News

It’s not just about military communications. Others in Ukraine’s 93rd mechanized brigade let friends and family know they are safe through daily encrypted satellite messages after the local cellphone network was severed weeks ago during heavy shelling.

In their downtime, Oleksiy and his comrades keep tabs on the latest developments in the war via Starlink’s internet connection and — when there’s a lull between artillery duels — play “Call of Duty” on their smartphones while sheltering in bunkers and standing by for orders.

“Thank you, Elon Musk,” said Oleksiy soon after logging on through Starlink’s satellites to discover the Biden administration would be sending long-range rockets to the Ukrainian army in its fight with the Russians.

“This is exactly what we need,” he added in reference to the rockets.

The first 100 days of Russia’s invasion of its western neighbor have left thousands dead and even more injured. Ukrainian forces now find themselves in a war of attrition with the Russian army that, despite setbacks in and around Kyiv, continues to chip away at local resistance in the country’s east.

The United States, European Union and other NATO countries have donated billions of dollars in military equipment to Ukraine since the war began in late February. But Musk’s Starlink — based on a cluster of table-sized satellites flying as low as 130 miles above Ukraine and beaming down high-speed internet access — has become an unexpected lifeline to the country: both on the battlefield and in the war for public opinion.

Ukrainian drones have relied on Starlink to drop bombs on Russian forward positions. People in besieged cities near the Russian border have stayed in touch with loved ones via the encrypted satellites. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the country’s president, has regularly updated his millions of social media followers on the back of Musk’s network, as well as holding Zoom calls with global politicians from U.S. President Joe Biden to French leader Emmanuel Macron.

All told, Starlink — and Ukraine’s use of the satellite network, both for its military and civilians — has thwarted Russia’s efforts to cut the Eastern European country off from the outside world, giving Kyiv a much-needed victory against Moscow in a conflict that shows no sign of ending.

“The strategic impact is, it totally destroyed [Vladimir] Putin’s information campaign,” said Brig. Gen. Steve Butow, director of the space portfolio at the Defense Innovation Unit, the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley tech outpost. “He never, to this day, has been able to silence Zelenskyy.”

The conflict in Ukraine also has provided Musk and SpaceX’s fledgling satellite network with a trial-by-fire that has whetted the appetite of many Western militaries. Commanders have been impressed by the company’s ability, within days, to deliver thousands of backpack-sized satellite stations to the war-torn country and keep them online despite increasingly sophisticated attacks from Russian hackers.

“We’ve got more than 11,000 Starlink stations and they help us in our everyday fight on all the fronts,” Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s vice prime minister, told POLITICO. “We’re ready, even if there is no light, no fixed internet, through generators using Starlink, to renew any connection in Ukraine.”

Star Wars: Battle for the sky

Ukraine isn’t the only country to see the importance of satellite communication in the unfolding war in Eastern Europe.

Just an hour before Russian troops launched their full-scale assault in the early hours of Feb. 24, the Kremlin successfully hacked Viasat, an American satellite provider whose network was used by the Ukrainian military to communicate with front-line troops, according to intelligence reports from the U.S., EU and the United Kingdom.

The cyberattack, which crippled the country’s military communications and also took out thousands of other internet users across Europe, fast-tracked negotiations, started in early 2022, between Kyiv and SpaceX to bring the satellite network to the country, according to four officials with knowledge of those discussions.

Zelenskyy’s government had realized that internet access — both for the military and civilians — would be critical in the likely war to come. Soldiers needed a sure-fire way of staying in touch during the haze of war, and raw footage of Russian attacks, often uploaded by Ukrainians themselves via social media, has brought the conflict directly to people’s smartphones worldwide.

SpaceX, whose goal is to launch more than 40,000 satellites into so-called low earth orbit in the coming years, quickly positioned roughly 50 satellites ready to be used in the Eastern European country. But red tape, including official government approval needed to turn on the system, slowed down the rollout.

Then, Russia attacked. Two days after the invasion, on February 26, Fedorov — the Ukrainian vice prime minister who doubles as the country’s digital minister — tweeted directly at Musk to urgently send Starlink equipment. Two days after that, the first shipment showed up.

“They tweeted at Elon and so we turned it on,” Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president, told an audience at the California Institute of Technology on March 7 in reference to Starlink’s arrival in Ukraine. “That was our permission. That was the letter from the minister. It was a tweet.”

SpaceX did not respond to repeated requests for comment about its involvement in Ukraine.

What’s the big deal with Starlink?

Starlink isn’t the first commercial satellite provider to be used on the battlefield. The U.S. military piggybacked on private networks during the first Gulf War — a tactic that has become a mainstay of conflict zones globally.

But where the system — one of many low-orbit satellite networks, including a rival early-stage project from Amazon, currently under development — stands apart is its ability to withstand attacks from the Russians, according to three military officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, and two researchers who have studied Starlink.

Unlike traditional high-orbit satellites, which orbit thousands of miles above the earth, hovering over one point on the ground and beaming down radio signals, the new generation of low-orbit satellites relies on many more satellites working in a constellation. That configuration makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to take offline because an attacker would have to pinpoint all the satellites, at once, to cripple the entire system.

Starlink, too, is more adaptable than alternatives because each device’s computer code can be quickly altered in response to possible hacks. Last month, Musk said the Kremlin was “ramping up” its cyberattacks on his network, and SpaceX has repeatedly rewritten its code to keep one step ahead of Russia.

Todd E. Humphreys, a professor at the University of Texas who has delved into the Starlink’s inner workings and consulted with SpaceX and the U.S. military, said the system’s encryption technology also had proven more resilient than many had expected.

Together with the network’s other incremental tech advances, including providing high-speed internet from space that rivals people’s home broadband networks, Musk’s satellite system represents a step change in how satellites can be rolled out, and used, in conflict zones.

“It’s a crystal clear example that secure backup communications is going to be the lifetime of any modern military engagement,” said Humphreys. “The nimbleness with which Starlink was set up in Ukraine was just astounding.”

All eyes on Musk

Like with everything to do with Musk — the enigmatic billionaire whose business interests include everything from Tesla, the electric car giant, to a potential bid for Twitter, the social network — just how the Starlink equipment made its way to Ukraine is shrouded in confusion and rumor.

Soon after the first equipment began arriving in Kyiv, the South African-born tech magnate, who has picked fights with others on social media and run afoul of financial regulators, briefly swapped texts with Fedorov, the Ukrainian politician. He also talked — powered by Starlink — with Zelenskyy via Zoom about the ongoing rollout and promised to visit Ukraine as soon as the war was over.

In public statements, the company said funding for the satellite communication system in Ukraine — estimated to be around $15 million, with each satellite receiver, known as Dishy McFlatface, costing $499 a piece — came almost exclusively from private sources. SpaceX has pledged to pay for all internet access that, for those outside Ukraine, costs $110 a month.

Yet USAID said in early April it had bought over 1,300 satellite dishes as part of the Starlink project, with SpaceX donating a further 3,600 stations. The U.S. federal agency subsequently scrubbed references to how much equipment Washington had purchased from its press release, though it confirmed to POLITICO that it had shipped the equipment from the U.S. to Eastern Europe.

A USAID spokesperson said the agency was grateful to SpaceX and other donors for contributing to the Starlink project.

Other Western allies, including the French and Polish governments, have also helped with logistical support, including handling the last-mile delivery of the equipment to Ukraine, according to two European officials with direct knowledge of those discussions. One of those officials added that a so-called ground station, or hardware that linked Starlink’s satellites with local internet infrastructure, was housed in neighboring Poland to avoid Russian attack.

Both officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

“The invasion happened on a Thursday and by the next day, Elon had called together a meeting and said, ‘I want to get Starlink up over Ukraine,’” said Butow of the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit.

“By Sunday, the link was active. By Monday, 500 ground terminals showed up in Ukraine. By Wednesday of that week, all but 25 of those terminals were alive and providing real-time data,” he added. “That’s commercial speed. That’s amazing.”

Crowdsourced communications

Not all of the Starlink equipment has arrived via official channels.

For Alisa Kovalenko, who joined the Ukrainian military after Putin’s invasion and now fights with the 92nd Separate Mechanized Brigade near the Russian border in the northern Kharkiv region, her satellite dish was donated by a group of Ukrainian volunteers, who crowdfunded to buy the system and delivered it directly to the frontline.

“There’s no communication for us with the outside world without Starlink,” Kovalenko told POLITICO by phone over a Starlink connection. “During the last weeks, we had no mobile connections because we moved in our sector from a town to a village. It was impossible to call with any mobile network.”

Like everything on the frontline, her team’s Starlink has had its fair share of close calls — even as it gives both soldiers and civilians a direct connection with friends and family after Kovalenko’s comrades handed over Starlink’s password to locals so they could let relatives know they were safe.

Fuel to power the equipment is always in short supply. During a recent Russian artillery attack, the satellite dish was left exposed in a nearby field, and narrowly missed being destroyed. Whenever the soldiers move positions, they have to gently pull apart the high-tech equipment, putting the small components in a duffle bag and the dish in a waiting vehicle.

But for Kovalenko, a documentary filmmaker, the ability to keep in touch with almost anyone in the world via Musk’s satellite system is a godsend, even if it’s a tricky balance to keep the equipment safe and operational in the middle of the ongoing war.

“If there is bombing and you need to pack up fast and run, it still takes time to grab everything for the Starlink,” she said. “You have to be careful with it. It’s not just a pile of clothes which you can throw in the car.”

Laurens Cerulus contributed reporting from Brussels.

The group is currently running an ad burnishing state Rep. Ron Hanks’ conservative credentials — a spot that GOP strategists say will undoubtedly boost his underfunded effort in the June 28 Republican primary.

Hanks, who believes former President Donald Trump won in 2020 and that all abortions should be outlawed, has raised just $38,000 throughout the course of his Senate campaign and has never placed a TV ad of his own. He is up against Joe O’Dea, whom many in the GOP think could have a shot at winning over crucial unaffiliated and disaffected Democratic voters in November.

While Democrats have dominated statewide races in recent years — President Joe Biden won Colorado by double digits in 2020 — the president’s approval ratings are currently underwater in the blue state.

“Beating Hanks in the general election is a layup,” said Greg Brophy, a GOP strategist and former Colorado state legislator who is supporting O’Dea. “If Democrats spend $1 million to help Hanks win the GOP primary, that will save them $20 million in the general. It’s actually brilliant.”

Bennet is seeking reelection to his third term after eking out victories in 2010 and 2016. In both races, he failed to crack 50 percent of the vote. Polling earlier this year showed Bennet tied with a generic Republican candidate on the general election ballot, a sign of the favorable midterm environment for the GOP.

The Democratic strategy has prompted flashbacks of Republicans’ disastrous 2012 Senate election in Missouri, when vulnerable Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill similarly placed ads designed to influence the Republican primary. The ads her campaign purchased to play up Todd Akin’s conservative credentials helped him secure the nomination over other Republican contenders who were viewed as stronger general election candidates.

The strategy paid dividends after Akin blundered an interview question about abortion — he said at the time that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely become pregnant — and sparked a public outcry. McCaskill went on to beat him by 15 percentage points in an election that Republicans were once expected to win.

Democrats in Colorado have succeeded with the strategy, too. Democratic spending in the state’s 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary helped political newcomer Dan Maes narrowly take the nomination over an establishment Republican. That fall, Maes received just 11 percent of the vote — much less than even the third-party candidate on the ballot — and Democrat John Hickenlooper won the governor’s office.

As speculation mounted among Republicans on Wednesday that national Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC was funding the Hanks ad, the super PAC, operated by allies of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), remained tight-lipped.

A spokesperson for Senate Majority PAC declined to say whether the group was behind the ad or connected with Democratic Colorado, a super PAC that registered with the FEC on Thursday. Reached by phone, the super PAC’s treasurer, a Colorado Democratic operative, said she was merely listed as the group’s registered agent and was not involved, declining to provide additional information.

Senate Leadership Fund, the Republican super PAC aligned with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), declined to comment on whether it will get involved in the primary to support O’Dea, something the group has done in past GOP contests. Beyond reserving $141 million of national ad time this year, SLF most recently dropped $2 million in the Alabama Republican Senate primary to oppose Rep. Mo Brooks.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee continues to hold firm on Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) policy not to intervene in open-seat primaries, but signaled on Wednesday that they believe the new ad could cause problems. In a carefully worded press release, the NRSC accused Democrats of trying to “stir up drama” by funding the Hanks ad.

“Just goes to show you how vulnerable Michael Bennet is in a state that Joe Biden won by more than 13 points,” the NRSC statement said.

Dustin Zvonek, a Republican on the Aurora city council, said Republicans are “set to make gains” in the state in November, potential victories that “could really change the narrative of Colorado being a blue state.”

A Hanks nomination, said Zvonek, who won his seat last fall in an election that resulted in the ouster of multiple Democratic council members, would be a step backward for GOP efforts to gain ground in the state, in part due to Hanks’ continued insistence that Trump won the 2020 election.

“In Colorado, that’s just not a message that’s going to help him in the general election,” Zvonek said. “Forty-four percent of our electorate is unaffiliated voters. They don’t care about red team or blue team. They want people who are going to solve problems.”

Hanks’ campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Privately, national Republican officials concede there will likely be no use in spending on the Senate race this fall if Hanks is the nominee. His far-right stances would be a problem in a general election, as would his inability to raise money, said one Republican operative involved in Senate races.

“In that scenario,” the Republican operative said, “Washington [state] becomes a better pickup than Colorado.”

Republicans are eyeing Sen. Patty Murray’s (D-Wash.) seat this fall despite the solidly blue nature of the state, and Scott, the NRSC chairman, has suggested Republicans could have a shot at flipping it with Tiffany Smiley, the likely GOP nominee. While Biden won Colorado by 13 percentage points, he won Washington by 20 points. Polling in both states show the Democratic senators up for reelection are in a vulnerable position.

While O’Dea waits to see whether top Republicans will swoop in to help, his campaign on Wednesday was sounding the alarm to allies and donors around the state, according to a person familiar with the conversations. “There will be an all-out blitz” on fundraising now, the person said.

Internal polling provided by O’Dea’s campaign to POLITICO shows the self-made construction company owner leading Hanks 33 percent to 12 percent, with more than half of Republican voters undecided. The campaign has booked television and radio ads totaling $325,000, but expects to increase that figure.

In a statement, O’Dea accused Democrats of “hijacking the Republican nomination for an unserious candidate who has zero chance of winning.”

O’Dea was in D.C. on Tuesday meeting with Republican senators. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) spoke favorably about their meetings with O’Dea.

Thune said he had “heard some” about Hanks, but doesn’t know him.

“I just think that we need somebody, obviously, that’s electable in the fall,” Thune said. “And I think Colorado, although people would argue that it’s probably not an easy state for us to win, if we get a good tailwind and we have a good candidate, you never know. So I think you want to be prepared. And he at least seemed, to me, to be a very credible possibility for us.”

The Republican Senate primary isn’t the only Colorado contest where Democrats are meddling this year. Democrats are also trying to give a last-minute boost to former Parker Mayor Greg Lopez in his GOP gubernatorial primary against Heidi Ganahl, a member of the regents of the University of Colorado and the only Republican in statewide elected office.

A group called the Colorado Information Network started running an ad earlier this week calling Lopez “too conservative for Colorado” and highlighting his support for Trump, his “unapologetically pro-life” stance and more. More than $1.5 million in airtime has been booked by the liberal group between Tuesday and the late June primary, according to AdImpact, an ad tracking firm.

The organization purchasing the Lopez ad is working with the prominent Democratic consulting firm GMMB, according to FCC filings, and the group’s stated purpose on filings with the Colorado secretary of state is “advocating for statewide Democratic candidates and opposing [Republican] candidates.”

The source of the group’s funding is not immediately clear. A person listed as its point of contact did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Democrats have also meddled in other Republican primaries this year, including in Illinois, where the Democratic Governors Association is spending millions ahead of the GOP contest, according to AdImpact.

Zach Montellaro and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

On Thursday, Murphy sent a letter to the 15 private universities with the largest endowments — Harvard, Yale, Duke and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among them — asking them to purge their investment portfolios of “entities that are supporting the imprisonment of Uyghur Muslims or aiding the Russian Federation’s horrific invasion of Ukraine.” Murphy also wants those schools to vet their endowment portfolios for any “adversarial entities” named on U.S. government sanction lists.

A successful congressional push to sever U.S. university endowments from Chinese investments could provide a template for legislation requiring private sector investors, including private equity firms and hedge funds, to do likewise, downsizing the U.S. financial sector’s relationship with China.

“Our colleges and universities which have been given a tax-free status do not need to be investing in this nation that wants to see our downfall,” Murphy told POLITICO. “I wanted to start with those institutions that have the biggest endowments and I think it will start a snowballing effect to other institutions.”

Murphy is a China hawk with a record of past — but so far unsuccessful — legislative initiatives targeting malign Chinese influence on U.S. university campuses and on Capitol Hill. Murphy urged Attorney General Merrick Garland in January to revive the Department of Justice’s controversial China Initiative program in order to “root out any possible Chinese espionage” on college campuses.

With Democrats in control, Murphy’s latest effort is unlikely to succeed in this Congress. But his letter is putting universities on notice that Congress wants a say in how they invest their endowments.

The value of U.S. university endowments totaled more than $800 billion in 2021. The endowments of the 15 private schools Murphy is targeting with legislation he’ll introduce in coming weeks have an estimated combined value of $331 billion.

That legislation would “disincentivize” university endowments from investments in firms listed on U.S. government sanction lists, including the Commerce Department’s Entity List, which targets individuals and companies implicated in any “activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and or foreign policy interests.” The bill calls for a 50 percent excise tax on the principal and a 100 percent excise tax on any realized profits from investments in such entities.

Murphy’s initiative echoes the efforts of Keith Krach, former under secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, who urged university governing boards in 2020 to disclose details of endowment investments in Chinese firms and to divest from those on the Commerce Department’s Entity List or linked to human rights abuses. Universities ignored Krach’s advice.

“I’m old enough to know about the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa … [and] the divestment movement that got started at Berkeley and then spread through campuses,” Krach said. “I really wanted [my divestment proposal] to be kind of a catalyst to create a movement … there’s nothing that can be more effective and have more passion and ground forces than students.”

That groundswell of student action has coalesced in the nonprofit Athenai Institute, dedicated to prodding U.S. universities into divesting their endowments of any Chinese Communist Party-linked investments. Athenai’s strategy is to use university divestment of problematic Chinese investments as a roadmap for the private sector to purge its balance sheets of similar holdings.

“University endowments … [are] a substantial pool of money to create momentum for [wider] divestment,” said Athenai’s president, John Metz. “As the pool of university endowment funds and other institutional investor funds which can’t be invested in certain Chinese companies [grows] … it becomes harder for Wall Street to look away.”

U.S. universities face growing pressure to restrict educational ties with Chinese entities. Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act deny Department of Defense funding to universities that host Beijing-backed Confucius Institutes — which academics and human rights activists have accused of being Chinese propaganda agents.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced a bill last month that would prohibit universities from any collaborations with Chinese institutions “in areas of cutting-edge technology that could improve the PLA’s ability to wage war against the United States and its allies.”

Rubio and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, convened a meeting in April with several dozen college presidents organized by the Association of American Universities to voice congressional concerns about ties to problematic Chinese institutions.

The meeting, which included representatives of the FBI and the Office of the National Director of Intelligence, produced a consensus that “there is a real threat out there and that whatever partnerships that [universities] have with China should be viewed that way,” a meeting attendee told POLITICO. The group shared best practices to counter threats from China, such as nurturing relationships with FBI field offices, and university presidents pledged to continue to cooperate on the issue.

University endowments have a history of links to companies implicated in human rights abuses in China. BuzzFeed reported in 2019 that MIT, Duke and Princeton invested endowment funds in a company linked to human rights abuses against Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Princeton didn’t respond to a request for comment and Duke and MIT declined to comment.

“For far too long … university endowments have unwittingly helped fund Chinese companies responsible for perpetrating pretty egregious human rights abuses and not to mention China’s military,” said Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the nonprofit Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “We think there’s a broader recognition that the Chinese Communist Party is keen to leverage American capital against American interests.”

Most private universities are reluctant to discuss the possibility that their massive endowments in index funds may seed Chinese firms implicated in rights abuses or technology development that could pose a threat to national security.

Yale’s University Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility announced in January that it would begin a review of investments linked to its endowment — which totaled $42.3 billion in June 2021 — “to determine whether some may be deemed ineligible for Yale investment in light of the Chinese government’s widespread human rights violations,” the Yale Daily News reported.

Harvard — which boasts an endowment valued at over $53 billion — is considering reducing its endowment’s investments in China due to “growing political and market risk,” Bloomberg reported in April. Both Yale and Harvard declined POLITICO’s requests for comment.

“The most skeptical response we’ve gotten [from universities] has been, ‘Well, this will be difficult for us because we don’t manage our own passive investments and therefore it’s difficult for us to audit our endowment,’” Metz said.

That argument ignores university initiatives to divest from fossil fuel investments in recent years.

“There’s precedent within these institutions to move their investments because of things that they either don’t like or feel that are better for our environment,” said Murphy. “If they tell their investment company ‘we want to divest out of companies in China,’ it’s very easily done.”

Catholic University of America is pioneering efforts to vet its endowments for problematic investments. CUA administrators in December responded to a student council resolution urging such divestment by reviewing its endowment portfolio to “align investments with moral beliefs.”

“The University is working with Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), the leading advocate for shareholder concerns to public companies, to identify any company involved in or benefiting from human rights violations, including Uyghur exploitation,” Amber Roseboom, CUA’s associate vice president of university communications, said in a statement. “The ISS deeper dive … searches thousands of publicly available media and stakeholder services to identify areas of exploitation or concerns for other moral abuses. At this point, the search has not identified a company in which the University invests that is known to be involved in or benefit from Uyghur exploitation.”

CUA has inspired divestment activism at other schools. Georgetown University’s Hong Kong Student Association and Muslim Student Association urged school administrators in January to divest the school’s endowment from any investments “that may implicate the university in the ongoing genocide in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.”

George Washington University has a Uyghur Divestment Committee with an online petition calling for endowment divestment from “companies complicit in the Uyghur genocide.” And last month, Cornell University faculty organized a “teach-in” focused on “Cornell Involvement in the People’s Republic of China.”

“It’s extremely important for Cornell and other universities with large endowments to look carefully at some of those investments particularly with respect to Xinjiang, but not exclusively,” said Eli Friedman, associate professor and chair of International & Comparative Labor at Cornell. “There are other companies in China that are engaged in activities that I think do not comport with our stated values like tech companies that are overseeing massive censorship operations.”

Athenai Institute plans to extend its divestment campaign to the endowments of U.S. service universities, including the U.S. Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, West Point, Coast Guard Academy and National Defense University. “Their endowments are much smaller than those held by public and private universities, but almost all of their endowment funding comes from alumni who may or may not realize that their gifts are being used to invest in Chinese companies supporting China’s military,” said Singleton.

POLITICO contacted all five of those service academies for comment. Only the U.S. Naval Academy responded. “The Joint Investment Committee of the USNA Alumni Association and Foundation specifically and proactively discussed the need for our portfolio to have no direct holdings in such Chinese entities,” Heather Epkins, director of communications at the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association & Foundation, said in a statement. “We have instituted a periodic review process and an exit strategy process … to date, we have had no direct holdings and have directed our investment managers, via our Outsourced Chief Investment Officer, to avoid such investment.”

Murphy wants universities to embrace the vetting of their endowment investments for problematic Chinese entities as ethically and financially prudent.

“This isn’t meant to penalize anybody, but this is a real problem,” Murphy said. “What greater issue should [we] be divested from than one that is adversarial to our national security?”

Daniel Lippman contributed to this report.