National

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Sunday rejected criticism from some Republicans about sending billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, telling reporters that supporting Ukraine is a critical U.S. interest and "not some handout."

Why it matters: The Senate is set to pass a $40 billion humanitarian and military aid package for Ukraine as soon as Wednesday. Fifty-seven House Republicans voted against the bill last week, highlighting growing opposition within the GOP also shared by pro-Trump candidates running for Congress.

What they're saying: "This is not some handout. This is to prevent this ruthless thug from beginning a march through Europe. The first place to do that is in Ukraine, and that's what we're determined to do," McConnell told reporters from Stockholm, a day after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv.

"Look, there have always been isolation voices in the Republican Party, like prior to World War II. That's perfectly all right. This is a debate worth having, it's an important subject," he continued.

"I think one of the lessons we learned during World War II is not standing up to aggression early is a huge misjudgment."

Driving the news: McConnell will travel to Helsinki on Monday with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to meet with Finland's President Sauli Niinistö, who officially confirmed Sunday that his country will apply for NATO membership.

McConnell said the U.S. should be "first in line" to ratify Finland and its neighbor Sweden's expected applications to NATO, calling the historic bids "one of the good things that's come out of this invasion." 

McConnell also urged President Biden to designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, which Ukrainian officials have called for in response to the atrocities committed by Russian forces.

McConnell defends Ukraine aid: "This is not some handout"

"This is to prevent this ruthless thug from beginning a march through Europe."

Mitch McConnell

Policymaking

Russia

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

World

Lawmakers could consider a slate of antitrust legislation in Congress ahead of the 2022 midterms. But conversations with Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) at an Axios event Thursday signaled disagreement even among Democrats on the impact of those bills. 

State of play: Lawmakers are working against the clock on bipartisan efforts to broadly reshape the Big Tech landscape. Insiders told Axios the outlook is bleak for the proposals if they're not put for votes ahead of Congress's August recess.

What he's saying: Swalwell told Axios' Margaret Talev Thursday he's concerned the reforms "would throw the baby out with the bathwater" and put U.S. national security at risk for the sake of reining in Big Tech. 

The legislation could embolden the Chinese government's efforts at currency manipulation, intellectual property theft and espionage, Swalwell said.

Swalwell said he's concerned the reforms would allow "sideloading" — letting users download apps from unofficial platforms or the open internet. 

"You would allow the Chinese to flood these stores with almost no regulation, with apps that could pipe U.S. consumer information — potentially national security information — back to China," Swalwell said. 

The bottom line: "That is primarily my concern — to not give China a backdoor to U.S. persons' data without any protection," he said.

Swalwell said he'd welcome addressing his concerns through an amendment to one of the bills. He said hearings at Congress's judiciary or intelligence panels with the FBI, NSA and CIA "about what risks there are with this legislation" would also assuage his concerns. 

Members of the New Democratic Coalition led by Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) have also expressed concerns about the antitrust bills.

The other side: Concerns that the tech legislation will hurt national security are "a red herring," Jayapal told Axios' Ashley Gold during a conversation that followed Swalwell's.

Jayapal said national security experts have told her the bigger risk is "for us to not have the competition that pushes the right kinds of innovation forward."

"Our national security is really affected when consumers have no choices, when small businesses can't thrive," Jayapal added.

Tech antitrust bills' big foe: the calendar

Democrats split on Big Tech measures in Congress

There's disagreement even among Democrats on the impact of legislation moving through Congress.

Illustration of the Capitol dome with police tape in front featuring binary code

Big Tech regulation

Big Tech

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

Technology

Axios Events

Axios Sneak Peek

The head of the U.S. intelligence community warned Tuesday there's no "viable" prospect for peace negotiations in Ukraine in the near term, predicting a protracted "war of attrition" that's likely to become "more unpredictable and escalatory."

Why it matters: The U.S. is doubling down on helping Ukraine defeat Russia on the battlefield but with little clarity about how the war ends. That means the mammoth $40 billion package of additional security and financial assistance set to pass the House on Tuesday night is unlikely to be the last.

The big picture: Out of nearly a dozen Republican and Democratic senators Axios spoke to Tuesday, not one said they believe the U.S. is in a "proxy war" with Russia.

But growing U.S. involvement in the war — through billions of dollars in weapons and intelligence-sharing — could foster a greater risk of a humiliated and desperate Vladimir Putin lashing out.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testified Tuesday the Russian president would likely only use nuclear weapons "if he perceived an existential threat to the Russian state or regime."

"We're supporting Ukraine, but we also don't want to ultimately end up in World War III, and we don't want to have a situation in which actors are using nuclear weapons," Haines told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Between the lines: "One of the difficulties of this situation is that the better the Ukrainians do, the more dangerous Putin is," Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, told Axios.

The maximalist demands Putin set at the beginning of the war are making it difficult for him to find a way to back down.

King believes it's up to the Ukrainians — not the U.S. — to determine the end game.

"They believe they can win. And so I think it would be difficult for President [Volodymyr] Zelensky to make significant concessions to Putin because of the mood in Ukraine," King said.

Behind the scenes: Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, addressed both the Senate Democratic and Republican lunches on Tuesday, a day after a deal was reached on the new aid package.

She told senators Ukraine needs enough firepower to regain its sovereignty, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told Axios. In other words, push Russian forces out every inch of Ukrainian territory — including Crimea and areas of the Donbas region that have been occupied since 2014.

"It seemed to me that she's very optimistic about that if they get what they need in this next package," Cramer said. "Clearly, their goal is to win and to get all of their land territory back."

Asked if that was a realistic scenario, Cramer replied: "Listen, I didn't think it was realistic that they'd be where they are, so we've been underestimating them and overestimating Russia since the beginning of this."

"I think people are learning their lesson."

What to watch: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told Axios he's pushing to add a resolution to the Ukraine package urging the Biden administration to designate Russia a "state sponsor of terrorism."

If the resolution is ultimately brought to the Senate floor alone, both Blumenthal and his co-sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), predicted it would receive over 90 votes.

Ukraine’s success ramps up Putin threat

The U.S. is doubling down on helping Ukraine beat Russia on the battlefield but with little clarity on how the war ends.

DNI Director Avril Haines is seen speaking with Congress on Tuesday.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testifies Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Russian invasion of Ukraine

Axios AM

Republicans are deeply split on their abortion strategy, with top officials pushing restraint, even silence, while activist GOP candidates demand an all-out campaign for a national ban and harsher penalties. 

Why it matters: Republicans' confidence in landslide victories this fall was shaken by the leaked abortion ruling — in part because they know the topic invigorates their base, while rattling many swing voters. 

A top adviser to House Republican leaders tells Axios their polling shows that in races that matter, voters aren't "hip to this kind of seismic change." 

The adviser said lawmakers are asking for guidance on how to talk about issues like abortion in cases of rape or incest — knowing a hardline view is wildly unpopular. 

The GOP establishment's initial marching orders, in an NRSC memo leaked to Axios' Alayna Treene, counseled caution and even silence. 

But activist candidates and voters couldn't care less what the establishment wants — and see this as the moment to fulfill their lifelong dream of strict abortion bans, with few exceptions, and penalties for those carrying out abortions. 

What we're hearing: Tony Perkins — president of the Family Research Council, who's been fighting on the issue for 30 years — told me in a phone interview that there's "some caution about overreach" among GOP leaders.

But they're privately promising to help push America to be a "predominantly pro-life nation," Perkins said. 

What to watch: Cook Political Report's Dave Wasserman points to swing state Nevada, which has toss-up Senate and governor's races. The GOP needs suburban voters in the Silver State — but the party's base is pushing hard for more abortion restrictions.

The takeaway ... One thing is certain about modern politics: Rarely does moderation or restraint prevail — especially on cultural, religious or identity issues. In fact, one truism of modern conservatism is: The more the establishment pushes something, the more the base recoils. 

The great GOP divide on abortion

Republicans know the topic invigorates their base, while rattling many swing voters.

Abortion

Federal appeals court reinstates portions of Florida's restrictive voting law

A lower court had ruled that the provisions were aimed at suppressing Black voters.

Photo of Ron DeSantis speaking from a podium on a stage

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis delivers remarks at the 2022 CPAC conference at the Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando on Feb. 24, 2022. Photo: Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Florida

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the Senate will vote next week to codify abortion rights into federal law even though Democrats lack the votes to ensure the bill's passage.

Why it matters: Abortion advocates and Democratic candidates have doubled down on calls for Congress to pass legislation protecting abortion rights since a  leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade was published. 

The measure lacks even 50 votes, far short of the 60 votes it would need, as all Republicans are likely to vote against it and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) voted against similar legislation earlier this year.

What he's saying: "Republicans will have two choices: They can own the destruction of women’s rights, or they can reverse course and work to prevent the damage," Schumer said.

Yes, but: "The move is little more than an effort to send a political message ahead of midterm elections and a seismic ruling that could have major legal, cultural and electoral consequences that also carries deep significance for voters across the political spectrum," the New York Times notes.

The big picture: Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) said Tuesday they plan to uphold the filibuster, leaving Democrats with few legislative options to try to stop the Supreme Court from issuing a decision that would end the nationwide right to an abortion.

The leak has set up battleground states for a midterm brawl.

Go deeper: What abortion access would look like if Roe v. Wade is overturned

Editor's note: This story has been updated to note that Sen. Joe Manchin voted against similar legislation earlier this year. 

Schumer: Senate to vote on abortion rights next week despite lacking votes

The measure is all but doomed with Republicans likely to block it.

Photo of Chuck Schumer speaking from a podium with his left hand raised in a fist

Chuck Schumer speaks during a press conference to discuss the vote to codify Roe v. Wade on May 5 in Washington, D.C. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. faces a range of health care flashpoints — unaffordable drugs, opioids, vaping — as we debate whether to adopt universal care. For now, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, but Republicans want to issue it a final death blow.

Health

A leaked draft Supreme Court opinion showing the justices are poised to overturn Roe v. Wade has injected new urgency into midterm races across the country. 

Why it matters: Removing federal protection for abortion rights is likely to jumpstart voters of both parties, and bring heightened scrutiny to some previously sleepy races.

State of play: Purple states, especially those currently with divided control between their governor's mansion and legislature, now have added attention on their statewide races.

Pennsylvania's governor's race — which had taken a backseat to the battle for its Senate seat — could now decide the fate of abortion rights in the state. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, long antagonized by a Republican legislature, is term-limited, and his replacement will decide what's next.

In North Carolina, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's term isn't up until 2024, but he's now trying to avoid a GOP supermajority in the state legislature that could veto his attempts to preserve abortion rights.

"That's where the battles will move to — the state capitals — and where these fundamental freedoms will be won and lost. And it will matter who [the] governors are," Cooper told Axios.

Zoom in: The stakes also got higher for Democrats to try to flip their own gubernatorial races, especially in Georgia, where the party managed to lock down two Senate seats in the 2020 cycle.

The state saw an emotional, polarized battle over a six-week abortion ban in 2019, which has been frozen in federal court pending the Supreme Court decision.

Incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp, the leading Republican candidate, championed Georgia's 2019 anti-abortion law.

On Tuesday, he vowed to continue defending the "strongest pro-life law in the country," but did not go as far as his primary opponent David Perdue, who said he would call a special legislative session to "ban abortion," if elected. 

Presumptive Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams said she is "enraged" and "appalled" by the implications of the leaked decision.

Even in states where big races aren't expected to flip, like Florida's gubernatorial contest, the news energized Democrats in the race — especially coupled with the state's new 15-week abortion ban taking effect July 1.

"This is just Step 1 of this radical-right agenda across our country," Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried said at a well-attended, impromptu rally in Miami. "And if you're not angry today, what are you waiting for?"

"I just wish this weren't happening to America. It's heartbreaking," former governor and U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist told reporters.

Of note: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has been silent on Twitter since the leaked ruling was published Monday night. 

The bottom line: Even if Roe is indeed ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, the true effects of that decision won't be known in some key states until after the midterms.

Axios' Taylor Allen, Emma Hurt, Ben Montgomery, Selene San Felice and Lucille Sherman contributed to this report.

Sign up for Axios Local, now publishing daily newsletters in 16 cities across the U.S., with nine more coming later this year.

Abortion battleground states brace for midterm brawl

"That's where the battles will move to — the state capitals — and where these fundamental freedoms will be won and lost."

Illustrations of ballots in an hour glass, with a small amount of red ones in the bottom and many more blue ones above

Republican members of the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: The request comes as Republicans are making the leak and its impact on judicial norms the focus of their response, in contrast with Democrats who have largely seized on the contents of the ruling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said during a news conference Tuesday afternoon that the leak, not the opinion, is "the story for today."

What they're saying: The members, in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland obtained by Axios, said the leak "represents one of the most fundamental and troubling breaches of Supreme Court 'confidentiality and secrecy' in its history."

The members asked the DOJ for any documents or communications regarding a probe into the leak and "a description of all potential laws violated."

They also requested "the number of open investigations into any threats made against members of the Supreme Court," and information on the steps they are taking to "prevent violence" and pursue the leaker.

Finally, they said they want a briefing from DOJ officials on the matter by May 10.

The other side: A spokesperson for Democrats on the panel told Axios it is "telling" that Republicans have focused on the leak rather than the ruling, arguing their denunciations are "feigned outrage."

"Republicans are desperate to talk about anything other than the fact that, if finalized, this opinion would represent the culmination of the Republican Party’s sustained assault on the right to abortion," the spokesperson said.

A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the letter.

The backdrop: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has already said he plans to have the Marshal of the Court investigate the leak.

Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from a spokesperson for Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.

Scoop: House GOP panel seeks DOJ probe into Supreme Court leak

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Supreme Court

The White House unveiled a proposed legislative package on Thursday that would allow the federal government to sell assets seized from Russian oligarchs over the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine and use the proceeds for military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Why it matters: The U.S. has already seized million of dollars in assets from wealthy Russians with close ties to President Vladimir Putin. It and other governments are hoping that financial pressure on those individuals will translate into political pressure on Putin, potentially curtailing his power. 

The proposal comes after the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to urge the Biden administration to liquidate the seized assets to help Ukraine.

It includes provisions that would streamline the process for seizing oligarchs'  assets, expand the assets subject to seizure and clamp down on certain sanction evasion loopholes.

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. and several other countries raised new sanctions on Russian oligarchs and entities directly supporting the Kremlin's war.

Not all rich Russians have deep ties to Putin, though a huge amount of wealth — and the illicit wealth flowing out of Russia — is concentrated in the hands of senior officials or those in Kremlin-appointed business positions, such as the executive roles in one of the country's state-owned energy companies.

By the numbers: More than a dozen yachts, worth approximately $2.5 billion, belonging to Russian oligarchs have been seized in several countries worldwide since the armed conflict started, and more are expected to be seized.

Millions of dollars and other assets have also been sanctioned by the U.S. and other governments.

The White House said Thursday that European Union member states have reported freezing over $30 billion in assets, including almost $7 billion in boats, helicopters, real estate and artwork.

The big picture: They are now considering what to do with the seized Russian assets, and other countries are also proposing using liquidated assets to help Ukrainian refugees or for rebuilding the country.

The Department of Justice created a Russian sanctions enforcement task force in early March.

It made its first major seizure of Russian assets in early April after, with the help of Spanish law enforcement officials, taking control of a $90 million yacht owned by oligarch and billionaire Viktor Vekselberg.

What's next: The request now heads to Congress. It will still have to pass through the House, as Wednesday's vote was largely symbolic.

Go deeper ...  Austin: West will "keep moving heaven and earth" to arm Ukraine

White House proposes plan to sell Russian yachts for Ukraine aid

The U.S. has already seized million of dollars in assets from wealthy Russians with close ties to Putin.

A yacht belonging to Russian oligarch Dmitry Kamenshchik at the Don Diego port, in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic on April 1.

A yacht belonging to Russian oligarch Dmitry Kamenshchik at the Don Diego port, in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic on April 1.  Photo: Erika Santelices/afp/AFP via Getty Images 

White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy is optimistic about enlisting Sen. Joe Manchin's help on a potential climate bill, she told Axios during an Earth Day event Friday.

Why it matters: Manchin has recently signaled that he'd support some climate provisions as part of a pared-down version of the Build Back Better Act, which failed in Congress after Manchin turned against it and Republicans solidly opposed it.

Yes, but: Progressives in Congress worry such provisions would be heavier on energy independence favored by Big Oil — and lighter on the carbon reduction they seek, Axios' Hans Nichols reported in March. 

“When he says he wants to act on climate, I think it's quite understandable that people would meet that with a great deal of disbelief,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told Axios at the time.

McCarthy sounded more optimistic on the prospects of a deal during conversation with Axios' Mike Allen Friday.  

"I know he's interested in significant investments that will advance climate. And so I'm hoping that there will be a meeting of the minds," McCarthy said.

"But I think it goes beyond hope. I think where we're actually going to show him and others that these are necessary investments, not sacrifices, but the ways in which we're going to deliver for the American public. 

"There's things he wants to, things we want, and that means we should be able to get an agreement and move forward in Congress."

"We are perfectly positioned to build on the work we've already done and make that path to a clean energy future ... and we're going to do our best to work with Senator Manchin. There's things he wants to, things we want, and that means we should be able to get an agreement and move forward in Congress." 

White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy

The bottom line: McCarthy said she's "pretty confident" Congress can pass climate legislation even during an election year, after it passed a bipartisan infrastructure law last year that contained numerous climate measures. 

"The president is really doubling down on his commitments now and his demand that Congress work with him ... So we can't stop now. We have to move forward and it's exciting because we can."

Biden adviser optimistic Manchin will help on climate

Gina McCarthy said she's "hoping that there will be a meeting of the minds" with the West Virginia senator.

Joe Manchin

Climate change

Ominous forecasts about the impact of climate change serve as the backdrop for the world — led by U.S. lawmakers and companies — to debate big action on the problem, which could upend energy systems and our way of life.

Energy & Environment

Axios Future

From housing to child care to energy, the U.S. is beset by rising costs for the goods and services needed most — and part of the reason is there isn’t enough to go around.

Why it matters: Economists and other experts worry that subsidizing those costs could make things worse. They argue a better, fairer and more abundant future is one where policy focuses on increasing supply, not merely socializing demand.

Driving the news: President Biden's top domestic priority — the $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan — hit another roadblock on Thursday, as it became clear the legislation was stalled in the Senate and wouldn't pass before the end of the year.

A key obstacle is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has balked at the bill's price tag, among other complaints.

Yes, but: To some experts, however, the bill is emblematic of deeper problems in policymaking, and instead of reducing the rising costs of essential services like child care — as the Biden administration has claimed — it could actually make them worse.

In a November column in the New York Times, Samuel Hammond, Daniel Takash and Steven Teles of the center-left Niskanen Center argued the bill's child care proposal — which would mandate higher wages and greater credentials for workers, and then offset higher costs with hefty subsidies — "won't reduce rising prices so much as mask them."

They wrote that this is an example of "'Cost Disease Socialism' — addressing the increasing costs of supply-constrained goods and services by spreading the price among American taxpayers while leaving the cause of the underlying costs unaddressed." 

The big picture: Over the past few decades, U.S. consumers have generally enjoyed plunging costs for things like clothing, appliances and consumer electronics — which is why a big flat-screen TV costs far less than it did a decade ago. 

But the cost of vital services such as health care, housing and education has gone the other way, eating into American incomes and making a middle-class lifestyle ever harder to achieve. 

What those industries have in common is that, unlike fields that make most consumer goods, they've experienced little productivity growth, which causes costs to rise over time — a phenomenon economists call "Baumol's cost disease." 

Between the lines: The progressive response to this reality has generally been to subsidize these services in an attempt to offset those rising costs by socializing them as much as possible.

There's justice in this tack — redistribute some wealth from the rich in the form of subsidies, enabling the less well-off to keep pace with the rising costs of essentials. 

But the Niskanen Center analysts and other experts argue the approach — which focuses on demand rather than supply — is backfiring, worsening inflation in sectors such as education and health care.

"If we try to deal with the problem of expensive health care, child care, and higher education by throwing more money at it," the economist Noah Smith wrote earlier this year, "the result will be that although consumers will pay less, society as a whole will pay more."  

Instead, they say a better approach would be to focus policymaking on increasing the supply of those expensive but vital goods and services, in what's come to be called "supply-side progressivism."

It means working to reduce many of the regulations that make it expensive and difficult to build necessary housing in desirable cities, or that hold down the number of doctors in the U.S. 

It means investing heavily in scientific research and development that can ensure zero-carbon energy doesn't merely replace existing fossil fuels but surpasses them, providing an energy supply that isn't just cleaner but cheaper.

It means embracing a future where greater abundance of all things — not just high-quality TVs, but high-quality education — is a main goal of policy, where instead of arguing over who deserves what, there's more than enough for all.

Of note: Aspects of the Build Back Better plan call for boosting research and infrastructure investment to make energy and transportation cheaper overall.

The bottom line: An abundant future might seem utopian, but the alternative may be a shell game of endlessly shifting costs around, even as society is on the hook for an ever more expensive future.

The case for creating more of everything

Instead of a politics of subsidies, the future needs a politics of abundance

Illustration of a pattern of upward-pointing arrows.

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

All Policymaking stories