October 3, 2022

ACN Center

Area Control Network

Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Press Availability

31 min read

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Brussels, Belgium

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, good evening, everyone.  We’re in Brussels at a pivotal time.  Stability in Europe hangs in the balance.  And the international rules-based order that’s critical to maintaining peace and security is being put to the test by Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine.

The Kremlin’s attacks are inflicting an ever-increasing toll on civilians there.  Hundreds if not thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, many more wounded, as have citizens of other countries.  More than a million refugees have fled Ukraine to neighboring countries.  Millions of people across Ukraine are trapped in increasingly dire conditions as Russia destroys more critical infrastructure.  For example, Mariupol’s mayor says that most of the besieged city’s residents are living without water, without electricity, without heat.  Bridges to the city have been destroyed.  Women, children, growing ranks of wounded civilians cannot get out.  Food and medical supplies cannot get in.  The mayor wrote today, and I quote, “We are simply being destroyed.”  The world has seen Russia use these grisly tactics before in Syria, in Chechnya.

Meanwhile, Russia’s reckless operation around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant risked a catastrophe, a nuclear incident.  The Kremlin should immediately cease all attacks around Ukrainian nuclear facilities and allow civilian personnel to do their work to ensure the facility’s safety and security, as both the IAEA director general and a resolution adopted yesterday by the agency’s board of governors have called on Russia to do.

The Ukrainian people and government continue to show remarkable courage in defending their country, defending their freedom, defending one another.  We said that if President Putin invaded Ukraine, we would increase our support for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself while imposing swift and severe costs on the Kremlin.  That’s exactly what the United States and our allies and partners are doing.  That was the focus of our ministerial meetings today with NATO Allies, with the G7, with the European Union, as well as in my discussions with the NATO secretary general, with the EU Commission President von der Leyen, with the EU Council President Michel.

We want our alliances to be strong enough to meet any threat.  That’s why from day one, President Biden made reinvigorating and re-energizing our alliances and partnerships the foundation of our foreign policy.  It’s why as Secretary of State I’ve come to Brussels, home to NATO and the EU, more than to any other world capital.  And that’s why we invested so much effort in finding new ways and coalitions to bring allies and partners together.  Now we’re seeing why that work matters.

At NATO, we were joined by the ministers of Finland and Sweden, the EU High Representative Josep Borrell, the foreign ministers of Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as well as Secretary General Stoltenberg also took part in our meeting with the EU.  Never before have NATO and the European Union and other partner nations worked so closely together.  This is a new kind of cooperation, and we’ll bring this to bear not just in this crisis but in the years to come.

And our European allies and partners are stepping up to lead in unprecedented ways.  For the first time, NATO has activated and deployed parts of its response force.  Several NATO Allies, including the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, France, have sent troops and aircraft and ships to reinforce the Alliance’s eastern flank.  Every NATO Ally is providing either military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine; most are providing both.  For the first time, the European Union is financing the purchase and delivery of military assistance to a country under attack.  The bloc swiftly adopted the biggest sanctions package in history against Russia, and the EU has granted immediate refuge to Ukrainians and others who call Ukraine home – the first time it has invoked this protection mechanism.

Individual countries are also taking extraordinary steps.  Germany is doubling its defense spending.  Poland has opened its arms to more than half a million Ukrainian refugees.  Switzerland set aside its traditional neutrality to adopt the European Union sanctions on Russia.  The list goes on.

These and other efforts by our European allies to deepen their own capabilities and cooperation do not undermine the transatlantic security alliance – they deepen our collective might.

As recently as a few weeks ago, some questioned whether – if the regional and international rules-based order came under threat – whether our European allies and partners would be willing to shoulder their fair share of the burden – the risk, the cost – to defend it.  In the last nine days, European countries have demonstrated they are more than ready to stand up and stand together.

And the United States is standing with Europe, pursuing complementary actions and policies in close coordination with our allies and partners.  To give just a few examples, we’ve deployed an additional 7,000 troops to Europe and repositioned our forces already on the continent to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank.  We continue to tighten our severe economic sanctions on Russia.  Last night, as I think you know, we extended Temporary Protected Status to tens of thousands of Ukrainians living in the United States.  And the President has requested an additional $10 billion from Congress to deliver more humanitarian, security, and economic assistance in Ukraine and the surrounding region over the coming days and weeks.

Yesterday, President Putin said his so-called “special military operation” is proceeding exactly as planned.  Well, it’s hard to imagine that his plan included inspiring the Ukrainian people to defend their country with such tenacity; strengthening the resolve and solidarity of NATO and the EU; uniting the world in opposition to Moscow, including 141 countries at the United Nations; an unprecedented number of international businesses, associations, cultural institutions that have cut ties with Russia; causing the Russian economy to go into freefall; motivating tens of thousands of Russians to protest and countless more to leave the country; and increasingly turning Russia into a pariah state.  If that was President Putin’s plan, well, you can say it’s working.  Russia has never been so isolated; we have never been more united.

But let me reiterate one thing because it’s very important:  We take these actions not because we oppose the Russian people – we do not.  We regret that tens of millions of Russians will suffer because of the dangerous decisions made by a tiny circle of corrupt leaders and their cronies who have consistently put their interests above those of the Russian people, who are doing everything they can to hide their war of choice from the Russian public.

Today’s discussion with NATO, the EU, the G7 affirmed that we’re fully aligned on our goals and our determination to meet them.  We’ll deepen our support for Ukraine’s brave defenders and for the Ukrainian civilians suffering as a result of the deepening humanitarian crisis.  We’ll continue to raise the cost of President Putin and all who carry out and enable his war of choice and the devastation that it’s causing.  We’ll continue to strengthen our capacity to defend our collective security and deter further escalation by Russia, including by upholding our Article 5 commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all.  NATO is a defensive Alliance.  We’ve never sought and will not seek conflict with Russia.  But as President Biden has said, we will defend every inch of NATO territory.  No one should doubt America’s readiness or our resolve.

At the same time, we’ll keep open the door to dialogue and diplomacy while making clear to the Kremlin that unless it changes course, it will continue down the road of increasing isolation and economic pain.  And we’ll support Ukraine in its talks with Russia to reach a ceasefire and the unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces, something that Foreign Minister Kuleba and I have been discussing on a daily basis.  In the meantime, we are working urgently with the Government of Ukraine, the ICRC, and others to create humanitarian corridors that will allow civilians to get out of Ukraine’s besieged cities and to allow food, medicine, and other vital supplies to get in.  Russia’s attack created this humanitarian crisis.  Now, all countries have a responsibility to pressure the Kremlin to alleviate at least some of the misery that it has wrought.

Of all the consequences of Moscow’s unprovoked attack, one of the most unexpected is the spark it has lit in people around the world who have come out to demonstrate for freedom, for the rights of Ukrainians.  That includes valiant individuals in places where protesting the Kremlin’s war means risking arrest, beatings, or worse, as thousands of Russians and Belarusians have done.  For years, we’ve seen the dangerous tide rolling back democracy and human rights and undercutting the rules-based order, fueled in no small part by Moscow.  With this brutal invasion, we, our European allies and partners, and people everywhere are being reminded of just how much is at stake.  Now, we see the tide of democracy rising to the moment.

With that, I’m happy to take some questions.

MR PRICE:  Paul Handley, AFP.

QUESTION:  Hi, Mr. Secretary.


QUESTION:  You’ve – the West has put unprecedented sanctions on Russia, very punishing, yet it doesn’t seem to have slowed the Russian military’s advance on Ukraine.  Today NATO seemed to forswear absolutely putting in a no-fly zone that might protect the Ukrainians.  Given that, nothing seems to slow this invasion.  What can you tell the Ukrainian people who only see things getting worse, seeing a disaster, seeing more suffering, and are pleading for more help from the West?

And I have a little follow-up.  I could ask it now or in a moment.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  No, go ahead, please.

QUESTION:  The West, NATO, has been involved in this in terms of supplying a lot of arms, which you’ve mentioned, to Ukraine.  Can’t it supply more effective arms, larger weapons?  Jets has been – have been talked about.  NATO is engaged in this.  Can’t it do more for Ukraine?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  Let me take the second part first.  We’re in constant contact with Ukraine, with government officials and leaders on their needs, and in constant contact and coordination with allies and partners on providing for those needs when it comes to security assistance.

We’ve already been engaged in a remarkable effort, just speaking for the United States, with the various drawdowns that President Biden has done.  We’ve provided, over the past year and change, more than a billion dollars in security assistance to Ukraine.  The most recent drawdown that was issued by the President of $350 million, we have already sent into Ukraine about $250 million worth of that drawdown.  So this is happening every single day, and you’re seeing the means that Ukraine needs to defend itself get into the hands of Ukrainians who are doing that.

Having said that, one of the things that we talked about at length today in our various meetings at NATO and the EU was what more we can do and how to do it effectively.  I would add that, I think as you know, Foreign Minister Kuleba actually came into our meetings by video; we heard from him directly some of the additional things that Ukraine is looking for.  We’re working on all of that every single day.

We’re also a week and change into this horrific war wrought by Russia.  We’ve had already a dramatic impact, far beyond, I think, what anyone would have expected on Russia and its economy.  The ruble is trading at its weakest levels ever.  It’s worth less than a penny.  Russian authorities are expecting exporters to sell at least 80 percent of the foreign currency that they have to prop up what is a rapidly weakening currency.  The stock market’s been closed for days due to a fear of capital flight once it opens.  This is the longest stretch of emergency closure since Russia defaulted back in the 1990s.

The CBR has more than doubled their key interest rate – the central bank – to 20 percent, the highest in almost 20 years.  Capital controls, et cetera.  We’re seeing – I have a list five pages long of all the businesses that have left Russia.  But this take – the impact is there.  It’s powerful, it’s real, and it is building.  So let’s see how Russia responds to that as this really takes hold and takes a grip.

Second, as we’ve been demonstrating by not only what we’ve been saying but what we’ve been doing, the support for Ukraine is real, profound, extensive – the security assistance that we just talked about that continues to go in, the humanitarian support that we continue to build in response to the humanitarian horror that Russia has wrought, as well as economic assistance.  Unfortunately, this is not like flipping a light switch.  It takes time.  And when you have, in the case of Russia and President Putin’s Russia a country that is prepared to go to excessive means to achieve its results, it is a real challenge.

But not only are we at it every day, I think what the Ukrainian people can see is virtually the entire world united in support of them, in support of their cause of independence, territorial integrity, freedom, demonstrated by the meetings we had today, demonstrated by the 141 countries that came together at the United Nations to make that clear.  So there is a huge tide of support for Ukraine.  There is a huge weight bearing down on Russia.  Let’s see what the impact is.

MR PRICE:  Méabh McMahon, Euronews.

QUESTION:  Hi, there.  Thank you so much for this.  Méabh McMahon, Euronews.  So we heard this morning at NATO that the situation will get worse before it gets better.  So tell us:  What do you know that we don’t?  And is the no to the no-fly zone set in stone completely, or would you consider it if this conflict does become a massacre?

And just a follow-up, Was it naïve of you and of course the Europeans to trust in Putin to opt for diplomacy?  Thank you so much.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  When we say it is likely to get worse, it’s unfortunately based on everything we know about President Putin’s methods when it comes to seeking to subjugate another country to his will or another region to his will.  We saw it in Chechnya.  We’ve seen it in Syria.  We saw it, of course, in 2014 in Ukraine.  And what we’re seeing on the battlefield is Russian forces seeking to encircle the major cities, including Kyiv, and we’re seeing them use increasingly brutal methods, including going at civilians and civilian populations.

So I think the terrible expectation is that the suffering we’ve already seen is likely to get worse before it gets better for as long as Russia pursues these methods.  So that is unfortunately more likely than not, although we are doing everything we can to try to move this to a different track.

With regard to the no-fly zone, I think you heard NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg speak to this earlier today.  One of the responsibilities we have, even as we are doing everything we can to give the Ukrainian people the means to defend themselves effectively against Russia, we also have a responsibility, as the secretary general said, to ensure that the war doesn’t spill over even beyond Ukraine.  And again, because I think he put it so well, as he noted, the only way to actually implement something like a no-fly zone is to send NATO planes into Ukrainian airspace and to shoot down Russian planes, and that could lead to a full-fledged war in Europe.

President Biden has been clear that we are not going to get into a war with Russia.  But we are going to tremendous lengths with allies and partners to provide the Ukrainians with the means to effectively defend themselves.  And of course we’re seeing every single day their extraordinary heroism as well as very, very real results in what they’re doing to achieve that.

And I’m sorry, I missed the last part of your question.

QUESTION:  Just do you feel like – remember we spoke together last spring when you were here in Brussels at the NATO Headquarters, and I feel the question now is: Do you feel that you were naïve or the Europeans were naïve to trust in Putin that he would come to the table and he would choose diplomacy over this invasion?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I’ll only speak for the United States.  I think we were the opposite of naïve.  We have been saying, warning for months, that President Putin was planning and was likely to carry out an aggression of Ukraine.  And of course, in recent weeks before the invasion began I laid out before the United Nations, the Security Council, exactly what we expected Putin to do and how he would do it – creating bogus pretexts for war, and then using those false flags and other operations as justification for invading Ukraine.  And for months we’ve made clear that this is what we expected, but at the same time it’s our obligation, my obligation, the obligation of allies and partners, to pursue diplomacy if there is any opportunity to do so because, as we said all along, it’s far preferable than what we’re seeing.

And again, as we said all along, there are two paths that Russia can take.  One is diplomacy and dialogue, the other is aggression against Ukraine, and we said we would be prepared either way.  And we are.

MR PRICE:  Nomia Iqbal, BBC.

QUESTION:  Thank you, Secretary.


QUESTION:  Are you considering energy sanctions against Russia?  Because realistically, how can the West defeat Putin Ukraine when the West also pays Putin up to $700 million a day in oil, gas, and coal?  And the British Foreign Minister Liz Truss has talked about it, how Britain is looking into it.  Are you?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  First, as a general proposition, nothing is off the table, and we are evaluating every single day the sanctions, their implementation, and additional measures.  The sanctions are designed, in the first instance, of course, to have maximum impact on Russia and Putin while minimizing harm to us and our allies and partners.  There is no strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy.  The immediate effect would be to raise prices at the pump for Americans and also to pad Russian profits with rising prices.

So we’ve been carving out payments for energy trade and transport from the sanctions that we’ve been implementing.  But we have a strong interest – we and our allies – in degrading Russia’s status as a leading energy supplier.  Over time, this would be a profound strategic shift.  That’s why Nord Stream 2 was shut down.  That’s why we’re surging LNG to Europe right now to help accelerate its diversification away from Russian gas.  It’s why we’re denying critical technologies to Russia for further energy exploration going forward through the export controls we’ve put in place.  This is part of a process to reduce reliance, dependence on Russian energy.

So that’s where our focus is.  But again, as I said, we’re looking at these things every single day.

MR PRICE:  We’ll —

QUESTION:  Are you willing to say how long will that take?


QUESTION:  And how many people have to die in Ukraine before —

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I’m not going to put a timeframe on it.  What’s happened in record time, as we’ve seen, are sanctions and other measures that a few weeks ago people would have said were never going to happen.  I think we’ve demonstrated very, very clearly that what we said we would do many months ago when this crisis first began to emerge back in November, December – the G7 countries, the European Union, I said that if Russia chose the path of aggression, we would impose massive consequences on Russia, including unprecedented economic sanctions.  I know some people thought that that was more rhetoric than reality.  I think we’ve demonstrated already how strong that reality is, and again, we’re looking every day at measures to increase the extraordinary pressure we’re already exerting.

MR PRICE:  We’ll take a final question from Iurii Sheiko, DW.

QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  Secretary, I have two questions.  First is also on no-fly zone.  You said that NATO will not send fighter jets to Ukraine to shoot down Russians.  It’s understandable, but there is another way to impose this no-fly zone, and I mean sending to Ukraine air defense capabilities.  Of course, United States send Stinger missiles, but I’m speaking about high-to-medium air defense capabilities to support the currently working Ukrainian defense capabilities with S-300 and Buk, which are working also quite well.

The second question is you saw – we saw more than a week of fighting and how Russian forces weren’t able to achieve most of its objectives.  They were bogged down; they were stopped in many places.  So how does this week of war change the U.S. assessment of the might of Russian military?  That was considered to be quite high, but now – what is your assessment now?  Thank you very much.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  Thank you.  First part of the question, we are looking every day at what technologies, what capacities we can effectively deliver to Ukraine to defend itself, and that’s an ongoing conversation literally happening on a daily basis both with Ukraine and government officials as well as among allies and partners, and so the main focus is on making sure that anything we provide can be used, used effectively, and in a timely way.  So – but as I said, that’s quite literally something we’re looking at every day.

So I don’t want to draw any conclusions from the week of invasion in terms of what this tells us about Russia or its capabilities.  I think we’ll have time to fully assess that.  What we do know, what it does tell us is how extraordinary the Ukrainian people are, their will, their determination, their absolute commitment to defend their country, to defend their freedom, to defend their future.  That’s the story of the past week, and it’s an incredibly powerful one.

Thank you.

MR PRICE:  Thank you very much.

More from: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

  • NASA-led Study Reveals the Causes of Sea Level Rise Since 1900
    Scientists have gained [Read More…]
  • Identifying Firms Connected to the PRC Surveillance Technology Sector and Deterring PRC Misuse of Biotechnology and Military Modernization
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles with Maine School District to Protect Educational Rights of Students with Disabilities and English Learners
    In Crime News
    Today the Justice Department announced a settlement agreement with the Lewiston Public Schools to end the district’s systemic and discriminatory practice of excluding students from full-day school because of behavior related to their disabilities. The settlement also will require the district to provide equal educational opportunities to its English learner students.  The department conducted its investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) after receiving a complaint from Disability Rights Maine.

    [Read More…]

  • Local repeat felon headed to prison for firearms conviction
    In Justice News
    A 39-year-old Corpus [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks at a Roundtable with Democracy Activists and Civil Society
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Palestinian President Abbas
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Former Chief Financial Officer of Publicly Traded Company Convicted of Securities and Accounting Fraud
    In Crime News
    A federal jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Thursday convicted the former chief financial officer of Roadrunner Transportation Systems Inc. (Roadrunner), a publicly traded trucking and logistics company formerly headquartered in Cudahy, Wisconsin, on four counts of violating federal securities laws for his role in a complex securities and accounting fraud scheme.

    [Read More…]

  • Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Belgium, Poland, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Locsin
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Marine Corps’ Equipment Reset Strategies and the Reporting of Total Reset Costs
    In U.S GAO News
    The U.S. Marine Corps received approximately $16 billion in appropriated funds between fiscal years 2006 and 2010 for reset of aviation and ground equipment that has been degraded, damaged, and destroyed during oversees contingency operations. Reset encompasses activities for repairing, upgrading, or replacing equipment used in contingency operations. The Marine Corps continues to request funding to reset equipment used in Afghanistan. GAO initiated this review under its authority to address significant issues of broad interest to the Congress. GAO’s objectives were to evaluate the extent to which the Marine Corps has made progress toward (1) developing effective reset strategies for both aviation and ground equipment used in Afghanistan and (2) providing accurate estimates of total reset costs.The Marine Corps has developed a strategic plan that addresses the reset of aviation equipment used in operations in Afghanistan and includes the elements of a comprehensive, results-oriented strategic planning framework. However, a reset strategy for ground equipment has not yet been developed. The Marine Corps is taking steps to develop such a strategy; however, the timeline for completing and issuing this strategy is uncertain. Although Marine Corps officials agreed that a reset strategy for ground equipment will be needed, they stated that they do not plan to issue a strategy until there is a better understanding of the dates for drawdown of forces from Afghanistan. While more specific drawdown information is desirable and will be needed to firm up reset plans, the President stated that troops would begin to withdraw in July 2011, working towards a transfer of all security operations to Afghan National Security Forces by 2014. Until the ground equipment reset strategy is issued, establishing firm plans for reset may be difficult for the Marine Corps Logistics Command to effectively manage the rotation of equipment to units to sustain combat operations. It is also uncertain to what extent the Marine Corps plans to align its ground equipment reset strategy with its ground equipment modernization plan. GAO found that the Iraq reset strategy for ground equipment contained no direct reference to the service’s equipment modernization plans, leaving unclear the relationship between reset and modernization. A clear alignment of the ground equipment reset strategy for Afghanistan and modernization plans would help to ensure that the identification, development, and integration of warfighting capabilities also factor in equipment reset strategies so that equipment planned for modernization is not unnecessarily repaired. The total costs of reset estimated by the Marine Corps may not be accurate or consistent because of differing definitions of reset that have been used for aviation and ground equipment. These differing definitions exist because Department of Defense (DOD) has not established a single standard definition for use in DOD’s budget process. Specifically, the Marine Corps does not include aviation equipment procurement costs when estimating total reset costs. According to Marine Corps officials, procurement costs are excluded because such costs are not consistent with its definition of aviation equipment reset. In contrast, the Marine Corps’ definition of reset for ground equipment includes procurement costs to replace theater losses. However, GAO found that the Office of the Secretary of Defense Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation had obtained a procurement cost estimate for Marine Corps aviation equipment as part of its efforts to track reset costs for the department. DOD’s Resource Management Decision 700 tasks the Office of the Secretary of Defense Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to provide annual departmentwide reset updates. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense (1) establish a timeline for issuing formal reset planning guidance and a ground equipment reset strategy for equipment used in operations in Afghanistan, (2) provide linkages between the ground equipment reset strategy and the modernization plan, and (3) develop and publish a DOD definition of reset for use in the DOD overseas contingency operations budgeting process. DOD concurred with one and partially concurred with two of the recommendations.

    [Read More…]

  • Housing: Preliminary Analysis of Homeownership Trends for Nine Cities
    In U.S GAO News
    Following a decade of decline, including after the 2007–2009 financial crisis, the national homeownership rate started to recover in 2016 (see figure). Homeownership Rate in the United States, 1990–2018 Note: Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions. However, not all Americans have benefitted from the recovery, even in housing markets that appear to be thriving. GAO examined homeownership trends during 2010–2018 in nine core-based statistical areas (cities)—Chicago; Cleveland; Columbia, South Carolina; Denver; Houston; Pittsburgh; San Francisco; Seattle; and Washington, D.C. In summary, among the nine cities reviewed, GAO found that during 2010–2018: The homeownership rate declined or was flat in all cities. The homeownership rate significantly declined in Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston and remained statistically unchanged in the other cities. Average home prices grew in all cities, but at considerably different rates. For example, real house prices increased significantly in Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle but much less in Chicago, Cleveland, and Columbia. The homeowner vacancy rate dropped in all cities, indicating growing constraints on the housing supply. Most significantly, by 2018, the three cities with the largest house price increases—Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle—all had homeowner vacancy rates below 1 percent and the three lowest rental vacancy rates (below 5 percent), indicating more severe constraints on supply. Most cities became denser, and some also expanded outward. Cities such as Houston and Washington, D.C., both became denser (added more housing units in developed areas) and expanded outward (added housing units in previously undeveloped areas), while cities such as Seattle and Denver grew largely by adding more density to already high-density areas. Chicago, and Pittsburgh became less dense, as limited growth came largely through outward expansion. Homeowners and recent borrowers were increasingly higher-income. All nine cities saw growth in the estimated number and percentage of households reporting annual incomes of $150,000 or more (the highest income category reported by Census). Similarly, with the exception of Columbia, real median incomes of borrowers increased in the selected cities. Homeowners and recent borrowers were increasingly older and more diverse. Most cities saw growth in homeownership among households aged 60 and older, often with corresponding decreases among younger owners. Additionally, loan originations by minority borrowers increased in all cities. GAO’s analysis of homeownership trends in these nine cities during 2010–2018 illustrates two main points: (1) Cities grew differently and accommodated growth to differing degrees, and (2) who owns and who can buy a home differs by location and type of buyer, sometimes substantially. Historically, owning a home has been one of the primary ways Americans built wealth and financial security. This is one reason why the availability and price of housing is consequential to both households and policymakers. GAO was asked to assess the state of the current domestic housing market and this report, one in a series, focuses on homeownership trends. To conduct this work, GAO used data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data (loan and application data filed by mortgage lenders), among other sources, to identify trends in nine selected cities during 2010–2018, the most current data available at the time of GAO’s review. This report examines trends prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and does not account for the profound effect it likely will have on homeowners. GAO has ongoing work that will examine implementation of foreclosure and eviction protections authorized in recent legislation. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. For more information, contact Daniel Garcia-Diaz at (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
    In Crime News
    U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today made the following statement:

    [Read More…]

  • Courts Making Juror Safety a Top Priority
    In U.S Courts
    A small group of judges around the country have presided over jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number is growing as the backlog of criminal cases becomes an increasing concern among courts acutely aware that defendants are entitled to a fair, impartial, and timely trial. 

    [Read More…]

  •  Secretary Blinken’s Call with Czech Prime Minister Babiš
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Maryland Couple Indicted in $20 Million Insurance Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    A federal district court in Baltimore, Maryland, unsealed an indictment today charging a Maryland couple with conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and related charges for money laundering, filing false tax returns, and identity theft.

    [Read More…]

  • Disaster Recovery: Additional Actions Needed to Identify and Address Potential Recovery Barriers
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Limited research exists on the relationship between disaster outcomes and the six federal recovery programs included in this GAO review: the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Individual Assistance and Public Assistance programs, National Flood Insurance Program, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Disaster Loan program; and Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery. The design of the nine available studies did not allow GAO to draw conclusions about causal relationships between federal disaster recovery programs and overall recovery outcomes. Of the studies that were available, GAO grouped the findings into two categories: (1) socioeconomic outcomes and (2) community resilience outcomes. Our review of socioeconomic studies suggested that outcomes of disaster assistance for individual programs may be uneven across communities. This review also suggested that federal programs may enhance community resilience and prevent flood-related fatalities for vulnerable residents. Limited research exists on the relationship between participation in select federal recovery programs and individual, community, and program characteristics. However, GAO found that some studies and stakeholder perspectives provided insight into the relationships between socioeconomic, demographic, community, and programmatic characteristics and participation. For example, a study of counties in one state found greater levels of flood mitigation in communities with larger tax revenues and larger budgets for emergency management. In addition, officials representing states said larger cities can hire a third party to manage disaster recovery, but small towns and rural areas may lack resources to contract for disaster recovery services. Similarly, an official representing tribal nations told GAO that not all tribal nations have sufficient funding to develop emergency management departments, which can be a barrier to accessing federal resources. Further, representatives from voluntary organizations told GAO that conditions of socioeconomic vulnerability—such as lower-income households or homelessness—may present barriers to participating in federal recovery programs. Some of the six federal recovery programs in this report have taken some actions that could help officials identify and address potential access barriers and disparate outcomes. However, programs lack key information—data and analysis—that would allow them to examine patterns and indicators of potential access barriers and disparate recovery outcomes. Moreover, the programs have not taken action to determine (1) the universe of data needed to support this kind of analysis; and (2) sources and methods to obtain those data when the programs do not already collect them, including overcoming key challenges. These programs also lacked routine, interagency processes to address such barriers within or across recovery programs on an ongoing basis. Systematic efforts to collect and analyze data, and routine, interagency processes to address any identified access barriers or disparate outcomes, would help ensure equal opportunity to participate in disaster recovery in a meaningful way. Such actions would be consistent with the National Disaster Recovery Framework and recent governmentwide equity initiatives. Why GAO Did This Study Disasters affect numerous American communities and cause billions of dollars of damage. Many factors affect individual and community recovery. Recently, federal actions have focused on equitable administration of federal recovery assistance. Members of Congress asked GAO to report on the impact of federal disaster recovery programs on various societal groups. This report addresses (1) research findings on recovery outcomes related to select federal programs, (2) research findings and recovery stakeholder perspectives on participation in select federal recovery programs, and (3) the extent to which federal disaster recovery agencies have taken actions to identify and address potential access barriers and disparate outcomes. GAO conducted a literature review to summarize key research findings and interviewed state, tribal, and nonprofit recovery stakeholders to gain their perspectives. GAO analyzed program documentation and interviewed federal program officials from the six federal programs selected because of their historically large obligations for disaster recovery.

    [Read More…]

  • Employee of Government Contractor Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Charges
    In Crime News
    An employee of a government contractor pleaded guilty today to his involvement in a scheme to overbill a contract administered by the General Services Administration (GSA) by approximately $1.25 million, and solicit and receive kickbacks from a subcontractor in exchange for providing that subcontractor valuable contract modifications.

    [Read More…]

  • Judiciary Calls for Passage of Security Legislation
    In U.S Courts
    The Judiciary implores Congress to pass the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020 during the current lame duck session. The bipartisan bill if passed, would improve security at judges’ homes and at federal courthouses across the country.

    [Read More…]

  • COVID-19 Pandemic: Actions Needed to Improve Federal Oversight of Assistance to Individuals, Communities, and the Transportation Industry
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury), among others, continue to provide financial assistance to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. FEMA reported obligating over $79 billion from its Disaster Relief Fund to respond to COVID-19. Through several programs, FEMA is providing help to individuals with funeral costs; reimbursing communities for vaccine distribution; and funding federal agencies’ efforts to support communities, including National Guard deployments. DOT and Treasury continue to make available the over $200 billion appropriated by COVID-19 relief laws for financial assistance to the transportation sector, including to air carriers, airports and airport tenants, Amtrak, and transit agencies. Through several financial assistance programs, GAO’s work has found DOT and Treasury have provided critical support to the transportation sector during a period of sharp declines in travel demand and uncertainty about the pace and nature of the recovery. Depending on the program, financial assistance has reportedly enabled recipients to avoid layoffs, maintain service, and ramp up operations as demand for their services improves. Based on GAO’s prior work examining responses to public health and fiscal emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic, GAO has (1) identified key lessons learned that could improve the federal response to emergencies, and (2) made several related recommendations, including ones that highlight the importance of applying these lessons learned. For example, DOT has not developed a national aviation preparedness plan to coordinate, establish, and define roles and responsibilities for communicable diseases across the federal government. GAO recommended in 2015 that DOT work with federal partners to develop such a plan, but it has not taken any action. Without such a plan, the U.S. is less prepared to respond to future communicable disease events. In addition, FEMA has faced challenges collecting and analyzing data on requests for supplies, such as personal protective equipment, made through the federal government. In 2020, GAO recommended that FEMA work with relevant stakeholders to develop an interim solution to help states track the status of their supply requests and plan for supply needs. FEMA has not taken action on this recommendation, and until the agency develops a solution, states, tribes, and territories will likely continue to face challenges that hamper the effectiveness of their COVID-19 response. Why GAO Did This Study In response to the public health and economic crises created by the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress provided billions of dollars across a range of agencies to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. This included billions to: FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund to provide assistance to individuals as well as state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and DOT and Treasury to provide financial assistance to the transportation sector. This statement describes: (1) the federal response and selected relief programs administered by FEMA, DOT, and Treasury and (2) lessons learned based on GAO’s reviews of selected COVID-19 relief programs, including related recommendations and their implementation status. This statement is based on GAO’s body of work on the CARES Act issued from June 2020 through July 2021.To update this information, GAO reviewed agency documentation; and interviewed agency officials, industry associations, and selected businesses that applied to these programs on the latest implementation efforts.

    [Read More…]

  • Quadrennial Defense Review: Future Reviews Could Benefit from Improved Department of Defense Analyses and Changes to Legislative Requirements
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Defense (DOD) is required by law to conduct a comprehensive examination of the national defense strategy, force structure, modernization plans, infrastructure, and budget every 4 years including an assessment of the force structure best suited to implement the defense strategy at low-to-moderate level of risk. The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), completed in February 2006, represents the first comprehensive review that DOD had undertaken since the military forces have been engaged in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. GAO was asked to assess (1) the strengths and weaknesses of DOD’s approach and methodology for the 2006 QDR and (2) what changes, if any, in the QDR legislation could improve the usefulness of the report, including any changes that would better reflect 21st century security conditions. To conduct its review, GAO analyzed DOD’s methodology, QDR study guidance, and results from key analyses and also obtained views of defense analysts within and outside of DOD.DOD’s approach and methodology for the 2006 QDR had several strengths, but several weaknesses significantly limited the review’s usefulness in addressing force structure, personnel requirements, and risk associated with executing the national defense strategy. Key strengths of the QDR included sustained involvement of senior DOD officials, extensive collaboration with interagency partners and allied countries, and a database to track implementation of initiatives. However, GAO found weaknesses in three key areas. First, DOD did not conduct a comprehensive, integrated assessment of different options for organizing and sizing its forces to provide needed capabilities. Without such an assessment, DOD is not well positioned to balance capability needs and risks within future budgets, given the nation’s fiscal challenges. Second, DOD did not provide a clear analytical basis for its conclusion that it had the appropriate number of personnel to meet current and projected demands. During its review, DOD did not consider changing personnel levels and instead focused on altering the skill mix. However, a year after the QDR report was issued, DOD announced plans to increase Army and Marine Corps personnel by 92,000. Without performing a comprehensive analysis of the number of personnel it needs, DOD cannot provide an analytical basis that its military and civilian personnel levels reflect the number of personnel needed to execute the defense strategy. Third, the risk assessments conducted by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which are required by the QDR legislation, did not fully apply DOD’s risk management framework because DOD had not developed assessment tools to measure risk. Without a sound analytical approach to assessing risk, DOD may not be able to demonstrate how it will manage risk within current and expected resource levels. As a result, DOD is not in the best position to demonstrate that it has identified the force structure best suited to implement the defense strategy at low-to-moderate risk. Through discussions with DOD officials and defense analysts, GAO has identified several options for refining the QDR legislative language that Congress could consider to improve the usefulness of future QDRs, including changes to encourage DOD to focus on high priority strategic issues and better reflect security conditions of the 21st century. Congress could consider options to clarify its expectations regarding what budget information DOD should include in the QDR and eliminate reporting elements for issues that could be addressed in different reports. For example, the requirement to assess revisions to the unified command plan is also required and reported under other legislation. Further, some reporting elements such as how resources would be shifted between two conflicts could be eliminated in light of DOD’s new planning approach that focuses on capabilities to meet a range of threats rather than on the allocation of forces for specific adversaries. GAO also presents an option to have an advisory group work with DOD prior to and during the QDR to provide DOD with alternative perspectives and analyses.

    [Read More…]

Source: Network News
Area Control Network

Copyright © 2022 ACN
All Rights Reserved © ACN 2020

ACN Privacy Policies
Area Control Network (ACN)
Area Control Network
Area Control Network Center