Pardons, missiles and a ceasefire: Biden’s last few weeks
28:39 Share

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Crassie Twigg, and on the documentary we zoom in on the backstory of the Syrian militant group that led a coalition of rebels to take control of Aleppo. Once an offshoot of al-Qaeda, HDS rebranded itself in its desire to be seen as a credible governing body.

To listen to this episode of The Global Jigsaw, where we look at the world through the lens of its media, search for the documentary wherever you get your BBC podcasts. Hi there, I'm Azadeh Mashiri. From the BBC World Service, this is The Global Story. President Joe Biden is refusing to bow out quietly.

As the end of the year approaches, we find ourselves living through one of the quirks of American democracy. Even though the people have voted and a new president has been elected, it isn't until January that Donald Trump will take office. That means Joe Biden, after decades as a lawmaker on Capitol Hill, is navigating its final weeks of power. Let's make every day count. That's the responsibility we have to the American people.

It's often been referred to as the lame duck period, a president paralyzed by his approaching departure. But Joe Biden is still making foreign policy decisions and moves when it comes to Ukraine and the Middle East.

and is making headlines at home, pardoning his own son, Hunter, earlier this week. Now, Joe Biden isn't getting the second term he'd long hoped for and had even started to campaign for. There's more to do, so let's finish the job. So with just weeks left in the White House, how is Joe Biden planning to finish the job? And could it make or even break his legacy?

Well, with me today is our correspondent in Washington, D.C., Anthony Zirka, and here in London, our diplomatic correspondent, James Landale. Hi, James. Hi, Anthony. Hello. So, Anthony, starting with you, after a presidential election in the U.S., there is this three-month transition period, which we're currently in the middle of. Could you first tell us why that is? Where does it even come from?

Well, you know, it actually used to be even longer. Up until 1933, the new president wouldn't be inaugurated until March 4th. So you had almost half a year between the presidential election and when the new president takes office. And that was because back in the old days, it took longer to travel and to get everything organized for the president to get to Washington and set up his administration. The 20th Amendment moved that date to January 20th.

And they still left this transition period in place because it does still take time for a new administration, particularly when parties are changing power like they are this year, to get into place, to ramp up their foreign policy, to ramp up their plans for an administration. So am I right in understanding that it's essentially some sort of historical quirk?

that we're sort of stuck with here now, but it just happens to be handy. Yeah, I think it does happen to be handy. I know it's a bit jarring for Brits who, after an election, you see the prime minister essentially kicked out of Downing Street the next day and the new person move in. But, you know, the United States, we like to take things a little slower. We like to be a little more prepared before the new guy or woman takes over. Well, we've got a Brit with us. Does it make sense to you?

No, I mean, it makes sense. I mean, the European version of it is basically just to spend several months forming a coalition, which is the same thing, but just takes longer to actually form the government. The key thing to understand is that in the UK, we don't change the civil service. The civil service is independent and neutral and it carries on. But also, I think the UK system, I express a small personal view here, is a better system because it is so brutal. It is so hard to...

I talk to foreign politicians who go, you know, you Democrats, you're so soft. Actually, when you see a government...

changing hands. It is brutal. When that Prime Minister comes out and then walks down Downing Street with the family and gets into the car, all his advisers, who were standing outside in Downing Street, as they go back into Downing Street, hand in their passes and they go straight to their desks with a bin liner and they shovel their stuff in it and they are out the door that moment. Wow. Out they go. Anthony,

As soon as the election was called for Donald Trump, the countdown started to an incoming Republican administration. So thinking about the options Biden had in front of him in that moment, how have presidents typically handled that transition period? Is this the moment where they would feel they need to push through last minute policies or have any just sat back and accepted that this is a lame duck period?

I think usually when a new party is coming into power, the current president does try to do things to insulate the policies they put in place from being changed easily by the new administration. You see new regulations being promulgated. You see particularly new judicial appointments

being filled. Now, there have been some changes in recent decades to make it a little more difficult for these last minute administrative changes to be implemented. Congress can now overturn some of them if they happen within a certain number of days before the outgoing president leaves office. So there's only so much that the Democrats and Biden administration can do as far as getting regulations, new regulations set in stone. But they still will try to tweak around the edges and they will try to find ways of making it more difficult

for the Republicans to change things when they get in power. Well, let's dig into that. Let's look at how things have unfolded so far with Biden's final weeks. The first moves that his team seemed to have made focused on the foreign policy arena. In mid-November, with just 62 days left in office, Joe Biden gave the green light for Ukraine to use long-range missiles simultaneously

supplied by the US to strike Russia. So James, could you put this into perspective for us? How surprising was this actually? I don't think it was surprising because it had been talked about at great length. The administration had been under pressure to do it for a long time. Everybody knew that a lot of the

sort of resistance within the administration was the president himself and also his national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, who were fearful of escalation. They feared that giving Ukraine these new powers potentially could risk a broader conflict. I think what happened, two things. One is the fact that the North Koreans had given some troops and they were actually being deployed in the Kursk region, that little bit

of Russian territory that the Ukrainians have taken. And at that point, that was seen by the Americans. OK, that is an escalation in itself. And the Americans need to respond. I think the second point, you know, we've got to remember that we're now in a post electoral moment.

And any sense within the Biden administration that if they do something on Ukraine that is seen as in any way tying President Trump's hands or that potentially could have lost them votes in the run up to the election, all of that calculation disappears. So they have a certain freedom to be able to say, let's do something we haven't otherwise done. Do I think it's going to change the course of the war? No. But I think we're now in a place where the supporters of Ukraine realise that actually

At some point, there will be some kind of discussion about some form of political settlement. And therefore, anything that can be done to improve Ukraine's position on the battlefield or prevent a further diminution of its position on the battlefield is probably worth trying. And I can remember I was speaking to American diplomats about these attack rooms, as they know, these are particular longer range missiles, you know, years ago.

I remember them saying, you know, well, now that we've done these missiles or these aircraft, now we'll move on to the attack arms. It's taken a long time to get to this place. So, Anthony, what we just heard there from James is partly that the chessboard just looks different right now when you're looking at Ukraine and the players involved. But

in what way does Donald Trump fit into this? Because he's been very public about his views on Ukraine. They seem different to Joe Biden's. What do you think part of Biden's motivation may have been here? Well, I think pretty clearly the Biden administration wants to find ways of helping Ukraine now because it is going to be a dramatic turn when Donald Trump takes office. And so anything they can do to solidify the support for Ukraine now, whether it's

allowing the use of attack on Russian territory or sending out new military equipment, distributing some of the funds that Congress allocated last year and making sure that they get there and get to the Ukrainian hands in ways that will be effective. All of those things kind of become a

priority. You have to remember that at least on foreign policy, American presidents have a pretty broad range of power. So when we talk about all these regulations and things that Biden might want to do domestically to cement his policy gains, those are much more tenuous compared to foreign policy changes that the president can implement quickly and

and at least be able to see some kind of immediate returns on. But they want to try to cement as much as they can, to leave their mark as much as they can in these last few months before Donald Trump comes to town. Well, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made a similar point speaking to ABC News.

We are going to do everything in our power for these 50 days to get Ukraine all the tools we possibly can to strengthen their position on the battlefield so that they'll be stronger at the negotiating table. And President Biden directed me to oversee a massive surge

in the military equipment that we are delivering to Ukraine so that we have spent every dollar that Congress has appropriated to us by the time that President Biden leaves office. So that's first and foremost what we're focused on. So a few days after those developments with Ukraine and with 52 days left in office, Joe Biden appeared in the White House Rose Garden to announce a significant development in the Middle East. James,

Do we know how influential the Biden administration was in even getting this through? As in, how much of an impact is Joe Biden able to have on Benjamin Netanyahu now, given Netanyahu knows Donald Trump will be walking into that Oval Office in a few weeks?

I think certainly that Biden's administration had a key role facilitating this agreement. But the idea that they negotiated it, you know, all by themselves and it was their impetus, you know, is harder to argue. It is clear that, you know, Hezbollah was up for a deal. They have taken a massive hit.

They have suffered huge losses and setbacks. I think they were in the market for agreeing a deal that reduced a cessation of hostilities. At the same time, the Israelis were also up for a deal. Their army is exhausted. It is stretched.

They had achieved huge gains in this intervention, but I think they were ready for a breather as well. The Israelis have been pumping out a lot of reservists, and a lot of these reservists need to get back to their homes, their families, their jobs. You know, Israel's economy is suffering immensely because of this war at the moment, simply because there aren't the workers there. They're all on the front line. So the moment was ripe...

for a deal to be done. And clearly it is in President Biden's interest to say, you know, tick a box, a little bit of legacy, you know, we've at least achieved something. But also remember, this is also something that Donald Trump would want. You know, he's made it very clear he wants these conflicts off the table so that he can focus on the thing that he really wants to focus on, which is China and everything else.

Anthony, Biden has been stuck in a bind between supporting Israel, a key U.S. ally, and the outcry from some Americans concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This is something that's going to be part of his legacy. In your view, does he have any time to change that? Would any decision he makes at this point be able to change that? I don't know.

I think he's run out of time. I think James is right. This is a step in the right direction with the ceasefire, but it's not going to resolve the larger conflicts in the region. And I don't think there's any grounds for being able to pull that off just in the next two months, particularly from the Israeli point of view, when they're going to have a much friendlier administration coming in with Donald Trump. It doesn't make sense for them to reach some sort of negotiated agreement.

settlement on the larger issues when they know that a Trump administration will be friendly to, say, the annexation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank by Israeli settlers. That's something that several members of the incoming Trump administration have seemed open to. So to be perfectly honest, Joe Biden's political career is over. He doesn't really need to worry about what Democrats think of him after.

after January 20th of next year, he doesn't really have a political future anymore. So while he may be interested in being seen as the peacemaker and he'll take deals where he can find them, I don't think he needs to worry about satisfying Democratic concerns. That's going to be something the Democratic Party without Joe Biden is going to have to wrestle with. I think Anthony is absolutely right. We've learned one thing from the US administration in the last couple of years is Biden's unwillingness

to use US leverage to put pressure on the Israelis. There have been so many moments...

where he could have used that leverage. Occasionally he has. Occasionally he's had a tough conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but by and large he has not. He's always stepped back. In other words, it has been a demonstration of the limits of US power if you have a president who's not willing to use it. I was at the G7 summit 10 days ago in Brazil and the lack of power and the impotence of the US president, Joe Biden, there, it was visible. Nobody cared about...

about what he was doing or saying. There was nobody trying to engage with him. All the attention was on President Xi of China. You know, it just showed, you know, a lame duck is a lame duck. You know, he's still in office. As Anthony said, he still has these executive powers that he can use. But in terms of the rest of the world, they've moved on.

Well, James, final thought from you. Do you think looking ahead, because there are still a few weeks left, do you think there's anything else, any other moves the White House may have in its sights on the world stage before January? I don't think there's any big play. I think there's possibility that the president might visit somewhere or go somewhere as a sort of symbolic final visit, you know, maybe Kiev or something like that.

You know, that's pure speculation. But I don't imagine there's going to be a big play simply because this is not an administration that does sort of surprise, shock, big plays. I think the sort of foreign policy legacy of Joe Biden will be, you know, one of effort. I mean, you know, if you look at the amount of time his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has spent in the Middle East trying to sort of hold the things together simply to keep talking, keep things going, you know, they can't be faulted on effort.

But I think, you know, history will raise a quizzical, at times maybe critical eyebrow at the way the US withdrew Western forces from Kabul and Afghanistan. I think they might raise a quizzical eyebrow at the slow pace of military support. I mean, you know, the US support, you know, if the US had not given support to Ukraine, Ukraine would not exist now. It would be part of Russia.

So, you know, the United States has come to the pitch, to the plate, to use an American phrase. But nonetheless, I think people might say that Biden's sort of incrementalism, his Cold War mentality, you forget that generation that he came from.

meant the fear of prodding the Russian bear made him perhaps a little bit more cautious when at times he could have been more forward-thinking. Whether he can shape that in the final few weeks, I have my doubts.

Well, on the world stage, Joe Biden has made a point of showing he is still the president of the United States. Next, we're going to be looking at some of the headlines he's been making at home in America. So we're going to let you go, James. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Nice to speak to you, Anthony. Yeah, absolutely. Take care, James. Safe travels. Thanks so much. Don't go anywhere, Anthony. You'll stuck with us. Yes.

I'm Crassi Twig, and on the documentary we zoom in on the backstory of the Syrian militant group that led a coalition of rebels to take control of Aleppo. Once an offshoot of al-Qaeda, HDS rebranded itself in its desire to be seen as a credible governing body. To listen to this episode of The Global Jigsaw, where we look at the world through the lens of its media, search for the documentary wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

Recently, a new client called me and started by saying, "Mr. Morgan, I really need your help, but I'm just a nobody." Those words stunned me and I immediately called him back. And we're now helping him and his family after a terrible accident. I'm John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan. Everybody who comes to our firm at their time of need is a somebody.

We'll be right back.

Our results speak for themselves. And always remember this, everybody is a somebody and nobody is a nobody. Visit ForThePeople.com to learn about our firm. Morgan & Morgan, For The People. Injured? Visit ForThePeople.com for an office near you.

You're listening to The Global Story from the BBC World Service. There's a fresh episode available as a podcast each weekday. Just search for The Global Story wherever you get your podcasts. Now, don't forget, every week from now until Inauguration Day, we're bringing you a special episode of The Global Story looking at the path to the presidency. Each Saturday, Katrina Perry and Sumi Simaskanda are chatting with our BBC colleagues with the best insights on the developments ongoing.

on the transition that week. You can find that and all our weekday episodes wherever you get your BBC podcasts. Now with me is Anthony Zurcher. A big talking point this week and a move that raised a lot of eyebrows was Joe Biden's decision to pardon his own son, Hunter. So first, can you remind us of...

the problems, the legal problems that Hunter has been facing. Hunter Biden was being investigated for essentially lying on a gun application saying that he wasn't a drug user and he was an admitted drug user. He actually admitted it in a biography, autobiography he wrote. And a number of people on the right pointed to that and said, that's a violation of law. There was an investigation. He was

charged and then convicted of this gun crime and has been awaiting sentencing in the case. There is another related investigation also dating to the time when Hunter Biden in the 2010s was a drug addict and engaging in a variety of international businesses that he wasn't filing income tax returns.

And the ones that he did file were not accurate. And that investigation led to charges and led to a plea deal just shortly prior to trial earlier this year, where he admitted guilt in those instances and he was awaiting sentencing in that as well. So Hunter Biden had a bunch of legal headaches and all of them were pointing towards convictions or a guilty plea that would have led to possibly up to 17 years in prison.

And it's an obvious question here, but technically speaking, what does pardoning him actually do? Well, pardoning erases those convictions and that guilty plea. It essentially removes the legal jeopardy that he was in as far as a criminal sentence. And this pardon actually was fairly sweeping. It wasn't just a pardon for that guilty plea and that conviction on the gun case, but a pardon for any federal crimes, crimes against the United States,

from 2014 to the day Joe Biden issued the pardon, which was on Sunday. So it is one of the more broad presidential pardons we've seen in recent years. So to that point, it's far from unprecedented for presidents to use their powers to offer pardons. That's not what he's getting blowback for, is it? How have Republicans reacted to all of this?

I think he's getting some blowback because he said over the course of this year that he was not going to pardon Hunter Biden, despite the fact that he was facing a prison sentence. I'm extremely proud of my son, Hunter. He has overcome an addiction. He is he's one of the brightest, most decent men I know.

And I am satisfied that I'm not going to do anything. I said I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him. Republicans are accusing Joe Biden of hypocrisy, of changing his mind, of making a promise and then breaking it. And they're also saying that Joe Biden is abusing his presidential power to protect

his son. And there were some allegations, unfounded, at least as of now, allegations that President Joe Biden may have been connected to some of Hunter Biden's more questionable business dealings, such as serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, and dealings with Chinese business interests. And that this pardon that Joe Biden received

put forward. This might protect Joe Biden if they did find during a trial any new evidence of ties between Joe Biden when he was vice president, when he was a public official, and Hunter Biden's business dealings. When you look at the reason, the statement Joe Biden released to explain his decision, how much of the language there mimicked some of the language we hear from Donald Trump? There's striking similarities.

Joe Biden's explanation for why he pardoned Hunter Biden was that Hunter Biden was being singled out in a political prosecution, an unfair prosecution, because of his connections to Joe Biden. That if Hunter Biden's last name had been Smith,

this case never would have been charged. These types of indictments, prosecutions for lying on a gun application almost never happen unless there is some sort of a larger gun crime that the gun used in this application was used for some sort of violent crime. And the tax cases usually aren't

criminally prosecuted if the person who is being investigated pays back all the back taxes, including fines, which Hunter Biden did. So his assertion was that this was only done to damage Joe Biden personally and politically, and therefore it was an unfair application of the prosecutorial power, which is exactly what Donald Trump has said in all of the cases being brought against him.

Together we are standing up against some of the most menacing forces, entrenched interests and vicious opponents our people have ever seen. A friend of mine recently said that I was the most persecuted person in the history of our country.

When I thought about it, I actually felt that he may very well be right. Thinking about, again, you know, moves that he's making in this transition period, Democrats have so often accused Donald Trump of mixing his family with politics, of using the judicial system to further his own interests.

How much does this taint some of Joe Biden's legacy? Well, you know, Donald Trump pardoned a lot of people close to him, a lot of people who were political allies. And Trump issued all of these pardons in the last few days of his first term in office. Democrats raised a big stink about that. And it didn't really matter at all come four years later when Donald Trump ran for and won the White House again. So on one hand, it's

What Joe Biden has done with this pardon may not make a difference. An American public may totally forget this in a matter of months, certainly before Democrats launch a presidential campaign again. You have heard from Democrats who have been disappointed in this and have said that this tarnishes Joe Biden's legacy, that it makes it seem like he is using his presidential power for personal reasons to protect a member of his family.

And I think you might see Donald Trump when he takes office in January and issues another round of pardons, including possibly for Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. You'll see Donald Trump cite this as justification for using his pardon power very broadly. So speaking about the state of the judiciary, about legal matters and the fact that there have been accusations on both sides of the aisle of a weaponization of the judiciary, what

Federal judicial appointments have come into play for most presidents when it comes to this transition period. You mentioned that at the beginning of our pod and Donald Trump made a point of focusing on federal judicial appointments during his first term. And right now, this is a priority for the Senate Democrats who are trying to quickly confirm Joe Biden's own nominees. So why so much focus on judicial appointments? What kind of impact can they have?

First and foremost, a judicial appointment is a lifetime appointment. So the people that you put on the court now, especially if they're a younger judge, a judge in their 30s could conceivably sit on the federal court for 40, 50 years even. So that is a way of having influence over court.

the direction of American law and American policy for a considerably longer time than most politicians could hope to just by running in foreign holding office. And so when you're looking at those federal judicial appointments, how does Joe Biden's record stack up when you look at the numbers compared to Donald Trump's?

Well, Donald Trump filled several hundred seats. Joe Biden is catching up with him. In fact, depending on how things go over the next month, he might pass him for a number of judges appointed. Although Donald Trump's last remark was on the Supreme Court. He named three Supreme Court justices, a third of the entirety of the court, whereas Joe Biden has only gotten one.

Well, for the rest of his priorities, he's going to be thinking about how he can Trump-proof them. And there are a number of areas where Biden and Trump are, of course, seriously at odds.

And there's Joe Biden's signature Inflation Reduction Act, and it focused on infrastructure projects, on clean energy, and it seems to be in Donald Trump's sights. The president-elect said he would revoke unspent funds. And speaking from the Amazon rainforest during a trip to South America, Joe Biden did talk about the impact the president-elect could have. It's true. Some may seek to deny or delay the clean energy revolution that's underway in America.

But nobody, nobody can reverse nobody. So, Anthony, what hope does Biden have of protecting what seemed like a pinnacle achievement for him at the time? Well, you know, a lot of that money has been allocated and a lot of it has been pushed out the door. And that was something, again, that the Biden administration has tried to do in this past year is make sure that these funds that were allocated in congressional legislation, the Infrastructure Reduction Act and others,

are actually spent. Now, when Donald Trump takes over in January, he can certainly shift the direction and emphasis of domestic policy. He cannot simply not spend the money.

You could try, but that will lead to a variety of different lawsuits and that could get tied up for four years. But he can certainly put people in charge that use the money differently. He can change regulations that change the emphasis of American policy, energy policy, such as by opening up more land to oil exploration, making it easier for new energy projects to be approved by the federal government and de-emphasize

clean energy and green energy, even though there is support for the jobs that this money is creating. And Donald Trump and his administration will want to be careful not to do things that undermine the kind of manufacturing jobs that all of this new federal spending has led to. I wonder when you think of some of the more surprising decisions we may have seen from him, especially the one this week, would

Would you characterize Joe Biden as a party man right now, loyal to the Democratic Party during this lame duck period? Or is he acting on his own behalf, thinking of his own legacy? I think at this point now, he's a free agent. He doesn't have another election to worry about. He doesn't have...

have political concerns, party concerns to worry about. He may be interested in cementing his legacy and the perception of his presidency as something that had real accomplishments. And I think historians will look at some of the things that he was able to do as substantive legislative accomplishments. But clearly, pardoning Hunter Biden was done just for him. If he was worried about the consequences for the Democratic Party, he wouldn't have done that

And then if you look at the foreign policy moves he's taking in places like Ukraine and the Middle East, he is doing that because he wants to leave a mark and not necessarily because it helps the Democratic Party and the Democrats prospects going forward. He's looking out for himself and his legacy because the curtain is coming down on his more than half century political career. He will be a retired politician out to pasture as of January 20th.

And like you said, a free agent once again. Anthony, thank you so much for your time. It was my pleasure. And thanks so much to you for listening. If you want to get in touch, you can email us at theglobalstory at bbc.com or send us a message on WhatsApp. Our number is plus 44 330 123 9480. You can find those details in our show notes. Wherever you're listening in the world, this has been The Global Story. Thanks for having us in your headphones. Bye for now.

I'm Crassi Twig, and on the documentary we zoom in on the backstory of the Syrian militant group that led a coalition of rebels to take control of Aleppo. Once an offshoot of al-Qaeda, HDS rebranded itself in its desire to be seen as a credible governing body. To listen to this episode of The Global Jigsaw, where we look at the world through the lens of its media, search for the documentary wherever you get your BBC podcasts.