Politico

President Joe Biden’s approval rating is on the rise — for now — in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Biden’s State of the Union address last week.

Multiple surveys over the past week, including a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll out Tuesday, show a modest-to-moderate uptick in voters’ views of Biden’s job performance, up from his low-water mark earlier this year.

Forty-five percent of registered voters surveyed in the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll approve of the job Biden is doing, up 4 points over the past week. But a narrow majority, 51 percent, still disapproves of Biden’s job performance.

That result follows two other post-State of the Union polls also showing a Biden bounce. An NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll released late last week showed a 7-point rise in Biden’s approval rating among registered voters, from 40 percent in February to 47 percent in the new survey. Biden’s bump was smaller in a Quinnipiac University poll out Monday: from 38 percent last week to 40 percent in the new poll.

Despite these recent rises, the overall trend for Biden over his 14 months in office has been down, driven by Covid resurgences and the drag of inflation on the strengthening economy. Covid’s wane continues, but gasoline prices, already climbing thanks to inflationary pressures, are spiking after Russia’s invasion.

In the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, Biden’s gains came mostly from Democratic voters, suggesting the Ukraine crisis and his nationally televised address united elements of the president’s base but made few inroads with other voters. His approval rating among Democrats rose 7 points over the past week but was essentially unchanged among Republicans and independents.

Still, the crisis in Eastern Europe offers Biden a chance to reset his presidency as his party faces a challenging midterm election this fall. Slightly more voters in the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, 46 percent, approve of the job Biden is doing handling the conflict between Ukraine and Russia than disapprove (42 percent).

“It’s not unusual for presidents to see their numbers improve immediately following a major address like a State of the Union, or for the so-called ‘rally around the flag’ effect to provide a similar boost when the country is facing a security threat,” Cameron Easley, the senior politics editor for Morning Consult, told POLITICO Playbook on Tuesday.

But, Easley added, such bounces tend to be fleeting.

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted March 4-6, surveying 2,005 registered voters. The margin of error is plus-or-minus 2 percentage points.

Morning Consult is a global data intelligence company, delivering insights on what people think in real time by surveying tens of thousands across the globe every single day.

More details on the poll and its methodology can be found in these two documents: Toplines | Crosstabs

The White House on Monday pushed back on concerns about the Biden administration’s willingness to cut deals with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela as it looks for ways to blunt skyrocketing fuel prices in the United States.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki faced multiple questions during Monday’s briefing on how the administration views these trade-offs of bartering with countries “that may have engaged in unsavory actions in the past,” as reports trickled out in recent days that President Joe Biden and European counterparts are discussing a ban on Russian oil imports to further punish President Vladimir Putin for his country’s attack on Ukraine.

The Biden administration is in a tricky position as it faces bipartisan calls to ban Russian oil, a move that would upend markets in a global economy still recovering from the pandemic. As the White House weighs its next move, inflation tops the minds of Americans feeling the squeeze of rising prices, especially at the gas pump.

U.S. officials met face-to-face with Venezuelan officials in Caracas over the weekend and discussed potentially easing oil sanctions on the country as part of the strategy to combat rising prices in the U.S. During Monday’s briefing, Psaki was asked about Venezuela’s leader and whether it was “really worth doing business with a despot like Nicolás Maduro to drive down gas prices.”

“I think that’s leaping several stages ahead in any process,” Psaki said, adding that oil was just one element of the discussions. “At this point in time, I don’t have anything to predict. It’s ongoing.”

Psaki said that while energy security was a key part of the meetings in Venezuela, U.S. officials also discussed the welfare of detained U.S. citizens. She had a similar message on negotiations in Saudi Arabia and Iran, noting that the talks were in progress and that energy was just one piece of the multipronged discussions.

In February, Brett McGurk, coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, and Amos Hochstein, a State Department special envoy for energy affairs, traveled to Saudi Arabia, where Psaki said the officials discussed a range of issues. She said Biden did not have plans at the moment to travel to the country.

“[They] went to Saudi Arabia to discuss a range of issues, including the war in Yemen, including security in the region and certainly including energy security,” Psaki said. “They had the discussion, it’s in everyone’s interest to reduce the impact on the global oil marketplace.”

Psaki said “the discussion of oil” was also a part of negotiations for the Iran nuclear talks, which she said were “getting closer” to a deal. But Moscow has thrown a wrench in the discussions, coming forward with last-minute demands, in what appears to be convenient timing as the threat to Russia’s critical oil revenue grows.

There was hope that the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany and the European Union could clinch a deal on Saturday, which would heavily limit Iran’s ability to work on nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief — which would bring a vast supply of Iranian crude oil back to the global market.

The White House press secretary on Monday was repeatedly pressed on her answers, particularly after she noted that the Biden administration’s view was that the U.S. needed to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil to avoid future crises.

“So, you guys think that asking Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or Iran, is reducing our dependence on foreign oil?” Fox News’ Peter Doocy then asked.

“I just outlined each of those specific scenarios and the range of discussions that we’re having with each of those countries,” Psaki said. “I don’t think anybody is advocating for Iran to continue acquiring a nuclear weapon, perhaps except for the former president, who pulled us out of the deal.”

Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine has turbo-charged the anti-corruption cause in Washington, with lawmakers on the left and right calling for crackdowns on oligarchs close to the Russian leader who hide many of their assets in the West.

The Biden administration and its allies in Europe are obliging, unveiling sanctions on several of the Russian tycoons and, in at least one high-profile case, seizing a billionaire’s luxury yacht. They’re also launching task forces to go after Russian oligarchs, including one led by the U.S. Department of Justice with the moniker “KleptoCapture.”

“We are coming for your ill-begotten gains,” President Joe Biden warned the Russian billionaires during his State of the Union speech last week.

Anti-corruption activists, though, say that the government institutions charged with enforcing the crackdowns will need more money, staff and patience, not just applause. They also say the U.S. shouldn’t stop just with Russia’s corrupt elite.

When it comes to the assets of the oligarchs, “it’s going to be hard to get at. Nobody knows where everything is,” said Paul Massaro, a Capitol Hill staffer who has long pushed anti-corruption legislation. “We’ll need whistleblowers. We’ll need leaks.”

Nonetheless, the sudden surge of support for anti-corruption work is “a paradigm shift moment,” Massaro said. “I’m getting 100 calls a day from offices I’ve never worked with before who are like, ‘We want to go after oligarchs!’”

The gloves come off

Biden and his aides have long been laying the groundwork for this moment.

Even before he became president, Biden had warned that transnational corruption was a threat to democracy and that the United States needed to tighten up its laws to prevent dictators and their friends from exploiting, and even weaponizing, them.

He warned in particular about Russian elites laundering their funds through Western financial systems and using the money to influence politics in the United States and elsewhere. Many of those tycoons are suspected of holding billions in funds for Putin, who himself claims a modest income and lifestyle.

In his first few months as president, Biden declared that battling corruption was a core U.S. national security interest and directed federal agencies to develop plans to fight it. His administration also issued the first U.S. comprehensive government strategy to counter corruption, a well-received document among experts.

The overall anti-corruption campaign had been drawing support from both Republicans and Democrats months before Putin rolled his tanks into Ukraine. Some two dozen lawmakers have formed a congressional caucus and pushed bills that targeted corruption in sectors from art dealing to real estate to law.

But despite all its pronouncements, the Biden administration for months held off on imposing sanctions on the Russian billionaires close to Putin, resisting the pleas of Russian dissidents who drew up lists of names. When pressed, U.S. officials cited multiple reasons to avoid targeting the oligarchs, including that past such moves made some of those wealthy Russians even more dependent on the Russian state, meaning Putin himself.

The Russian autocrat’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine changed Biden’s calculus. In the days since Putin sent his forces into Ukraine — which he first invaded in 2014 — the Biden administration, as well as European allies, have sanctioned multiple Russian tycoons, with more likely to come.

Among those who now face asset freezes and potential seizures by the United States and European countries are: Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a powerful Russian businessman suspected of ties to the Wagner mercenary group and who’s been sanctioned before for alleged interference in U.S. elections; Alisher Usmanov, a leading metals and mining executive; and Sergei Chemezov, a top technology executive. The immediate relatives of several of the oligarchs, too, were sanctioned to prevent them from becoming vehicles for the main target’s riches.

“These individuals have enriched themselves at the expense of the Russian people, and some have elevated their family members into high-ranking positions,” the White House said in unveiling the penalties “Others sit atop Russia’s largest companies and are responsible for providing the resources necessary to support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”

Putin himself has been sanctioned, a rare move by Washington and its allies, who normally don’t target heads of state. His foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, also faces asset freezes as part of the West’s sanctions rollout.

In terms of sheer impact, sanctions on the oligarchs and other individuals are not as powerful as the ones imposed on Russia’s central bank, sovereign debt and other penalties that have caused the ruble’s crash. Nonetheless, they are symbolically important.

“Russia provides essentially a case in point for the idea that kleptocratic regimes are inherently threats to stability,” a senior Biden administration official told POLITICO.

The official noted that Putin long ago made a deal with his country’s wealthy: Leave the politics to him and get richer. Now, the official said, “this single man has launched a war of choice that is leading to the death of thousands of people, and so the president has been super clear that those that profited from this deal are going to pay a price for it.”

What about China’s princelings?

Advocates of anti-corruption measures applaud the administration’s efforts, but say Russia should be simply the start. They also stress that it will take time for the task forces and other units devoted to tracking down oligarchs’ assets to make serious headway.

“China’s got to be in this conversation,” said Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), one of the leaders of the congressional counter-kleptocracy caucus.

Not only do wealthy Chinese tycoons, who often stash their holdings in the West, help keep the Communist Party in power, but China has, in its own way carried out an invasion in the past few years – of Hong Kong, Curtis said. Taiwan could be next.

The time to go after the so-called Chinese princelings is now, not later, Curtis and other anti-kleptocracy activists said. Given that Beijing is watching U.S. moves against Russia closely, many Chinese tycoons are likely already further hiding their assets.

Finding the riches of oligarchs has never been easy, note sanctions lawyers.

Many tycoons have hidden their funds in a vast network of companies under other people’s names or anonymously in ways that until recently were allowed by U.S. laws governing the ownership of firms. (The Biden administration is implementing new measures that require more disclosure of who owns companies, but it’s still a work in progress.) Some of the oligarchs have invested in American or European real estate in ways that have undermined local economies.

“It is important to block ostentatious objects of wealth, like yachts and mansions, but the hard work lies in proving beneficial ownership and blocking related accounts,” said Julia Friedlander, a former U.S. Treasury official. “This could take years.”

It will also require money and more staff at the array of task forces and offices who do such work, including within the Treasury and Justice departments.

One critical unit is Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN, noted Gary Kalman, who directs the U.S. office of Transparency International. FinCEN’s duties include investigating money laundering and other crimes. But the unit, which says it has around 300 staff on its website, needs more money and employees to help gather data and track illicit activities, Kalman and other advocates said.

The White House is seeking new funds for the task forces and other relevant government bodies fighting corruption, the senior administration official said.

“We continue to ask the Congress for additional funds to make sure that FinCEN and [the Office of Foreign Assets Control] and the new DOJ task force are appropriately resourced,” the official said.

Many of the targeted oligarchs are likely to take the U.S. government to court, meaning there will be litigation costs, too. But the work can help fund itself, especially if the U.S. can, over time, lay claim to the some of tycoons’ funds. Sanctions generally lead to freezing assets, not seizing them. Seizures often involve using asset forfeiture laws, which will take more time and can be subject to legal pushback.

Caveats aside, anti-corruption activists say they are hopeful about the long-term impact of the actions the United States is taking against Russia now.

Simply setting up new structures, such as Task Force KleptoCapture, helps build knowledge and muscle memory within the government that can be applied against non-Russian entities. That includes getting a better handle on the role that cryptocurrency plays, which is one of the task force’s targets.

According to the Justice Department, the task force will be staffed with “prosecutors, agents, analysts, and professional staff across the department who are experts in sanctions and export control enforcement, anticorruption, asset forfeiture, anti-money laundering, tax enforcement, national security investigations, and foreign evidence collection.”

The task force will be expected to use an array of tools, including “data analytics, cryptocurrency tracing, foreign intelligence sources, and information from financial regulators and private sector partners.”

Its work will be watched closely by people like Nate Sibley, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute who specializes in counter-kleptocracy. Sibley noted that when he first got into the subject, he couldn’t get most people interested, partly because they didn’t see it as a national security issue.

“People shuffled away from me at parties,” he said.

But now?

“It’s on the radar,” he said. “You use your moment.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Russian leader Vladimir Putin is “destined to lose” as he continues to wage war on Ukraine, but added that Ukraine and its allies need to be prepared for the aggression to “last for some time.”

“Just winning a battle is not winning a war,” Blinken said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday morning. “Taking a city does not mean he is taking the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian people.”

His remarks come as the Kremlin continues its invasion of Ukraine and meets staunch resistance from Ukrainian forces. Ukrainians have signed up en masse to defend their country, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has cemented himself as a wartime leader, refusing the U.S. offer to evacuate him and using social media messaging to communicate with his constituents from Kyiv.

Also on Sunday, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Blinken indicated that there are plans in place in case Zelenskyy is killed. The Ukrainian leader has been open in media appearances and meetings with Western leaders that he could be in his final days, as his wartime leadership makes him a probable target of Moscow.

“The Ukrainians have plans in place that I’m not going to talk about or get into any details on to make sure that there is what we would call continuity of government one way or another,” Blinken said, after lauding Zelenskyy’s leadership. “And let me leave it at that.”

The secretary of State also spoke in open terms about the possibility of banning Russian oil imports, which Zelenskyy asked Congress to do the day prior. Up until this point, the White House has been reluctant to ban oil imports from Moscow, despite growing support for the idea on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

Blinken said he discussed the potential to ban Russian oil with President Joe Biden and other U.S.and Western officials, adding that it is a “very active discussion” among the U.S. and its allies.

“We are now talking to our European partners and allies to look in a coordinated way at the prospect of banning the import of Russian oil, while making sure that there is still an appropriate supply of oil on world markers,” Blinken said.

President Joe Biden unfurled a resolute defense of democracy in his first State of the Union address on Tuesday, declaring that the United States would act as a leader for the free world as it rallies with Ukraine against a brutal Russian invasion.

With a war raging an ocean away, Biden vowed that the United States would emerge from years of division and disease to protect and expand freedoms at home and abroad.

“While it shouldn’t have taken something so terrible for people around the world to see what’s at stake, now everyone sees it clearly,” the president said. “In the battle between democracy and autocracy, democracies are rising to the moment, and the world is clearly choosing the side of peace and security.”

Biden’s speech was delivered against the backdrop of a pandemic that ignored borders and touched every corner of the globe for the past two years. It was not the one the president and his team had planned to give. But with the situation in Ukraine, the topics that had once been on the front burner — Covid, inflation and economic recovery — took a backseat, another reflection of a presidency that has been forced to respond to events rather than shaping them.

Biden made the implicit case for the need for alliances, reflecting his belief that the lockstep approach of NATO and European allies — who have sent weapons and supplies to Ukraine and unleashed punishing rounds of sanctions against Russia — has made the Ukrainian resistance possible. He condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression and reasserted the United States’ role as a moral leader.

“Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he will never gain the hearts and souls of the Ukrainian people,” he declared. “He will never extinguish their love of freedom. He will never weaken the resolve of the free world.”

Biden has long put at the center of his presidency the need to showcase to the world the powerful symbol of an America willing to forcefully follow its ideals. But rarely has his argument been so critically tested on such a massive stage. At times on Tuesday, the president seemed to be trying to will the public to believe that the campaign he was waging would work.

“But I want you to know that we are going to be OK,” he said at one point. “We’re going to be OK.”

The speech was Biden’s biggest stage of the past year, a chance to vouch to a wide audience for what his administration has accomplished. It was also an opportunity to try to turn around his own poor poll numbers and reassure Democrats nervous about their party’s chances in the 2022 midterms.

Having spent the last few months on the defensive, Biden tried out a new tack on Tuesday: He made an affirmative case for his success. Seizing the bully pulpit of a national prime-time address, he praised Ketanji Brown Jackson, his pick for the Supreme Court, as “one of the nation’s top legal minds.” And he took pains to point out his administration had passed two massive spending bills, including a badly needed bipartisan infrastructure deal to shore up the nation’s aging highways, bridges and water supply.

He also urged the revival of pieces of his Build Back Better agenda, which has crashed upon the rocks of opposition from his own party. While avoiding using the name of the package, the president ticked through items his aides believe enjoy broad support when taken independently: lowering prescription drug costs, making child care more affordable, raising taxes on the wealthy and helping fight climate change.

The speech bounced around, at times, from agenda item to agenda item, with some getting more attention than others. Though Biden has said defending the right to vote was the defining issue of his presidency, it received only a passing mention as he denounced Republican efforts to restrict access to the ballot, measures carried out in the name of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

“The most fundamental right in America is the right to vote — and to have it counted. And it’s under assault. In state after state, new laws have been passed, not only to suppress the vote — we’ve been there before — but to subvert entire elections,” he said.

He then offered a brief endorsement of federal legislation that has little chance to succeed, in part due to an opposition to filibuster reform by fellow Democrats. He did not say Trump’s name, nor did he mention the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which was led by Trump supporters.

The president also touted the nation’s progress against the Covid-19 pandemic, pointing to his administration’s vaccination program as the primary cause behind the nation’s plummeting number of cases. The House chamber itself offered a visual testament to progress made and what remains to be done. A year ago, there were only a few audience members for Biden’s speech to Congress, and they were all wearing masks in a socially-distanced hall. This year, the lawmakers sat spaced out. All but a few had discarded their masks. But the halls of Congress were relatively bare compared to years past, and those who did show up were required to be tested for Covid beforehand.

The bipartisan standing ovation from the lawmakers for Ukraine was not often repeated, as many Republicans — those who showed up, as many stayed home — booed Biden’s mention of his domestic agenda. And, perhaps in a worrisome sign for Democrats, the senator who has helped derail parts of Biden’s agenda — Joe Manchin of West Virginia — crossed the aisle to sit among Republicans.

Biden took the stage far weaker politically than he did when he addressed Congress last April. Then, his administration had just pushed through a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill, had unveiled a sweeping re-imagination of the social safety net and was poised to forcefully reclaim its footing on the global stage after four tumultuous years of Trump.

But the war in Eastern Europe provided an ominous backdrop to the annual speech at the U.S. Capitol, creating an eerie split screen as Biden devoted the first lengthy section of his speech to Ukraine while social media feeds provided running updates on the shelling in Kyiv and Kharkiv. Biden paid tribute to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose leadership has made him an inspirational figure across the West, while first lady Jill Biden hosted the Ukrainian ambassador in her box in the chamber’s balcony.

Outgunned and outmanned, the Ukrainian forces have held off Putin’s war machine for nearly a week, but every hour has seemingly brought more Russian firepower to bear as massive convoys encircle Ukraine’s largest cities. Biden outlined a series of sanctions and announced the U.S. had closed its airspace to Russian planes, while sending a warning to the oligarchs who encircle Putin: Your wealth is not safe.

“We are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets,” Biden said. “We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.”

“He has no idea what’s coming,” Biden added of Putin, in a line that was ad-libbed.

President Joe Biden on Tuesday drew bipartisan applause — including from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — for his calls to fund the police in his State of the Union address.

“We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. It’s to fund the police,” Biden said to strong applause, with cameras showing McCarthy and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise clapping and giving him a standing ovation. “Fund them. Fund them. Fund them with resources and training.”

Biden touted funding from the American Rescue Plan — the pandemic relief package passed under his watch — that local governments can use to bolster police forces. Biden’s push against “defunding the police” echoes the recent stance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last month said that the slogan is “dead” and not Democrats’ position.

The moment was a significant display of bipartisan unity in a divided Congress.

Biden has long rejected the concept of defunding the police, a push from some progressive Democrats that Republicans have used frequently to attack the opposing party.

The police reform movement gained momentum after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, but reform efforts have stalled in Congress. On Tuesday, Biden called on lawmakers to pass legislation requiring universal background checks and banning assault weapons, frequent calls from the president that face long odds of passing.

Few people wore masks in the House chambers during President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Most members of Congress, Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members left their face coverings at home for the president’s second annual address, in accordance with the masks-optional guidance issued by the Capitol’s attending physician earlier this week. A handful of Democratic members of Congress showed up sporting face coverings anyway.

Among the masked-up members of Congress were Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), as well as Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Danny Davis (D-Ill.) and Jim Langevin (D-R.I.).

Markey, in a tweet, said he decided to wear a mask “because we all need to remember that the immunocompromised and those over 60 remain at higher risk of severe illness and hospitalization from COVID-19.”

“For those who are vulnerable, continue to be vigilant and mask up,” Markey said.

The Office of the Attending Physician has adopted the CDC’s new model for monitoring community spread of Covid-19, which puts spread in the Washington, D.C., area in the “green,” or low, status for transmission.

While all attendees were required to show proof of a negative test before the Tuesday event, the almost entirely maskless crowd represented a stark visual departure from the president’s first State of the Union address last year, where attendance was restricted to 200 fully masked people.