On Sept. 22, 2024, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy paid a visit to an ammunition factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The trip was aimed at acknowledging the workers of the said factory producing munitions for Ukraine. Zelenskyy’s visit was politicized by certain quarters, such as Scotty Moore, a Republican unsuccessful in previous congressional and House races, who speculated about potential ‘foreign election interference’. However, legal experts firmly rejected this assertion, clarifying that the concept of ‘foreign election interference’ specifically refers to insidious, misleading or fraudulent undertakings.
Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was closely associated with the then-presidential nominee Kamala Harris, accompanied Zelenskyy during his visit. This fact was quickly spun into a politically charged narrative, where Zelenskyy was painted as an interfering outsider. Contrary to the narratives being spun, the event in Scranton wasn’t a promotional gathering for Shapiro or Harris but rather an official exchange between the state and Ukraine.
Much to the chagrin of his critics, Vice President Kamala Harris wasn’t even present on this occasion. The event was attended in their official capacities by Sen. Bob Casey and Rep. Matt Cartwright, both Democrats running for re-election. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was quick to point out that Republican representatives were conspicuously absent from the gathering, giving more fuel to the distorted narrative.
Further details emerged on the event, Zelenskyy was seen touring the facility, engaging with workers, and leaving appreciative notes on ammunition. Despite his express acknowledgment of the factory workers, whom he credits with saving lives in Ukraine, the interpretation of Zelenskyy’s actions remained skewed in some circles. A lack of bipartisan representation was seen by some as evidence of undue influence, despite the public and transparent nature of the event.
Zelenskyy’s meeting with different U.S. leaders was by no means singular or partisan. Within the same week of his Pennsylvania visit, he had scheduled meetings with both Kamala Harris and then-Republican presidential contender Donald Trump. His interactions were not confined to democrats alone contrary to the prevalent narrative.
Notably, Governor Shapiro wasn’t the only U.S. head to have met with President Zelenskyy in 2024. Earlier in July, Utah’s Republican Governor, Spencer J. Cox, welcomed Zelenskyy at the National Governors Association. An official memorandum of understanding was signed between Utah and a Ukrainian province, indicative of Zelenskyy’s broad-minded approach to global relations.
The misuse of the term ‘election interference’ to stoke controversy is not a unique occurrence. Some detractors have liberally employed this phrase, along with other similar terminology, to undermine adversaries with baseless allegations. Ari Mittleman, the executive director of Keep Our Republic, a nonpartisan educational group, cautioned against such practices that sow discord and mistrust among Americans, destabilizing the integral pillar of democracy – secure and trustworthy elections.
The consensus among election interference specialists is clear: Zelenskyy’s actions in no manner matched the legal criteria for foreign election interference. Violations involve covert, misleading, or fraudulent deeds intended to sway voters or deteriorate public trust in the electoral process. Yet Zelenskyy’s Scranton visit was open and transparent, made public before and after the occasion.
While the term ‘foreign election interference’ is used broadly, it’s not a distinct criminal contingent for which one can face charges, as highlighted by Michael Morley, an election law professor at Florida State University. It’s important to note this given the attempts to mischaracterize foreign visits as interference without solid legal grounds – as was evident during Zelenskyy’s visit to the munitions plant.
International politics expert, Dov H. Levin from the University of Hong Kong, who has substantial experience studying foreign election meddling, also found Zelenskyy’s actions free of interference. Even with a comprehensive examination of foreign interference stretching back over six decades, Levin didn’t find Zelenskyy’s actions covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful.
Bret Schafer, a senior fellow of the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund, also shared a similar standpoint. Though he flagged the wisdom or diplomacy of Zelenskyy participating in a swing state event sans bipartisan representation, he clarified that by no operational definition did Zelenskyy’s actions account for foreign interference. His stance was further validated by the Department of Homeland Security defining foreign interference as malignant actions aimed at meddling with public discourse, policies or marketplaces.
Zelenskyy’s visit to the Scranton ammunition plant was enveloped in controversy owing to the manipulated narratives such as a Facebook post alleging his engagement in ‘election interference by campaigning’ in Pennsylvania for Kamala Harris. This despite Zelenskyy’s stated purpose being to show his gratitude to the Scranton plant workers and not to push political agendas.
Indeed, the record clarifies that President Zelenskyy’s visit to an American munition factory, his engagement with local workers, and his expression of gratitude have no resemblance to covert ‘election interference’, as reported by experts. Alas, the narrative of foreign interference persists, even while evidence and expert analysis stand unequivocally against it.