Alleged Pentagon leaker Jack Teixeira indicted, historic June temperatures: 5 Things podcast

On today's episode of the 5 Things podcast: Alleged Pentagon leaker indicted on sharing classified defense information

The alleged Pentagon leaker has been indicted on sharing classified defense information. Plus, USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze puts a ruling on Native American adoption in context, June temperatures make history, USA TODAY Pentagon Correspondent Tom Vanden Brook looks at what's next for aid to Ukraine, and health experts recommend that this fall's COVID-19 vaccine target a new variant.

Listen to our special episode about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson and this is 5 Things you need to know Friday, the 16th of June 2023. Today, charges for the alleged Pentagon leaker. Plus, the Supreme Court sides with tribes in a Native American adoption ruling, and what's next for US aid for the war in Ukraine?

♦

The Air National Guard member accused of retaining and transmitting classified defense information was indicted yesterday by a grand jury. 21-year-old Jack Teixeira faces six charges under the Espionage Act. He had a top secret clearance at Otis Air National Guard Base, and allegedly distributed sensitive documents to a private Discord channel made up of 20 to 30 people. The documents are said to have provided data on military activities, including US spy planes, and on sensitive records about the war in Ukraine. Each of the six counts in the indictment is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

♦

The Supreme Court yesterday let stand a 1978 law intended to end the mass removal of Native American children from their homes. I spoke with USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze to learn more. Hello, John.

John Fritze:

Hey.

Taylor Wilson:

So the Supreme Court has ruled on a 1978 law intended to end the mass removal of Native American children from their homes. What did the court decide here, John?

John Fritze:

Well, before we get to that, let's back up and deal with the history. So between 1819 and the 1960s, something like tens of thousands of Native American children were removed from their tribes and from their families, sometimes forcibly as part of a process of assimilation, which was the way that the government and nonprofit groups looked at this issue back then. And so in 1978, Congress stepped in and passed a law to try to stop it. And what the law said was that if a child who is a Native American is put up for adoption or in a foster home, that the preference has to be given to a Native American family or a native tribe as opposed to other groups.

And so a group of non-native families that are attempting to adopt native children sued arguing that was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, that it was a race-based classification against the Constitution. And the Supreme Court in the 7-2 decision didn't deal with those issues directly. It dealt with a bunch of other things about whether Congress had the power to pass the law in the first place, but left for another day these, I think, really controversial and thorny questions about whether this law violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Taylor Wilson:

And what did the dissenting opinion argue here, John?

John Fritze:

I think those of us in the media were super interested in this Equal Protection Clause issue, super interested in the race issue. I think a lot of Americans are interested in how the court views race, both the majority opinion and the dissent. That was like a little bit of an after issue, right? What they were focused on primarily was this issue of did Congress have the power to do this in the first place? Traditionally, family law and custody issues are in the purview of state governments, not the federal government. There's really no other situation where the federal government gets involved except for in the case of Native American children. And so there was a pretty big question here about whether Congress had the authority to do it. In the majority opinion, they said they did. And Justice Thomas's dissent in particular argued that no, they didn't, and why would we treat native children any different than any other children in this context?

Taylor Wilson:

And the opinion marked the second time in as many weeks that the court rejected the idea that laws require race neutral outcomes. Can you talk a little bit about that and put that into context for us, John?

John Fritze:

Sure. I mean, race is a central factor, the central issue in this term - this case involving the Native American children, last week we got an opinion about a race neutral redistricting plan in Alabama. The state said look, we didn't consider race. And it just so happens that a lot of Black voters all got stuck in one district and the court said no, you can't do that, right? You've got to consider race. Of course, the big one coming down the pike is affirmative action, sort of along the same lines involving different laws. But the question of whether race can be considered as one factor among many in the college admissions process, I think that most of us think that the court will at least undermine the affirmative action policies in these schools. But I think a lot of us thought they were going to rule for Alabama, too. So we'll see.

Taylor Wilson:

USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze. Thanks as always.

John Fritze:

Thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

Worldwide temperatures briefly exceeded a key warming threshold earlier this month. Researchers at the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service said yesterday that the start of June saw global air surface temperatures rise 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels for the first time. That's the threshold governments said they would try to stay within at the 2015 summit in Paris. But the Copernicus program's deputy director, Samantha Burgess, warned that temporarily going over the threshold does not mean we've breached the Paris Agreement. That requires the globe to exceed that threshold for a much longer period, like a couple of decades instead of a couple of weeks.

♦

The Pentagon has provided Ukraine billions in military aid every month since Russia invaded last year. But how long will the US continue to support the war there? Support from the American public for supplying Ukraine with weapons is hovering around 50%, according to a University of Chicago poll last month. But many increasingly wonder what's next. I spoke with USA TODAY Pentagon Correspondent Tom Vanden Brook to find out. Thanks for hopping back on the podcast, Tom.

Tom Vanden Brook:

Good to be here, Taylor.

Taylor Wilson:

So let's start here. How much aid has the US supplied Ukraine with so far?

Tom Vanden Brook:

Well, the short answer to that is since the invasion in February of 2022, $40 billion in military aid. If you add up all the humanitarian aid and other aid for the last several years beyond that, it's a hundred billion. But for the purposes of this story, $40 billion in the last 16 months.

Taylor Wilson:

And Tom, we've heard a lot about a Ukrainian offensive. Has this begun in full force yet? And what role does the US plan on playing?

Tom Vanden Brook:

It's begun, but not quite in full force, Taylor. It's the initial stages of it, and we're seeing a lot of fighting in the South and in the East and Ukraine, but it's not yet full scale tank warfare of the kind that's envisioned by the weaponry that the West, particularly the United States, has supplied Ukraine in the training they've got. It's smaller units at the moment. It's not the hundreds of tanks that you'd imagine you'd see in a massive offensive. So we're still some time away from that, apparently.

Taylor Wilson:

And Tom, I'm wondering if you could just explain stateside how Republicans and Democrats differ when it comes to aid for Ukraine.

Tom Vanden Brook:

Yeah. Well, there's a little bit on the edges, Taylor. So there's some reluctance among very conservative Republicans to giving aid to Ukraine. It's not a majority, and there is more or less broad support in Congress for the support of Ukraine. On the other hand, we went through the debt ceiling crisis, and there's essentially a hard cap on what the Pentagon's going to get. And there's not a lot of appetite for a supplemental bill that would add billions to Ukraine funding. So it's a little unclear as to how much money is going to be available. The house says there won't be a supplemental, so you won't see a package of $40 billion specifically earmarked for Ukraine. So the money's got to come from somewhere unclear right now where that is.

Taylor Wilson:

And internationally, do the US and other NATO allies have the same strategies when it comes to Ukraine aid at this point?

Tom Vanden Brook:

There is a unified front as to what they need in Ukraine, and there are 50 countries beyond NATO, too, that are furnishing weapons and training to the Ukrainians. So there is this idea that we're training them in Western tactics and with Western weapons as well. So they don't have the old Soviet era stuff that they previously had. They have some of that stuff, but they're moving more toward Western equipment and training. So this offensive will validate this concept or not as to whether that works, whether the Ukrainians can take on a bigger force with better weaponry and tactics.

Taylor Wilson:

And Tom, Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week that fighting would end quickly if the US and NATO would just stop providing military assistance to Ukraine. Do US officials pay any attention to comments like those?

Tom Vanden Brook:

If you listen to what they say publicly, no. I mean, they say we're in for the long run. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that this is a marathon, not a sprint. So they're not listening to that at all. I mean, I'm sure they hear it, but they're not paying close attention to it.

Taylor Wilson:

And Tom, could you outline just how the American public feels about aid to Ukraine at this point and what'll determine ultimately how long US taxpayers support this war?

Tom Vanden Brook:

There's some public polling that's remained relatively consistent about support for military aid, and it's right about half the American public supporting military aid to Ukraine. How long that lasts at that level is an open question. And there are analysts who believe that this offensive has to produce results for that support to remain at 50% or get even greater than that. So at the moment it's about 50/50. Now there's a lot of support for Ukraine in general and opposition to what Russia has done. But when it comes down to the money that's being supplied from US taxpayers, there's less support.

Taylor Wilson:

All right, Tom Vanden Brook covers the Pentagon for USA TODAY. Thanks, Tom.

Tom Vanden Brook:

Thanks, Taylor.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

This fall's COVID-19 vaccine should target a new variant and, for the first time, not take aim at the original virus. That's according to a federal advisory committee recommendation out yesterday. Experts told the committee that the vaccine's protection against infection fades over time, and the virus has changed enough that if there's another major outbreak this fall or winter, as there's been for the past three years, many people will not be well protected. Officials said the best way to prevent infections will be to reconfigure the vaccine to target the XBB 1.5 variant. They said three manufacturers, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Novavax, can all make XBB vaccines widely available in September. The World Health Organization and European Union are also looking at XBB vaccination.

And before we go, if you're in the Los Angeles area, the Dodgers are hosting a Pride night tonight when they'll be giving the Community Hero Award to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. 5 Things dropped a special episode on Wednesday about who the sisters are and what all the controversy is about. You can find a link to the podcast and article in today's show notes.

Thanks for listening to 5 Things. We're produced by Shannon Rae Green, and our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Special thanks to Cherie Saunders, Alexis Gustin and Mark Sovel. I'm Taylor Wilson back tomorrow with another episode of 5 Things.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Jack Teixeira indicted, new COVID booster recommendations: 5 Things podcast