Putin's Russia Sought to Kill Defector in Florida

A failed plot to assassinate a C.I.A. spy in 2020 in part led to expulsions of the agency’s chief in Moscow and his Russian counterpart in Washington.

The clandestine operation represented a brazen expansion of President Vladimir V. Putin’s campaign of targeted assassinations.

By Ronen Bergman, Adam Goldman and Julian E. Barnes, June 19, 2023, NYTimes.

As President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has pursued enemies abroad, his intelligence operatives now appear prepared to cross a line that they previously avoided: trying to kill a valuable informant for the U.S. government on American soil.

The clandestine operation, seeking to eliminate a C.I.A. informant in Miami who had been a high-ranking Russian intelligence official more than a decade earlier, represented a brazen expansion of Mr. Putin’s campaign of targeted assassinations. It also signaled a dangerous low point even between intelligence services that have long had a strained history.

“The red lines are long gone for Putin,” said Marc Polymeropoulos, a former C.I.A. officer who oversaw operations in Europe and Russia. “He wants all these guys dead.”

The assassination failed, but the aftermath in part spiraled into tit-for-tat retaliation by the United States and Russia, according to three former senior American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss aspects of a plot meant to be secret and its consequences. Sanctions and expulsions, including of top intelligence officials in Moscow and Washington, followed.

The target was Aleksandr Poteyev, a former Russian intelligence officer who disclosed information that led to a yearslong F.B.I. investigation that in 2010 ensnared 11 spies living under deep cover in suburbs and cities along the East Coast. They had assumed false names and worked ordinary jobs as part of an ambitious attempt by the S.V.R., Russia’s foreign intelligence agency, to gather information and recruit more agents.

In keeping with an Obama administration effort to reset relations, a deal was reached that sought to ease tensions: Ten of the 11 spies were arrested and expelled to Russia. In exchange, Moscow released four Russian prisoners, including Sergei V. Skripal, a former colonel in the military intelligence service who was convicted in 2006 for selling secrets to Britain.

The bid to assassinate Mr. Poteyev is revealed in the British edition of the book “Spies: The Epic Intelligence War Between East and West,” to be published by an imprint of Little, Brown on June 29. The book is by Calder Walton, a scholar of national security and intelligence at Harvard. The New York Times independently confirmed his work and is reporting for the first time on the bitter fallout from the operation, including the retaliatory measures that ensued once it came to light.

According to Mr. Walton’s book, a Kremlin official asserted that a hit man, or a Mercader, would almost certainly hunt down Mr. Poteyev. Ramón Mercader, an agent of Joseph Stalin’s, slipped into Leon Trotsky’s study in Mexico City in 1940 and sank an ice ax into his head. Based on interviews with two American intelligence officials, Mr. Walton concluded the operation was the beginning of “a modern-day Mercader” sent to assassinate Mr. Poteyev.

The Russians have long used assassins to silence perceived enemies. One of the most celebrated at S.V.R. headquarters in Moscow is Col. Grigory Mairanovsky, a biochemist who experimented with lethal poisons, according to a former intelligence official.

Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer, has made no secret of his deep disdain for defectors among the intelligence ranks, particularly those who aid the West. The poisoning of Mr. Skripal at the hands of Russian operatives in Salisbury, Britain, in 2018 signaled an escalation in Moscow’s tactics and intensified fears that it would not hesitate to do the same on American shores.

The attack, which used a nerve agent to sicken Mr. Skripal and his daughter, prompted a wave of diplomatic expulsions across the world as Britain marshaled the support of its allies in a bid to issue a robust response.

The incident set off alarm bells inside the C.I.A., where officials worried that former spies who had relocated to the United States, like Mr. Poteyev, would soon be targets.

Mr. Putin had long vowed to punish Mr. Poteyev. But before he could be arrested, Mr. Poteyev fled to the United States, where the C.I.A. resettled him under a highly secretive program meant to protect former spies. In 2011, a Moscow court sentenced him in absentia to decades in prison.

Mr. Poteyev had seemed to vanish, but at one point, Russian intelligence sent operatives to the United States to find him, though its intentions remained unclear. In 2016, the Russian news media reported that he was dead, which some intelligence experts believed might be a ploy to flush him out. Indeed, Mr. Poteyev was very much alive, residing in the Miami area.

That year, he obtained a fishing license and registered as a Republican so he could vote, all under his real name, according to state records. In 2018, a news outlet reported Mr. Poteyev’s whereabouts.

The C.I.A.’s concerns were not unwarranted. In 2019, the Russians undertook an elaborate operation to find Mr. Poteyev, forcing a scientist from Oaxaca, Mexico, to help.

The scientist, Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes, was an unlikely spy. He studied microbiology in Kazan, Russia, and later earned a doctorate in the subject from the University of Giessen in Germany. He was a source of pride for his family, with a history of charitable work and no criminal past.

But the Russians used Mr. Fuentes’s partner as leverage. He had two wives: a Russian living in Germany and another in Mexico. In 2019, the Russian wife and her two daughters were not allowed to leave Russia as they tried to return to Germany, court documents say.

That May, when Mr. Fuentes traveled to visit them, a Russian official contacted him and asked to see him in Moscow. At one meeting, the official reminded Mr. Fuentes that his family was stuck in Russia and that maybe, according to court documents, “we can help each other.”

A few months later, the Russian official asked Mr. Fuentes to secure a condo just north of Miami Beach, where Mr. Poteyev lived. Instructed not to rent the apartment in his name, Mr. Fuentes gave an associate $20,000 to do so.

In 2019, the Russians undertook an elaborate operation to find a C.I.A. informant, forcing Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes, a scientist from Mexico, to help.Credit...GDA, via Associated Press

In February 2020, Mr. Fuentes traveled to Moscow, where he again met with the Russian official, who provided a description of Mr. Poteyev’s vehicle. Mr. Fuentes, the Russian said, should find the car, obtain its license plate number and take note of its physical location. He advised Mr. Fuentes to refrain from taking pictures, presumably to eliminate any incriminating evidence.

But Mr. Fuentes botched the operation. Driving into the complex, he tried to bypass its entry gate by tailgating another vehicle, attracting the attention of security. When he was questioned, his wife walked away to photograph Mr. Poteyev’s license plate.

Mr. Fuentes and his wife were told to leave, but security cameras captured the incident. Two days later, he tried to fly to Mexico, but U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers stopped him and searched his phone, discovering the picture of Mr. Poteyev’s vehicle.

After he was arrested, Mr. Fuentes provided details of the plan to American investigators. He believed the Russian official he had been meeting worked for the F.S.B., Russia’s internal security service. But covert operations overseas are usually run by the S.V.R., which succeeded the K.G.B., or the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency.

One of the former officials said Mr. Fuentes, unaware of the target’s significance, was merely gathering information for the Russians to use later.

Mr. Fuentes’s lawyer, Ronald Gainor, declined to comment.

The plot, along with other Russian activities, elicited a harsh response from the U.S. government. In April 2021, the United States imposed sanctions and expelled 10 Russian diplomats, including the chief of station for the S.V.R., who was based in Washington and had two years left on his tour, two former American officials said. Throwing out the chief of station can be incredibly disruptive to intelligence operations, and agency officials suspected that Russia was likely to seek reprisal on its American counterpart in Moscow, who had only weeks left in that role, the officials said.

“We cannot allow a foreign power to interfere in our democratic process with impunity,” President Biden said at the White House in announcing the penalties. He made no mention of the plot involving Mr. Fuentes.

Sure enough, Russia banished 10 American diplomats, including the C.I.A.’s chief of station in Moscow.

Adam Entous contributed reporting.

Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv. His latest book is “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations,” published by Random House. 

Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. and national security from Washington, D.C., and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. He is the coauthor of “Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America.”  @adamgoldmanNYT

Julian E. Barnes is a national security reporter based in Washington, covering the intelligence agencies. Before joining The Times in 2018, he wrote about security matters for The Wall Street Journal. @julianbarnes • Facebook

 

'They aren’t brave. They’re just loud. '

 

James Fell writes with wisdom and profanity: be advised

'Will there be another American Civil War?

The American Civil War began in 1861 and lasted four years. On one side was the Union (“the North”) that remained loyal to the United States government. This included twenty free states and five border states that said slavery was okay but decided to stay with the Union. The other side was the Confederacy (“the South”) that came to comprise eleven states that were totally cool with enslaving people to keep their agricultural economy going and letting rich white people stay rich via trafficking in human misery. 

-- SHIT WENT DOWN: The American Civil War, Part II--

In November of 1860 Lincoln was elected president on a “hey let’s not allow slavery in these new territories” platform and the southern states were all fuck that we’re outta here cuz white people rule and slavery is awesome and Lincoln said I don’t fucking think so and there was a big-ass war and about 650,000 people died. 

Okay so Trump has been indicted for a second time on far more serious charges and his cult followers are flipping the fuck out and threatening Civil War Part II. Are we really looking at another American Civil War? 

No, we’re fucking not. 

For people who can’t read to the end before commenting, yes, there will almost certainly be even more far-right domestic terrorism, but that’s not a civil war, not an organized rebellion. These fuckers aren’t revolutionaries. It’s going to be more of the same bullshit with radicalized douchenugget pasty penis possessors with easy access to lethal weaponry shooting places up and then after they go down in a blaze of bigoted assholery we see oh wow they had Nazi tattoos and were big Trump supporters gee I wonder what their motivation was? 

So, yeah. Even more of that. But not a civil war. And I’ll tell you why.

It’s because they’re fed, and free. 

My master’s thesis in history focused on the Latin American rebellions that swept the region in the wake of the successful Cuban Revolution in 1959. They saw what Castro did and said oh shit we can overthrow these dictatorial fuckwagons and have some actual say in how we live our lives and maybe stop getting murdered while we’re starving to death? Sign me the fuck up. 

Plenty of people were living in crushing poverty under highly repressive autocratic rightwing regimes in Latin America, and Cuba and Castro inspired them. These people were hungry and brutally oppressed. They had nothing to lose. And even still the percentage who actually joined these rebellions was a tiny fraction of the overall population.

But then the U.S. saw all these communist-inspired rebellions in Latin America and they were freaking out over the “domino theory” of how all those countries would go commie and then the whole world would go commie so send in the CIA to help crush those rebellions via even more brutal oppression and yeah let’s do some genocide too just to be safe. 

Anyway, another civil war isn’t going to happen in America. Because they are fed, and they are free. 

What happens if their jaundiced Jesus actually gets convicted and faces prison time? The Gravy Seals in their (empty) head-to-toe “tacticool” gear will get tired of LARPing as wannabe revolutionaries the first time they miss a scheduled KFC meal and go back to coal rolling their Dodge Rams and chanting “Let’s go Brandon!” while masturbating to Tucker Carlson confusion face. 

They aren’t starving. Their kids aren’t being murdered; their villages not burnt to the ground. They get to watch internet porn and go to NASCAR races and boycott Bud Light and order extra cheese on their pizzas while pretending to read the Bible and freaking right the fuck out about trans people daring to exist and won’t someone think about the War on Christmas? The life of a guerrilla fighter is Not Fun. It involves the type of danger and deprivation these brainless invertebrates cannot possibly fathom. 

They are loud, but they are not brave. They are not determined. Their threats of civil war stop at the keyboard. They are comfortable, and comfortable people don’t go to war if they can help it. 

Guerrilla warfare is a fucking nightmare. Instead of sleeping in a comfortable bed, you’re on the ground. Instead of eating take-out, it’s often rodents and roots and whatever else you can scrounge. Never mind the fact that people are trying to kill you all the time. It’s a wretched existence of pain and exhaustion and fear and hunger and death. I don’t know too many Trump fans willing to endure that. They are Not. Desperate. Enough. 

As I said, there almost certainly will be an increase in acts of domestic terrorism, especially racially motivated violence. But it won’t be organized rebellions. It will be sporadic and individual. Like some QAnon nutburger who thinks children are being sold into sexual slavery, so he burns down a Black church. White supremacy has invaded police forces, and you know they’re not going to take a Trump conviction lying down; minorities will pay with their lives for that ire. 

What about the military? While there are certainly a lot of Trump fans among the enlisted, the brass doesn’t care for him too much. The upper echelons of the U.S. Armed Forces are a proud and educated lot dedicated to upholding the constitution. I expect very few would be willing to go down in history as being responsible for the end of American democracy, such as it is. These are folks who pride themselves on following the rules, and they will likely do so. Especially now since the details of the classified documents fiasco are coming out. Trump has been revealed as a traitor, and the military brass is Not Happy about massive national security breach Eric’s dad is responsible for. 

And a lot of his cult members aren’t too thrilled either. They’re getting sick of his bullshit and leaving the cult.

The treason was a bridge too far for a lot of them. Miami was prepared for tens of thousands of Trump fans to show up at Danger Yam’s arrest yesterday, and barely 500 supporters came out. One of them waved a “Trump or Death” flag but again I doubt that guy is really willing to either kill or be killed when it comes down to it. He’s just another fucking idiot blowhard. 

They aren’t brave. They’re just loud. 

What about January 6? That was a perfect storm that I expect we won’t see repeated. Even then, considering how many stormed the Capitol at Trump’s urging, there was a surprisingly low death toll. They didn’t bring their AR-15s and go on a mass murder spree. 

If Trump actually goes to prison there could be some riots and more violence, but again, not a civil war. Not an organized rebellion. Just a bunch of whiney fucking losers who will pay the price. The government has learned the lessons of January 6 and will be better prepared. What’s more, seeing those involved in January 6 going to prison will give many pause to participating in such insurrections in the future. 

The real issue is the 2024 election.

There is too much money at stake in sustaining the status quo. Neither party wants the country to go up in flames, because they’re too busy cashing in on the labor of others while throwing bread and circuses their way. 

The Republican Party prefers to achieve its nefarious ends via white collar crime like gerrymandering, disinformation, and voter suppression. That’s the shit we need to watch out for. 

This has been a public service announcement from your Emotional Support Canadian. Get my sweary fucking history book ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY SH!T WENT DOWN at JamesFell.com/books.

The Deep State [Rule of Law] Grinds Slow but Exceeding Fine

By POLITICO STAFF

06/09/2023 02:01 PM EDT

A newly unsealed federal indictment charges former President Donald Trump with 31 counts of “willful retention” of classified records, as well as several counts related to his alleged effort to obstruct the investigation.

Read Full Text Here

Billionaires Use SCOTUS To Harm Labor

OPINION, JAMELLE BOUIE, NY Times, Opinion Columnist, June 6, 2023

There Is One Group the Roberts Court Really Doesn’t Like

It is difficult to overstate the hostility of the Roberts court to organized labor and the rights of American workers.

Under John Roberts, who became chief justice in 2005, the court has made it harder for workers to bring suit against employers collectively, limited the power of workers to hold employers responsible for discrimination on the job, ended the ability of public sector unions to require dues from nonmembers who benefit from collective bargaining and struck down a California law that allowed unions to recruit workers on the property of agricultural employers.

We saw this dynamic at work last week when the court issued its decision in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. The case involves a struggle in Washington State between workers represented by the Teamsters and their employer, a concrete manufacturer.

In its lawsuit, Glacier alleged that its workers timed a 2017 strike so that it would begin after some of the company’s mixing trucks were already filled with wet concrete, a perishable material. Glacier’s non-unionized workers were able to remove the concrete before the trucks were significantly damaged, but the company sued the Teamsters in state court anyway for damages relating to lost revenue from the wrecked concrete.

The union countered, citing the right to strike. It also noted that the damaged concrete was essentially spoilage of a product, for which unions have not generally been held liable. The Washington State Supreme Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the dispute was “pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act.”

The Supreme Court took Glacier’s appeal. And in an opinion joined by Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that unions are liable for damages during strikes under federal labor law when they take “affirmative steps to endanger” the employer’s property rather than “reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk.” She also sent the case back to the Washington State court for further litigation.

In a separate concurrence joined by Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should reconsider its 1959 decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, which held that state courts are barred from handling claims concerning conduct that is “arguably” covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Under Garmon, employers must first receive a favorable ruling from the National Labor Relations Board if they want to sue a union for striking in state court. Tossing Garmon would bring labor law much closer to its pre-N.L.R.A. status quo, when conservative judges treated union actions as little more than criminal conspiracies to harm employers. Justice Samuel Alito also filed a concurrence in support of the majority.

The divide among the liberal justices was especially striking. The sole dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who argued that the ruling would “erode the right to strike” and undermine the oversight of workplace law by the N.L.R.B. “Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master,” she wrote. “They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the N.L.R.A. even if economic injury results.”

It is possible that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joined Barrett’s opinion in a strategic move meant to foreclose a more expansive decision from Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito. If so, it may ultimately prove a short reprieve in the face of a conservative majority that is eager to undermine a set of interests (labor’s interests) and a set of rights (workers’ rights) that it does not respect.

One point that must be emphasized is how, with its war on workers, the Roberts court is only acting in the Supreme Court’s historical capacity as an agent of capital. At times, the court has taken an expansive view of the civil and political rights of the American people. But it has rarely been a friend to the right of workers to organize and act in their own interests.

In the decade before the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, for example, the Supreme Court under William Howard Taft issued rulings constraining the ability of unions to act and organize, subjecting union actions to antitrust law and upholding restrictions on speech that targeted unions and other pro-labor organizations.

In other words, the Supreme Court is first and foremost the leading defender of property within our political order. And how could it be otherwise? The Constitution itself was written, in part, to protect the rights of property in the face of democracy and the spirit of egalitarianism. Even a more liberal Supreme Court than the one we have now would eventually find itself acting against labor, for the simple reason that the American political system was not built with the interests of workers in mind.

This means, as our actual court has again made clear, that the struggle for the emancipation of labor does not, as Samuel Gompers once wrote, take place in an “ideal world.” Instead, “we are in the bitter struggles of an unjust society.” If labor is ever going to get what it needs, it probably won’t be with the helping hand of a judge or a justice.

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. @jbouie

“The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.” US War Department 1943

 

Heather Cox Richardson 

  · 

May 29, 2023 (Monday)

Beginning in 1943, the War Department published a series of pamphlets for U.S. Army personnel in the European theater of World War II. Titled Army Talks, the series was designed "to help [the personnel] become better-informed men and women and therefore better soldiers."

On March 24, 1945, the topic for the week was “FASCISM!”

“You are away from home, separated from your families, no longer at a civilian job or at school and many of you are risking your very lives,” the pamphlet explained, “because of a thing called fascism.” But, the publication asked, what is fascism? “Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze,” it said, “nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it.”

Fascism, the U.S. government document explained, “is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”

“The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law.” “Fascism treats women as mere breeders. ‘Children, kitchen, and the church,’ was the Nazi slogan for women,” the pamphlet said.

Fascists “make their own rules and change them when they choose…. They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of ‘blood’ and ‘race,’ by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent.”

Fascists understood that “the fundamental principle of democracy—faith in the common sense of the common people—was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few,” it explained, “[s]o they fought democracy…. They played political, religious, social, and economic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled.”

Americans should not be fooled into thinking that fascism could not come to America, the pamphlet warned; after all, “[w]e once laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache.” And indeed, the U.S. had experienced “sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which…can be properly identified as ‘fascist.’”

The War Department thought it was important for Americans to understand the tactics fascists would use to take power in the United States. They would try to gain power “under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-Americanism.’” And they would use three techniques:

First, they would pit religious, racial, and economic groups against one another to break down national unity. Part of that effort to divide and conquer would be a “well-planned ‘hate campaign’ against minority races, religions, and other groups.”

Second, they would deny any need for international cooperation, because that would fly in the face of their insistence that their supporters were better than everyone else. “In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations.”

Third, fascists would insist that “the world has but two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as ‘communists’ everyone who refuses to support them.”

It is “vitally important” to learn to spot native fascists, the government said, “even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy.”

The only way to stop the rise of fascism in the United States, the document said, “is by making our democracy work and by actively cooperating to preserve world peace and security.” In the midst of the insecurity of the modern world, the hatred at the root of fascism “fulfills a triple mission.” By dividing people, it weakens democracy. “By getting men to hate rather than to think,” it prevents them “from seeking the real cause and a democratic solution to the problem.” By falsely promising prosperity, it lures people to embrace its security.

“Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance,” it warned. Freedom requires “being alert and on guard against the infringement not only of our own freedom but the freedom of every American. If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob anyone of his democratic rights, our own freedom and all democracy is threatened.” And if “we want to make certain that fascism does not come to America, we must make certain that it does not thrive anywhere in the world.”

Seventy-eight years after the publication of “FASCISM!” with its program for recognizing that political system and stopping it from taking over the United States, President Joe Biden today at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, honored those who gave their lives fighting to preserve democracy. “On this day, we come together again to reflect, to remember, but above all, to recommit to the future our fallen heroes fought for, …a future grounded in freedom, democracy, equality, tolerance, opportunity, and…justice.”

“[T]he truest memorial to their lives,” the president said, is to act “every day to ensure that our democracy endures, our Constitution endures, and the soul of our nation and our decency endures.”

Guidance: Protecting Pride Events from Armed Extremist Activity

Read original here: Georgetown Law - Links below do not work, see original for working links. Thanks to Rachel Maddow for link.

 Guidance: Protecting Pride Events from Armed Extremist Activity

Over the past year, armed extremist groups—including the Proud Boys, who led the breach of the

U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021—have increasingly targeted LGBTQ+ community events. Across the country, drag events and other LGBTQ+ community spaces have been vandalized, disrupted, and violently attacked. In some cases, this has resulted in violent clashes between protesters and counter- protesters. Given that these incidents have taken place amid a larger rise in homophobia and transphobia, often driven by dangerous conspiracy theories, it is possible that extremists—armed with firearms or other weapons, and sometimes acting as private militias—will attempt to target and interfere with upcoming Pride Month events, endangering LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies.

This guidance document draws on ICAP’s expertise in combatting armed activity by unauthorized private paramilitary groups in order to inform Pride organizers, LGBTQ+ community members, and their allies inside and outside government about what they can do to keep Pride Month safe.

Are Pride events legal?

Generally, yes. Parades and other public assemblies are constitutionally protected as a form of free speech and association.1 This means that although states and cities may regulate the time, place, and manner in which a parade or other public event takes place (for instance, by requiring permits for a parade route or for use of a park, or by limiting the times during which such events may occur), they may not discriminate based on content or viewpoint.2 Governments may not use regulation as a pretext to prevent a constitutionally protected public gathering.3

Under these core First Amendment principles, members of the LGBTQ+ community and their allies are free to assemble and celebrate during Pride Month. In fact, courts have ruled that local governments can take appropriate action to protect Pride events, including by imposing regulations that minimize the risk of violence between event attendees and protesters,4 so long as these regulations are content- and viewpoint-neutral, narrowly tailored to address the government’s interest in public safety, and leave open “ample alternative channels” for expression.5

ICAP’s online guide on constitutional rights during protests is available here for further reference.

But what about new laws that are targeting drag performances?

As of May 2023, legislators in at least fourteen states have introduced legislation to criminalize activities related to drag shows: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia.

1 Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 544-45 (1965).

2 Forsyth Cnty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134 (1992); see also Inst. for Const. Advoc. & Protec., Protests & Public Safety: A Guide for Cities & Citizens [hereinafter Protests & Public Safety], https://constitutionalprotestguide.org.

3 Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

4 Marcavage v. City of Philadelphia, 481 F. App’x 742, 747 (3d. Cir. 2012).

5 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)); see also Protests & Public Safety.

 

Legislators in many of these states have introduced multiple bills on this topic, and more may follow. Language that criminalizes performances that occur in front of minors is strikingly similar across proposed and passed legislation, as well as language that targets performances where a performer exhibits a gender identity “different” from the performer’s gender as “assigned at birth.”6

At this point, anti-drag bills have become law in only two states: Tennessee and Arkansas, although Tennessee’s statute has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge who found that the bill was likely to unconstitutionally constrain free expression.7 Litigation in Tennessee is continuing and legal challenges are expected to be mounted in other states if more of these bills become law. Regardless of whether any of these laws withstand legal challenge, it is important to remember that private paramilitary groups do not have the power to enforce these criminal laws.8

Private paramilitary groups have no authority to detain, attack, or attempt to police drag performers or gender-nonconforming persons at Pride events.

How might armed extremists attempt to interfere with Pride?

Over the past year, there have been documented instances of armed extremists seeking to disrupt LGBTQ+ community events, often by seeking to block entry with armed demonstrations or by initiating conflict with community members. At times, LGBTQ+ events have become the focus of rallying cries for armed extremists. In March 2023, hundreds of armed extremists, including neo-Nazis and other white supremacists, descended on a drag show in Wadsworth, Ohio. In June 2022, members of the white supremacist group Patriot Front were intercepted as they tried to approach a Pride event in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Recent efforts have targeted drag events that are open to all ages, given the focus by violent extremists and private paramilitary organizations on the false narrative that LGBTQ+ communities are sexually “grooming” minors. Due to the public nature of many Pride events, armed extremists may attempt to interfere with gatherings on the pretext that they are open to minors.

What types of activities by armed extremists are considered unlawful?

State and federal laws9 prohibit violence against Pride participants. But state laws also prohibit private paramilitary activity, even where it does not involve physical violence against a targeted person or persons. All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized militias from engaging in activities reserved for the official state militia (for example, the National Guard), including law enforcement activities. Nearly every state constitution prohibits groups functioning as military units from operating outside the

6 S.B. 201, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Kan. 2023); H.F. 1903, 93rd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2023); L.B. 371, 108th Leg., 1st

Sess. (Neb. 2023); H.B. 2736, 59th Leg., 1st Sess. (Okla. 2023); H.B. 4129, 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2023).

7 Friends of George's, Inc. v. Tennessee, Nos. 23-cv-02163, 23-cv-02176, 2023 WL 2755238, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2023).

8 Private militias and paramilitary organizations are not protected by the Constitution and their paramilitary conduct is prohibited in every state. See Inst. for Const. Advoc. & Protec., Prohibiting Private Armies at Public Rallies: A Catalog of Relevant State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions 1-8, (Sept. 2020) [hereinafter Prohibiting Private Armies], https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public- Rallies.pdf.

9 Violent offenses motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be prosecuted as a federal hate crime. See Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. 249. In addition, state laws generally prohibit assaults and other violent conduct, and many also prohibit hate crimes.

 

authority of the state government. Dozens of state statutes prohibit groups of people from organizing as private military units without governmental authorization; dozens of state statutes criminalize paramilitary activity; and many states prohibit the false assumption of law enforcement duties and/or the wearing of uniforms confusingly similar to military uniforms.10 State-specific fact sheets from ICAP are available here for further reference.

This means that armed groups that self-deploy to Pride events and stake out tactical positions, operate in military-style formations, or purport to engage in law enforcement functions like policing, patrolling crowds, or protecting property, are likely in violation of state law. Armed extremists who attempt to intimidate others or perform law enforcement functions may also be violating state laws.

What can Pride organizers do to protect community members?

If Pride event organizers receive threats or know that a vigilante militia group plans to patrol or otherwise synchronize protest movements, they should consider the following options:

• Understand local gun restrictions and anti-paramilitary laws: Become familiar with the laws related to firearms possession and paramilitary activity in the jurisdiction in order to understand the types of armed conduct that may be unlawful.

• Communicate with law enforcement: Share information about threats and vigilante militia plans with local police departments, alongside ICAP’s video guidance and written materials to provide them an opportunity to prepare for potential disruption, prevent illegal coordinated activities, and establish safety plans. Be specific about potential unlawful activity.

• Communicate with threat researchers: Get in touch with ICAP and similar organizations, such as your local ACLU chapter, to become better aware of extremist threats to events.

• Create an action plan: Identify local, state, and federal actors beyond law enforcement who can be reliable partners. This could include city council members, state representatives, legal aid organizations, state attorney general offices, national civil rights organizations, and Members of Congress. Use those resources, alongside information from law enforcement and threat researchers, to plan for paramilitary activity or violence.

• Consider hiring private security: Private security forces should always be licensed professionals who are compliant with state and local law, with credible websites, experience, and credentials. Stay in communication with law enforcement and ensure that you are compliant with local and state regulations if you opt for this measure. You should not hire or agree to use unauthorized armed paramilitary groups as security.

How can Pride organizers ensure that they comply with prohibitions on private militia activity? Why is it important to do so?

Because anti-paramilitary laws are viewpoint-neutral, private armed militia who are acting in support of the LGBTQ+ community are also unauthorized. Their actions could violate the same state laws described in this guidance, and they could be subject to similar penalties. If, after liaising with law enforcement, Pride organizers still have concerns about their security, it is best to research state private security regulations and approach a licensed company for security support while maintaining open communication with the police. Armed counter-protesters who are not properly licensed as security could escalate the potential for violence at an event, which will put attendees at risk.

10 See Prohibiting Private Armies, supra note 8, at 4-8.

 

QUICK GUIDE: What should I do if I see armed groups

at a Pride Event or other LGBTQ+ community event?

First, contact law enforcement if you feel unsafe or believe there is immediate danger. If you are comfortable, try to document the following specific factors:

 What are the armed people doing?

 What are the armed people wearing?

 Are they carrying firearms? If so, what type?

 If there are no firearms, what other weapons do they have?

 Do they appear to have any shared insignia? If so, what do they say or look like? Look for armband, hats, etc.

 Are they bearing signs or flags?

 Do they seem to be patrolling like a law enforcement officer?

 Do they seem to be coordinating their actions?

 Do they have leaders?

 Are they stopping or talking to people outside of their group?

 Do they appear to be provoking or threatening violence? Document specific actions.

 Are attendees being affected by the armed group? Are they leaving the event?

Being able to describe these things will help law enforcement determine an appropriate response, if one is needed.

Finally, please consider reporting the incident to ICAP’s team at reachICAP@georgetown.edu. We will be ready to help.

This guidance was prepared by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown University Law Center. ICAP’s mission is to use the power of the courts to defend American constitutional rights and values. Visit us at www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/. Contact us at reachICAP@georgetown.edu.

God Despises Billionaires

When we think about the Bible, some might think of stories like David & Goliath. Others might think of great teaching like the Sermon on the Mount. Still others might think of prophesy like the book of Revelation. Or some might think about the rise of a nation, the story of Abraham and the birth of Israel.

But the Bible also offers clear warnings—things to avoid. Here are seven verses warning of the dangers of wealth.

– Those who trust in riches will fall.

So says Proverbs 11.28:
“He who trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like the green leaf.”

– It is hard for those who trust in riches to enter God’s Kingdom.

Mark 10.23: “Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

– The impossibility of serving God and money.

Mark 6.24: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

– Wealth can choke God’s word.

Matthew 13.22: “And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.”

– Wealth can lead to pride that causes us to forget the Lord.

Deut. 8.10-14: “When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you. Beware that you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

– Wealth is a temptation and a snare to our hearts.

1 Timothy 6.8-9: “If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction.”

– Be on guard against wealth.

Luke 12.15: “Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

Rich in good works and generosity

The Bible does not teach that wealth is evil in itself, but that we are vulnerable to pride, idolatry and selfishness. Given our weakness, wealth poses grave spiritual danger to all who possess it. On the other hand, wealth can be used for good, as the apostle Paul instructs in 1 Timothy 6.17-19:

Instruct those who are rich in the present age not to be arrogant or to set their hope on the uncertainty of wealth, but on God, who richly provides us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do what is good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good reserve for the age to come, so that they may take hold of life that is real.

Nonetheless, the Bible includes a sobering set of warnings about wealth. And it’s important to remember that, while nearly everyone is quick to point out that they’re not really wealthy, most Americans enjoy considerably more wealth than many in the rest of the world ever have.

How will we respond to God’s warnings about wealth?

See Bill High

National Security Tech Hubs

On behalf of my grandchildren, Thank You Grandpa Biden...

Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs (Tech Hubs)

Apply here. cut and paste:  https://doc-eda.my.site.com/EDAGrants/s/funding-program/a2j3d00000013MxAAI/fy-2023-regional-technology-and-innovation-hub-program-phase-1

Links below are not active.

EDA released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on May 12, 2023 for Phase 1 of the Tech Hubs Program. For the latest updates, sign up for EDA emails and texts. For more information, register for the Informational Webinar on May 18, 2023.

The Tech Hubs Program is an economic development initiative designed to drive regional technology- and innovation-centric growth by strengthening a region’s capacity to manufacture, commercialize, and deploy critical technologies. This program will invest directly in regions with the assets, resources, capacity, and potential to transform into globally competitive innovation centers in approximately 10 years while catalyzing the creation of good jobs for American workers at all skill levels, both equitably and inclusively. 

More here:  https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/regional-technology-and-innovation-hubs

Call McCarthy's Bluff

This Is What Would Happen if Biden Ignores the Debt Ceiling and Calls McCarthy’s Bluff

[spoiler alert - nothing happens]

[See the Contrary view:  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/14/opinion/debt-limit-constitution.html]

By Robert Hockett; NEW YORK TIMES: OPINION GUEST ESSAY; May 9, 2023

Mr. Hockett is a professor of law at Cornell University and a senior counsel at Westwood Capital. He worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the International Monetary Fund.

The deadline for a debt ceiling hike is only weeks away, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen saying the U.S. could run out of money to pay its debts by June 1. Some Republicans, whether serious or bluffing, seem ready to go to the brink of default — if not actually default on the U.S. national debt. Debate has intensified over whether President Biden might sidestep the debt ceiling so the nation can keep paying what it owes.

There are powerful legal reasons and arguments for him to do so. These include the 14th Amendment, which prohibits questioning what we already owe, and the so-called later-in-time rule of statutory construction, which basically means that Congress’s most recent budget legislation trumps any earlier legislated ceiling.

Given the stakes, it’s important to explore the likely consequences if Mr. Biden ignores the debt ceiling — how doing so would affect our economy and the markets, our retirement savings and even our constitutional system. There is encouraging news for the president and those who follow our first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, in believing we must pay our legally incurred debts. We are far better off doing so, even if it means short-term chaos should Mr. Biden allow the June 1 deadline to come and go.

First, consider the consequences if the United States stopped paying its debts and defaulted on June 1. This would undo what Hamilton and his successors sought to ensure: a national credit rating beyond cavil or reproach. We would see a great tottering — if not worse — of U.S. banking, U.S. financial markets and the world’s capital markets.

For one thing, U.S. Treasury securities, valued at over $24 trillion (by far, the largest asset market in the world), are the primary safe asset held in banking, pension fund, mutual fund and other business portfolios. Our present regional bank crisis involving Silicon Valley Bank and others is occurring in response to a relatively slight, temporary drop in the value of low-yield Treasuries largely because of the Fed’s interest rate hikes. An outright default would leave us nostalgic for the comparable placidity of this troubled moment.

We would also probably see a rapid plunge in the value of the dollar worldwide as a global reserve asset. Our currency’s value in relation to others’ is rooted primarily in global demand for dollar-denominated financial assets, since we have relinquished our primacy as a goods exporter to China. Since Treasury securities are by far the most voluminous asset, their slide would be the dollar’s slide. This would quickly render imports, on which we continue to rely, far more expensive. Inflation could look more like that of Argentina or Russia 20 years ago than that of the present or even the 1970s.

This is to say nothing of our subsequent incapacity to maintain our military bases and other assets abroad and to pay thousands of U.S. military personnel. Only China would be a world-bestriding global superpower, abetting the moves it is already making with Russia, Brazil and other nations to displace the dollar as what Valéry Giscard d’Estaing once called the United States’ global “exorbitant privilege.”

Finally, even the serious prospect of U.S. default would quickly raise debt-servicing costs, rendering our deficit larger than it currently is — a consequence dramatically at odds with Republicans’ professed concerns about tying the debt ceiling hike to massive budget cuts.

It almost makes you think that fiscal responsibility isn’t what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s caucus really wants.

Now suppose the president decides to challenge or ignore the debt ceiling and instructs Ms. Yellen, on June 1 or before, to continue paying our nation’s obligations, as established by Congress in the most recent budget legislation, no matter what. Assume also that he and his administration carefully explain to the nation the legal and financial bases — not to mention the moral ones — for continuing to pay our debts.

The best-case scenario in this situation is that Mr. McCarthy’s caucus recognizes it has no legal case and its bluff has been called and that it gives up the tactic and passes budget legislation to which the Senate and the president can ultimately agree. This is unlikely but not impossible. After all, the only real alternative for Mr. McCarthy would be to go to court and seek to enjoin the president’s decision to continue to pay obligations — legal obligations already legislatively incurred. The impact of going to court to argue for defaulting on the nation’s debt, let alone the political optics for Mr. McCarthy, would be very risky.

It’s also possible that Mr. McCarthy’s Republicans howl in protest and stage more hearings and votes on the budget in the House, taking us to the brink of June 1 before legislatively addressing the debt ceiling. But it’s hard to see this getting them anything other than impotent spectacle, further cementing their public image as unserious, especially if the president formally repudiates the debt ceiling now or this month, rather than waiting until June.

But suppose the Republicans take the president to court nonetheless. What then? Assuming the courts didn’t refuse to hear the case on justiciability grounds, the challenge would certainly receive expedited review, given the magnitude of the matter. During the brief time the issue was being litigated, we’d see the beginnings of some of the nightmare economic scenarios sketched above.

But only the beginnings. The president’s multiple arguments would be compelling, and the markets, in any case, are already pricing in worries of this sort. The prospect of an end to the too-often threatened fiscal terrorism that is debt ceiling gamesmanship, moreover, would surely be more welcome to the markets than would be continued hostage taking and associated uncertainty of the kind that Republicans now regularly impose on the nation and its creditors.

However radical some of the Supreme Court’s right-wing justices might be, even they understand the legal precept that the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. Even less so is the 1917 Liberty Bond Act, in which the debt ceiling is rooted. As a legal matter, this ceiling has long since been superseded by a new congressional budget process that has determined its own ceiling through budgeting since 1974 and was of doubtful 14th Amendment conformity, at least as now interpreted, in 1917.

Several of the court’s justices are pragmatic people on economic questions. It is exceedingly difficult to imagine Chief Justice John Roberts (who famously upheld Obamacare in 2012 and after) or Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, let alone the court’s Democratic appointees, demanding default — especially if the aforementioned financial tremors have already begun.

Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett are a bit harder to call, but it seems likely that at least Justice Alito would refrain from demanding default, given his record of moderate decisions on issues of financial law. All but Justice Clarence Thomas and perhaps Justice Barrett, accordingly, look fairly likely to strike the debt ceiling, at least as applied by Republicans, should they try to sue the president out of paying our already legislated obligations come June.

Will invoking the 14th Amendment amount to a constitutional crisis, as Ms. Yellen suggested this week? Not really. For one thing, as noted above, there are multiple grounds upon which Republican hostage taking on the debt ceiling is contrary to law, and not all of them implicate the Constitution. For another thing — and, in my view, yet more important — the present issue is not really a legal issue pitting the president against Congress.

The current debt ceiling nonsense is a case of one faction of Congress being pitted against Congress itself. Our legally contracted debt is congressionally legislated debt; refusal to pay on this debt boils down to the House Republican faction refusing to pay what Congress itself has mandated we pay.

Let us now end the absurdity. Let us bury the Liberty Bond-era debt ceiling.

Robert Hockett is a professor of law at Cornell University, an adjunct professor of finance at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and a senior counsel at Westwood Capital. He worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the International Monetary Fund. 

Hope Today

Today is a good day.

Jake Sullivan outlined an economic strategy for the United States which, if followed, can prevent real damage to the National Security of the United States.

Now, we can hope that our billionaire owners will allow Congress to make the changes we need to continue as a democracy and, even, save their billionaire hides along with the rest of us.

Heather Cox Richardson,  April 27, 2023 (Thursday)

Catie Edmondson and Carl Hulse in the New York Times yesterday noted that House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) cannot bring his conference together behind a budget plan. He wanted to pass a bill demanding major concessions from President Biden before the Republicans would agree to raise the debt ceiling, both to prove that he could get his colleagues behind a bill and to put pressure on the Biden administration to restore the old Republican idea that the only way to make the economy work is to slash taxes, business regulation, and government spending.

McCarthy was pleased to have passed his measure with not a single vote to spare, but it appears he got the vote because everyone knew it was dead on arrival at the Senate. According to Edmonson and Hulse, McCarthy got the bill through only by begging his colleagues to ignore the provisions of the measure because it would never become law. He urged them to focus on the symbolic victory of showing Biden they could unite behind cuts.

But today at the Brookings Institution, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan outlined a very different vision of the global economy and American economic leadership. First of all, just the fact this happened is significant: Sullivan is a national security advisor, and he was talking about economics. He outlined how Biden’s “core commitment,” “his daily direction” is “to integrate domestic policy and foreign policy.” 

Sullivan argued for a new economic approach to the challenges of the twenty-first century. The Biden administration is trying to establish “a fairer, more durable global economic order, for the benefit of ourselves and for people everywhere.” 

The U.S. faces economic challenges, he noted, many of which have been created by the economic ideology that has shaped U.S. policy for the past 40 years. The idea that markets would spread capital to where it was most needed to create an efficient and effective economy has been proven wrong, Sullivan said. The U.S. cut taxes and slashed business regulations, privatized public projects, and pushed free trade on principle with the understanding that all growth was good growth and that if we lost infrastructure and manufacturing, we could make up those losses in finance, for example.

As countries lowered their economic barriers and became more closely integrated with each other, they would also become more open and peaceful. 

But that’s not how it played out. Privileging finance over fundamental economic growth was a mistake. The U.S. lost supply chains and entire industries as jobs moved overseas, while countries like China discarded markets in favor of artificially subsidizing their economies. Rather than ushering in world peace, the market-based system saw an aggressive China and Russia both expanding their international power. At the same time, climate change accelerated without countries making much effort to address it. And, most of all, the unequal growth of the older system has undermined democracy.

Biden has attempted to counter the weaknesses of the previous economic system by focusing on building capacity to produce and innovate, resilience to withstand natural disasters and geopolitical shocks, and inclusiveness to rebuild the American middle class and greater opportunity for working people around the world.

After two years, the results have been “remarkable.” 

Large-scale investment in semiconductor and clean energy production has jumped 20-fold since 2019, with private money following government seed money to mean about $3.5 trillion in public and private investment will flow into the economy in the next decade. Building domestic capacity will bring supply chains home and create jobs.

But this vision is not about isolating the United States from other countries. Indeed, much of the speech reinforced U.S. support for the positions of the European Union. 

Instead, the U.S. is encouraging our allies—including developing nations—to build similarly to increase our united economic strengths and to enable the world to address climate change together, a field that offers huge potential for economic growth. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework with 13 Indo-Pacific nations is designed to create international economic cooperation in that region, and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, which includes Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay, is designed to do the same here in the Americas. The U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council and our trilateral coordination with Japan and Korea are part of the same economic program.

With this economic approach, the U.S. does not seek to cut ties to China, but rather aims to cut the risks associated with supply chains based in China by investing in our own capacities, and to push for a level playing field for our workers and companies. The U.S. has “a very substantial trade and investment relationship” with China that set a new record last year, and the U.S. is looking not to create conflict but to “manage competition responsibly” and “work together on global challenges like climate, like macroeconomic stability, health security, and food security.” “But,” he said, “China has to be willing to play its part.”

In today’s world, Sullivan said, trade policy is not just about the tariff deals that business leaders have criticized the administration for neglecting. It is about a larger economic strategy both at home and abroad to build economies that offer rising standards of living for working people. 

The administration is now focusing on labor rights, climate change, and banking security in this larger picture. Through organizations like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment the administration hopes to mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars in financing in the next seven years to build infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries and to relieve debt there.

“The world needs an international economic system that works for our wage-earners, works for our industries, works for our climate, works for our national security, and works for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries,” Sullivan said. That means replacing the idea of free markets alone with “targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.” Rather than simply adjusting tariff rates, it means international cooperation.

And, Sullivan said, “it means returning to the core belief we first championed 80 years ago: that America should be at the heart of a vibrant, international financial system that enables partners around the world to reduce poverty and enhance shared prosperity. And that a functioning social safety net for the world’s most vulnerable countries is essential to our own core interests.”

This strategy, he said, “is the surest path to restoring the middle class, to producing a just and effective clean-energy transition, to securing critical supply chains, and, through all of this, to repairing faith in democracy itself.” He called for bipartisan support for this approach to the global economy. 

Sullivan noted that the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” came from President John F. Kennedy, not from later supply-side ideologues who used it to defend their tax cuts and business deregulation. “President Kennedy wasn’t saying what’s good for the wealthy is good for the working class,” Sullivan said, “He was saying we’re all in this together.”

Sullivan quoted Kennedy further: “If one section of the country is standing still, then sooner or later a dropping tide drops all the boats. That’s true for our country. That’s true for our world. [And] economically, over time, we’re going to rise—or fall—together.” 

“And that goes for the strength of our democracies as well as for the strength of our economies.”

Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen noted that David Wessel of Brookings asked Sullivan for a quick summary of this new economic vision. Sullivan answered: “We’re at a moment now where we need to build capacity to build the goods & invent the technologies of [the] future & we’re going to make the investments to do that—us, +everyone who wants to be in on [the] deal. & then we’re going to build the resilience we need…so that no natural disaster or geopolitical shock can stop us from getting things we need when we need them….”