President Joe Biden on Tuesday said he told Russian President Vladimir Putin that the United States would deploy thousands of troops to Eastern Europe if Russia continues its military buildup along Ukraine’s border or mounts a renewed invasion of the country.

But the American president also said he would not send troops into Ukraine, even as the White House warned that Russia was likely to move its forces across the border at any moment.

Speaking during a previously unannounced stop at a gift shop in Washington, D.C., Biden told reporters that the roughly 8,500 troops put on high alert to potentially deploy to Eastern Europe “are part of a NATO operation, not a sole U.S. operation.”

“I made it clear to President Putin that we have a sacred obligation, Article 5 obligation to our NATO allies. And that if, in fact, he continued to build up and/or was to move, we would be reinforcing those troops,” Biden said.

“I’ve spoken with every one of our NATO allies … and we’re all on the same page,” he added. “We’ve got to make it clear that there’s no reason for anyone, any member of NATO, to worry whether or not … we, NATO, would come to their defense.”

The financial options being considered to punish President Vladimir Putin if Russia invades Ukraine range from the sweeping to the acutely personal — from cutting Russia off from U.S. dollars and international banking to slapping sanctions on a former Olympic gymnast reported to be Putin’s girlfriend.

Publicly, the United States and European allies have promised to hit Russia financially like never before if Putin does roll his military into Ukraine. Leaders have given few hard details to the public, however, arguing it’s best to keep Putin guessing.

And weeks into the negotiations, it’s far from clear that Americans have succeeded in achieving U.S. and European consensus on what sanctions will be imposed and what would trigger them.

A look at some of the financial actions under consideration:

SWIFT RETALIATION

For the U.S. and its European allies, cutting Russia out of the SWIFT financial system, which shuffles money from bank to bank around the globe, would be one of the toughest financial steps they could take, damaging Russia’s economy immediately and in the long term. The move could cut Russia off from most international financial transactions, including international profits from oil and gas production, which in all accounts for more than 40% of the country’s revenue.

The capital of Texas is a pretty liberal town. Proudly so.

Crosswalks repainted in rainbow Pride colors. Signs welcoming gay patrons. It has a vibe that even some locals boast is more like Berkeley, California, than a stereotypical southern city.

And yet residents who live in this progressive neighborhood are represented in the US House by a Republican congressman, thanks to gerrymandering after the 2010 census intended to dilute the power of the Democratic vote here — a practice known as cracking.

Now, after the 2020 census, Texas Republicans who drew the new map are taking a different approach, moving Democratic voters into areas where they will be represented by Democratic lawmakers and doing the same for Republicans — a gerrymandering tool known as packing.

“Here in Austin, what the Republicans did was pack as many Democrats into as few districts as possible in order to shore up as many other Republican districts as they could to cement their majority in the Texas congressional delegation for years to come,” Texas state House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner said while walking down an Austin street.

In the nearly two months since a conservative majority of justices on the Supreme Court indicated openness to dramatic new restrictions on abortion, money has poured into the political fundraising arm of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.

The organization secured $20 million in pledged financial contributions, five times more than it has had at the outset of an election year over its 30-year history, according to figures shared with The Associated Press. Before the recent surge, the group had already signed off on its largest-ever political budget, $72 million, for 2022. That’s nearly $20 million more than it spent in 2020, a year that included a presidential election.

The cash pile virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, anticipated by the summer, will do little to quell what has become one of the most animating issues in the United States. Abortion opponents say they will pump their newfound resources into the November elections.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a challenge to the consideration of race in college admission decisions, often known as affirmative action. With three new conservative justices on the court since its last review, the practice may be facing its greatest threat yet.

The court said Monday it would consider a pair of lawsuits alleging that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina discriminate against Asian American applicants. The practice has been reviewed by the court several times over the past 40 years and has generally been upheld, but with limits.

A look at the case:

WHAT ARE RACE-CONSCIOUS ADMISSIONS POLICIES?

When colleges sort through their applicants deciding which ones to admit, some consider race along with grades and a host of other factors like athletics and community service. Some schools have used the practice for decades as a way to address racial discrimination against Black students and others who were long excluded from America’s colleges. Today, supporters say it’s an important tool that helps bring a diverse mix of students to campus, while opponents say it amounts to its own form of discrimination.

Lawmakers in at least three states are considering measures to counter the onslaught of threats that state and local election officials have endured in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

In Maine, a bill slated for debate in a legislative committee later this week would increase the penalty for threatening an election official with violence. In Vermont, a measure introduced this month aims to make it easier to prosecute culprits. And in Washington, the state Senate has approved a bill that would make harassing election workers a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The bills advancing at the state level follow the US Senate’s failure last week to pass sweeping federal voting legislation that, among other things, would have made it a federal crime to reveal personal information about election officials, poll workers or their families with the goal of threatening or intimidating them.