easily absorb the cost increases. They’re raising prices because they can – and they can because they don’t face meaningful competition.As the White House National Economic Council put it in a December report: “Businesses that face meaningful competition can’t do that, because they would lose business to a competitor that did not hike its margins.”Starbucks is raising its prices to consumers, blaming the rising costs of supplies. But Starbucks is so profitable it could easily absorb these costs – it just reported a 31% increase in yearly profits. Why didn’t it just swallow the cost increases?Ditto for McDonald’s and Chipotle, whose revenues have soared but who are nonetheless raising prices. And for Procter & Gamble, which continues to rake in record profits but is raising prices. Also for Amazon, Kroger, Costco and Target.All are able to pass cost increases on to consumers in the form of higher prices because they face so little competition. As Chipotle’s chief financial officer said, “Our ultimate goal … is to fully protect our margins.”Worse yet, inflation has given some big corporations cover to increase their prices well above their rising costs.In a recent survey, almost 60% of large retailers say inflation has given them the ability to raise prices beyond what’s required to offset higher costs.Meat prices are soaring because the four giant meat processing corporations that dominate the industry are “using their market power to extract bigger and bigger profit margins for themselves”, according to a recent report from the White House National Economic Council (emphasis added).Not incidentally, that report was dated 10 December. Now, the White House is pulling its punches. Why has the White House stopped explaining this to the public?The Washington Post reports that when the prepared congressional testimony of a senior administration official (Janet Yellen?) was recently circulated inside the White House, it included a passage tying inflation to corporate consolidation and monopoly power. But that language was deleted from the remarks before they were delivered.Apparently, members of the White House Council of Economic Advisers raised objections. I don’t know what their objections were, but some economists argue that since corporations with market power wouldn’t need to wait until the current inflation to raise prices, corporate power can’t be contributing to inflation.This argument ignores the ease by which powerful corporations can pass on their own cost increases to customers in higher prices or use inflation to disguise even higher price increases.It seems likely that the Council of Economic Advisers is being influenced by two Democratic economists from a previous administration. According to the Post, the former Democratic treasury secretary Larry Summers and Jason Furman, a top economist in the Obama administration, have been critical of attempts to link corporate market power to inflation.“Business-bashing is terrible economics and not very good politics in my view,” Summers said in an interview.Wrong. Showing the connections between corporate power and inflation is not “business-bashing”. It’s holding powerful corporations accountable.Whether through antitrust enforcement (or the threat of it), a windfall profits tax or price controls, or all three, it’s important for the administration and Congress to do what they can to prevent hugely profitable monopolistic corporations from raising their prices.Otherwise, responsibility for controlling inflation falls entirely to the Federal Reserve, which has only one weapon at its disposal – higher interest rates. Higher interest rates will slow the economy and likely cause millions of lower-wage workers to lose their jobs and forfeit long-overdue wage increases.
    Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
    TopicsBiden administrationOpinionUS domestic policyUS economyUS politicsEconomicsInflationAmazoncommentReuse this content More

  • in

    The Guardian view on a Kabul heist: snatching money from the starving | Editorial

    The Guardian view on a Kabul heist: snatching money from the starvingEditorialAfghans are not to blame for 9/11, though they have paid for it many times over. Cruelly, they are being punished again The average Afghan was not even alive when planes were flown into the twin towers on 11 September 2001. This is only one of the reasons why handing money from the Afghan central bank to the families of 9/11 victims would be unconscionable. Parents are already selling their organs to feed their children, 98% of the population is short of food, and unless cash starts flowing again things are about to get much, much worse.The executive order signed by the Biden administration on Friday would allow Afghanistan’s $7bn US-held assets, frozen when the Taliban swept to power, to be halved. One half would be held pending the outcome of lawsuits brought against the Taliban by the families of 9/11 victims who have persuaded a judge to attach their case to the Afghan assets. The other half, if courts agree, would be used for humanitarian aid. The administration’s argument is that this may help get assistance to Afghanistan more swiftly, without having to await the outcome of the cases. The government can step into lawsuits to say what it believes is in the national interest, but decided that it would not object to any decision to award half the money to the families.Though central bank funds are supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunities, it appears that the administration can act if a “recognised representative of the Afghan government” approves – raising obvious questions about who might now qualify. Whatever the legal technicalities, the moral case is clear. Afghans are not to blame for 9/11, though they have paid for it many times over. Some of the bereaved have already condemned the idea of taking Afghan money as a betrayal. Thousands of American families were devastated that day, and $7bn compensation was disbursed to bereaved relatives and the injured (many of whom faced huge medical bills); another $10bn is still being paid out. This is in stark contrast with Afghanistan, where, on the very rare occasions that the US made compensation or “condolence” payments for civilian deaths, relatives usually received a small four-figure sum. The administration cannot claim the moral high ground because it proposes using some of the money for aid. Though most of it originally came from international donors, including the US, it is no longer theirs to spend, and some represents the personal savings of Afghans.In any case, humanitarian relief is no substitute for a functioning, if floundering, economy. It is not merely that it raises the prospect of starving Afghans paying the salaries of western aid workers, and of a flood of food aid causing more long-term damage by crippling agriculture. The UN had already warned that the financial system could collapse within months; seizing the central bank’s assets could be the last straw. It’s true that those funds alone can’t solve Afghanistan’s underlying problems – but they are desperately needed to stave off some of the worst consequences.Afghan experts and others have worked on imaginative solutions to restore liquidity without simply ceding control of assets to the Taliban. The problem is not a lack of means, but of will: relief is an easier political sell in the US, which is also believed to have blocked other countries from unfreezing funds. No one wants to aid the Taliban, whose primary victims are Afghans. But no one should claim the administration’s plan is in the best interests of the Afghan people.TopicsAfghanistanOpinionTalibanJoe BidenDemocratsUS politicsSeptember 11 2001United NationseditorialsReuse this content More

  • in

    ‘Unions benefit all of us’: new Biden plan encourages federal workers to unionize

    ‘Unions benefit all of us’: new Biden plan encourages federal workers to unionizeTaskforce sets recommendations ‘to promote my policy of support for worker power, worker organizing and collective bargaining’ The Biden administration set out 70 recommendations to encourage union membership in the US on Monday, including making it easier for many federal employees to join unions and eliminating barriers for union organizers to talk with workers on federal property.The report, compiled by the White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment, reiterates Biden’s robust backing of unions. “At its core,” the report says, “it is our administration’s belief that unions benefit all of us.”Traffic, tickets, gas: rideshare and delivery app workers fight to unionizeRead moreIt adds: “Researchers have found that today’s union households earn up to 20% more than non-union households, with an even greater union advantage for workers with less formal education and workers of color.”The report comes amid a surge in interest in unions in the US and follows a wave of high-profile industrial actions last year.The taskforce, which includes 13 members of Biden’s cabinet and is chaired by Vice-President Kamala Harris, calls for stepping up enforcement to ensure that money going to federal contractors – whether manufacturers, food-processing companies or other contractors – is not spent on anti-union campaigns.The taskforce calls for requiring disclosure of any instances when federal contractors use anti-union consultants or lawyers to persuade employees working on a federal contract not to unionize.While corporations typically prohibit union organizers from setting foot on company property – as Amazon has done recently in Alabama – the taskforce recommends removing many barriers that block union organizers from being able to talk with employees on federal property about the benefits of unionizing. This applies not just to federal employees, but also to employees of private contractors on federal property, such as a grocery store on a military base or in a national park.Biden said the taskforce’s charge was to identify executive branch policies, practices and programs that could be used “to promote my administration’s policy of support for worker power, worker organizing, and collective bargaining”.The taskforce said the range of policies and programs “that can be leveraged is significant”.Its recommendations include making the federal government a model employer in terms of shaping jobs, ensuring that federal employees know their labor rights, and improving labor-management communications. The federal government is the nation’s largest employer, with more than 2.1 million non-postal employees. Of those, 1.2 million are represented by unions, but only 33% of those workers pay union dues – that small percentage limits the power of federal employee unions.Noting that screeners for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are largely excluded from having the collective bargaining rights available to other non-military federal employees, the taskforce instructed the Department of Homeland Security to issue expanded bargaining rights for TSA’s screening workforce.The report is likely to strengthen the notion that Biden is the most pro-union president since Franklin Roosevelt – and perhaps the most pro-union president in US history. That might help Biden when he seeks to persuade and mobilize union members to vote for Democrats this November. At the same time, the report’s pro-union tone and substance might result in more opposition from business.In its first sentence, the report says: “The Biden-Harris administration believes that increasing worker organizing and empowerment is critical to growing the middle class, building an economy that puts workers first, and strengthening our democracy.” The report catalogues several executive orders and other pro-union steps by the president and his administration.It reads: “Unions have fought for and helped win many aspects of our work lives many of us take for granted today, like the 40-hour work week and the weekend, as well as landmark programs like Medicare.”The report adds that research has shown that increased economic inequality, growing pay gaps for women and workers of color, and the declining voice of working-class Americans in the nation’s politics “are all caused, in part, by the declining percentage of workers represented by unions”.The taskforce calls on the Department of Labor – whose secretary, Martin Walsh, is the taskforce’s vice-chair – to become a resource center that provides materials on the advantages of union representation and collective bargaining.TopicsUS unionsBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More