Politics

Washington — Democrats in Congress are meeting Tuesday as lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill this week for the first time following President Biden’s calamitous debate last month, which has prompted concern among the party about the path forward — and some calls for the Mr. Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential race. 

House Democrats met Tuesday morning outside of the Capitol walls, gathering for a closed-door caucus meeting where they’re expected to discuss the strategy going forward.

While the House has been the source of sporadic calls for Mr. Biden to drop out of the race, a number of House Democrats have also been among the most vocal supporters of the president’s reelection. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, who said earlier this week that the president should leave the race during a private conference call, told reporters Tuesday morning that he supports Mr. Biden, saying he’s made clear that he’s running, “and to me that’s dispositive — we have to support him.”

On Monday night, Mr. Biden also received a boost from members of the Congressional Black Caucus after joining their call to talk about the election. And even among some progressives who often break with the president, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, there have been expressions of support. 

Ocasio-Cortez told reporters that she had spoken with the president over the weekend and he made clear he is not leaving the race. 

“The matter is closed,” she said. “Joe Biden is our nominee. He is not leaving this race. He is in this race and I support him.”

Most notably, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reiterated his support for the president on Monday, saying, “I made clear publicly the day after the debate that I support President Joe Biden and the Democratic ticket. My position has not changed.” Still, much of the caucus remained in limbo heading into Tuesday’s meeting.  

Senate Democrats are also set to meet later Tuesday for their weekly caucus lunch meeting. And despite some clear statements of support — and a lack thereof — in the House, strong commitments either way have been harder to come by in the more deliberative upper chamber. No Senate Democrats have publicly called for the president to step aside, while some are taking a wait-and-see approach. 

Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and the president pro tempore of the chamber, said in a statement on Monday that while she has “strong respect” for the president, he “must do more to demonstrate he can campaign strong enough to beat Donald Trump.”

“President Biden must seriously consider the best way to preserve his incredible legacy and secure it for the future,” she said. 

Accordingly, attention will be on the Senate, where Mr. Biden represented Delaware for more than three decades, in the coming days. 

The meetings come after the president sent a letter to congressional Democrats on Monday saying he is “firmly committed” to staying in the race and making clear that he wouldn’t be running again if he “did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024.”

Nikole Killion and Ellis Kim contributed reporting. 

Washington — NATO leaders gathering in Washington starting Tuesday plan to shore up transatlantic support for Ukraine in its battle against Russia. But for the host, President Biden, the summit has become just as much about demonstrating he’s capable of meeting the grinding demands of the presidency for four more years.

Heads of state from Europe and North America are confronting the prospect of the return to the Oval Office of NATO skeptic Donald Trump as Mr. Biden tries to save his reelection campaign, which has been in a tailspin following a disastrous June 27 debate performance against Trump.

The president said his work at the summit, where NATO is celebrating 75 years, would be a good way to judge his continued ability to do the job. He points to his work rallying NATO members in its stiff response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a prime example of his steady leadership and among the reasons he deserves another four years in the White House.

“Our allies are looking for U.S. leadership,” Mr. Biden said in an MSNBC interview Monday. “Who else do you think can step in here and do this? I expanded NATO. I solidified NATO. I made sure that we’re in a position where we have a coalition of … nations around the world to deal with China, with Russia, with everything that’s going on in the world. We’re making real progress.”

Making his case  

Mr. Biden is in a blitz to persuade voters, Democrats and donors that he’s still up to the job. He’s been making his case on the campaign trail, in a defiant letter to Democratic lawmakers and during friendly media interviews over the last several days. Still, he faces skepticism from some longtime allies.

Several Democratic House members have publicly called on the president to quit his campaign, other lawmakers in private conversations have urged him to step aside, and several high-profile donors have raised concerns about his viability in the race.

But in the letter he sent Monday to congressional Democrats, Mr. Biden said he is “firmly committed” to staying in the race and made clear that he wouldn’t be running again if he “did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024.”

Mr. Biden also spoke to Democratic donors in a call, saying he was done talking about the debate, according to a CBS News source familiar with the discussion during the call. “I’m not going anywhere and I’m going to beat Trump,” he said in the call, which came hours after the letter went out.   

The White House hopes to display to wobbly Democrats that Mr. Biden still has what it takes during what’s expected to be a busy few days of formal summit meetings, sideline chats with leaders, long diplomatic dinners and receptions and a summit-ending press conference.

Several senior administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations say the president displays a strong grasp of the broader issues – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the threat posed by China – but on specific and incremental actions that countries or groups may take when it comes to these conflicts, Mr. Biden has appeared to be at worst confused or has not seemed to have a keen grasp on how to handle them.

However, the officials say there isn’t – at least not yet – a crisis in confidence over his general mental state.

The summit will give Mr. Biden his first chance to meet face-to-face with new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The president called Starmer last week to congratulate him on his win, and plans to host him Wednesday for talks at the White House.

The Labour Party leader had no concerns about Mr. Biden’s mental acuity during their phone call, according to a spokesman for the prime minister who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private call.

The gathering of the leaders from the 32 NATO countries – plus Pacific partners Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, as well as Ukraine – is expected to be one of Mr. Biden’s last appearances at an international forum before Election Day and comes before next week’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

Biden and Trump’s different takes on NATO   

Mr. Biden has sought to spotlight his commitment to the alliance while making the case to voters that Trump would turn his back on NATO if he were to return to the White House.

Trump has repeatedly criticized fellow NATO members who failed to meet an agreed-upon goal of spending at least 2% of gross domestic product on defense. European anxiety was heightened in February when Trump warned NATO allies in a campaign speech that he “would encourage” Russia ” to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that don’t meet defense spending goals if he returns to the White House.

Trump has criticized Mr. Biden for providing an “endless flow of American treasure” to Ukraine. The Republican more recently has expressed openness to lending money instead and has said Ukraine’s independence is important to the United States.

Biden aides have pushed back, noting NATO’s announcement last month that 23 of 32 member nations are hitting the alliance’s defense spending target this year. Nine member nations were meeting the goal when Mr. Biden took office in 2021.

The president has also taken credit for the expansion of NATO. Both Finland and Sweden have joined in the aftermath of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

“That’s not by accident,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby said. “That’s because of leadership. That’s because of a constant stewardship of the alliance and other partnerships around the world. The president’s record speaks for itself.”

NATO is expected to announce details of Ukraine’s pathway to membership into the alliance during the summit. NATO, which is built around the foundational agreement that an attack on one member is an attack on all members, has maintained it won’t bring Ukraine into the fold until after the conflict with Russia ends.

Kirby said leaders will also discuss efforts to set up a coordination center in Germany to help train, equip and coordinate logistics for Ukraine forces for its expected eventual accession into NATO.

The U.S. and allies plan to unveil steps during the summit to strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses and military capabilities to help it deter Russian aggression, Kirby said.

Ian Brzezinski, a senior fellow at the Washington thinktank the Atlantic Council, said Mr. Biden needs to use the summit to “significantly reverse the impression” that he left with his poor debate performance.

“This is an immense opportunity for him to lead with vigor and energy, to underscore his commitment, the administration’s commitment, for that matter Congress’ commitment to the alliance and to underscore that he brings to the table the resolve that has made NATO so successful,” Brzezinski said.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. This story was reported in partnership with CBS News.

Year after year, while Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, Texas legislators passed measures limiting access to abortion — who could have one, how and where. And with the same cadence, they added millions of dollars to a program designed to discourage people from terminating pregnancies.

Their budget infusions for the Alternatives to Abortion program grew with almost every legislative session — first gradually, then dramatically — from $5 million starting in 2005 to $140 million after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion.

Now that abortion is largely illegal in Texas, lawmakers say they have shifted the purpose of the program, and its millions of dollars, to supporting families affected by the state’s ban.

In the words of Rep. Jeff Leach, a Republican from Plano, the goal is to “provide the full support and resources of the state government … to come alongside of these thousands of women and their families who might find themselves with unexpected, unplanned pregnancies.”

But an investigation by ProPublica and CBS News found that the system that funnels a growing pot of state money to anti-abortion nonprofits has few safeguards and is riddled with waste.

Officials with the Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees the program, don’t know the specifics of how tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent or whether that money is addressing families’ needs.

In some cases, taxpayers are paying these groups to distribute goods they obtained for free, allowing anti-abortion centers — which are often called “crisis pregnancy centers” and may be set up to look like clinics that perform abortions — to bill $14 to hand out a couple of donated diapers.

Distributing a single pamphlet can net the same $14 fee. The state has paid the charities millions to distribute such “educational materials” about topics including parenting and adoption; it can’t say exactly how many millions because it doesn’t collect data on the goods it’s paying for. State officials declined to provide examples of the materials by publication time, and reporters who visited pregnancy centers were turned away.

For years, Texas officials have failed to ensure spending is proper or productive.

They didn’t conduct an audit of the program in the wake of revelations in 2021 that a subcontractor had used taxpayer funds to operate a smoke shop and to buy land for hemp production.

They ramped up funding to the program in 2022 even after some contractors failed to meet their few targets for success.

After a legislative mandate passed in 2023, lawmakers ordered the commission to set up a system to measure the performance and impact of the program.

One year later, Health and Human Services says it’s “working to implement the provisions of the law.” Agency spokespeople answered some questions but declined interview requests. They said their main contractor, Texas Pregnancy Care Network, was responsible for most program oversight.

The nonprofit network receives the most funding of the program’s four contractors and oversees dozens of crisis pregnancy centers, faith-based groups and other charities that serve as subcontractors.

The network’s executive director, Nicole Neeley, said those subcontractors have broad freedom over how they spend revenue from the state. For example, they can save it or use it for building renovations.

Pregnancy Center of the Coastal Bend in Corpus Christi, for instance, built up a $1.6 million surplus from 2020 to 2022. Executive Director Jana Pinson said two years ago that she plans to use state funds to build a new facility. She did not respond to requests for comment. A ProPublica reporter visited the waterfront plot where that facility was planned and found an empty lot.

Because subcontractors are paid set fees for their services, Neeley said, “what they do with the dollars in their bank accounts is not connected” to the Thriving Texas Families program. “It is no longer taxpayer money.”

The state said those funds are, in fact, taxpayer money. “HHSC takes stewardship of taxpayer dollars, appropriated by the Legislature, very seriously by ensuring they are used for their intended purpose,” a spokesperson said.

None of that has caused lawmakers to stop the cash from flowing. In fact, last year they blocked requirements to ensure certain services were evidence-based.

Leach, one of the program’s most ardent supporters, said in an interview with ProPublica and CBS News that he would seek accountability “if taxpayer dollars aren’t being spent appropriately.” But he remained confident about the program, saying the state would keep investing in it. In fact, he said, “We’re going to double down.”

What’s more, lawmakers around the country are considering programs modeled on Alternatives to Abortion.

Last year, Tennessee lawmakers directed $20 million to fund crisis pregnancy centers and similar nonprofits. And Florida enacted a 6-week abortion ban while including in the same bill a $25 million allocation to support crisis pregnancy centers. John McNamara, a longtime leader of Texas Pregnancy Care Network, has been working to start similar networks in Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa. He’s also reserved the name Louisiana Pregnancy Care Network.

And U.S. House Republicans are advocating for allowing federal dollars from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — intended to help low-income families — to flow to pregnancy centers. In January, the House passed the legislation, and it is pending in the Senate. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., castigated Democrats for voting against the bill.

“That’s taking away diapers, that’s taking away resources from families who are in need,” she said in an interview with CBS News after the vote.

But, as Texas shows, more funding doesn’t necessarily pay for more diapers, formula or other support for families.

* * *

Lawmakers rebranded Alternatives to Abortion as Thriving Texas Families in 2023. The program is supposed to promote pregnancies, encourage family formation and increase economic self-sufficiency.

The state pays four contractors to run the program. The largest, which gets about 80% of the state funding, is the anti-abortion group Texas Pregnancy Care Network.

Human Coalition, which gets about 16% of the state funding, said it uses the money to provide clients with material goods, counseling, referrals to government assistance and education. Austin LifeCare, which gets about 3% of the state funding, could not be reached for comment about this story. Longview Wellness Center in East Texas, which receives less than 1% of the funds, said the state routinely audits its expenses to ensure it’s operating within guidelines.

Texas Pregnancy Care Network manages dozens of subcontractors that provide counseling and parenting classes and that distribute material aid such as diapers and formula. Parents must take a class or undergo counseling before they can get those goods.

The state can be charged $14 each time one of these subcontractors distributes items from one of several categories, including food, clothing and educational materials. That means the distribution of a couple of educational pamphlets could net the same $14 fee as a much pricier pack of diapers.

A single visit by a client to a subcontractor can result in multiple charges stacking up. Centers are eligible to collect the fees regardless of how many items are distributed or how much they are worth. One April morning, a client at McAllen Pregnancy Center, near the Texas-Mexico border, received a bag with some diapers, a baby outfit, a baby blanket, a pack of wipes, a baby brush, a snack and two pamphlets. It was not clear how much the center invoiced for these items.

McAllen Pregnancy Center and other Texas Pregnancy Care Network subcontractors were paid more than $54 million from 2021 to 2023 for distributing these items, according to records.

How much of that was for handing out pamphlets? The state said it didn’t know; it doesn’t collect data on the quantities or types of items provided to clients or whether they are essential items like diapers or just pamphlets, making it impossible for the public to know how tax dollars were spent.

Neeley said in an email that educational materials like pamphlets only accounted for 12% of the money reimbursed in this category last year, or roughly $2.4 million out of $20 million. She did not respond to questions from ProPublica and CBS News about evidence that would corroborate that number.

The way subcontractors are paid, and what they’re allowed to do with that money, raised questions among charity experts consulted for this investigation.

In the nonprofit sector, using a fee-for-service payment model for material assistance is highly unusual, said Vincent Francisco, a professor at the University of Kansas who has worked as a nonprofit administrator, evaluator and consultant over the past three decades. It “can run fast and loose if you’re not careful,” he said.

Even if nonprofits distribute items they got for free or close to it, the state will still reimburse them. Take Viola’s House, a pregnancy center and maternity home in Dallas. Records show that it pays a nearby diaper bank an administrative fee of $1,590 for about 120,000 diapers annually — just over a penny apiece. Viola’s House can then bill the state $14 for distributing a pack of diapers that cost the center just over a quarter.

But before they can get those diapers, parents must take a class. The center can also bill the state $30 for each hour of class a client attends.

Rep. Donna Howard, a Democrat from Austin, said the program could be more efficient if the state funded the diaper banks directly. Last year, she proposed diverting 2% of Thriving Texas Families’ funding directly to diaper banks, but the proposal failed.

Records show that in fiscal year 2023, Viola’s House received more than $1 million from the state in reimbursements for material support and educational items plus another $1.7 million for classes. Executive Director Thana Hickman-Simmons said Viola’s House relies on funding from an array of sources and that just a small fraction of the diapers it distributes come from the diaper bank. She said the state money “could never cover everything that we do.”

In some cases, reimbursements have created a hefty cushion in the budgets of subcontractors. The state doesn’t require them to spend the taxpayer funds they get on needy families, and Texas Pregnancy Care Network said subcontractors can spend the money as they see fit, as long as they follow Internal Revenue Service rules for nonprofits.

McAllen Pregnancy Center received $3.5 million in taxpayer money from Texas Pregnancy Care Network over three years, but it spent less than $1 million on program services, according to annual returns it filed with the IRS. Meanwhile, $2.1 million was added to the group’s assets, mostly in cash. Its executive director, Angie Arviso, asked a reporter who visited in person to submit questions in writing, but she never responded.

“This is a policy choice Texas has made,” said Samuel Brunson, associate dean for faculty research and development at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, who researches and writes about the federal income tax and nonprofit organizations. “It has chosen to redistribute money from taxpayers to the reserve funds of private nonprofit organizations.”

Tax experts say that’s problematic. “Why would you give money to a recipient that is not spending it?” said Ge Bai, a professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University.

The tax experts disagree with Texas Pregnancy Care Network’s argument that the money is no longer taxpayer dollars after its subcontractors are paid.

“It’s still the government buying something,” said Jason Coupet, associate professor of public management and policy at Georgia State University, who has studied efficiency in the public and nonprofit sectors. “If I were in the auditor’s office, that’s where I would start having questions.”

* * *

State legislators and regulators haven’t installed oversight protections in the program.

Three years ago, The Texas Tribune spotlighted the state’s refusal to track outcomes or seek insight into how subcontractors have spent taxpayer money.

Months later, Texas Pregnancy Care Network cut off funding to one of its biggest subcontractors after a San Antonio news outlet alleged the nonprofit had misspent money from the state.

KSAT-TV reported that the nonprofit, A New Life for a New Generation, had used Alternatives to Abortion funds for vacations and a motorcycle, and to fund a smoke shop business owned by the center’s president and CEO, Marquica Reed. It also spent $25,000 on land that was later registered by a member of Reed’s family to produce industrial hemp.

In an interview with ProPublica, a former case manager recalled how Reed would get angry if employees forgot to bill the state for a service provided to a client.

The former case manager, Bridgett Warren Campbell, said employees would buy diapers from the local Sam’s Club store, then take apart the packages. “We’d take the diapers out and give parents two to three diapers at a time, then she would bill TPCN,” said Campbell.

Reed declined to comment to a ProPublica reporter or to answer follow-up questions via email or text. Neeley, the Texas Pregnancy Care Network’s executive director, said the pregnancy center was removed from the program because its nonprofit status was in jeopardy, not because it had used money on personal spending. She said the network wasn’t responsible for monitoring how A New Life for a New Generation spent its dollars: “The power to investigate these matters of how nonprofits manage their own funds is reserved statutorily to the Texas Attorney General and the IRS.”

The Texas attorney general’s office would not say whether it has investigated the organization. Records show that after KSAT’s story, state officials referred the case to an inspector general and that the Texas Pregnancy Care Network submitted a report detailing how it monitored the subcontractor.

The state requires contractors to submit independent financial audits if they receive at least $750,000 in state money; Texas Pregnancy Care Network meets this threshold. However, its dozens of subcontractors don’t have to submit these audits — something experts in nonprofit practices said should be required. In the fiscal year before the alleged misspending came to light, A New Life for a New Generation received more than $1 million in reimbursements from the state, records show.

When ProPublica and CBS News asked how the Health and Human Services Commission detects fraud or misuse of taxpayer funds, Jennifer Ruffcorn, a commission spokesperson, said the agency “performs oversight through various methods, which may include fiscal, programmatic, and administrative monitoring, enhanced monitoring, desk reviews, financial reconciliations, on-site visits, and training and technical assistance.”

Through a spokesperson, Rob Ries, the deputy executive commissioner who oversees the program at Health and Human Services, declined to be interviewed.

The agency has never thoroughly evaluated the effectiveness of the program’s services in its nearly 20 years of existence.

It is supposed to make sure its contractors are meeting a few benchmarks: how many clients each one serves and how many they have referred to Medicaid and the Nurse-Family Partnership, a program that sends nurses to the homes of low-income first-time mothers and has been proven to reduce maternal deaths. The Nurse-Family Partnership does not receive Alternatives to Abortion funding.

In 2022, the Texas Pregnancy Care Network failed to meet two of three key benchmarks in its contract with the state: It didn’t serve enough clients and it didn’t refer enough of them to the nursing program. The state didn’t withhold or reduce its funding. McNamara disputed the first claim, saying the state changed its methodology for counting clients, and said the other benchmark was difficult to hit because too few clients qualified for the nursing program.

In May 2023, when lawmakers passed the bill rebranding the program, the state also ordered the agency to “identify indicators to measure the performance outcomes,” “require periodic reporting” and hire an outside party to conduct impact evaluations.

The agency declined to share details about its progress on those requirements except to say that it is soliciting for impact evaluation services. Records show the agency has requested bids.

Lawmakers decided last year against enacting requirements that would ensure certain services were evidence-based — proven by research to meet their goals — instead siding with an argument that they would be too onerous for smaller nonprofits.

Texas’ six-week abortion ban took effect in 2021, and more than 16,000 additional babies were born in the state the following year. Academics expect that trend to continue.

But the safety net for parents and babies is paper thin.

Texas has the lowest rate of insured women of reproductive age in the country and ranks above the national average for maternal deaths. It’s last in giving cash assistance to families living beneath the poverty line.

Mothers told reporters they are struggling to scrape together enough diapers and wipes to keep their babies clean. A San Antonio diaper bank has hundreds of families on its waitlist. Outside an Austin food pantry, lines snake around the block.

Howard, the Austin state representative, said ProPublica and CBS News’ findings show that the program needs more oversight. “It is unconscionable that a [Thriving Texas Families] provider would be allowed to keep millions in reserve when there is a tremendous need for more investment in access to health care services,” she said.

–Caroline Chen and Kavitha Surana contributed reporting.

As NATO leaders gather in Washington, D.C., for their annual summit that begins Tuesday, Canada’s involvement in major discussions may be complicated by how allies view its commitment to defence spending, analysts say.

The defence alliance is marking its 75th anniversary by looking toward an uncertain future and growing global threat environment where both the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific are set to be top priorities, along with the ongoing war in Ukraine. Security in the far north is of particular concern to Canada, which also has heavy military investments in Eastern Europe and the northern Pacific.

But pressure to meet NATO’s threshold of spending at least two per cent of GDP on defence — and present a concrete plan to get there — may come to a head at the summit and relegate Canada to the background in the talks.

“It’s not just the two per cent,” said Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute who studies defence policy. “A lot of the spending (currently committed by Canada) is backloaded into the 2030s, and it will take a long time to deliver on. … And I feel that a lot of the NATO members just don’t have time for this.”

2:16
NATO faces uncertain future as it gets set to mark its 75th anniversary

Canada’s updated defence policy forecasts spending will rise from 1.37 per cent of GDP currently to 1.76 per cent by 2030.

Defence Minister Bill Blair has repeatedly said further unallocated spending not specified in the policy update will get Canada to the two-per cent target, but has yet to say when that might happen.

Canada is the only NATO ally not meeting the alliance’s target that has yet to provide a detailed roadmap on getting to two per cent, which NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said will be expected at this week’s summit.

“I have no intention of Canada being a free-rider,” Blair told the FP Security Forum in Washington on Monday on the eve of the summit.

“I’m hoping that over the course of the next few days, I will be able to share that credible, verifiable plan with our allies to provide them with assurances that Canada understands its responsibility and we’re going to live up to our responsibility.”

The lack of a plan has drawn bipartisan condemnation from Washington, with 23 U.S. senators urging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau directly to provide a plan for boosting spending.

Sources have told Global News the Biden administration is losing patience with Canada and wants to see a plan that includes submarines and missile defence that could help reach the target.

Blair has said the government is looking into procuring a new submarine fleet and seeking to work with European allies on the file, but cannot commit more spending until a decision on what to purchase has been made. He has not provided a timeline on that decision.

On Monday, Blair’s office released a list of quotes from NATO and American leaders praising Canada’s defence policy update and commitments to boost spending.

1:20
Canada has ‘work to do’ beyond defence policy update to meet military needs: Bill Blair

But there remains frustration with a lot of the language used in the document that makes repeated promises to “explore” things like new submarines, missile defence and other technologies, and even career support for military members.

“Actors are listened to if they have clear and convincing messages, and clear and convincing messages are usually drawn from well-thought-out strategies and policies,” said Ann Fitz-Gerald, director of the Balsillie School of International Affairs and a political science professor at Wilfrid Laurier University.

“Many would argue that that ‘exploring’ should be done already.”

Canada has characterized beefing up security in the Arctic as the “most urgent and important task” facing the Canadian Forces amid a changing geopolitical and physical landscape, thanks to climate change.

Melting polar ice caps are making the far north more accessible to countries like Russia and China, which have grown closer since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago.

In order to address these challenges, the government plans on purchasing new early warning aircrafts, tactical helicopters, long range missiles as a threat deterrence and increased sonar and satellite capabilities.

Canada has also pointed to its commitment of nearly $40 billion over 20 years toward modernization of its NORAD capabilities, including over-the-horizon radar systems that can detect encroaching threats.

Shimooka points out that technology and other capabilities will take years to fully develop and train military members.

10:07
Naval commander warns Royal Canadian Navy has 20% shortfall in personnel

Analysts suggest Canada could essentially trade a commitment to lead on Arctic security for resources from NATO allies in other areas. That could further risk Canada being seen as a reliant partner that’s not pulling its weight across the scope of the alliance’s priorities.

“The Canadian government has already heard multiple times from NATO, from the leadership of NATO, from the secretary-general of NATO, from all of the individual countries that are engaged … you need to stop being a parasite on the periphery of NATO,” retired Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada’s former chief of the defence staff, told Global News.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin last month signed a new defence pact with North Korea that raised alarm bells around the world, further eliminating whatever divide remained between the European and Indo-Pacific theatres.

Canada has played a lead role in enforcing United Nations sanctions on North Korea through its Operation Neon air and naval surveillance mission. It has also sought to boost its economic and military standing in the Indo-Pacific along with the U.S., which Russia and China are seeking to counter.

The NATO summit will include a meeting with European and Indo-Pacific partners, including South Korea and Japan, to further deepen cooperation in the military and cybersecurity realms. Canada should be at that meeting, some analysts say.

“Not being a party to that conversation would be really detrimental to Canada’s economic security and prosperity,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice-president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

“We are at risk of being shut out of these discussions, which is why it’s important for us to really assert ourselves now and step up our resources.”

2:12
Putin, Kim Jong Un solidify Russia-North Korea alliance with strongest-ever treaty

Although outgoing chief of the defence staff Gen. Wayne Eyre has said Canada’s military recruitment and budgetary challenges are improving, it does not yet have the capacity to send additional frigates to the region as promised in the Indo-Pacific strategy.

Swedish troops will also be counted on to help bolster the Canadian-led battle group in Latvia — one of eight such multinational forces meant to deter and respond to threats posed by Russia — to a larger brigade by 2026.

If Canada is not seen as being able to quickly meet the moment, analysts say it risks attracting further frustration from its NATO allies.

Its place in the alliance itself could also be threatened if Republicans take full control of Congress and Donald Trump — who has said he wouldn’t come to the aid of allies not paying their fair share in defence in the event of an attack — returns to the White House.

Trudeau will also be using his time in Washington for other meetings in the city to bolster Team Canada efforts ahead of the U.S. election to ensure the government is prepared for any outcome. He will be meeting with Republican and Democrat politicians including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Expect security to come up in those discussions too, Shimooka says.

“There is a risk of U.S. congressmen and women continuing to look at Canada’s commitments and saying, ‘This is unacceptable,’” he said.

— with files from Global’s Mercedes Stephenson and the Canadian Press