Biden Ignores U.S. Interests

The Biden Administration requires a reminder that it is employed by and is supposed to work for the people of the United States.

The interests of the American people appear to be a remote afterthought for the current Administration. In energy, the economy, and other key national interests, the White House appears to place foreign interests above those of the nation he is entrusted to lead.

The President’s disaffection from the U.S. population has been made abundantly clear not just in broad policies but in specific responses. He refused to go to Ohio in the wake of a disastrous train wreck that caused massive disruption in the lives of the population in that state. His initial reaction to the catastrophic fire in Maui was “no comment.”

Mayors and governors, many from his own party, have begged the Administration to cease it’s open border policy that has caused havoc on cities and states, a plea that has been ignored. Senator John Tune (R-SD) states that “President Biden hasn’t just happened to preside over a record-breaking influx of illegal immigration at the southern border. The chaos we’ve been experiencing is a direct result of the president’s policies.”

The White House choses to address the “root causes” of poverty in Latin America, by importing the poor and having U.S. cities and states take up that foreign burden.

While examples abound, energy is a salient example. Perhaps Biden harbors the misconception that the U.S. exists on a planet apart from other nations. How else to explain that, in the name of “climate change,” he has decimated domestic fuel production and increased imports from other nations?

Biden’s bizarre energy choices were clearly seen in his action to close down the Keystone XL pipeline. After moving against that necessary project, Biden shocked observers by approving the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Germany, managed by a Russian company. The move increased our European allies on the Kremlin, and the idea proved especially poor when sanctions became necessary following Putin’s Ukraine invasion.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) noted that “Biden’s anti-American energy policies have hurt America in more ways than one…“These actions have cost countless American jobs, increased our reliance on foreign nations for oil and gas, and raised costs for American families.”

In 2021, Adam Brandon, writing for Real Clear Energy, reported that “the Biden administration is pleading with OPEC, the Middle Eastern oil cartel, to ramp up oil production. Rather than putting America first, Biden is wreaking havoc on domestic energy production and then asking foreign nations to pick up the slack. Since taking office, Biden has shown nothing but hostility towards clean and reliable American oil and gas and the jobs the industry creates. One of his first actions as president was to issue a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands.

Trade is crucial for American prosperity. However, in the face of many international challenges, Biden has chosen to ignore American needs. In 2022, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee complained the Biden Administration capitulated to the demands of some of the United States’ most disruptive trading partners at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference. Specifically, the Biden Administration accepted a deal that will weaken longstanding rules protecting intellectual property rights and proposed rules in new agreements. This deal will undermine U.S. trade interests and cost American jobs.

Biden’s State Department recently announced a “Global Health” Initiative, while largely failing to act on significant medical issues within his own nation. Just one example: A Share America report found that “In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the United States compared with 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019 (2). The maternal mortality rate for 2021 was 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with a rate of 23.8 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019.”

A prosperous, healthy and strong America is the greatest asset the U.S. can offer the world. President Biden appears to have forgotten that.

Photo: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and U.S. Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons Jessica Stern participate in a Pride reception hosted by the State Department in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2023. [State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy/Public Domain]

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.