Category: News

Last week, Tesla laid off most of its electric car charging team, raising doubts about the feasibility of the Biden administration’s ambitious E.V. expansion plans.

Though Tesla accounts for more than half of the fast E.V. chargers currently installed in the United States, and though it has continued to build them faster and cheaper than anyone else, the E.V. charging market may no longer need Tesla to lead it.

In fact, experts I spoke to believe the E.V. charging industry is set to expand quickly over the next few years. Let me explain why.

At first, Tesla’s move seemed like a blow to a sector that may seem like it’s struggling to grow despite the $7.5 billion investment from the bipartisan infrastructure law passed by President Biden in 2021. The administration’s goal is to build a network of a half million fast and slow chargers in the country by 2030, more than double what the U.S. has today. But roughly two and a half years after the bill’s passage only eight federally funded charging stations have opened in six states, according to government data.

Elon Musk, Tesla’s C.E.O., hasn’t explained why he decided to cut back on charger construction, but some analysts interviewed by my colleagues Jack Ewing and Ivan Penn said he had probably concluded that it would become harder to make money from charging as more companies entered the market.

As Ewing and Penn wrote, last year all major automakers selling cars in North America agreed to use the charging plug developed by Tesla, which has a reputation for being reliable and easy-to-use.

That leaves the question I set out to answer. What’s holding back the expansion of America’s electric charging infrastructure? Spoiler alert: The picture isn’t nearly as grim as it may seem.

“We’re not seeing a lag in process or progress,” Ellen Kennedy, a transportation expert at RMI, a clean energy think tank, told me. “I think that people have been taking a dim view of this without actually considering that what has been happening is amazing.”

Jumping through hoops

You might think Kennedy is being overly optimistic, but she’s not alone in thinking the U.S. is turning the corner on E.V. chargers.

My colleague Ewing, who has been covering automakers for decades, told me he has been hearing much of the same thing from experts. “A lot of people told me that the charger infrastructure has a momentum of its own,” he said. “Things are going up pretty fast.”

Including the federally funded program, the U.S. has added an average of about 2,800 fast and slow charging ports a month over the past year, according to government data. (A charging station can have several ports.) Many companies are excited, Ewing said, about the prospect of building out E.V. stations that can offer entertainment, dining and shopping options for drivers. That’s already happening in Norway.

The point of the federal government’s program isn’t simply to add more chargers to the network, but rather to guarantee there is an equitable distribution across the country, and to match charging infrastructure to demand.

“The charging networks, you know, just aren’t building these charging stations where there’s very little E.V. traffic,” Loren McDonald, the C.E.O. of EVAdoption, an industry data and analysis company, told me. “But it’s a chicken and egg thing, and that’s what this program is trying to solve.”

In a statement, the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which is responsible for the federal charger program, said, “We want to get it right to ensure we have a charging network that makes it easier for Americans to find a charge than to fill up on gas.”

The obstacles remaining

Still, coordination between the federal government, states and utilities can take time. Most of the money for E.V. chargers is federal, but states are the ones that need to spend it. And then, utilities must connect charging stations to the grid.

Utilities often delay projects. It can take months after a station is built for the local utility to connect it to the grid. A shortage of transformers and switch gears can add another layer of delays.

The good news is that every state, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., have presented plans for how they will spend federal resources. But staffing can be an issue. States with high E.V. adoption, like New York, have more experienced staff handling charger expansion efforts than states where fewer people own electric cars, such as South Carolina.

The layoffs at Tesla won’t help any of this go faster. But the company picked up only 14 percent of the contracts from the federal charger program so far, according to EVAdoption. Dozens of competitors, like Francis Energy and Love’s Travel Stop, are working to build the rest.

Overcoming these obstacles is taking time. But all the experts I’ve spoken to expect that to change soon.

Right now, federally funded new stations are opening roughly one a month. McDonald said he expects them to open once a week or once a day by the end of the year.

McDonald also pointed out that public chargers, some of which can recharge a battery in less than half an hour, aren’t where most E.V. charging happens. Most charging happens at home, at work or wherever people park, using slower chargers that can take several hours to charge a car up, but get the job done.

The Biden administration’s “messaging has perhaps overly focused on the fast charging aspect of it,” McDonald said. “The biggest sort of challenge is, well, just education.”

For people considering buying an electric car, seeing charging stations pop up everywhere may help dispel some of their concerns. “We have this saying in the industry that the charger anxiety has replaced range anxiety,” McDonald said.

Still, when it comes to the Biden administration’s expansion plans, McDonald said “it actually is fair to say that by and large, the program is on track.”

Today on The Daily: Our warming oceans

Ocean temperatures have been hitting record highs for more than a year now, puzzling scientists and raising the prospect of cataclysmic changes to life on Earth.

On Tuesday’s episode of The Daily, David Gelles and Raymond Zhong explain why the oceans are so hot, how the heat is already upending marine life and weather patterns, and what even bigger changes might be in store.

Climate change has been making oceans warmer for decades. But starting last March, scientists noticed a sharp jump in sea surface temperatures. Oceans have absorbed much of the excess heat produced by global warming, but that alone doesn’t explain the spike recorded over the past year.

Another factor was likely the current El Niño cycle, which typically has an overall warming effect on the world’s oceans. Still another likely cause has been the recent changes in shipping regulations that led to reduced air pollution over the North Atlantic, which counter-intuitively allowed more of the sun’s energy to reach the ocean, warming it up. But even when factoring in all those dynamics, scientists are still perplexed by the record heat.

All that extra heat is already having effects. As Catrin Einhorn has reported, coral reefs around the world are experiencing a mass bleaching event. Corals are vitally important parts of marine ecosystems, and responsible for some $2.7 trillion of economic activity. Their disappearance is a problem for the oceans and humans alike.

The warm oceans are also expected to contribute to an active hurricane season. As Judson Jones reported last month, a key area of the Atlantic Ocean where hurricanes form is abnormally warm, conditions that one leading scientist called “unprecedented,” “alarming” and an “out-of-bounds anomaly.”

Even bigger changes could be in store. A key current that moves warm water from the equatorial region up into the North Atlantic is showing early signs of collapsing. The last time that happened, more than 12,000 years ago, Europe was plunged into an ice age.

A bipartisan group of senators is pushing to halt the expansion of facial recognition technology at airports in the United States and restrict its use as part of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that is making its way through Congress.

Citing privacy concerns, Senators Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, are proposing to block the expansion of the technology until 2027 and require the transportation security administrator to make clear that passengers can opt out at airports where it is in use.

With a Friday deadline for renewing the aviation law, the proposal is among the amendments likely to get a vote before the bill can pass. It has pit privacy advocates in both parties against consumer and industry groups that argue that the technology has the potential to vastly cut down on wait times at airports and increase convenience and safety.

The Federal Aviation Administration is planning to expand facial recognition technology to more than 430 airports, from 25, as part of an effort to speed up the check-in process. Using kiosks with iPads affixed to them, passengers have their photographs taken and matched to an image from a government database instead of presenting a physical identification card.

Mr. Merkley said he had grown concerned about the technology after encountering it at Ronald Reagan National Airport near Washington, D.C. While a facial scan is optional, many passengers feel pressured to comply, he said.

The senator often insists on his right to decline the facial scan, but he said some airport security workers pushed back. Until recently, he said, there was no sign clearly indicating that passengers are not obligated to have their faces scanned at security checkpoints.

“Because I made such a fuss over it, they put a little postcard that says this is optional, but what you really see is an iPad that says, ‘Follow instructions’ or ‘Follow the orders,’” Mr. Merkley said. “So people just do not believe they have this option. They’re afraid of getting arrested. People are nervous.”

The U.S. Travel Association is raising alarm about the amendment, arguing that it would create a “severe and troubling scenario for travelers.”

Geoff Freeman, the association’s president and chief executive, said the proposal to crack down on facial recognition technology at airports was “dangerous, costly and threatens to create chaos at America’s airports.”

“Eliminating the use of biometrics — such as facial scans — will set America back by decades,” he said, “and only misinformed members of Congress are to blame.”

If facial recognition software is not expanded, the travel lobby says, passengers will end up waiting an additional 120 million hours in security lines each year. The U.S. Travel Association also says failure to use the technology could result in national security risks.

Mr. Merkley rejected the criticism, pointing out that his amendment would merely preserve the status quo.

“How does this create a delay? We’re just freezing in place what’s there right now,” he said. “We think it’s an important issue for Congress to wrestle with.”

Mr. Merkley, who as a state legislator in Oregon sought to curb the use of red-light cameras and cellphone tracking, said his focus on facial recognition at airports stemmed from a number of civil liberties concerns. No Americans should be forced to have their photograph taken without their consent, he said, adding that he was worried about the government building an ever-increasing database of Americans’ faces that could be misused. He also argued that the technology was inaccurate and had unacceptable error rates.

“I come from rural Oregon, so I’ve always had a bit of concern about government having too much ability to track individuals,” Mr. Merkley said.

Mr. Merkley and Mr. Kennedy were among 14 senators who recently sent a letter to Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, outlining their concerns.

“This technology poses significant threats to our privacy and civil liberties, and Congress should prohibit T.S.A.’s development and deployment of facial recognition tools until rigorous congressional oversight occurs,” the letter said. It was signed by a mix of lawmakers from both parties, including some prominent liberals and Republicans known for their work on civil liberties issues.

Mr. Schumer included the amendment on a list of proposals that should get a vote before the bill passes, but he has not publicly taken a position on it.

Mr. Kennedy said he was particularly concerned that government workers could potentially abuse the data after scanning millions of faces each day. “Unless Congress reins in this program through our amendment to the F.A.A. reauthorization bill, I fear bureaucrats will start seizing and hoarding the biometrics of millions of travelers without explicit permission,” he said in a statement.

Lisa Gilbert, the executive vice president of the progressive group Public Citizen, has been pushing for the amendment.

“They’re touting this as something that sort of makes traveling safer or more efficient, but there’s actually no data or proof to that,” she said. “And there are real ramifications for travelers’ privacy and how their data is used.”

In February of last year, President Biden changed the U.S. standard for cutting off weapons deliveries to foreign militaries that harm civilians during wartime.

Under the new arms transfer policy, Mr. Biden said countries that were “more likely than not” to violate international law or human rights with American weapons should not receive them. Previously, U.S. officials were required to show “actual knowledge” of such violations, a higher bar to clear.

A few months later, in August, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken issued a directive instructing State Department officials overseas to investigate incidents of civilian harm by foreign militaries using American weapons and recommend responses that could include halting arms deliveries.

Hamas attacked Israel two months later, triggering the war in Gaza and plunging Mr. Biden and Mr. Blinken into an intense global debate about how Israel is using U.S. arms. To Mr. Biden’s critics, his steadfast refusal to limit arms deliveries to Israel runs counter to those initiatives and badly undermines his goal of positioning the United States as a protector of civilians in wartime.

His policies face new tests this week. Israel is threatening a full invasion of Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, against Mr. Biden’s firm opposition. And the Biden administration plans to deliver a report to Congress this week assessing whether it believes Israel’s assurances that it has used American weapons in accordance with U.S. and international law.

If the report finds that Israel has violated the law, Mr. Biden could restrict arms deliveries. Eighty-eight House Democrats wrote to Mr. Biden last week questioning the credibility of Israel’s assurances and urging him “to take all conceivable steps to prevent further humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.”

When the Biden administration issued the initiatives last year — the White House’s Conventional Arms Transfer Policy and the State Department’s Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance — officials described them as part of a new emphasis on human rights in American foreign policy, an upgrade from their lower priority during the Trump administration.

“Part of it was to highly differentiate America’s role in the world under Biden from Trump,” said Sarah Margon, the director of foreign policy at the Open Society Foundations.

At the time, people familiar with the deliberations said, the Biden administration was focused on other countries, including Saudi Arabia, whose U.S.-armed military campaign in Yemen had killed thousands of civilians and contributed to a humanitarian nightmare.

In one of his first major acts as president, in February 2021, Mr. Biden even halted the delivery of offensive arms to the Saudis, who are fighting Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen. “This war has to end,” he said. Mr. Biden has since restored the deliveries.

Within months, the Hamas-led assault would incite a war that has drawn intense new scrutiny to Israel’s reliance on $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid, which includes bombs and ammunition that have been used in Gaza.

But critics say Mr. Biden is making a political decision to flout U.S. law and his own administration’s directives in the case of Israel.

“In practice, it may be a policy call from the White House — but that’s not the way it should work,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group who spent a decade in the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser until 2021. “U.S. law should be applied. If the outcome is something you don’t like, tough luck.”

That law originated in the 1970s as concern was rising about human rights abuses by some of America’s Cold War allies and as some members of Congress were angry with the Nixon and Ford administrations for giving them little notice before arming several Middle Eastern countries.

Leading the charge was the liberal Democratic senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who complained in 1976 that the American people had “become justifiably concerned with a highly secretive national policy which seems to disregard our long-term security interests in a stable, more democratic world.”

Humphrey pushed through legislation declaring that the United States could not send military assistance to any foreign government that “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Congress defined those violations to include “torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” arbitrary detention and “other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty or the security of person.”

Experts have interpreted that last clause to include things like indiscriminate bombing or disproportionate civilian casualties. A 2017 American Bar Association report focused on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia found that “serious violations of international humanitarian law resulting in the loss of civilian life” would qualify.

International humanitarian law is generally grounded in the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements that call for protecting civilians in war, and outlaw attacks on medical facilities and personnel.

The 1970s-era U.S. law also granted a president the power to waive penalties against arms recipients on the grounds of urgent national security interest.

The U.S. government generally lacks clearly defined procedures for evaluating whether militaries that receive American arms might be breaking laws, experts said. Nor is it able to closely monitor how those weapons are used, experts said.

Ms. Margon, who served as a senior aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, could not recall an instance in which the United States had halted foreign military aid over human rights violations.

The report due from the administration this week is the product of increased pressure from Democrats in Congress. In February, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, drew up legislation invoking a 1995 law that bars U.S. aid to any country that blocks the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid. Many aid groups and legal experts accuse Israel of intentionally impeding humanitarian supplies into Gaza, including aid provided by the United States; Israel has blamed Hamas and logistical issues for the shortages.

As Mr. Van Hollen’s amendment began to gather support among Democrats, the White House moved to co-opt the effort. Mr. Van Hollen’s measure “was unlikely to succeed — but it would still cause embarrassment for the administration,” said John Ramming Chappell, a fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict.

Working with Mr. Van Hollen, the White House drafted a national security memo similar to his Senate measure. It included a requirement that all recipients of U.S. military aid provide written “assurances” that they had complied with applicable domestic and international law when using American weapons. Israel, the clear reason for the measure, was not singled out by name.

Israel submitted its assurances to the State Department in late March. Mr. Blinken is now overseeing the delivery of the report to Congress assessing “any credible reports or allegations” that U.S. arms have been used to violate the law, and whether the country in question “has pursued appropriate accountability.”

The report must also say whether the country has “fully cooperated” with U.S. efforts to provide humanitarian aid to a conflict area where it has used American weapons.

“This is going to be a test of the credibility of the administration, and whether it’s willing to reach some inconvenient truths,” Mr. Van Hollen said in an interview. “This report is supposed to be driven by hard facts and the law.”

“The question is, what does the Biden administration do to verify any claims? It’s not enough to say, ‘Oh, you know, we’ve asked the Israeli government and they say it’s justified,’” he added.

Experts who track the issue are skeptical that the report will incriminate Israel, at least without finding ways to continue arms deliveries.

The Biden administration rejects such talk. “The same standard should be applied to every conflict everywhere in the world, including this one,” Matthew Miller, a State Department spokesman, told reporters last week. But the Gaza conflict, he added, is “a little bit more difficult” than most because Hamas fighters hide in densely populated civilian areas.

If the report finds that Israel’s assurances are not credible, it must describe steps “to assess and remediate the situation.” According to Mr. Biden’s original memo, that can include anything from “refreshing the assurances” to cutting off arms transfers.

Mr. Miller has said the department is separately investigating an unspecified number of episodes under the internal policy established by Mr. Blinken in August.

But that system is devised only to encourage policy discussion “to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring in the future,” Mr. Miller said in February. It outlines no specific penalties.

Ukraine’s security services said on Tuesday that they had foiled a Russian plot to assassinate President Volodymyr Zelensky and other top military and political figures. Two Ukrainian colonels accused of participating in the plot have been arrested on suspicion of treason.

The Ukrainian domestic intelligence agency, the S.B.U., said in a statement that the plot had involved a network of agents — including the two colonels — that was run by Russia’s Federal Security Service, or F.S.B., the main successor to the K.G.B. According to the S.B.U., the agents working at Russia’s direction were tasked with identifying people close to Mr. Zelensky’s security detail who could take him hostage and later kill him.

The agency’s statement said the other top Ukrainian officials targeted in the plot included Vasyl Malyuk, the head of the S.B.U., and Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency. The Ukrainian claims could not be independently verified.

It is not the first time that Ukraine has reported a potential assassination attempt aimed at its top leaders. Mr. Zelensky said in an interview with an Italian television channel earlier this year that his security services had told him of more than 10 such efforts.

Ukraine’s security services offered few details about previous assassination plots. But this time, the agency went to some length in its statement to describe how the Ukrainian officials were to be killed.

The services said the two colonels accused in the plot belonged to the State Security Administration, which protects top officials. They had been recruited before the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, according to the statement, which identified three F.S.B. members — Maxim Mishustin, Dmytro Perlin and Oleksiy Kornev — as running the operation from Moscow. The two Ukrainian colonels were not named.

In a video released by the security services, a man identified as one of the colonels, his face blurred, describes details of the apparent plot that involved blocking Mr. Zelensky as he entered or left a building. The authenticity of the video could not be independently confirmed.

As for the assassination attempt aimed at General Budanov, the services said it was planned to take place before Orthodox Easter, which was celebrated on May 5. The F.S.B.’s network of agents in Ukraine was tasked with observing and passing on information about General Budanov’s whereabouts, the Ukrainian security services said.

Once his location had been confirmed and communicated, he would have been targeted in a multilayered attack involving a rocket strike, followed by a drone attack to kill people who were fleeing and then a second rocket strike, the security services said.

Weapons for the attack were provided to one of the colonels, including attack drones, ammunition for a rocket launcher and anti-personnel mines, according to the security services and Ukraine’s prosecutor general. The colonel was to pass the weapons to other agents to carry out the assault, the Ukrainian statement said.

Russia made no immediate comment about the Tuesday accusations.

The apparent assassination plot is just the latest in a series of attempted or successful attacks on Ukrainian figures.

General Budanov’s wife was poisoned late last year, according to the Ukrainian military intelligence agency, in an incident that led to widespread speculation that Russia was stepping up efforts to target Ukraine’s senior leadership. General Budanov said in February that it was difficult to say if the poisoning was an attempt to murder him, but he hinted that Russia was behind it.

Mr. Zelensky has also been the target of numerous assassination attempts, according to Ukraine’s security services. As recently as last month, the S.B.U. reported that it had arrested, in cooperation with Polish security services, a Polish man who it said had offered to spy for Russia as part of a plot to assassinate Mr. Zelensky.

Ukraine is also believed to have been involved in the killing of several pro-Kremlin voices in Russia. U.S. intelligence agencies believe that parts of the Ukrainian government authorized a car bombing that in 2022 killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist. And in December, a former Ukrainian lawmaker living near Moscow was assassinated by Ukrainian security service agents, according to a report by The Financial Times that cited two Ukrainian officials with direct knowledge of the incident.

In one sense, Kristi Noem has had a wildly successful rollout of her new book: America can’t stop talking about it.

But all the chatter is not for the reasons Ms. Noem, the conservative governor of South Dakota, might have expected when she finished “No Going Back,” a memoir that recounts her political career. The book appears aimed at raising her profile as a MAGA loyalist while former President Donald J. Trump weighs his choices for running mate. Just a month ago, Ms. Noem had been widely seen as a contender.

Instead of talking up her conservative bona fides, however, Ms. Noem has spent the last week on national television defending a grisly account in the book in which she shoots her dog in a gravel pit. The killing of the dog, a 14-month-old wire-haired pointer named Cricket, has drawn bipartisan criticism and scrutiny.

The book, published on Tuesday, includes a number of other noteworthy details, some of which Ms. Noem has discussed in recent interviews. Here are four takeaways.

Noem has a lot of criticism for other Republicans.

Ms. Noem’s account of her time in office — first as South Dakota’s sole House representative and then as governor — includes many stories that broadly criticize Republicans for their electoral failures, while also targeting figures who have drawn the ire of Mr. Trump.

She describes a phone conversation she had with Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who dropped out of the Republican presidential primary race in March, claiming that Ms. Haley had threatened her because they were both prominent Republican women. Chaney Denton, a spokeswoman for Ms. Haley, has said Ms. Noem’s account of the conversation was inaccurate, and “just plain weird.”

Ms. Noem also blames Ronna McDaniel, the former chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, for the poor performance of Republican candidates in the 2022 midterms, and criticizes her for not supporting Mr. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen — though Ms. Noem herself writes in that section that “Trump lost in 2020.”

“We got lazy, and no one was held accountable,” she says, adding that Mr. Trump was wrongly blamed for Republicans underperforming. She also called out the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, though she says she has hope for 2024 and is “willing to help.”

Ms. Noem devotes a section of the book to RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — a favorite pejorative of Mr. Trump that he has deployed against critics within the party.

“In many ways, these political creatures are worse than some donkeys,” Ms. Noem wrote, referring to Democrats in that section as “donkeys.”

But Ms. Noem also takes a swipe at some Republicans on the far right in her party, saying that they have contributed to recent election losses.

“Losing sucks. But Republicans happen to be great at it,” she writes in one section, adding: “Candidates talk like crazy people, make wild claims, and offer big promises. And they lose. Of course, there are some crazy candidates, but I’m not talking about them. This is about good folks who choose the wide path of bomb throwing and parroting whatever’s on social media, as opposed to speaking rationally and humbly offering solutions.”

Noem says shooting her dog was a “difficult” choice, and suggests one of President Biden’s dogs should be put down, too.

Ms. Noem has repeatedly defended her decision to kill her dog, Cricket, and her politically baffling choice to include the anecdote in her memoir.

In the book, she describes an incident where Cricket killed a neighbor’s chickens and tried to bite Ms. Noem as she sought to restrain the dog. After taking Cricket home and shooting her, Ms. Noem writes, “I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done. Walking back up to the yard, I spotted our billy goat.”

The goat, Ms. Noem writes, “was nasty and mean,” smelled terrible and often chased her children around. So she dragged him out to the gravel pit, too — but didn’t kill him with the first shot, and had to go back to her truck for more ammunition to finish the job.

In an interview with Sean Hannity last week, Ms. Noem said she had included the story in the book to illustrate the “tough, challenging decisions that I’ve had to make throughout my life.”

In an interview on “Face the Nation” on CBS on Sunday, Ms. Noem called attention to another part of the book in which she suggested that one of President Biden’s dogs, a bite-prone German shepherd named Commander, should also be put down.

In a section of the memoir discussing what Ms. Noem would do on her first day in office as president, she wrote that “the first thing I’d do is make sure Joe Biden’s dog was nowhere on the grounds (‘Commander, say hello to Cricket for me’).” Ms. Noem made a similar suggestion in her interview on Sunday.

“You’re saying he should be shot?” asked the CBS host Margaret Brennan.

“That what’s the president should be accountable to,” Ms. Noem replied. .

The print edition of the book includes a false anecdote about Noem meeting Kim Jong-un.

Ms. Noem writes in the memoir that she met with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean dictator, while serving on the House Armed Services Committee.

“I had the chance to travel to many countries to meet with world leaders — some who wanted our help, and some who didn’t,” she writes. “I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. I’m sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants (I’d been a children’s pastor, after all). Dealing with foreign leaders takes resolve, preparation, and determination.”

This was an error, according to Ian Fury, the chief of communications for Ms. Noem. Ms. Noem has said in later interviews that she takes “responsibility for the change,” but has not explained why the anecdote was included or whom she could have been referring to, if not Mr. Kim. She has also pushed back when the false anecdote has been characterized as a mistake.

“This is an anecdote that I asked to have removed, because I think it’s appropriate at this point in time,” Ms. Noem said in her interview on “Face the Nation.” “But I’m not going to talk to you about those personal meetings that I have had with world leaders.”

Noem offers a glowing portrait of Trump, and alludes to her future aspirations.

Ms. Noem heaps praise on the former president in her memoir, describing him as “a breaker and a builder,” writing, “He was relentlessly attacked for personal failures — and fictional ones — but stayed in the race and never wavered.”

She also reminds readers that she defended Mr. Trump in a speech the day after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, “regardless of the fact that what unfolded on January 6 was undeniably ugly.”

At one point, she also says that Mr. Trump, “in some funny ways,” is similar to her young granddaughter.

“I see similarities between Trump and my granddaughter, Miss Addie (that’s what I call her),” Ms. Noem writes. “She’s almost three years old and, in my unbiased view, one of the most brilliant human beings I’ve ever met (tied for first place with my grandson, of course!)”

But while Ms. Noem may be angling for a place at Mr. Trump’s side as his running mate, she insists in the memoir that if she is picked, it should not be because she’s a woman.

“I’m often asked by the national media if I think Donald Trump should pick a woman to be vice president,” Ms. Noem writes. “My answer is always about choosing the best people for the job.”

The final chapter of the book focuses not on any vice-presidential aspirations, but rather on what she would do on “Day 1” if elected president herself. It begins with a quote from Mr. Trump saying in December that if elected as president, he wouldn’t be a dictator, “except for Day 1.”

Along with putting federal property up for sale and convening a bipartisan working group on immigration, Ms. Noem writes, she would invite the Obamas and Bidens over to the White House for a screening of “The Grey,” a Liam Neeson film about battling wolves that she describes earlier in the book as among her favorites.

U.S. military planes filled with civilian contractors and supplies have begun landing in Haiti, paving the way for a seven-nation security mission, led by Kenya, to deploy to the troubled Caribbean nation in the coming weeks, American officials say.

But even as the security situation worsens and millions of Haitians go hungry, a military-style deployment that is estimated to cost $600 million has just a fraction of the funding required.

Biden administration officials would not say whether a precise date for the deployment date had been set. The Kenyan government did not respond to requests for comment.

Several flights from Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina have landed at Toussaint Louverture International Airport in Port-au-Prince, the capital, in the past week, according to the U.S. Southern Command.

Contractors were being flown in to help secure the airport before building a base of operations there for the international security force. More planes carrying construction contractors and equipment were expected in the coming days.

“The deployment of the multinational security support mission in Haiti is urgent, and we’re doing all we can to advance that goal,” Brian A. Nichols, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told reporters last week. “Every day that goes by is a lost opportunity to provide greater security for the Haitian people. And that’s why we’re doing everything we can, along with our Kenyan partners to advance that.”

The United Nations first approved the security mission seven months ago to help Haiti, which has been ravaged by gang violence in a crisis that the U.N. says is pushing more than a million people toward famine.

The deployment was hobbled by a series of delays as opposition lawmakers in Kenya and a Kenyan court objected. Now, officials say, the legal impediments have been cleared for a 2,500-member security force, led by 1,000 police officers from Kenya, to Haiti, where several gangs have taken over large swaths of the capital.

More than half a dozen other countries have also pledged to contribute personnel in stages. Among them are the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Chad and Jamaica have also volunteered personnel for the force, according to the United Nations.

Benin, in West Africa, pledged 1,500 to 2,000 people, and Jamaica offered 200 police officers and soldiers, according to letters submitted to the U.N. The Bahamas volunteered 150 law enforcement officers, who will concentrate on community policing, as well as maritime and port security.

In March, dozens of members of the Canadian Armed Forces flew to Jamaica to train Jamaican officers heading to Haiti in peacekeeping skills and combat first aid, the Canadian military said.

Other countries have publicly expressed interest but have not submitted official commitment letters.

Thousands of people have been killed in Haiti in the first few months of this year. In late February, gangs that for years clashed with another joined forces to take over much of the capital, blocking key infrastructure like ports, and taking over entire neighborhoods.

More than 350,000 people have been forced from their homes in the past year, and millions more are unable to work in the face of rampant violence and indiscriminate gunfire. Thousands of inmates were freed in late February as gangs attacked several prisons.

With the ports blocked for several weeks, ships could not dock, and food supplies dwindled. After more than two months, commercial flights are expected to restart next week.

Gang leaders said their goal was to force the resignation of Prime Minister Ariel Henry, and to prevent the international security deployment. Mr. Henry stepped down and a presidential transition council has been named with the goal of appointing a new interim government and organizing elections by late 2025.

The Haitian National Police has already drawn up plans with timetables for the takeover of all the areas currently occupied by the gangs, according to the police chief, Frantz Elbé.

“Our country, being a member of the great community of nations, cannot pretend to solve its problems alone, especially when these may have repercussions on the security of other states,” Mr. Elbe said in an email to The New York Times.

The U.S. government has pledged $300 million for the security mission, but has faced obstacles in getting Congress to approve the release of funds. So far, just $10 million has been released.

A U.N. fund to pay for the mission has just $18 million, much of it pledged from Canada, according to the U.N. But there are other ways to finance the mission, including with in-kind donations like the provision of $70 million of matériel and equipment authorized by the Biden administration.

“We really hope it hits the ground as quickly as possible,” said Stephanie Tremblay, a U.N. spokeswoman. “We cannot say that often enough.”

While U.S. officials declined to say when the mission would begin arriving in Haiti, the timing was widely expected to coincide with a state visit by Kenya’s president, William Ruto, on May 23.

“There’s no question they’re trying to make this a reality within the next couple of weeks,” said Jake Johnston, a Haiti expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “At this point, with all the planes landing, it’s really clear they’re going to have somebody on the ground by the time Ruto is in D.C., but it’s going to be largely symbolic. This doesn’t mean that there is like an operational force on the ground in two and a half weeks.”

Vladimir V. Putin was inaugurated for a fifth term as president on Tuesday in a ceremony filled with pageantry and a televised church service, as the Russian leader tried once more to depict his invasion of Ukraine as a religiously righteous mission that is part of “our 1,000-year history.”

Mr. Putin took the presidential oath — he swore to “respect and safeguard the rights and freedoms of man and citizen” — with his hand on a red-bound copy of Russia’s constitution, the 1993 document that guarantees many of the democratic rights that he has spent much of his 25-year rule rolling back.

Mr. Putin claimed his fifth term in March in a rubber-stamp election that Western nations dismissed as a sham. If he serves the full six years of his new term, he will become the longest serving Russian leader since Empress Catherine the Great in the 18th century.

“Together, we will be victorious!” Mr. Putin said at the end of a speech after he took the oath in the Kremlin’s gilded St. Andrew’s Hall.

Afterward, state television showed a service inside the Kremlin’s Cathedral of the Annunciation that was led by Patriarch Kirill I, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He blessed Mr. Putin as the president stood, looking on, occasionally bowing and crossing himself — a scene that underscored the Kremlin’s intensifying efforts to give a religious sheen to Mr. Putin’s rule.

“The head of state must sometimes make fateful and fearsome decisions,” the patriarch said, in what appeared to be attempt to frame Mr. Putin’s invasion as justified before God. “And if such a decision is not made, the consequences can be extremely dangerous for the people and the state. But these decisions are almost always associated with victims.”

Mr. Putin offered no new policy details in his speech, even though analysts expect him to make some changes to the makeup of his government later this week. He also said nothing about the tactical nuclear weapons drills that his military announced on Monday, a move that highlighted Mr. Putin’s continued attempts to pressure the West to relent in its support of Ukraine.

“We do not reject dialogue with Western states,” Mr. Putin said in his speech, repeating his call for talks that many critics see as tantamount to a demand for capitulation by the West and Ukraine.

“I will repeat that talks, including on issues of strategic stability, are possible,” he added, referring to arms-control negotiations with the United States that have been stalled since Russia launched its invasion more than two years ago. “But only on equal terms, respecting each other’s interests.”

Isolated from the West after more than two years since launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and under indictment by the International Criminal Court, Mr. Putin is projecting a power domestically that seems stronger than ever.

“Our president has the highest powers, more than the American president and even the Russian czar,” said Gennady A. Zyuganov, the leader of Russia’s Communist Party, as he arrived at the ceremony in the Kremlin. “A lot depends on him.”

More than 2,000 government officials, prominent supporters and loyal administrators who are part of Russia’s institutions in occupied Ukraine gathered to witness the tightly stage-managed inauguration.

Mr. Putin’s preordained election in March delivered him more than 87 percent of the vote, according to Russian election officials, with almost 80 percent turnout.

As supporters assembled, they all shared a message demonstrating Mr. Putin’s iron grip on their loyalty: that he would keep Russia stable, strong and peaceful.

Among the first to arrive was the American actor Steven Seagal, who said of Russia’s future that, “With President Putin, it will be the best.”

Mr. Putin pronounced the brief oath standing next to Valery Zorkin, the head of the Constitutional Court — a body that has steadfastly upheld Mr. Putin’s rollback of the democratic rights.

Just about all well-known opposition politicians have been jailed. The most prominent, Aleksei A. Navalny, died in a penal colony in the Arctic Circle in February.

His widow, Yulia Navalnaya, condemned Mr. Putin’s inauguration Tuesday in a video posted on YouTube on Tuesday morning,

“Our country is being led by a liar, a thief and a murderer,” said Ms. Navalnaya, who lives outside of Russia. “But this will definitely come to an end.”

As in the past, the tightly scripted state television broadcast melded ceremonial pomp and a depiction of Mr. Putin as a humble, workmanlike leader. Before the ceremony, Mr. Putin was shown getting up from his desk, casually flipping through a sheaf of paper, walking down long and narrow corridors, passing uniformed guards and stepping into a Russian-made limousine that carried him across the Kremlin grounds.

Ivan Nechepurenko contributed reporting.

An American soldier detained in Russia last week will remain in jail until at least July while the authorities investigate theft charges against him, the Russian news media reported on Tuesday, citing local court officials.

The soldier was detained in the port city of Vladivostok in the east of Russia on Thursday, a spokeswoman for the local court told the Russian business newspaper Kommersant. His detention came to light on Monday, when the U.S. State and Defense Departments said that he was being held.

An American military official identified him as Staff Sgt. Gordon Black, 34, an Army sergeant in the process of returning home to Texas after being stationed in South Korea.

A court in Vladivostok said in a news release on Tuesday that an American citizen identified only by the letter B had been detained on suspicion of robbing a woman, causing her “considerable harm.”

Officials in Moscow have not commented on the arrest, and the press office for Vladivostok’s courts did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

Sergeant Black’s detention came to light as Vladimir V. Putin was preparing to be sworn in for his fifth term as Russia’s president on Tuesday, amid a bellicose standoff with the West.

Sergeant Black is the latest American to be detained in Russia in recent years on what U.S. officials say are often trumped-up charges. The higher-profile detentions have gnawed at the already frayed relationship between Russia and the United States, which have clashed most notably over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and also over a host of other matters, including what Washington says is Moscow’s push to put a nuclear weapon in space.

Another American citizen has also separately been detained in Moscow. A Moscow court said on Tuesday that a man it identified as William Russell Nikum had been fined and given a 10-day jail sentence for being drunk and disorderly.

He has not been charged with more serious crimes, but in the past Russian officials have often extended minor prison sentences to keep government critics in custody. American officials have not commented on Mr. Russel’s arrest.

In Sergeant Black’s case, it was unclear why he was in Vladivostok, a militarized port near the headquarters of Russia’s Pacific Fleet that was closed to outsiders for decades under the Soviet Union. It was also unclear how he had obtained a visa to travel to Russia.

A State Department official on Monday reiterated the United States government’s warning for Americans not to travel to Russia.

NBC News reported on Monday that Sergeant Black had traveled to Vladivostok from South Korea to visit a woman with whom he was romantically involved. He had not informed his superiors about the trip, the outlet reported.

Ekaterina Bodyagina and Oleg Matsnev contributed reporting.

With his army on the offensive in Ukraine and all forms of dissent inside Russia firmly suppressed, President Vladimir V. Putin will take center stage this week at two major events that will showcase his dominance over the country’s politics and his determination to win in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, Mr. Putin, 71, formally began his fifth term as Russia’s president in a highly choreographed inauguration ceremony in the Kremlin. On Thursday, he is to preside over the Victory Day parade in Red Square, an annual demonstration of military might that in the last two years sought to symbolically link Russia’s war in Ukraine with the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

The Kremlin is also expected to nominate a prime minister and five key ministers, including foreign and defense, though the officials in those six posts may simply be renominated. The shape of the next Russian government will provide signals to the country’s course in the coming years.

Mr. Putin won his fifth term in March in a rubber-stamp election that Western nations dismissed as a sham. Regardless, the ceremony was triumphal and filled with symbolism.

The country’s lawmakers, regional governors, religious leaders, high-ranking officials and other guests waited for Mr. Putin to arrive at the Grand Kremlin Palace from the nearby Senate Palace, the site of the presidential office.

Mr. Putin was transported in the new, upgraded version of his Russian-made limousine, projecting the message that Russia is able to sustain itself despite being largely cut off from the Western markets.

As Mr. Putin entered, hundreds of Russian officials and guests stood on the sides, clapping, while the orchestra played a ceremonial tune. Mr. Putin read an oath, in which he swore to “respect and safeguard the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.” He then delivered a short speech in which he said that Russia was going through “a difficult, milestone period.”

Mr. Putin also thanked Russian servicemen fighting in Ukraine, some of whom were among the 2,600 guests invited to the ceremony.

The inauguration took place only two days before an annual Victory Day parade. Unlike the previous year, when Russia was anxiously anticipating Ukraine’s counteroffensive, this year Mr. Putin will watch tanks and soldiers parade across Red Square in a much more emboldened state.

Since last fall, his troops have been on the offensive in Ukraine, steadily assaulting depleted Ukrainian defenses. Over the past few weeks, Russia has been capturing one village after another, threatening Ukraine’s logistical lines west of the city of Avdiivka.

The results of these advances have been showcased in Moscow, where authorities have put on display Western-supplied weaponry captured in Ukraine: tanks — their barrels bent downward to demonstrate defeat — armored vehicles and other equipment.

“Our victory is inevitable!” one of the posters said as people walked past taking pictures of American Abrams and German Leopard tanks, howitzers and mine sweepers. A message on a screen said: “Staff members of embassies of the U.S., Germany, France, and Poland can skip the line.”

Unlike parades before the war, leaders of only a handful of former Soviet states, and countries of limited stature on international arena, are expected to attend.

They include leaders of Laos in Asia, Guinea-Bissau in Africa and Cuba in the Americas. The former Soviet states of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan have confirmed attendance.

Cabinet Shuffle

Over the past weeks, government officials and Kremlin watchers have been guessing what Mr. Putin’s new cabinet and administration would look like. In a country where bureaucratic posts are often based on personal connections and loyalty, ministerial and other high-ranking positions in the Kremlin carry a lot of weight

Shortly after the inauguration, cabinet ministers resigned, a step required by law at the start of a presidential term. On Tuesday, or in the coming days, Mr. Putin is expected to nominate to the State Duma, the lower house of Parliament, a candidate for the post of prime minister who will then nominate government ministers.

Several key ministers, including the ones responsible for defense and foreign policy, are nominated by Mr. Putin to be approved by the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Parliament.

There is no indication that Mr. Putin will replace Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin; Sergei K. Shoigu, the defense minister; or Sergei V. Lavrov, the foreign minister. But there could be a surprise. Even keeping them would send a powerful message: that Mr. Putin believes he has a winning team, and the Kremlin is satisfied with Russia’s current progress in Ukraine and its international standing.

When China’s leader, Xi Jinping, last visited Europe’s formerly communist east in 2016, the president of the Czech Republic hosted him for a flag-bedecked, three-day state visit and offered his country as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” for Chinese investment.

That vessel has since sunk, scuppered by China’s support for Russia in the war in Ukraine and bitter disappointment over projects that never materialized. Also capsized are many of the high hopes that took hold across Eastern and Central Europe for a bonanza of Chinese money.

So when Mr. Xi returns to the region this week, after a visit to France, he will travel to Serbia and Hungary, two countries whose long-serving authoritarian leaders still offer a haven for China in increasingly turbulent political and economic waters.

“The Czechs, the Poles and nearly everyone else are really pissed at China because of the war,” said Tamas Matura, a foreign relations scholar at Corvinus University of Budapest. “But in Hungary that is not a problem, at least not for the government” of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Mr. Matura said.

Nor is China’s Kremlin-friendly stand on the war in Ukraine a problem for President Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia, who, like Mr. Orban, has maintained warm relations with Russia and China while securing billions of dollars in Chinese investment.

In an interview this week with Chinese state television, Mr. Vucic gave a foretaste of the flattery that will dominate Mr. Xi’s visit: “There are thousands of things that we can and should learn from our Chinese friends,” the Serbian president said.

“Taiwan is China — full stop,” he added.

Milos Zeman, the Czech president who welcomed Mr. Xi in 2016, was replaced last year by a former senior NATO general, Petr Pavel. Mr. Pavel has angered the Chinese government by talking with the president of Taiwan, which Beijing claims as part of its territory, and saying in an interview that China “is not a friendly country.” Chinese investment in the Czech Republic has slowed to a trickle.

Meantime, Chinese money has poured into Hungary and Serbia, cementing close ties underpinned by a shared wariness of the United States.

China’s showcase infrastructure project in the region, a high-speed railway between Belgrade and Budapest, has been slowed by regulatory and other issues. Of the about 200 miles of track planned, only about 60 miles are operating after five years of work — a sluggish pace for a project that Beijing sees as a key part of the Belt and Road infrastructure program, Mr. Xi’s pet foreign policy initiative.

But promised Chinese investment in other projects has raced ahead, totaling nearly $20 billion in Serbia, according to its minister of construction, transport and infrastructure, and totaling nearly as much in Hungary, including loans, the terms of which are secret.

Ivana Karaskova, a Czech researcher at the Association for International Affairs, an independent research group in Prague, said Hungary and Serbia look to China “not only for economic gains but also to demonstrate to their domestic electorate that they pursue an independent policy.” That demonstrates to the European Union and the United States that “they are not the only game in town,” Ms. Karaskova said.

China, she added, “understands this dynamic” and Mr. Xi will use it to try to reverse a steady souring of opinion on China in Europe, both among ordinary citizens and in institutions like the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union.

A survey last year of Eastern and Central European countries by Globsec, a research group in Slovakia, found that “negative perceptions of Beijing have soared,” particularly in the Baltic States and the Czech Republic. Even in Hungary, only 26 percent of those surveyed had a positive view of Mr. Xi, compared with 39 percent with a negative view. The rest said they were undecided.

But Hungary under Mr. Orban, no matter what the public thinks, has become a “safe political space” for Beijing, Mr. Matura said, and can be counted on to try to soften European Union policy on China and protect it from the fallout from the war in Ukraine.

The merging of economic and geopolitical interests is particularly pronounced in Serbia, which aspires to join the European Union but has balked at joining the bloc in imposing sanctions on Russia and frustrated E.U. efforts to broker a settlement over Kosovo. A former Serbian territory, Kosovo declared itself an independent state after a NATO bombing campaign, a status that Serbia, supported by Russia and China, has refused to accept.

Mr. Xi arrives in Serbia from France on Tuesday — the 25th anniversary of a mistaken strike by NATO warplanes on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during the 1999 bombing campaign. Three Chinese journalists were killed.

That incident, which many in China believe was not an accident, created a “strong emotional bond between Serbs and Chinese,” said Aleksandar Mitic of the Institute of International Politics and Economics in Belgrade.

As part of a series of government-sanctioned events in Belgrade ahead of Mr. Xi’s visit, Serbian communists on Monday unfurled banners reading “Welcome President” and “Kosovo is Serbia — Taiwan is China” outside the Chinese Cultural Center in Belgrade, built on the site of the bombed embassy. They demanded that the street outside the center be renamed “Chinese Victims of NATO Aggression Street.”

Hungary, too, has bristled at what it sees as bullying by Washington and Brussels, despite its membership in NATO and the European Union, from which it has received billions of euros in aid.

Mr. Orban’s main interest in China, however, is money and he hopes to turn Hungary, with help from Chinese investors, into a manufacturing hub for E.V.s, batteries and other new technologies.

In just the past two years, China has committed to invest more than $10 billion in Hungary, most of it in ventures related to E.V.s — at a time when the European Union, worried about China’s growing dominance of the sector, is investigating whether Chinese E.V. manufacturers are unfairly subsidized and should be penalized with high tariffs.

Those assembly lines will take years to build but, in the long run, will help protect Chinese E.V. manufacturers from any future efforts by the European Union to prevent China from dominating the market through tariffs.

Tariffs imposed on imported Chinese electric cars would not apply to those assembled in Hungary, which can ship goods duty-free across the E.U., though they could hit parts imported from China to Hungarian plants.

Unlike in most of Europe where governments regularly change — a democratic churn that can upset Chinese investment plans based on close ties to a particular leader — Mr. Orban and Mr. Vucic have both been in power for more than a decade and show no sign of going anywhere.

“The Chinese feel comfortable in Hungary,” Mr. Matura said. “The public might not be very fond of China but the government is.”

By visiting Hungary and Serbia, Mr. Xi, according to analysts, wants to show that while China may be down as an influential player in East and Central Europe, it is not yet out. And, they say, it indicates he has not given up on a Chinese diplomatic initiative known as 16+1, a grouping of China and formerly communist European countries built around Mr. Xi’s flagship Belt and Road program.

Furious about the war in Ukraine, three Baltic States have formally quit the grouping, which dates to 2012 and has been a cornerstone of Chinese diplomacy in Europe throughout Mr. Xi’s rule. Others, like the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania, technically remain as members but have largely disengaged.

“The big debate now among experts around the region is whether 16+1 is dead or just a zombie,” Mr. Matura said.