[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. The Biden administration, if you missed it, proposed what it argued was a very reasonable Israel-Hamas ceasefire resolution in the UN Security Council on Friday. It was vetoed by Russia and China. Previously, the US had vetoed a ceasefire resolution proposed by Algeria because the US said it did not condemn the October 7th attack by Hamas. The United States resolution was criticized for not explicitly condemning Israel's military operation. Also, the Algeria resolution had called for an immediate ceasefire and return of all the hostages.

The US resolution was a little more vague on immediacy, and that seems to be an issue. The text of the resolution said, "Determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire." Critics say that doesn't quite call for a ceasefire right now. What is determines the imperative for one even mean? Russia accused Biden of finally proposing something with the word ceasefire only because it's good for his re-election campaign. Now, the US resolution got 11 votes out of the 15 current members. In addition to Russia and China, Algeria also voted no, and Guyana abstained.

The previous resolution, the Algeria one, had gotten 13 votes, all but the US and UK. That means nine countries on the Security Council, a majority, voted for both versions of a ceasefire. France, Ecuador, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Switzerland all voted for both. Now, none of this probably matters anyway as the only ceasefire that the warring parties would actually adhere to is one negotiated between themselves, not whatever Russia, or the United States, or Ecuador think. Those talks between the parties continue. White House officials are meeting today with Israeli defense officials who are in Washington.

The White House will reportedly offer alternatives to a ground operation in Gaza, which so many people say would be disastrous for civilians. Meanwhile, early voting began over the weekend in the New York presidential primary. We'll see how many registered Democrat New Yorkers continue the uncommitted vote movement to object to Biden's Israel, Gaza policy. The New York primary ballot has no uncommitted option per se and no right in option when it comes to presidential primaries. Organizers are inviting people who want to make that statement to just leave the ballot blank.

Also, Congress passed another stop gap funding measure, and Marjorie Taylor Greene proposed removing Mike Johnson as speaker because of it. That happened since Friday show. Not headed the US Senate from New Jersey, did you hear this one yet? This just happened yesterday. Tammy Murphy dropping out of the Democratic primaries suspending her campaign as she says the optics of her being the governor's wife with no prior electoral experience seems to have caused too much of a backlash. Donald Trump has to come up with an almost $500,000,000 bond by today after his business fraud court finding or risk having New York State cease his estate and his golf club in Westchester.

Ukraine says it might be open to Trump's idea of a loan rather than military aid to defend itself against Russia. Will the Republicans say yes to their own plan if it actually weakens Putin? Did the president of Ukraine, Zelenskyy, just call Trump's bluff? The US is trying to figure out if it has any role to play in the aftermath of the Moscow concert hall attack that happened since our show on Friday.

More than 130 people murdered in what ISIS claims was done by them, and the US agrees. The United States and Russia do have a common enemy, lest we forget. There's more than enough to talk about today with USA Today White House correspondent, Francesca Chambers, who also covers the presidential campaign and US foreign policy. Francesca, thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Francesca Chambers: Hi, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start on the ceasefire resolution. Both the US and Algeria resolutions called for a ceasefire in Gaza and return of the hostages. Is it clear to you what was so different in the two that the US felt it needed to introduce its own?

Francesca Chambers: There was actually a significant difference from the US' perspective. First of all, the US resolution specifically condemned Hamas for the October 7th attack. It also condemned the taking and killing of hostages. It referred to the sexual violence that was in a recent UN report. The other big thing between these two resolutions is that the US is linking its calls for ceasefire to the hostage negotiations that have been taking place for weeks, if not months now. This would be a temporary ceasefire in the US resolution, whereas in the previous resolution, it was calling for an immediate and sustained ceasefire.

That's where you're seeing a difference of opinion. Of course, you saw that China and Russia also vetoed the US-led resolution. Another key point about the US resolution is it did call for the need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance and make it easier for humanitarian assistance to get into Gaza, which has become a priority of the Biden administration. You've seen the launch of the pier off Gaza. There's also been the airdrops of aid as well, so a multi-pronged approach from the US in this resolution that mirrors the hostage negotiations that have been taking place.

Brian Lehrer: Did I misread coverage of the Algeria resolution? I thought it also called for return of all hostages, not just an immediate ceasefire.

Francesca Chambers: The key thing is that it demanded an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and the US resolution specifically links a ceasefire to the hostage release. It's a one, two punch they're linked and at the same time, the US' is as a temporary ceasefire. It refers to it as more of an imperative rather than a ceasefire that should happen immediately, regardless of anything else without preconditions.

Brian Lehrer: Right. The use of the word imperative or the phrase-

Francesca Chambers: Imperative.

Brian Lehrer: -that it determines-

Francesca Chambers: Immediate imperative, those are the things that they're causing differences of opinion here.

Brian Lehrer: -determines the imperative of an immediate ceasefire, the US said. That's a little different than calling for an immediate ceasefire. It's imperative if they come to an agreement on the other terms like the release of the hostages at the same time. Is that it?

Francesca Chambers: Exactly. Also again, the US is explicitly condemning Hamas for the October 7th attack. That is something that the US has long said that it wants to see in a UN resolution in order to support it.

Brian Lehrer: Now, I saw Biden's UN ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, say on TV on Friday after the vote that no version of UN resolution is going to make a ceasefire happen anyway. It's up to both warring parties to agree. If that's the case, why did either the US or Algeria bother to propose one and lobby for support?

Francesca Chambers: I think from the US perspective at the United Nations, it wants to continue to be a leader on the global stage. It wants to be able to say that it's not just vetoing all of these resolutions calling for a ceasefire, that it does care about the human life, the civilians of the Palestinians who have been dying in this war. For them, it's the ability to say, "Look, we are putting forward our own alternative here. This is why we're vetoing what we're vetoing, it's not as if we're sitting on our hands and we're not doing anything at all." Now, with respect to those negotiations as you point out, those are taking place outside of the United Nations.

That's something that the US also said on Friday from the White House that they've seen progress on it. Now, does that mean that something's going to happen this week? We've heard that they're making progress on it for a long time now. It's sometimes hard to see how much progress is actually being made and it's been in fits and starts. Sometimes there will be a couple of steps forward and then one step back. I do expect that we'll get an update on that from the White House today, given the various things that happened over the weekend and, of course, the fact that we're seeing two Israeli delegations that are coming to the White House in Washington this week as well.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I'll ask you about that meeting today with one of those delegations in a minute. Biden doesn't have to go through the UN to put pressure on Israel to fight differently. Biden just has to lobby himself not to keep giving billions to a war effort that he says he no longer supports. A lot of people for a ceasefire think all the Biden criticism is either meaningless or worse, a smokescreen to allow Israel to keep doing what it's doing. If he disapproves of the way the war is being fought, why doesn't he just stop bankrolling it?

Francesca Chambers: In terms of the red lines, he said that regardless of what Israel has done here, that he's not going to stop giving military aid to Israel. He made really candid comments about that a couple of weeks ago. As far as what he said or not to Bibi Netanyahu, what we have seen from the White House and President Biden was this quiet push behind the scenes. He was pushing Netanyahu, the White House had indicated in private, but then as you saw the death toll rising in the Gaza Strip, and as you saw that Israel despite the US repeatedly saying this would be a mistake essentially to enter Rafah without a plan of how you would spare civilian life, that they got more and more vocal. You saw it all the way from the National Security Advisor level, raised up to the Vice President, to the Secretary of State, to the President himself, and he raised some of these issues in his State of the Union Address.

This week I think what we'll be looking to see is, again, when you do have that Israeli delegation, what potentially happens after that? The US has said that it would be a mistake for Israel to enter Rafah without a plan. The Vice President herself suggested just the other day in an interview, that she hasn't seen any map that would make it feasible to get the 1.5 million civilians out in time for such a plan. How does the US potentially begin to talk about this after they sit down with those officials and go over the alternatives that the US says that we'll be putting forward.

Brian Lehrer: Let's talk about alternative because the meeting with Israeli defense officials today is reportedly to propose specific alternatives to a ground operation in Gaza. Do you have a word on what those alternatives might be? When Israel says if it leaves the Hamas military intact there, it'll just allow for more October 7ths in the future, do you know how the White House addresses that or what the specific alternatives for the sake of saving a lot of civilian lives are?

Francesca Chambers: The White House is not detailed what those alternatives will be. They have specifically said that they believe there are other viable options and alternatives to a major ground operation without going into detail about what those could specifically look like. To the point that we were talking about before, one issue they ran into, again, on Friday is that the Vice President herself indicated that she hadn't seen anything that would lead her to believe that there is an alternative that could make sure that the civilians would be able to get out in time. The White House was facing a little bit of a fall back about that, like which is it between these two?

Brian Lehrer: Do you think as a White House correspondent, that Biden and Harris are at odds with each other on any of this?

Francesca Chambers: The Vice President was more vocal earlier on than Biden was on some of these things. Certainly, she did it with the full backing of the White House. Biden himself went on to be more critical in public after that. I do see here that, again, it's raised in levels. It's like first, they got a warning from Jake Sullivan. Publicly, there were some John Kirby things, it raised to the VP level, and then the President.

It almost seems like a strategy of like, "You're going to get it at a lower level publicly, but if you don't start listening to us and taking some of our advice, then it's going to come all the way down to the President being more vocal about these things in public." That's generally been the cadence of this.

Brian Lehrer: Before we go on to Ukraine, New York's presidential primary is underway and leaving a ballot blank will be the equivalent of voting uncommitted in other states. Does Biden seem to be reacting to that movement? The Republicans say and now Russia says, his criticism of Israel isn't heartfelt, to ceasefire resolution isn't heartfelt, he's just trying to shore up his progressive wing for the fall.

Francesca Chambers: The Biden campaign has generally reacted to this by saying it certainly understands the concerns of those who are voting uncommitted. It's sent in the case of Michigan, for instance, campaign officials as well as White House officials to go listen to those voters who were voting uncommitted. Overall they're viewing it as, "Okay, you voted this way in the primary, you made your voice heard, you've made us understand how you're feeling about this." In ways, it perhaps did shift US policy a little bit because the President has been more vocal about some of these things.

Fundamentally, they don't think that those voters are going to sit it out in the general election, that they will come home to Joe Biden. One of the arguments that Biden campaign surrogates have been making is that in a difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Joe Biden is listening to your concerns, and he is indeed taking that feedback, and it is being reflected in US policy, whereas Donald Trump, who is very pro-Israel, is not necessarily going to listen to your concerns here at all.

Essentially, their argument is you should essentially vote for Joe Biden in the presidential election, you shouldn't sit it out. They're not super concerned that those folks are going to stay at home, but I think that obviously, we're pretty far out from the election.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, one of the things we can do on the phones with Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent for USA Today, who also covers foreign policy and the presidential campaigns is hear for many of you who have already voted in the New York presidential primary. Early voting started Saturday. Did anybody go to your early voting site or for that matter, have a mail-in ballot that you already sent in? Did anybody decide to leave your ballot blank as the equivalent of voting uncommitted in other states?

Did anybody, on the other hand, make a point to show up and cast a vote for Joe Biden in the Democratic presidential primary, even though his nomination is assured and he's basically running unopposed? Anybody who voted either way in the New York presidential primary want to show up? Did anybody actually do that in a primaries uncompetitive as this and when you have so much time between now and next Tuesday? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 call or text. Let's see if we get anybody who already voted in that primary and on the Republican side too, for that matter.

Donald Trump on the ballot, but all of his competitors have dropped out. Have any Republicans listening right now bother to vote early in the New York primary or do Republicans not believe in voting early, that's an issue within the party? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. You can also call on the other things that we will touch on as we continue this conversation with Francesca Chambers. Ukraine and military aid in the US Congress, the new federal budget, and the prospect of Speaker Johnson being ousted by his own party like Speaker McCarthy was.

Also, reaction to the concert hall attack in Moscow from the US and elsewhere. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 call or text. All right Francesca, military aid to Ukraine. You have an article in USA Today saying Ukraine is open to the Republican idea of a loan rather than straight-up aid. I saw Donald Trump say recently that all US foreign aid should be in the form of a loan. Is President Zelenskyy basically calling Trump's bluff by saying he's open to a loan?

Francesca Chambers: At this point, both the Ukrainians as well as the White House, the supporters of Ukraine aid in the United States are just looking for options that can pass the US Congress, that can get support in the House of Representatives. If you go through the timeline here, indeed Trump did propose the idea of any country, not just Ukraine, that he wanted to make sure that the aid in the future for these sorts of conflicts was as a loan, a loan that could be waivable in that you could forgive the loan. A forgivable loan is the way to put it, it would be at no interest. This is what he originally proposes. Then you saw some lawmakers pick up and run with it, including Senator Lindsey Graham.

Lindsey Graham goes to visit Ukraine, he brings it up to Zelenskyy in a meeting last week. I had an opportunity to talk with the foreign minister of Ukraine immediately after that meeting, and that's when they didn't shoot it down essentially. They didn't say no to it. He actually pointed out that they get a series of loans and grants are ready. The United States essentially gives grants that you don't have to pay it back. By saying, "Look, we're already getting some loans for this", they were leaving the door open to the US sending it in the form of loans.

If you bring that back into Capitol Hill, it's not getting a lot of support. It's not something that I hear from the Republicans, particularly around the Senate side, it's something that they want to do, but the White House and this is really key, also did not shoot it down. I talked to John Kirby about it as the spokesman for the first national security for the White House. While he didn't outright support it, he also didn't say, "No, this is not something we're going to do." I feel a little bit of a movement in a position from the White House because initially when it came up, they really flapped it down and now they seem to be open to it. I do think that's a reflection of the fact that they haven't been able to get Ukraine aid through the House of Representatives, so if there's a way to do it, they're open to all ideas.

Brian Lehrer: The language I've seen is a waivable loan. Does that mean Congress or the President could later decide to waive having it paid back?

Francesca Chambers: That's exactly it. If they could decide to make Ukraine pay it back in the future, which is why I think that, again, the Ukrainians, and the White House, and others are open to this because the idea behind it would be to essentially end up forgiving the loan. Again, to your point, that's something that they would have to end up waiving and there's certainly no guarantee that that could happen. In terms of getting it through the House of Representatives, Speaker Mike Johnson has not brought it to the floor.

There's been discussion of a number of pathways here that it could come through either in a standalone bill of Ukraine aid when in which case there would also be a standalone bill which the House had passed for Israel aid, but you could do all these national security priorities in stand on fashion to have individual debates. That is not what the White House prefers. They prefer the round supplemental bill that they had already endorsed that the Senate has passed that they want the House to take up. Again, at this point, when the House comes back in session in two weeks, the White House says that this is an urgent priority. While they want that, they want to see something get passed.

Brian Lehrer: Right, in two weeks because now they're on Easter break. Bottom line on this, do you think the Republicans will say yes to their own plan for a loan or does anything for Ukraine against Putin not have enough support during the Trump campaign?

Francesca Chambers: It's not totally clear to me in the House of Representatives how much conservative support there would be for this because if you're a lawmaker who doesn't want to provide Ukraine with additional aid and you're saying that what you think the money needs to go to is the US border, that doesn't really fundamentally change the fact that you'd be sending Ukraine aid. Now, that being said, in the House of Representatives such a plan, if brought to the floor, would earn democratic support potentially and you might not need some of those House conservatives.

Basically all eyes once again are on House Speaker Mike Johnson, especially after this latest spending bill to see what he's going to bring to the floor as it pertains to this. This is going to be their earliest challenge when they get back from that two-week Easter break. Again, it's not entirely clear what he's perhaps heard from the conference on this over the last couple of days because this discussion about the Ukraine aid really started before the latest spending bill drama that took place over the weekend too. He's in a difficult situation right now.

Brian Lehrer: When we come back from a 60-second break, a little shorter than the two-week one that Congress is going to take, we see that a lot of people did vote over the weekend early in person or by mail. We're going to take some of your calls and go on to some of these other issues, including how on thin ice is Speaker Mike Johnson after allowing this budget to go through.

Marjorie Taylor Greene already proposing that he be removed like Speaker Kevin McCarthy was removed and the aftermath of the concert hall attack in Moscow, including how it affects the United States, so stay with us. Voters from early voting hang on, we're going to take your calls and keep talking to Francesca Chambers, White House correspondent for USA Today, right after this.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we talk Monday morning politics as we usually do in the first segment of the week today with Francesca Chambers, White House correspondent for USA Today, who also covers the presidential campaign and foreign policy. Listener texts, "My partner and I voted yesterday for Biden because we realize how important it is to show support for the president." Another listener writes, "I mailed a blank ballot. The imminent rate on Rafah and the massive starvation is horrifying. One of my children will not vote at all in November. He is not alone. Words are meaningless, actions count." Elaine in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Elaine. You voted already, huh?

Elaine: I certainly did vote. Yes, I'm on the radio. My super just came down to ask about a pipe, but yes, I did vote on Saturday early and I voted for Biden.

Brian Lehrer: How come?

Elaine: Because I feel that he's a reasonable person and I didn't feel that voting for no one would accomplish anything. I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump. Of course, that wasn't a choice in any case.

Brian Lehrer: Elaine, thank you.

Elaine: [unintelligible 00:25:07] You know so. You're welcome, thank you.

Brian Lehrer: To the super, if you're listening, fix Elaine's pipe. It's very important and she's very nice. Fix Elaine's pipe.

Elaine: Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for your call. David on Staten Island, you're on WNYC. Hi, David. I see you voted already.

David: Yes. My wife went up there with me and we both left it blank because we feel Biden and the US governing for the genocides. We handed out flyers that peace acts in Staten Island may tell Biden, "Count me up for genocide."

Brian Lehrer: Do you intend to vote for Biden in November, assuming he and Trump are the candidates?

David: No.

Brian Lehrer: No. Still count you out.

David: Trump talks like a fascist, Biden acts like one too. When we look at what he's doing and supporting this genocide, it's horrible.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for your call. Kate in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Kate.

Kate: Hi, I voted for Biden on Saturday. I voted early and I feel he's done a really good job. I really disagree with his policy in Israel, but I can't leave it that Trump is the one who's going to be elected.

Brian Lehrer: Even though this is not the general election, this is just the primary, we know the outcome-

Kate: It's not the general election, I want to show my support for Biden though. I see that the papers are reporting that in Michigan, so many people did vote for Biden and didn't in some of these other states. I want to show my support here in New York City. Like I said, I don't agree with his policy in Israel, but I don't know how many politicians I do agree with [chuckles] 100%.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. Here's one that explicitly says, "I voted by mail for President Biden to support his stance on Israel, also Ukraine and climate change, also the economy." Francesca, there's this smattering. Those are all the ones we're going to take, but all we prove by this is that people are voting in New York and Democrats are all over the map. We have no idea of the percentages. This is obviously a thoroughly unscientific sample, but it's easy to find people who are doing various of the above.

Francesca Chambers: It's so interesting to hear from the callers themselves about how they were voting. One thing that stood out to me from those calls is this idea that in the general election when you're facing a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, that Biden campaigns main message here has been that it's a binary choice. Those are in addition to potential some third-party options that may or may not be on your ballot, that generally speaking, you've got a binary choice between Trump and Biden.

The argument that the Biden campaign has been making is that democracy is on the ballot. That's what they view as the number one issue in this election, in addition to the economy. What are voters going to do when they see these two men on the ballot? What is their choice going to be? It sounds like your listeners are looking at that and saying that they're going to vote for Biden.

Brian Lehrer: Most of them, but then we had the one who said basically if the two parties are close enough on something like what the caller from Staten Island called genocide, then basically, "Okay, let's tear the whole thing down. Let's punish the Democratic party enough by making them realize that they have to bring this wing of the party into the coalition or back into the coalition next time if they're going to win elections." Those are the multiple points of view. All right. We were talking-

Francesca Chambers: Sorry, I was going to jump in and just say, I was talking to a Democratic congressperson recently about this, who was telling me that if the election were held right now, the general election, that Michigan based on that uncommitted vote, that it was their view that Biden would lose Michigan. That those folks would set it out in Michigan and that Biden would lose the state. He may not have enough votes among blue-collar voters, working-class voters to make up the difference, which by the way, that is how they're trying to make up the difference is boost his union support in the state of Michigan.

Brian Lehrer: It's serious business. All right, we were talking before about whether the Republicans will say yes to their own plan on Ukraine loan, if not an aid. Speaking of Republicans not saying yes to their own plan, we now have a federal budget, but a minority of Republicans in the House voted yes for it. It passed with a bipartisan coalition. Here we go again, Francesca, Marjorie Taylor Greene is calling for the removal of Speaker Mike Johnson for being willing to play ball with the Democrats that way to avoid a government shutdown. Are we headed for another removal vote like happened to Speaker Kevin McCarthy?

Francesca Chambers: Potentially, but I would also note that she's not getting a lot of support for that. You've had other very conservative members of the House of Representatives who have declined to back it. Just yesterday, Chip Roy was asked about this on television and he sidestepped it repeatedly when questioned about it. In order for Johnson to actually be removed, it would need to gain some more support from conservatives in the House of Representatives. Then on top of that, you have the idea that potentially Democrats could even step in to save him if that were the case, even if that were to move forward.

It sounds to me like there are some Democrats, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who would want something in return for that. She said yesterday that she's not inclined to do it anyway, but she would want to see something in return. She'd rather vote for a potentially future Speaker Jeffries instead. There's various options here. Again, we'd note that because of the two-week recess though, there's a lot of time for tempers to potentially cool as well.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Democrats in the previous case refused to vote to save McCarthy. I think he got zero Democratic votes when he was ousted. Is it clear if Democrats, including AOC and any other Democrats, are willing to at least consider a deal? What was she referring to there? Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, what might the Democrats ask for in exchange?

Francesca Chambers: That's a good question what they might want to negotiate around. When you look at Speaker Jeffries, he hasn't specifically laid out anything to that effect of what they would specifically want, but he did signal that they could potentially be open to something like this. He has signaled that more recently. The White House, by the way, has kicked it to him. They said that they're not going to get involved in this, that their focus is on getting this national security supplemental past. They've got other priorities going on right now. They said, it's up to him. They'll rely on his leadership on this. If this is something that he wants to do, he has the balls in his court.

Brian Lehrer: All right, last topic. Let's talk about the Moscow concert hall attack. Horrendous death toll. Last I saw was more than 130, maybe it's even more than that by now. Putin blames Ukraine, but few people seem to believe him. ISIS claims responsibility and the US agrees that ISIS did it. Does the US say what evidence it has?

Francesca Chambers: The US has specifically just said that it warned them about this, that it previously warned Russia about this. It also has been clear from the Vice President on down to saying that Ukraine was not involved. The White House has been saying that from the beginning that they have no evidence that Ukraine was involved in it. By the way, that the US doesn't give Ukraine the capability to be able to strike that far into Russia. That's essentially what the US position has been and hoping we'll get some more information on that when we hear from John Kirby later today.

Brian Lehrer: Are you saying the US alerted Russia to the potential for an attack by ISIS?

Francesca Chambers: The US specifically alerted Russia. It said to the potential for a terrorist attack in Moscow. That's specifically what it said, potentially at a large gathering to include concerts. That is why the State Department itself issued a public advisory to Americans in Russia. It said that it shared that information with Russian authorities and that the US believes that it has a duty to warn. The statement didn't specifically say that they warned about an ISIS attack, but that they did warn about a potential large-scale attack.

Brian Lehrer: It sounds like except for naming ISIS per se, it was pretty specific and on point. Why would we warn Putin about something that could weaken him?

Francesca Chambers: The US' position is that it warns countries it thinks there's a potential loss to civilian life. That is one thing that we heard US lawmakers say yesterday they believe differentiates the US from some other countries in the world, some of its enemies is that it would warn a country like Russia when obviously on opposite sides of the war in Ukraine, president Biden hasn't spoken to Vladimir Putin in years, but it would still warn them about something like this because it values civilian life.

Brian Lehrer: Is it fair to say for all the global competition between the US and Russia these days, we have a common enemy who hates us both in ISIS?

Francesca Chambers: ISIS does hate both the US and Russia. There are certain areas, for instance, if you look at the competition with China, where the US does believe that there are areas where the two countries even though they're in a strategic competition, can work together. I would say that that's different than what happened with Russia, which was a warning versus sitting down and having a conversation about ways that they can work together on future initiatives. I wouldn't go that far.

Brian Lehrer: Last question, do any of your sources from the White House or elsewhere in the US government indicate that the attack on Russia, the fact that they were willing to do this and able to carry it out at that scale, signifies any increased risk from ISIS to Americans?

Francesca Chambers: We heard Michael McCaul, the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee say yesterday, that he is concerned about this rise in ISIS-K particularly after you saw on Capitol Hill just this past week that US government officials were saying that they thought that within six months, that ISIS-K could potentially have the ability to carry out attacks. Then it was just a couple of days later as some Republican lawmakers were pointing out yesterday, that this attack took place.

At the same time, I have heard nothing to suggest that there's something that Americans need to be concerned about or a higher level of security as a result of this, nothing like that from the US government in the last couple of days.

Brian Lehrer: Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent for USA Today, who also as we've been hearing ably covers foreign policy and the US presidential campaign. Great job, Francesca. Thank you very much for giving us so much time and a very busy morning.

Francesca Chambers: Oh, thank you so much. Anytime.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.