Archive by Author

Recycling critical minerals is an underappreciated national security tool

The United States is facing a critical mineral crisis that is threatening our national security. 

As numerous studies have demonstrated, the United States relies almost entirely on foreign entities for a range of critical minerals — including lithium, cobalt and nickel — that form the technological foundation of a wide array of consumer and military technologies, ranging from electric vehicle batteries to advanced weapon systems. Despite the importance of these minerals to both civilian and military technologies, the U.S produces only a fraction of its minerals supply here in the United States, leaving it open to major disruptions caused by natural disasters, geopolitical conflicts or supply chain failures.  

Luckily, a bipartisan effort to secure the United States’ supply of critical materials is underway in Washington. In the past year, Congress has passed or introduced a number of bills to secure the United States’ supply of these critical minerals by boosting our nation’s capacity to acquire and extract them domestically. Although Congress should be applauded for its recent efforts, the truth is the United States won’t be able to produce or stockpile its way out of the current critical mineral crisis. 

In order to secure the nation’s critical minerals supply, the United States also needs to increase its efforts to “make-use-recycle” critical materials that are already in circulation and repurpose them for future use — drawing from a set of strategies that some economists and policy experts have begun calling the “circular economy.” 

At the core of the circular economy model is the effort to recover still-viable critical materials from existing products and reintegrate them into commerce via a “reverse supply chain,” rather than solely extracting new minerals from mines. Proponents of this approach often cite its ability to prevent environmental degradation and combat climate change by reducing waste and limiting the need for new, carbon-intensive manufacturing and extraction. Importantly, though, the principles of the circular economy will also be crucial to reducing the United States’ dependence on strategic adversaries for critical minerals. 

The United States’ dependence on its geostrategic adversaries for critical materials constrains its ability to maneuver strategically and diplomatically. For instance, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, China currently accounts for more than 90 percent of the world’s rare earth processing capacity, while Russia is the largest supplier of palladium — a key mineral for reducing toxic emissions from automobile exhaust — to the United States. 

It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a strategic competitor could threaten to withhold its supply of critical materials unless the U.S. complied with its demands. Indeed, Japan faced this scenario in 2010, when China cut off rare earth element (REE) exports to Japan over a maritime security dispute, roiling global markets and threatening consumer electronic and hybrid vehicle battery production in Japan.    

It is therefore not surprising the U.S. government is reviewing the national security implications of U.S. imports of neodymium magnets — used in a wide range of vehicle components, wind turbines, phones, appliances and power tools — from China, which is the world’s only active processor of these magnets. 

Increasing the United States’ efforts to recover and repurpose critical minerals would go a long way toward resolving these vulnerabilities. Let’s look at the numbers. 

The United States mined 43,000 tons of rare earth ores in 2021, according to the USGS but exported 45,000 tons primarily to China (including ores from external sources) for processing and re-export back to the U.S. market. A recent peer-reviewed study found that recycling from select consumer goods and recovery from the byproducts of other mining and phosphate processing could yield from two to 11 times the volume of rare earth elements that could be extracted through processing the raw materials.  

Although cost, availability and quality are major factors in the success of recycling, the potential is nevertheless there to retrieve up to three-and-a-half times more dysprosium from recycling earbuds than from ores, six times more lanthanum from hybrid batteries, six times more neodymium from spent polishing powders and 11 times more scandium from aluminum and other “red mud” ore processing.  This yield could be a significant secure source of critical materials with the acceleration of the circular economy. 

Approaching the circular economy from the standpoint of national security will require the international community to reexamine certain policies that, while designed to combat climate change and environmental degradation in the short term, may actually impede the transition to a circular economy and undermine national security efforts. A new proposal under consideration by the Basel Convention, for example, would restrict the trade-in of all end-of-life electronics. This will make it more difficult to extract still-viable critical materials — such as rare earths, lithium, cobalt, indium, nickel, gallium and tantalum found in mobile phones — from end-of-life products and put them back into productive commerce. 

The implication is clear: a circular economy is a national security imperative. In tandem with its efforts to boost domestic production of critical materials, Congress should also recognize that building reverse supply chains for critical materials will be essential to securing the United States’ supply of critical minerals.

Ultimately, a circular economy will result not only in a cleaner and more sustainable planet, it will also lead to a safer and more secure homeland.  

Adina Renee Adler is deputy executive director of Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington-area think tank focused on trade, environmental, and cybersecurity policy. Adler is a former U.S. trade negotiator and has worked in the recycling and commodity manufacturing industries. @AdinaReneeAdler  

Source: TEST FEED1

Senate passes $40 billion Ukraine aid package

The Senate voted 86 to 11 Thursday to approve a $40 billion Ukraine aid package that would replenish U.S. stockpiles of weapons transferred to Ukraine and provide billions of dollars to help the Ukrainian government continue operating and for humanitarian assistance.  

President Biden is expected to sign the legislation, which exceeds his $33 billion request to Congress, immediately. The House passed the legislation overwhelmingly earlier this month by a vote of 368 to 57. 

Democratic and Republican leaders hailed the vote as a crucial step to halting Russian aggression and firmly within U.S. national security interests.  

“This is a large package, and it will meet the large needs of the Ukrainian people as they fight for their survival. As President Zelensky has said, the Ukrainians are caught up in a fight for democracy, the very democracy we love itself,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor before the vote, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  

“It’s a fight we should not and cannot turn away from,” he warned.  

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) also hailed the vote and pushed back on fellow Republicans, such as former President Trump, who have complained about the cost of the package.  

“The future of America’s security and core strategic interests will be shaped by the outcome of this fight. Anyone concerned about the cost of supporting a Ukrainian victory should consider the much larger cost should Ukraine lose,” he said.  

The legislation would authorize the transfer of American weapons and equipment to Ukraine and provide $9 billion to replenish depleted U.S. weapons stockpiles. It would also provide nearly $9 billion for continued operations of the Ukrainian government and $4 billion in international disaster assistance.  

Eleven Republican senators led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voted against the measure.  

Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), John Boozman (Ark.), Mike Braun (Ind.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Mike Lee (Utah), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), and Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) also voted against the measure.  

Source: TEST FEED1

The four Democrats who bucked party and voted no on gas price-gouging bill

Four Democrats bucked party lines on Wednesday and voted against a bill that seeks to combat alleged gas price gouging.

The legislation, dubbed the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, passed the House in a 217-207 vote. All of those who voted for the bill were Democrats, and five Republicans did not vote.

Reps. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) broke from the rest of the Democratic caucus and voted against the measure.

The bill aims to ban the sale of fuel at an “excessive” price during times that are considered an energy emergency, but it does not offer particulars on what that price threshold is. It also seeks to give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to pursue legal action if it discovers that price gouging is taking place.

Many economists and market analysts have said they do not see evidence of price gouging despite Democrats’ claims, arguing that the bill is a political gesture.

Democrats have said record profits recently posted by major oil companies as the country deals with high prices is evidence of “gouging.”

The bill comes as gas prices in the U.S. have skyrocketed. On Thursday, regular gasoline averaged about $4.59, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it is unlikely to make it over the hurdle of GOP opposition.

Murphy in a statement on Thursday said the price-gouging bill “takes the wrong approach,” claiming that it “could further reduce supply” and worsen the current situation.

“At best, this bill is a distraction that won’t actually address the problem. At worst, it could make the problem more severe,” Murphy wrote.

She also cited comments from Larry Summers, who served Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration. Summers said the bill would not reduce inflation, but could “cause and contrive all kinds of shortages.” 

Fletcher in a statement on Thursday said “this legislation is not the answer.”

“The Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act would not fix high gasoline prices at the pump, and has the potential to exacerbate the supply shortage our country is facing, leading to even worse outcomes,” she wrote. “For these reasons, I voted no on this legislation today.”

The Hill reached out to Rice and Golden for comment on their votes.

Source: TEST FEED1

Investigating the SCOTUS leak: Here’s what needs to be done

Chief Justice John Roberts’s announcement of an investigation into the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade has led to speculation about the form such an investigation would take and how effective it is likely to be. Based on our many years of experience conducting such investigations we know they can be challenging and disruptive to any organization, much less an institution where collegiality and confidentiality are sacrosanct. There are ways, however, to get to the truth while respecting the court’s singular and delicate ecosystem.

Supreme Court Marshal Col. Gail A. Curley has been charged with investigating the leak, and she has an admirable and impressive record of service to our country. This investigation requires specialized technical knowledge and access to robust investigative tools that might not be readily available to her. Moreover, it’s unclear whether the Marshal or the Supreme Court Police would even have authority to conduct a criminal investigation of the leak, as federal law appears to authorize them to make arrests only as necessary to protect the Supreme Court building, grounds, and personnel.

While it is understandable that Chief Justice Roberts may want to handle this matter in-house and avoid involvement of anyone outside of the judicial branch, agents and prosecutors who undertake such work regularly — the professionals of the executive branch — would likely be more effective. We recommend that Chief Justice Roberts consider making a criminal referral or requesting appointment of a special counsel who knows and respects the Court’s traditions but who, unlike the Department of Justice, is not a regular party before the court. A former U.S. attorney with prior service to the court and with extensive experience conducting complex investigations in a civilian environment could get the support needed from the FBI or any other law enforcement agency to accomplish the task.

Whoever conducts the investigation needs to take certain steps and avoid others. Normally, an important first step is to understand who had a motive to leak: Who would benefit from sharing something that was intended to remain secret? However, such an exercise may prove fruitless here, given arguments that either side of the ideological divide might be seeking a benefit — by increasing public pressure to modify the opinion or by applying pressure on conservative justices to support it as written. 

Even without establishing motive, the investigator needs swiftly to establish the trail left by the leaked document. Who had access to the draft and when? The document Politico published on May 2 was dated Feb. 10, 2022. Normally, if there were later drafts, the investigator would look for meaningful changes that could indicate why the February 10 version was the one leaked. In a similar vein, the investigator would look for electronic or physical records to identify any individual who accessed the earlier version, or made copies of the physical draft, when it was presumably no longer relevant to the deliberative process. In this case, however, media reports have suggested there were no subsequent drafts. With that in mind, the investigator should look for other triggering events that might explain the delayed disclosure — such as subsequent meetings or emails addressing the opinion or even events that occurred outside the Court — and try to get as much detail as possible concerning those events. 

As part of this process, it is imperative that whomever is charged with investigating the leak have access to computers, telephones, and other electronic devices used by court personnel. Recovering a deleted version of the leaked draft on someone’s computer or telephone, identifying instances in which it was remotely accessed and/or downloaded, or finding electronic or telephonic links to Politico staff all could help to identify a suspect.

While the pool of potential leakers might appear to be limited to justices, clerks, and administrative staff, other parties could be involved. Marshal Curley may need to consider the possibility of a leak by security personnel under her own command, adding a layer of complexity to the investigation. Moreover, Politico’s disclosure that it “received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document,” leaves open the possibility the draft came from someone one step removed from the Court, such as a trusted friend or family member of a court staffer or even of one of the justices. Also, what about other court employees, such as maintenance or IT staff? Might they not have access to court papers and familiarity with the court’s proceedings?

In any event, it makes sense to cast a wide net when looking for suspects — even though gathering information from, and about, third parties will likely be more difficult as they enjoy a higher expectation of privacy than government employees.

Even under the best circumstances, leak investigations are difficult. Sometimes inquiries reveal “smoking gun” evidence in the form of electronic or paper trails, but this is rare. Subpoenas will likely be necessary to gather relevant telephone or business records, and it is almost always necessary to conduct interviews. In this instance, however, to avoid further fracturing the institution, the entire process needs to be executed with heightened discretion and sensitivity to the deliberative process of the court.

Knowing how challenging leak investigations can be, we wish Marshal Curley success in her efforts to identify the leaker and enact procedures to prevent future leaks. It is not an understatement to say that the integrity of the court — and the political health of the nation — hang in the balance.

Given that reality, it may be time for the Chief Justice to put aside any hesitation about inviting the Department of Justice to bring its full symphony of resources to bear on this inquiry — either directly or through appointment of a special counsel. 

Nicholas Peck and Thomas Feeney are senior managing directors at Nardello & Co., a global investigations firm.

Source: TEST FEED1

Group cites Cruz role in Trump election claims in complaint to Texas state bar

A group that works to disbar lawyers who say worked on former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election filed a complaint against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday.

“Mr. Cruz played a leading role in the effort to overturn the 2020 elections,” the 65 Project said in a letter to the State Bar of Texas. 

“And while the same can be said about several other elected officials, Mr. Cruz’s involvement was manifestly different,” it added.

Cruz said in 2020 he was “ready to present the oral argument” before the Supreme Court if justices agreed to hear a case seeking to overturn Pennsylvania’s election results.

Wednesday’s letter said Cruz “chose to take on the role of lawyer and agreed to represent Mr. Trump and Pennsylvania Republicans in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court.” 

“In doing so, Mr. Cruz moved beyond his position as a United States senator and sought to use more than his Twitter account and media appearances to support Mr. Trump’s anti-democratic mission,” the group wrote.

“Mr. Cruz knew that the allegations he was echoing had already been reviewed and rejected by courts. And he knew that claims of voter fraud or the election being stolen were false,” it added.

The Hill has reached out to Cruz for comment.

Though there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud, the former president launched several legal efforts in key battleground states in an attempt to overturn his loss to President Biden.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill’s 12:30 Report — Washington focuses on formula shortage

To view past editions of The Hill’s 12:30 Report, click here: https://bit.ly/30ARS1U 

To receive The Hill’s 12:30 Report in your inbox, please sign up here: https://bit.ly/3qmIoS9

–> A midday take on what’s happening in politics and how to have a sense of humor about it.* 

*Ha. Haha. Hahah. Sniff. Haha. Sniff. Ha–breaks down crying hysterically.

TALK OF THE MORNING 

Suppliers, this means you: 

President Biden has invoked the Defense Production Act to ease the baby formula shortage in the U.S. 

What that effectively means, according to The Hills Morgan Chalfant: “The White House announced in a fact sheet that Biden would use the Cold War-era law to require suppliers to ‘direct needed resources to infant formula manufacturers before any other customer who may have ordered that good.’” 

More on how to the administration is trying to fix the problem 

‘WHAT PARENTS DID BEFORE BABY FORMULA’:  

The Atlantic’s Carla Cevasco writes, “The history of infant feeding before modern formula should caution us against gloating, as some have on social media, that the formula shortage will drive more parents to breastfeed. The past offers us a grim warning: Without safe, nutritionally complete alternatives to breast milk, infants will die.” The full story 

What is Congress doing about it?: 

The House passed two bills yesterday to ease the national shortage of infant formula.  

The main bill: It would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) $28 million in emergency funding. 

The vote: The bill passed 231-192, mostly along party lines 

Why most Republicans voted against the bill: Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of “covering up the administration’s ineptitude by throwing additional money at the FDA with no plan to actually fix the problem, all while failing to hold the FDA accountable.” The list of the 12 Republicans who bucked their party and voted in favor of the bill 

➤WHAT HAPPENS NOW?: 
“The bills were put forward by House Democrats and their fate is uncertain in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer [(N.Y.)] indicated on Wednesday that lawmakers will try to pass something in the Senate through a unanimous consent request, which could be blocked by the objection of any single senator.” More from CNN

IT’S THURSDAY. I’m Cate Martel with a quick recap of the morning and what’s coming up. Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Sign up here.

🏛 News this morning 

Pete Williams is a legend:

NBC News’ Pete Williams is retiring in July after a decades-long career of covering the Justice Department and Supreme Court — including breaking numerous historic stories. 

From NBC News President Noah Oppenheim: “For generations of [NBC News] reporters, working alongside Pete has been a daily masterclass in journalism. More importantly, it has been a masterclass in what it means to be a good colleague.” 

More on the significance of his retirement: The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr describes his “epic Washington career.”

🗳 On the campaign trail 

Should I stay or will I go? Dun, dun, buh, bun, dun, dun:

The question everyone in Washington, D.C., is asking is whether President Biden will run for another term in 2024. 

What’s Biden saying about it?: “The 79-year-old Democrat and his closest allies say he wants a second White House term and plans to run again. Biden told former President Barack Obama he intends to launch another bid.”  

So, we have our answer, right? Not quite: “But that hasn’t silenced the whispered questions about whether he will do so given his age — he will be 81 in November 2024 — and his rocky approval ratings. The party is also bracing for a difficult midterm election season, and some think negative results could change the president’s calculations.” How it could play out if Biden does *not* run again, via The Hill’s Amie Parnes and Hanna Trudo.

Were you in DC on Jan. 6, 2021? No biggie. You can run:

“Republican candidates who were in Washington, D.C., during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection won primary elections to appear on the November ballot in North Carolina and Idaho on Tuesday, while one of the few Republicans who refused to go along with a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election results lost a bid for a new term in Idaho.” 

What this means for the midterms, via The Hill’s Reid Wilson 

➤ ‘GOP LAWMAKERS SAY PRIMARIES SHOW TRUMP’S FIRM GRIP ON PARTY’: 
Via The Hill’s Alexander Bolton

In the White House 

The JB seal of approval:

Via The New York Times’s David E. Sanger, “President Biden formally endorsed Finland and Sweden’s applications to join NATO on Wednesday, while also issuing a carefully-worded warning to Russia that the U.S. would help defend the countries in the interim before they become members of the alliance covered by its commitment that ‘an attack on one is as attack on all.’” What this would mean internationally

➤ HAPPENING AT THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY: 
The prime minister of Sweden and the president of Finland just met with President Biden at the White House. 

Photo of Biden welcoming them to the White House: Via Reuters’ Steve Holland 

Video of the joint press conference: It started around 10:30 a.m. EDT.

🦠 Latest on COVID 

➤ BY THE NUMBERS 

Cases to date: 82.6 million 

Death toll: 997,887 

Current hospitalizations: 17,951 

Shots administered: 582 million 

Fully vaccinated: 66.5 percent of Americans 

CDC data here.

🐥Notable tweets 

It’s almost intern season!:

District Media Group’s Evie Solheim tweeted, “DC LADIES – Intern season is almost upon us here in DC. What’s your advice to interns who want to make the most of this summer?” There’s some great advice in the replies. 

Getting traction — everyone, including Bush, cringed a bit: 

During remarks about Ukraine, former President George W. Bush made an awkward gaffe. 

Bush said: “The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.” He paused and then joked, “75,” referring to his age. Watch the video. 

Back story to the gaffe, which Fox News referred to as “unfortunate.” 

⏱On tap 

The House and Senate are in. President Biden is on his way to South Korea. Vice President Harris is in Washington, D.C. 

• 8:30 a.m. EDT: Biden received his daily brief. 
• 9:15 a.m. EDT: Biden and Harris met with Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson and Finnish President Sauli Niinistö to discuss their NATO applications. 
• 11 a.m. EDT: House votes. Today’s House agenda 
• 11:30 a.m. EDT: President Biden left for South Korea. 
• 11:30 a.m. EDT: Two Senate votes on the Ukraine aid package. Today’s Senate agenda 
• 1:45 p.m. EDT: Two more Senate votes. 

📺What to watch 

• 10:30 a.m. EDT: President Biden, Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson and Finnish President Sauli Niinistö held a joint press conference. Livestream 
• 2:05 p.m. EDT: Vice President Harris holds a virtual meeting with abortion providers. Livestream 
• 3:30 p.m. EDT: White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre speaks with reporters aboard Air Force One. Livestream 

🧁 In lighter news 

Today is National Devil’s Food Cake Day.

I am cackling: 

Creighton University professor Victoria Haneman tweeted a photo of a security question on an iPad that serves as a child block. “There is a lot to process with this new parental verification on my child’s iPad,” she tweeted. The parental security question 

CNN’s Jake Tapper responded with his own parental verification question: Though I argue you would likely not know this answer if you are currently a parent of young children.   

^ Go ahead. Tell me I’m wrong. Email is cmartel@thehill.com 😉  

And to leave you with a smile, here’s a dog with absolutely no chill.

Source: TEST FEED1

Senate Democrats press Biden to appoint coordinator for baby formula shortage

A group of 32 Senate Democrats released a letter Wednesday asking President Biden to appoint a White House coordinator to address the nationwide baby formula shortage.

“We urge you to immediately assign a coordinator within the White House to work with manufacturers directly and oversee the development and implementation of a national strategy for increasing the resiliency of the infant formula supply chain and protecting against future contamination and shortages,” the lawmakers wrote.

The Democrats’ letter, released by Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.) and Robert Casey (Penn.) comes amid a nationwide shortage of baby formula that began due, in large part, to recalls by the producer Abbott Nutrition. In February, the company recalled its formula products after two infants died from ingesting formula produced in Abbott’s Michigan plant.

Supply chain issues, which have plagued the economy for months due to the pandemic, have also played a factor in the shortage.

Pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS have been forced to ration their supplies of the product while the formula supply remains limited.

Biden on Wednesday invoked the Defense Production Act to address the issue.

The group wrote that the Biden administration’s national strategy should “rapidly address immediate needs associated with the shortage, including identifying specific action steps and deadlines for addressing the shortage.”

“It should also provide critical information to parents and caregivers, including where to find formula, how to transition from one formula to another, if needed, and what to do if a medical or specialty formula is unavailable,” the letter added.

The senators said that the administration should construct a more comprehensive plan for making Americans aware of shortage issues in the future, calling for a “long-term strategy that allows for better information-sharing across federal, state, and local governments regarding shortages, improved and ongoing coordination with manufacturers and retailers, and measures for protecting the safety and integrity of the formula supply.”

“We need organized leadership and a clear plan for addressing this crisis,” the lawmakers pleaded. “We cannot stop working on this issue until babies are fed.”

Source: TEST FEED1

How does a country become part of NATO?

Finland and Sweden have applied to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its third month, a conflict that has shaken up European geopolitics.

After almost 70 years of non-alignment, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday that both countries have officially applied for membership.

And on Thursday, President Biden welcomed both leaders of the Nordic countries at the White House.

During remarks from the rose garden, the American president emphasized the U.S.’s support for the countries’ desire to join the alliance, stating that their membership would make the world more secure. 

“Today, my administration is submitting to the United States Congress reports on NATO accession for both countries, so the Senate can efficiently and quickly move on advising and consenting to the treaty,” he said Thursday. 

The Nordic countries have been neutral for decades, but both are located in close proximity to Russia, and fears of aggression have mounted following the invasion of Ukraine.

Here is how a country becomes a member of NATO: 

What is NATO?

NATO was first created in 1949, in the aftermath of World War II as a military alliance which rests on the principle of “collective defense.”

The principle is enumerated in Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty, which states that an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all.

According to NATO, the Alliance was created with a three pronged aim – “deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.”

The 12 founding member countries of NATO were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

Membership has now been expanded to include 30 countries including: Albania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Turkey and Latvia. 

The last member to be inducted into the alliance was North Macedonia in 2020. 

Why do countries want to join NATO?

Both Finland and Sweden are members of NATO’s Partnerships for Peace program, which  also includes countries from the former Soviet Union.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the heads of both the Finnish and Swedish governments issued statements expressing their country’s desire to join the bloc and benefit from the collective defense strategy.

Christopher Skaluba, director at the Atlantic Council’s  Transatlantic Security Initiative in Brussels told The Hill that “why Sweden and Finland want to join now is actually exactly the reason people wanted to join in 1949. It was concerned then about the Soviet threat, now the Russian threat.”

Skaluba added that after the Russian buildup around Ukraine and the subsequent invasion, Sweden and Finland’s desire to join NATO went from “an idea in the back of someone’s mind to actually happening.”

He added that “it’s directly related to NATO’s original purpose, which is deterrence and defense against the Soviet or Russian threat.” 

Both the Finns and the Swedes possess capable militaries, according to Skaluba, who added that the two countries have defended their own sovereignty for a long time. 

“The Finns in particular have developed a very thoughtful system for territorial defense and so they don’t expect that they’re going to need NATO’s help in defending their territory, they’re not going to ask for a big NATO force presence.But what they want is the insurance policy,” he added.

According to Kristine Berzina, a Senior Fellow with German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy Russia, “is showing its colors and its aggressive intentions against Europe, both in its actions in Ukraine, but in the express messages that Russia put out in December and January demanding that Europe turn back time to the military order that existed in the mid 90s.”

What is the NATO membership process?

The NATO membership process has multiple steps. 

First, NATO officially invites potential members to begin accession talks with the alliance.

According to NATO, the accession talks at its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, are aimed at “obtaining formal confirmation from the invitees of their willingness and ability to meet the political, legal and military obligations and commitments of NATO membership, as laid out in the Washington Treaty and in the Study on NATO Enlargement.”

The countries seeking entrance to the alliance also must agree to undertake any necessary reforms on which their membership hinges. 

The second step in the accession process is a letter of intent where “each invitee country provides confirmation of its acceptance of the obligations and commitments of membership in the form of a letter of intent from each foreign minister addressed to the NATO Secretary General.”

Third, Accession Protocols are created to be included in the Washington Treaty for each invitee. 

According to Skaluba, “every enlargement round at NATO went through the same Accession Protocol where the treaty has been modified.”

Once this is signed by the member countries, they become amendments or additions to the treaty, which “permit the invited countries to become parties to the Treaty.”

Accession protocols then need to be ratified by every NATO member country and by their governments. In the U.S., for example, the accession protocols require the Senate to pass the legislation via a two-thirds majority.

After every member country ratifies the protocols, the NATO secretary general invites the new countries to accede to the Washington Treaty. 

Only once the countries formally submit their “instruments of accession” to the U.S. State Department they will formally become NATO members.

“Joining NATO was never meant to be this hard, but because the alliance is now so big it just complicates things because you have to get 30 different leaders lined up and on the same page and 30 different legislatures lined up on the same page,” Skaluba added.

How long does the membership process take?

The membership process for any country seeking entry into the alliance can take months. 

The 30 countries each need to vote, and, according to Berzina, “we’re going into a summer where there are political priorities, but other things like recess and election cycles and other priorities that across 30 countries can be disruptive.”

She added that if “things go smoothly” Finland and Sweden could officially be members by this Fall. 

Member states and their legislative calendars

Berzina told The Hill added that the confirmation process for potential NATO members can fall victim to political calendars in the allied countries, both in terms of recesses and elections. 

For the U.S. in particular, Berzina said that it will be symbolically important to move quickly on Finland and Sweden’s application.

“It’s going to be important to move quickly, which of course congressional leaders have expressed the desire to do. That swiftness will signal that the U.S. is committed to voting to this process. If there are bumps in the road, Russia or other adversaries will claim weakness of the United States or of NATO because of a bumpy process.”

She added that the style with which the U.S. Congress manages the NATO ratification process and the seriousness with which Congress takes the process will be watched incredibly closely.

“Any failures and any kind of delays will be costly for the reputation of both the U.S. and NATO,” Berzina added.

What have Finland and Sweden said about joining NATO?

Both Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson have characterized the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the catalyst for their countries to join the alliance.

The Nordic leaders emphasized during remarks with Biden Thursday that their countries will become strong allies as part of NATO. 

“We are ready to contribute to the security of the whole alliance, making the commitment to mutual security guarantees that being a NATO ally entails. Now that we have taken this first decisive step, it is time for NATO allies to weigh in. We hope for strong support from all allies and for swift ratification of our membership,” Niinistö said. 

“Yesterday, Sweden and Finland submitted our formal requests to join NATO. Russia’s full scale aggression against a sovereign and democratic neighbor was a watershed moment for Sweden and my government has come to the conclusion that the security of the Swedish people will be best protected within the NATO alliance,” Andersson said. 

“Peace and stability in our part of the world is a common security interest for us, for you, and for the rest of Europe. And we stand here today, more united than ever, and we are committed to strengthening our bonds even further, as Sweden is prepared to shoulder its responsibility as an ally in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,” she added.

Biden, for his part, emphasized that “NATO is relevant. It is effective, and is s more needed now than ever.” 

A Kremlin spokesman said last Thursday that Finland joining NATO would threaten Russian security and do nothing for the security alliance. 

Finland and Sweden are unique

Skaluba said that Finland and Sweden’s bid for membership to NATO is “unique,” compared to countries that have applied in the past. 

Both Finland and Sweden meet most of the requirements for entrance into the alliance economically, militarily and governmentally. 

“Every one of the countries that joined NATO at the end of the Cold War were all either former Soviet countries or Warsaw Pact countries. So there were long reforms required by each of them on the economic front on the democratic front, but especially on the military front, to make them eligible for NATO membership. The process in each of those cases had a long lead time, and took years,” he added.

In recent history, Finland and Sweden have remained neutral, and never aligned with the Soviet Union or Russia. 

“They had Western philosophies on military matters. They were members of the EU starting in 1995, they have sophisticated militaries that operate at the very high end. They both fly advanced fighter jets and of course this is happening during a crisis,” he added.

According to Skaluba, “these circumstances are just unique, and NATO isn’t following the playbook of the last 30 years” when it comes to their membership.

Turkey could be a speed bump for Sweden and Finland

Turkey threw a last-minute wrench into what was shaping up to be a swift application process for the Nordic countries. 

Turkish President Recep Erdogan claimed that Sweden and Finland backed the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group that has been fighting the Turkish government for decades.

The opposition from Erdogan has come as somewhat of a surprise. 

Erdogan had reportedly told Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in early April that he was “supportive”.

“Turkey’s statements have changed very quickly and hardened in recent days. But I am sure that we will resolve the situation with constructive talks,” Niinistö said on Tuesday. 

“He said that the Finnish membership should be assessed favorably. Now it seems that there are different opinions. We must continue to discuss.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin blasts Biden energy policies at budget hearing

Senate Energy Committee Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) claimed the Biden administration’s oil and gas leasing policies have “put America’s energy security at risk” during testimony by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland Thursday. 

In a hearing on the Interior Department’s fiscal 2023 budget request, Manchin pushed back on the administration’s repeated references to the industry’s 9,000 unused leases to explain the energy crisis, arguing the administration has the power to pressure industry to use them. 

“If the administration’s argument is that industry is sitting on these leases… why don’t they do something about it?” Manchin said. “For example, if the concern is that too many leases are not being developed in a timely manner, the department could increase the rental rates over time to provide a financial disincentive against holding leases for speculation alone.” 

Manchin conceded that “new lease sales would not immediately increase production,” but claimed the administration’s focus on current production “puts America’s energy security at risk.” 

The White House said in a March fact sheet that President Biden “is calling on Congress to make companies pay fees on wells from their leases that they haven’t used in years and on acres of public lands that they are hoarding without producing.”

Although Manchin at the time expressed openness to raising leasing fees, he said at the Thursday hearing that he believed the Interior Department could do so without legislation. 

Republicans and the energy industry have blamed soaring gas prices in part on the Biden administration’s policies on oil and gas leasing, including a since-ended freeze on lease sales on public lands. However, the full process of selling leases and drilling takes years and would not provide any immediate relief at the pump for consumers. 

In her testimony, Haaland addressed the Interior Department’s five-year schedule for offshore oil and gas leasing, saying the department will release its proposal by June 30 when the current program expires. 

“The previous Administration stopped work on the new five-year plan in 2018, so there has been a lot to do to catch up. Varying, conflicting litigation has also been a factor,” Haaland said. “As we take this next step, we will follow the science and the law, as we always do.” 

The hearing comes the week after the department canceled three planned lease sales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Mexico, citing lack of industry interest and conflicting court rulings, respectively. Separately, a federal court barred the administration from holding a different planned lease sale in the Gulf, which the administration has not appealed. 

Source: TEST FEED1