Connect with us


Biden Bans Russian Oil, Warns of Higher Prices at US Pumps



President Joe Biden announces a ban on Russian oil imports, toughening the toll on Russia's economy in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine, Tuesday, March 8, 2022, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden announced Tuesday the U.S. will ban all Russian oil imports, toughening the toll on Russia’s economy in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine, but he acknowledged it will bring costs to Americans, particularly at the gas pump.

The action follows pleas by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to U.S. and Western officials to cut off the imports, which had been a glaring omission in the massive sanctions put in place on Russia over the invasion. Energy exports have kept a steady stream of cash flowing to Russia despite otherwise severe restrictions on its financial sector.

“We will not be part of subsidizing Putin’s war,” Biden declared, calling the new action a “powerful blow” against Russia’s ability to fund the ongoing offensive.

He warned that Americans will see rising prices, saying, “Defending freedom is going to cost.”

Biden said the U.S. was acting in close consultation with European allies, who are more dependent on Russian energy supplies and who he acknowledged may not be able to join in immediately. The announcement marked the latest Biden attempt at cutting off Russia from much of the global economy and ensuring that the Ukraine invasion is a strategic loss President Vladimir Putin, even if he manages to seize territory.

“Ukraine will never be a victory for Putin,” Biden said.

Zelenskyy in a tweet praised Biden’s action: “Thankful for US and @POTUS personal leadership in striking in the heart of Putin’s war machine and banning oil, gas and coal from US market. Encourage other countries and leaders to follow.”

The European Union this week will commit to phasing out its reliance on Russia for energy needs as soon as possible, but filling the void without crippling EU economies will likely take some time. The U.K., which is no longer part of the EU, announced Tuesday that oil and oil products from Russia will be phased out by the end of the year.

Unlike the U.S., which is a major oil and gas producer, Europe relies on imports for 90% of its gas and 97% of its oil products. Russia supplies 40% of Europe’s gas and a quarter of its oil. The U.S. does not import Russian natural gas.

The issue of oil sanctions has created a conflict for the president between political interests at home and efforts to impose costs on Russia. Though Russian oil makes up only a small part of U.S. imports, Biden has said he was reluctant to ban it, cutting into supplies here and pushing gasoline prices higher.

Inflation is at a 40-year peak, fueled in large part by gas prices, and that could hurt Biden heading into the November midterm elections.

“Putin’s war is already hurting American families at the gas pump,” Biden said, adding, “I’m going to do everything I can to minimize Putin’s price hike here at home.”

Gas prices have been rising for weeks due to the conflict and in anticipation of potential sanctions on the Russian energy sector. The average price for a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. hit a record $4.17 Tuesday, rising by 10 cents in one day, and up 55 cents since last week, according to auto club AAA.

Biden said it was understandable that prices were rising, but cautioned the U.S. energy industry against “excessive price increases” and exploiting consumers.

Even before the U.S. ban many Western energy companies including ExxonMobil and BP moved to cut ties with the Russia and limit imports. Shell, which purchased a shipment of Russian oil this weekend, apologized for the move on Tuesday amid international criticism and pledged to halt further purchases of Russian energy supplies. Preliminary data from the U.S. Energy Department shows imports of Russian crude dropped to zero in the last week in February.

In 2021, the U.S. imported roughly 245 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia — a one-year increase of 24%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“It’s an important step to show Russia that energy is on the table,” said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who is now a senior fellow at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress.

Bergmann said it wasn’t surprising that the U.S. was able to take this step before European nations, which are more dependent on Russian energy.

“All of this is being done in coordination, even if the steps are not symmetrical,” he said. “We are talking to them constantly.”

The White House said the ban on new purchases was effective immediately but the administration was allowing a 45-day “wind down” for continued delivery under existing contracts.

The news of Biden’s decision Tuesday was first reported by Bloomberg.

The White House announcement comes amid bipartisan pressure on Capitol Hill to ban Russian energy and impose other economic costs.

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a big boost when she declared, “Ban it.”

On Monday, Democrats on the powerful Ways & Means Committee posted, then removed, an announcement on a bipartisan bill to ban Russian oil imports and slap further trade sanctions on the country, according to an aide, because of pushback from the White House to acting before Biden had made his decision.

“President Biden is finally doing what members of Congress have been pushing for all along,” Sen John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and a member of party leadership, said Tuesday. “His decision to ban Russian oil is a much-needed step to kill Putin’s cash cow.”

Said Jason Furman, a Harvard professor and former economic adviser to President Barack Obama: “The United States economy can fully handle any of the challenges associated with higher oil prices. But it will bring some challenges. We’re going to have higher prices at the pump, and there’s no way around that.”

Pelosi said the House would go forward with a vote Tuesday on legislation to ban the Russian oil imports, impose trade costs on Russia and expand sanctions authority against Russians for attacks on civilians in Ukraine.

Before the invasion, Russian oil and gas made up more than a third of government revenues. Global energy prices have surged after the invasion and have continued to rise despite coordinated releases of strategic reserves, making Russian exports even more lucrative.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Secret Service Recovers $286M in Stolen Pandemic Loans



FILE - Attorney General Merrick Garland, looks at federal prosecutor Kevin Chambers, right, after appointing him to be the Justice Department's chief pandemic fraud prosecutor, during a meeting of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Fraud Enforcement Task Force at the Justice Department, March 10, 2022 in Washington. The U.S. Secret Service recovered $286 million in fraudulently obtained pandemic funds to the Small Business Administration, Friday, Aug. 26. (Kevin Lamarque/Pool Photo via AP, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Secret Service said Friday that it has recovered $286 million in fraudulently obtained pandemic loans and is returning the money to the Small Business Administration.

The Secret Service said an investigation initiated by its Orlando office found that alleged conspirators submitted Economic Injury Disaster Loan applications by using fake or stolen employment and personal information and used an online bank, Green Dot, to conceal and move their criminal proceeds.

The agency worked with Green Dot to identify roughly 15,000 accounts and seize $286 million connected to the accounts.

“This forfeiture effort and those to come are a direct and necessary response to the unprecedented size and scope of pandemic relief fraud,” said Kevin Chambers, director for COVID-19 fraud enforcement at the Justice Department.

Billions have been fraudulently claimed through various pandemic relief programs — including Paycheck Protection Program loans, unemployment insurance and others that were rolled out in the midst of the worldwide pandemic that shutdown global economies for months.

In March, the Government Accountability Office reported that while agencies were able to distribute COVID-19 relief funds quickly, “the tradeoff was that they did not have systems in place to prevent and identify payment errors and fraud” due in part to “financial management weaknesses.”

As a result, the GAO has recommended several measures for agencies to prevent pandemic program fraud in the future, including better reporting on their fraud risk management efforts.

Since 2020, the Secret Service initiated more than 3,850 pandemic related fraud investigations, seized over $1.4 billion in fraudulently obtained funds and helped to return $2.3 billion to state unemployment insurance programs.

The latest seizure included a collaboration of efforts between Secret Service, the SBA’s Inspector General, DOJ and other offices.

Hannibal “Mike” Ware, the Small Business Administration’s inspector general, said the joint investigations will continue “to ensure that taxpayer dollars obtained through fraudulent means will be returned to taxpayers and fraudsters involved face justice.”

Continue Reading


House Passes Bill Banning Certain Semi-Automatic Guns



Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference Friday, July 29, 2022, at the Capitol in Washington. The House has passed legislation to revive a ban on semi-automatic guns. It's a response to the crush of mass shootings ripping through communities nationwide. Pelosi pushed the bill forward, but the legislation is likely to go nowhere in the Senate. Republicans dismiss the measure as an election-year strategy by Democrats.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed legislation Friday to revive a ban on certain semi-automatic guns, the first vote of its kind in years and a direct response to the firearms often used in the crush of mass shootings ripping through communities nationwide.

Once banned in the U.S., the high-powered firearms are now widely blamed as the weapon of choice among young men responsible for many of the most devastating mass shootings. But Congress allowed the restrictions first put in place in 1994 on the manufacture and sales of the weapons to expire a decade later, unable to muster the political support to counter the powerful gun lobby and reinstate the weapons ban.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed the vote toward passage in the Democratic-run House, saying the earlier ban “saved lives.”

President Joe Biden hailed the House vote, saying, “The majority of the American people agree with this common sense action.” He urged the Senate to “move quickly to get this bill to my desk.”

However, it is likely to stall in the 50-50 Senate. The House legislation is shunned by Republicans, who dismissed it as an election-year strategy by Democrats. Almost all Republicans voted against the House bill, which passed 217-213.

The bill comes at a time of intensifying concerns about gun violence and shootings — the supermarket shooting in Buffalo, N.Y.; massacre of school children in Uvalde, Texas; and the July Fourth shootings of revelers in Highland Park, Ill.

Voters seem to be taking such election-year votes seriously as Congress splits along party lines and lawmakers are forced to go on the record with their views. A recent vote to protect same-sex marriages from potential Supreme Court legal challenges won a surprising amount of bipartisan support.

Biden was instrumental in helping secure the first semi-automatic weapons ban as a senator in 1994. The Biden administration said that for 10 years, while the ban was in place, mass shootings declined. “When the ban expired in 2004, mass shootings tripled,” the statement said.

Republicans stood firmly against limits on ownership of the high-powered firearms during an at times emotional debate ahead of voting.

“It’s a gun grab, pure and simple,” said Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa.

Said Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., “An armed America is a safe and free America.”

Democrats argued that the ban on the weapons makes sense, portraying Republicans as extreme and out of step with Americans.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the weapons ban is not about taking away Americans’ Second Amendment rights but ensuring that children also have the right “to not get shot in school.”

Pelosi displayed a poster of a gun company’s advertisement for children’s weapons, smaller versions that resemble the popular AR-15 rifles and are marketed with cartoon-like characters. “Disgusting,” she said.

In one exchange, two Ohio lawmakers squared off. “Your freedom stops where mine begins, and that of my constituents begins,” Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur told Republican Rep. Jim Jordan. “Schools, shopping malls, grocery stores, Independence Day parades shouldn’t be scenes of mass carnage and bloodshed.”

Jordan replied by inviting her to his congressional district to debate him on the Second Amendment, saying he believed most of his constituents “probably agree with me and agree with the United States Constitution.”

The bill would make it unlawful to import, sell or manufacture a long list of semi-automatic weapons. Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said it includes an exemption that allows for the possession of existing semi-automatic guns.

Reps. Chris Jacobs of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania were the only Republicans to vote for the measure. The Democratic lawmakers voting no were Reps. Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

For nearly two decades, since the previous ban expired Democrats had been reluctant to revisit the issue and confront the gun lobby. But voter opinions appear to be shifting and Democrats dared to act before the fall election. The outcome will provide information for voters of where the candidates stand on the issue.

Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement following the vote that “barely a month after” the Supreme Court expanded gun rights “gun control advocates in Congress are spearheading an assault upon the freedoms and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.”

He said the bill potentially bans millions of firearms “in blatant opposition to the Supreme Court’s rulings” that have established gun ownership as an individual right and expanded on it.

Among the semi-automatic weapons banned would be some 200-plus types of semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s, and pistols. The restrictions would not apply to many other models.

Democrats had tried to link the weapons ban to a broader package of public safety measures that would have increased federal funding for law enforcement. It’s something centrist Democrats in tough re-election campaigns wanted to shield them from political attacks by their Republican opponents they are soft on crime.

Pelosi said the House will revisit the public safety bills in August when lawmakers are expected to return briefly to Washington to handle other remaining legislation, including Biden’s priority inflation-fighting package of health care and climate change strategies making its way in the Senate.

Congress passed a modest gun violence prevention package just last month in the aftermath of the tragic shooting of 19 school children and two teachers in Uvalde. That bipartisan bill was the first of its kind after years of failed efforts to confront the gun lobby, including after a similar 2012 mass tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

That law provides for expanded background checks on young adults buying firearms, allowing authorities to access certain juvenile records. It also closes the so-called “boyfriend loophole” by denying gun purchases for those convicted of domestic abuse outside of marriages.

The new law also frees up federal funding to the states, including for “red flag” laws that enable authorities to remove guns from those who would harm themselves or others.

But even that modest effort at halting gun violence came at time of grave uncertainty in the U.S. over restrictions on firearms as the more conservative Supreme Court is tackling gun rights and other issues.

Biden signed the measure two days after the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a New York law that restricted people’s ability to carry concealed weapons.

This story was first published on July 29, 2022. It was updated on August 1, 2022 to correct the name of the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action to Jason Ouimet, not Jason Quimet.

Continue Reading


Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to Employees at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence



MR BARRETT: All right, good afternoon. Thank you for waiting. My name is Tim Barrett, lead the communications office. We’re delighted to welcome the Secretary of State here, and it’s my pleasure to introduce the Honorable Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence. (Applause.)

DIRECTOR HAINES: Clap on demand. I know. So truly it is my great, great pleasure and distinct honor to introduce to you our Secretary of State Tony Blinken along with the wonderful Director of INR Brett Holmgren, who is with us today, and his Chief of Staff Suzy George (inaudible), and so we have quite the group that has come to visit us.

I’ve known Tony for close to 20 years, and I can tell you he is one of the most extraordinary human beings I have ever had the great fortune to call a boss, a friend, or even a colleague. Tony has perhaps one of the most generous hearts you could hope for. He is empathetic, thoughtful, consistently guided by his values. He is brilliant, but that is not what makes him rare. I know a great many people who are extremely intelligent and capable, but to combine that with an ego that is focused on respect for others, a drive to consistently look for ways to make the world a better place, and a heart that prioritizes human dignity is truly unusual and so critical to have in leadership. And I am so grateful, frankly, that he is our voice to the world.

When I first met Tony he was the staff director for then-Chairman Biden of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and I was a lawyer for the Bush administration, and I was detailed over to serve as a lawyer for the majority staff on the committee. And he immediately treated me with respect, always made me feel part of the team, and taught me more than I can recount here, though I will tell you I still rely on many of those lessons today.

Not, though, when it comes to his sense of humor. I remember when we were working on the Law of the Sea Treaty, sometimes known by its acronym LOS, Tony threatened to get us t-shirts that said Get LOST in full caps, “Get lost.” He really does have a seriously questionable sense of humor.

He is, however, a voracious consumer of our work in the Intelligence Community. Tony often refers to analytic pieces that he has read in Principals Committee meetings and when he looks at our analysis he asks great questions, frequently making us better. But never have I seen him be anything other than respectful of our role to provide honest, high-quality, apolitical information, whether in our analysis, our briefings, or our counsel. And I can tell you that in my experience he does the same when he’s advising the President.

In short, I am so grateful that he is with us today and that all of you will have a chance to hear from him yourself. So thank you so much, Tony, (inaudible). (Applause.)

SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s great. Thank you, thank you. Thank you all very much, and wow, Avril, first, could you repeat that verbatim for my wife? (Laughter.) I’d very much appreciate that. And in all seriousness, all I can really say is right back at you. I think everything you so generously said about me I would apply to you by a 10x factor. We go back a long ways. In fact, we worked so closely together on the SFRC staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff, with then-Senator Biden. I am reminded that when I took that job where we worked together, I was staff director, and you all will appreciate this. When I took the job, someone said there are two words in your title of staff director; only one of them counts, and it’s not director. (Laughter.)

But thank you not just for the incredibly kind words but thank you for the outstanding leadership of this organization, which is simply absolutely vital to the well-being and security of the country that we share and the country that we love. We have had the great privilege of working together for all too long now. I think we must have started together in some kind of program for junior high school kids, but it’s been a while. And there is also no doubt in my mind that there is no one better suited to be leading this community, particularly given the extraordinary complex challenges we’re facing, than Director Haines.

And though it’s a relatively new office in the overall scheme of things, probably you are the only director, at least in the history of this institution, who can, if necessary, rebuild the electronics of an airplane, spar on a judo mat, talk theoretical physics, maybe sell a few books at the same time. So it’s actually powerful because I think one of the things that makes Avril so extraordinary is the incredible diversity of her experience and the different inputs in her life. So much of what we are doing, so much of what you’re doing, has more interconnections than at any time in our professional experience. Having someone with the breadth and depth of your experience at this particular moment in our history, I think we could not be in a better place.

And I think all of you who have been working with the Director know that when it comes to being kind, when it comes to being decent, when it comes to having an intellect that is only surpassed by your character, we couldn’t be better off. So to you, I am so grateful.

Morgan? Where is Morgan? Is he here? So my hat’s off to you as well. We go back a long ways, too. I can think of a few – just a few holidays ruined by some crisis where we were on a SVTC together at all hours in all parts of the world, and it’s wonderful to continue this collaboration, have all of you – and have you in particular as a colleague.

To everyone who is joining across the ODNI enterprise, the broader Intelligence Community, it’s very simple. I really wanted to come both to have a chance for an exchange this afternoon but just to say the two words that don’t get said often enough but that are really, really important, and that’s thank you. Thank you for the incredible dedication that you’re bringing every single day to making sure that this government is informed and that our country is a little bit safer and a little bit more secure. Thank you for the extraordinary professionalism you bring to that and thank you for being wonderful colleagues across the board.

As Avril said, throughout my time in government, and it’s – I’m now coming on to 30 years, which is hard to believe – but on the Hill, at the White House during a couple of stints, at the State Department during a couple of stints, I have, and I continue every single day, to rely on the IC. And everyone I’ve worked with, starting with the President of the United States, has relied on the IC every single day.

When the Obama-Biden administration came to an end, and I started working with then-former Vice President Biden helping to set up an institution with the University of Pennsylvania, we spent a fair bit of time together getting that off the ground. And the thing that he told me he missed the most about being vice president was starting the day with the PDB. He felt like there was something so unique, so special about that, and that he’d been a little bit disconnected from this lifeblood of information that you were providing to him as vice president every day. Well, I think one of the things he’s most pleased about being back as President is being able to tap into that again.

There are a lot of truisms when it comes to the work you’re in, but it doesn’t mean that they’re any less true for being truisms. You do make sure that we on the policy-making side of the equation have the information, have the insights, have the analysis that we need to try to make the best decisions possible. No guarantee, alas, that we’ll make the right decisions, but at least it won’t be for lack of information, it won’t be for lack of intelligence, it won’t be for lack of analysis.

And then the thing that is maybe as important as anything is the fact that you give us your unvarnished take on what we are learning, what we’re picking up, including when it isn’t what we would most hope we would hear; it’s what we need to know. And as long as that continues, then I think we’ll really and you really will be doing your jobs. Maybe that’s the most important thing of all.

I said we’re – state the obvious – dealing with a world of incredible complexity and a world that’s incredibly fast-moving in ways it never was before. In my own 30 years, I think the thing that’s changed most as I thought back on it is the information environment that we’re operating in. Think about it this way. And again, a lot of this is obvious, but it’s worth occasionally just stepping back and remembering this. When I started in government in 1993, the information set that we were dealing with as policy makers consisted primarily of three networks that everyone tuned into at 6:30 or 7 o’clock at night; a couple of national newspapers – the Times, The Washington Post, maybe The LA Times or The Wall Street Journal – that everyone got a physical copy of, a hardcopy of, when they woke up in the morning by opening the door to their apartment or their house, and that was pretty much it. That was – there was a common base of information. Then, of course, there was the work that the Intelligence Community was providing and our embassies were providing.

Now, of course, we’re living in a world where we’re getting some kind of information feed intravenously every millisecond. The pressure on policy makers to respond, to react, to just do something on the basis of every single input of information we get is intense, and the Director knows this from having been on both sides of the equation.

I think one of the most important things that we can try to do and that you’re making sure that we can do is to be also a little bit of a circuit breaker in this process, to be able to not only make sure that, yes, we are getting the information in real time and getting it before everyone else, but also helping to put it in perspective, helping to understand what it means, helping to make sure that to the extent we’re being proactive, that’s great and it’s as we should be; to the extent we’re being reactive, we’re doing it in a smart and deliberate way, not simply reacting for the sake of reacting because there’s intense pressure to do that.

It’s really hard to get that right. I can just tell you as a policy maker it’s very, very challenging. I know the demands on you to provide the information as quickly as possible – in a sense, sometimes, to get it first but not necessarily to get it right – is intense. And I would just say one of the things I think we have to do together is constantly remind ourselves that we need to try to make sure we get it right even as we get it first.

But when you’re putting everything together – whether it’s cyber security or food insecurity that we’re dealing with now; the climate crisis and all of its implications, particularly the security implications that flow from it; the ongoing challenges posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; terrorist threats to the United States, which have not gone away, to our people, to our interests overseas, so much else – your ability to deliver the most relevant, the most timely, the most objective data, analysis, information is simply indispensable to us doing our jobs and keeping people safe, in collaborating effectively with our allies and partners, and getting results.

This collaboration piece to me is also more important than ever. Another truism that I repeat endlessly – but I think it’s just important for people to step back and think about this – is that there is virtually not a challenge that we face as a country, as a nation, in terms of the impact of these issues on our people that we can effectively, truly effectively, advance alone. And whether it’s climate, whether it’s COVID, whether it’s the impact of emerging technologies, each of these defies unilateral solutions, and at least in my 30 years, there’s a greater premium than there’s ever been before on finding ways to collaborate, to coordinate, to cooperate with others, whether it’s other countries, whether it’s other groupings of countries, whether it’s other institutions. And we know how challenging that is. We know the frustrations that come along with that. But it is absolutely vital.

And there, thanks to this extraordinary community, we have in my 30 years experienced one of the greatest examples of how the Intelligence Community enabled collaboration and cooperation the likes of which we have not seen before when it comes to Ukraine and when it comes to Russia’s aggression. It is really one of the moments that I take the greatest satisfaction in and that I hope you take the greatest pride in, because we spent, as you all know very well, many months as we saw the mounting potential for Russian aggression against Ukraine trying to build the strongest possible collaboration and coalition of countries, both to make sure that support for Ukraine would be there if Russia followed through on the aggression, that pressure on Russia to end the aggression would be there through meaningful coordinated sanctions, and of course, that we would also make sure we were shoring up the defenses of our Alliance in NATO. And we were doing that even as we were pursuing as aggressively as we possibly could diplomacy to try to ward off the aggression at the end of last year.

The fact that we were able to bring to our allies and partners the extraordinary information that you were able to find – to do it in real time and to lay out for them and ultimately to lay out for the world, including at the United Nations – in the immediate lead-up to the aggression exactly what we saw the Russians as preparing to do and then do was extraordinary. Months of intelligence collection, reporting, analysis. You had confidence long before it happened that President Putin planned to launch this second military assault on Ukraine, and the fact that we were able and you were able to get to a place where we could downgrade and declassify an unprecedented amount of intelligence made all the difference in building that coalition so that we were ready to go on day one and we had the world with us.

So one fun – sort of fun – anecdote about this that – appreciate. You’ll all remember that in the immediate run-up to the aggression, we had a pretty good idea that the Russians were likely to press go at a certain time, and then there were arguably a few things that derailed the exact timing. But we had been telling people this is likely to happen in the next 48, 72 hours. Got put off a little bit by some of their own misadventures; I’ll leave it at that. On the day that it actually happened, I was on the phone that morning with a very senior European colleague who I will not identify. And I said to this colleague, “It’s going to happen next 24 hours.” And the colleague responded, “You’re still saying that?” This person called me at about 1:30 in the morning saying “I guess you were right.”

Well, I was right only because you were right. And you were right before anyone, and that empowered our diplomacy in ways that I had never seen in my experience. So thank you, thank you, thank you for that. It’s made all the difference in the world.

Now, the only problem with the success that you’ve achieved is that you’re only as good as your last success. So we have to keep doing it. And we are. The exchanges that you’re having, everything that we’re doing with our counterparts around the world to continue to share whatever we can share about what we’re seeing, what we’re understanding, what we’re analyzing, that is going to remain critical to the success that we’re having.

But here’s the bottom line: I suspect that people are going to be studying for a long time how we deployed the intelligence in this crisis way ahead of schedule, and they’re going to be studying that for a long time. Moving forward, if we continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards of accuracy, credibility, transparency, I think we can leverage intelligence in new ways to support our diplomacy. That’s what we’ve learned from this. There is a profound synergy between our intelligence and our diplomacy that we’ve now discovered in new ways and that I think we really need to continue to make part of our thinking, not just when it comes to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine but across the board, whenever and wherever it’s appropriate. It’s the biggest difference-maker I’ve seen.

So we’ll continue to look for ways to use intelligence to try to spotlight dangerous, destabilizing activities by adversaries and competitors, but also I want to make sure that we’re using it to leverage positive opportunities that are also out there and that we can’t lose sight of. And maybe we’ll have a chance to talk about that a little bit more this afternoon.

So let me just conclude with a couple of quick thoughts. So many of you have been working more than overtime these last few months, since before the war in Ukraine began. I know that that brings with it a lot of personal sacrifices when it comes to family, when it comes to friends, to make sure you get the job done. And yet this is still – more than still – it remains something that is immediately only the front burner, continues to demand tremendous time, tremendous energy, tremendous resources.

And we have to keep digging in. The crucial updates on the Russian aggression; tracking disinformation, including threats to our elections; working with the State Department, with our allies to identify, to assess, to document evidence of atrocities in Ukraine as they happen – all of this is also part of the commitment we have to hold accountable those responsible for the atrocities.

Last week we were able to put out to the public a lot of what we’ve learned about one of the many horrific aspects of this aggression, and that is the deportation of hundreds of thousands of people from Ukraine into Russia – including orphans, some made orphan by the Russian aggression. It’s so vital that the world continue to see and understand the human dimension of what’s going on. So much of this becomes an abstraction, but being able to share with the world what we’ve learned about some of what this means on a human level is, I think, hugely important.

Having said all of that and despite this unprecedented declassification strategy, you know this better than I: Much of what you do, most of what you do, remains outside of public view. But what I really wanted to share again today, and I know this not just from me but, even more important, from the President, is that he knows, I know because I see it every morning, how much you’re doing to advance our interests, to defend our security, to keep this country safe.

Speaking for the State Department, we’re particularly grateful for the partnership with ODNI and all of the IC agencies. Now, some of you know this, some of you don’t: Our Bureau of Intelligence and Research, INR, actually has its roots in the Office of Strategic Services, which was created during the Second World War to try to coordinate espionage behind enemy lines, which actually makes INR the oldest civilian intelligence element in the U.S. Government, even older than the CIA. (Laughter.) Just thought I’d mention that for the record.

And I’m especially pleased to be joined here today by the leader of INR, Assistant Secretary Brett Holmgren, who’s doing an outstanding job for us. And what I hear from Brett virtually every single day is the strength of the collaboration and the coordination we have across the IC. So much of the work that our team does at INR is possible because of the collection, the analysis, the coordination that happens here at ODNI and across the entire Intelligence Community.

And through the Joint Duty Rotation program we have literally dozens of IC employees with unique skills, technical expertise, perspectives that have been placed in bureaus across the State Department. Your diplomat colleagues basically help us do our jobs better, smarter, more effectively. So thank you for that.

The bottom line is this, two words that really stand out: professionalism, patriotism. That sums up the IC for me. That sums up my experience with it. And maybe I’ll just add one other P, and that’s partnership. We’re grateful for it every single day. Thank you.

Continue Reading