The White House press secretary explained that the administration’s effort to place Russia on the list of state sponsors of terrorism has produced outcomes opposite to its aims. CNBC provides coverage of the remarks.
As the President has indicated, this approach may not be the most effective tool to achieve progress. The spokesperson noted that labeling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism could bring unintended consequences for Ukraine and the wider world, including potential aggravation of the global food crisis.
Such a move could impede the flow of humanitarian aid and threaten the terms of agreements governing humanitarian corridors in the Black Sea, according to a representative from the White House.
President Joe Biden had previously rejected the idea of officially recognizing Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. The proposal was drafted by a group of senators in Congress and has found support from some political figures, including Representative Nancy Pelosi, who serves as the Speaker of the House.
Reuters noted that Ukraine has pressed Washington to acknowledge Russia as a sponsor of terrorism. Moscow has warned that taking this step could cause a severe rupture in diplomatic and other ties between the two nations.
“If this initiative were carried out, it would mark a point of no return with serious collateral damage to bilateral relations, potentially downgrading or ending ties,” stated Alexander Darchiev, head of the North American Department at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in remarks to TASS.
On August 19, Politico reported that the Russian Foreign Ministry conveyed to congressional offices serious concerns about labeling the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Sources cited by Politico indicated that officials within the State Department had argued to congressional offices that there are significant legal hurdles with the proposal and that the United States fears potential repercussions of such a designation.
According to these discussions, adding Russia to the list could jeopardize a delicate agreement that allows grain shipments to depart Ukrainian ports. The arrangement has taken months to implement, and while ships have gradually begun to leave the Black Sea, offering some relief from a stagnant global food crisis, there is no assurance that Moscow would meet its obligations if Washington takes a harsher stance.
Proponents of the designation also argue that a state sponsor label carries sanctions that would extend to key U.S.-backed economic relations, including the handling and transport of nuclear materials. Critics warn that the move could create a broad and punitive climate that harms civilians and the global economy alike.
Some lawmakers believe the measure will not reach a vote in the House Foreign Relations Committee without explicit support from the Biden administration, underscoring the political calculations at play as the debate continues.
In summary, the discourse surrounding Russia’s potential designation touches on humanitarian logistics, energy and economic policy, and the broader arc of U.S.–Russia relations. Observers say the decision could reverberate far beyond the immediate designation, influencing international diplomacy, regional security in Europe, and global food supply chains. The administration is weighing strategic consequences against the symbolic and punitive weight the label carries for Russia, Ukraine, and allied partners worldwide. The outcome remains uncertain as lawmakers, diplomats, and analysts scrutinize the legal and geopolitical ramifications of this high-stakes policy question.