Dominick Sokotoff/Sipa USA via AP Images
President Joe Biden stands onstage before speaking about his Build Back Better agenda, October 5, 2021, in Howell, Michigan.
President Joe Biden’s administration is instructing officials to engage in a hasty rebranding of its signature international development initiative, previously known as “Build Back Better World,” or B3W. In an ironic coda, the administration appears to believe that decoupling B3W from the Build Back Better domestic agenda—which failed after it was decoupled from the bipartisan infrastructure bill last year—will help ensure its success.
Guidance obtained by The American Prospect indicates that the White House has decided to ditch all references to Build Back Better, a signal that they believe that continuing to tie the project to the stalled domestic agenda would be counterproductive.
The Build Back Better World initiative, which was announced in June of 2021 amid optimism that the corresponding domestic agenda would pass, is a U.S.-led partnership among G7 countries that seeks to boost investment in the infrastructure needs of low- and middle-income countries. In doing so, G7 countries hope to counter China’s growing economic and cultural influence and provide the West’s answer to the Belt and Road Initiative.
The guidance instructs administration officials to immediately begin stripping any references to Build Back Better from their communications, beginning with a series of events that were planned for this week. Instead, officials have been directed to refer to the project as “the values-driven, high-standard, transparent, and catalytic infrastructure initiative announced by President Biden at the Carbis Bay G-7 Summit last year.”
Two administration officials familiar with the new guidance say that the sudden change in course has upended months of careful planning and created significant confusion among staff about how they should explain their work on one of Biden’s signature foreign-policy programs.
Biden had previously planned a White House event this week to commemorate the launch of the initiative, but that event has been canceled.
While events that were scheduled across relevant agencies working on the initiative to commemorate the launch are continuing as planned, the administration has instructed those agencies to de-emphasize suggestions that the project is launching this week, and instead “mark the progress made on the initiative in the last year and efforts to continue driving it forward.” It is unclear whether the administration plans to hold a formal launch event following the rebranding. A spokesperson for the National Security Council, which provided the guidance, did not respond to a request for comment.
The original language of B3W matched what was used to pitch Biden’s domestic agenda last summer, tying investment in hard infrastructure projects with so-called “soft” infrastructure, such as health care and programs to advance equity and social mobility. After securing passage of the American Rescue Plan in March of last year, Biden entered the G7 meeting with high approval ratings, demonstrated legislative accomplishments, and a considerable amount of goodwill among fellow global leaders following his ouster of former President Donald Trump. Expectations were high at the time that both a hard and soft infrastructure package would get through Congress.
In the fact sheet that accompanied the announcement, the White House leaned into its then-strong political standing, declaring that the “United States is rallying the world’s democracies to deliver for our people, meet the world’s biggest challenges, and demonstrate our shared values.” Now that hopes of a substantial domestic package to address the climate crisis and advance social mobility have all but dissipated, the bold messaging that the administration employed has taken on ironic undertones.
Work continues on a slimmer package that ties investments to fight climate change with reforms to the tax code, reform of pharmaceutical pricing, and deficit reduction. After dashing hopes that he would vote for any form of the Build Back Better Act in December, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has occasionally expressed openness to some form of narrower package, albeit with constantly changing parameters.
Whether those signals have been provided in good faith remains unclear, but his annoyance at continued debate over the framework that he killed is obvious. He has bristled at mentions of the phrase “Build Back Better” on several occasions, telling reporters last month, on the day of Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, that “there is no Build Back Better,” and earlier saying that Build Back Better is “dead.”
Now in the global context, the administration is accommodating this rhetorical reality. It is unclear whether the rebranding will result in any substantive policy change. In recent weeks, the administration has indicated that it intends to move forward with the partnership in some form, regardless of framing, and there are no signs that other G7 partners intend to backtrack from their commitments.
