But the idea that the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not on, in the cards right now. “But it would depend upon what rest of the NATO countries were willing to do as well. That obligation does not extend … to Ukraine,” he said. We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to our NATO allies if they were to attack under Article 5, it's a sacred obligation. WON’T UNILATERALLY USE FORCE TO DEFEND UKRAINE: Asked by a reporter if sending American service members to Ukraine to defend it from a Russian invasion was on the table, President JOE BIDEN said it was not - but there was a bit of a caveat. A decisive differentiator in near-peer warfare, the F-35 is the most advanced node in 21st century warfare network-centric architecture. The F-35 delivers the unrivaled advantage for our pilots, nation, and partners. It’s another example of domestic dysfunction hurting America’s global efforts.
This spat illuminates something deeper: Even as Congress claws back some foreign policy powers from the president, deep polarization and crunched timelines make it near impossible for lawmakers to have serious debates on key matters. “But it’s done because it’s so difficult to move individual pieces of legislation through the Senate without unanimity,” he said. In our conversation, Malinowski did note that cramming many significant foreign policy and national security bills into the NDAA is neither a way to legislate nor fair to the Senate Armed Services Committee charged with passing a defense authorization every year.
2, said "while we don’t comment on the details of negotiations, I would note that Republicans are in the minority in both chambers and these provisions would have jeopardized swift passage of the NDAA.” “To say that but for one or two senators that these provisions would have made it in the final NDAA is completely false and overly convenient.”Ī Republican aide on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Inhofe is the No. Many things were left on the cutting room floor because the process didn’t work as it has in the past,” she told us, noting there were objections to the provisions Malinowski said had widespread approval. “This is the sad reality of an NDAA process that was so truncated that we couldn’t have robust conversations on a wide variety of provisions. SUZANNE WRASSE, the communications director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where Risch is the ranking member, pushed back on Malinowski’s comments. Even a number of people who voted for it share our concern,” he said. “There's just a tremendous amount of frustration that led some of us to vote against the bill. “They don’t explain, they don’t negotiate, they don’t compromise, they just veto.” “Why would anyone be against that?” Malinowski said on the phone, an incredulous tone in his voice. JAMES INHOFE (R-Okla.) and JAMES RISCH (R-Idaho) got provisions taken out of the NDAA that would’ve sanctioned 35 Russian kleptocrats identified by dissident ALEXEI NAVALNY’s organization codified a Libya arms embargo determined a genocide was being committed in Ethiopia and more. He told us that, while he can’t say for sure, Sens. NatSec Daily called Malinowski to get a better sense of what was up. RO KHANNA (D-Calif.) and GERALD CONNOLLY (D-Va.). “ small group of senators - for reasons that are not publicly explained or challenged - exercised a veto over these measures, even though most have repeatedly gone through regular order, have been passed by the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, and enjoy bipartisan backing in the Senate,” Malinowski said alongside Reps. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-N.J.) was one of 70 House members to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act on Tuesday night, explaining in a joint statement with two other lawmakers that he couldn’t green-light the bill as measures to “fight against autocracy and corruption around the world” were quietly stripped out in conference. Send tips | Subscribe here | Email Alex | Email Quint
With help from Connor O’Brien, Bryan Bender and Daniel Lippman Tom Malinowski speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington.