logo
What to know about the US-NATO weapons deal for Ukraine

What to know about the US-NATO weapons deal for Ukraine

Yahoo5 days ago
President Trump said Monday he had brokered a deal to send more weapons to Ukraine without burdening the U.S., while threatening Russian President Vladimir Putin with new sanctions if there is no deal to end the war in 50 days.
Trump's announcement marks a potential turning point for a president who had wanted to pull U.S. support from Ukraine and has repeatedly demonstrated favorable treatment to Putin despite Moscow's invasion of its neighbor.
Under the deal, weapons would be sourced from NATO allies in Europe that just agreed to step up their defense spending at a summit Trump hailed as a success.
Here's what to know about the deal.
Trump announced last week that he had struck a deal for NATO to purchase weapons from the U.S. to send to Ukraine.
He said Monday that these systems would include Patriot missile defense batteries critical for Ukraine to guard its skies under increasing Russian bombardment.
'It's everything. It's Patriots. It's all of them. It's a full complement with the batteries,' Trump said, adding that the batteries could arrive in Ukraine within days.
'They're paying for everything. We're not paying anymore,' Trump said.
A top German military official told reporters in Kyiv last week that Berlin was in negotiations for weeks with the U.S. over the potential purchase and transfer of a Patriot missile battery.
The NATO Support and Procurement Agency is the arm of the organization that handles acquisitions and logistics support and can be used to purchase and deliver the weapons for Ukraine.
The agency employs about 1,550 staff and oversees more than 2,500 contractors in NATO's missions across the world, according to NATO's website.
Another avenue NATO allies can use to procure weapons for Ukraine is purchasing them directly with the U.S. on a bilateral basis, with NATO helping to facilitate such transactions.
'We're going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they'll be sent to NATO. NATO may choose to have certain of them sent to other countries where we can get a little additional speed, where the country will release something and be it'll be mostly in the form of a replacement,' Trump said.
There's little information on what exact weapons systems Trump is greenlighting for countries to purchase or what is being prioritized.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told lawmakers at the NATO summit last month that in addition to Patriots, the country needs additional long-range weapons.
'But beyond that, I haven't heard any specifics from this administration,' she said in a call with reporters.
Trump acknowledged Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had paused weapons shipments to Ukraine as part of a review of Pentagon stockpiles, despite reports the president was caught off-guard when weapons to Ukraine were halted July 1.
'What Pete was doing, and me too, I knew what Pete was doing, was evaluation, because we knew this was going to happen,' Trump said, referring to the NATO procurement deal.
'So we did a little bit of a pause.'
The U.S. still has $3.86 billion worth of presidential drawdown authority for Ukraine as part of appropriations provided by Congress. This allows for the U.S. to send weapons directly from Pentagon stockpiles and use the money to purchase backfills.
Former President Biden last provided a drawdown worth $500 billion on Jan. 9. Politico reported last week that Trump is considering a drawdown package for Ukraine.
The moves are likely to rankle Trump's MAGA base, which oppose the U.S. sending weapons and military aid abroad.
'We do not want to give or sell weapons to Ukraine or be involved in any foreign wars or continue the never ending flow of foreign aid,' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted Monday on the social platform X.
Trump made his latest remarks in the Oval Office following a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, a staunch supporter of Ukraine.
'Dear Donald, this is really big,' said Rutte, who has demonstrated a unique ability to both flatter and cajole Trump to the side of Europe.
'You called me on Thursday that you had taken a decision. And the decision is you want Ukraine — what it needs to have to maintain to defend itself against Russia, but you want Europeans to pay for it, which is totally logical, and this is building on the tremendous success of the NATO summit,' he said.
Trump gave Putin a 50-day deadline to reach a deal over Ukraine or risk being hit with a 100 percent tariff on exports to the U.S.
'The country's economy is going very poorly, and he's got to get his economy back. He's got to save his economy,' Trump said.
But Trump raised doubt over his support for a Republican-led sanctions bill on Russia that has 85 cosponsors. Trump suggested the sanctions bill might not be needed; he is meeting with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) later Monday.
Still, Trump has increasingly expressed frustration with Putin and identified him as the obstacle to peace, after months of trying to reorient the U.S. as a neutral mediator between Moscow and Kyiv.
Rutte said Trump's outreach to Putin in the initial days of his administration served to 'break the deadlock' and start the conversation over whether peace was possible.
'You have to test him, and you did this, and you really gave him a chance to be serious to get to the table to start negotiations,' Rutte said.
Trump said, 'We probably had, four times, a deal,' but that Putin's talk 'didn't mean anything.'
'I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy,' Trump said of his dealings with Putin.
'He's fooled a lot of people. … Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden. He didn't fool me,' he said, referring to former U.S. presidents. 'But what I do say is that at a certain point, ultimately, talk doesn't talk. It's got to be action. It's got to be results.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

CCSC Technology International Holdings Full Year 2025 Earnings: US$0.12 loss per share (vs US$0.13 loss in FY 2024)
CCSC Technology International Holdings Full Year 2025 Earnings: US$0.12 loss per share (vs US$0.13 loss in FY 2024)

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

CCSC Technology International Holdings Full Year 2025 Earnings: US$0.12 loss per share (vs US$0.13 loss in FY 2024)

CCSC Technology International Holdings (NASDAQ:CCTG) Full Year 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: US$17.6m (up 20% from FY 2024). Net loss: US$1.41m (loss widened by 8.9% from FY 2024). US$0.12 loss per share. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period CCSC Technology International Holdings shares are up 3.7% from a week ago. Risk Analysis Before we wrap up, we've discovered 2 warning signs for CCSC Technology International Holdings (1 can't be ignored!) that you should be aware of. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio

Should You Think About Buying Life Time Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LTH) Now?
Should You Think About Buying Life Time Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LTH) Now?

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Should You Think About Buying Life Time Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LTH) Now?

Life Time Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LTH), is not the largest company out there, but it saw a decent share price growth of 14% on the NYSE over the last few months. While good news for shareholders, the company has traded much higher in the past year. As a mid-cap stock with high coverage by analysts, you could assume any recent changes in the company's outlook is already priced into the stock. However, what if the stock is still a bargain? Let's take a look at Life Time Group Holdings's outlook and value based on the most recent financial data to see if the opportunity still exists. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Is Life Time Group Holdings Still Cheap? Life Time Group Holdings is currently expensive based on our price multiple model, where we look at the company's price-to-earnings ratio in comparison to the industry average. In this instance, we've used the price-to-earnings (PE) ratio given that there is not enough information to reliably forecast the stock's cash flows. We find that Life Time Group Holdings's ratio of 32.11x is above its peer average of 24.04x, which suggests the stock is trading at a higher price compared to the Hospitality industry. If you like the stock, you may want to keep an eye out for a potential price decline in the future. Since Life Time Group Holdings's share price is quite volatile, this could mean it can sink lower (or rise even further) in the future, giving us another chance to invest. This is based on its high beta, which is a good indicator for how much the stock moves relative to the rest of the market. Check out our latest analysis for Life Time Group Holdings What does the future of Life Time Group Holdings look like? Future outlook is an important aspect when you're looking at buying a stock, especially if you are an investor looking for growth in your portfolio. Buying a great company with a robust outlook at a cheap price is always a good investment, so let's also take a look at the company's future expectations. Life Time Group Holdings' earnings over the next few years are expected to increase by 73%, indicating a highly optimistic future ahead. This should lead to more robust cash flows, feeding into a higher share value. What This Means For You Are you a shareholder? LTH's optimistic future growth appears to have been factored into the current share price, with shares trading above industry price multiples. However, this brings up another question – is now the right time to sell? If you believe LTH should trade below its current price, selling high and buying it back up again when its price falls towards the industry PE ratio can be profitable. But before you make this decision, take a look at whether its fundamentals have changed. Are you a potential investor? If you've been keeping tabs on LTH for some time, now may not be the best time to enter into the stock. The price has surpassed its industry peers, which means it is likely that there is no more upside from mispricing. However, the optimistic prospect is encouraging for LTH, which means it's worth diving deeper into other factors in order to take advantage of the next price drop. With this in mind, we wouldn't consider investing in a stock unless we had a thorough understanding of the risks. Every company has risks, and we've spotted 2 warning signs for Life Time Group Holdings you should know about. If you are no longer interested in Life Time Group Holdings, you can use our free platform to see our list of over 50 other stocks with a high growth potential. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Naturalized Citizens Are Scared
Naturalized Citizens Are Scared

Atlantic

time11 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Naturalized Citizens Are Scared

On a bookshelf near my desk, I still have the souvenir United States flag that I received during my naturalization ceremony, in 1994. I remember a tenderhearted judge got emotional as the room full of immigrants swore the Oath of Allegiance and that, afterward, my family took me to Burgerville to celebrate. The next morning, my teacher asked me to explain to my classmates—all natural-born Americans—how I felt about becoming a citizen at age 13. One girl had a question: 'So Chris can never be president?' I wasn't worried about becoming president—I just wanted to get to the computer lab, where we were free to slaughter squirrels in The Oregon Trail. But her question revealed that even kids know there are two kinds of citizens: the ones who are born here, and the ones like me. The distinction is written into the Constitution, a one-line fissure that Donald Trump used to crack open the country: 'Now we have to look at it,' Trump said, after compelling Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. 'Is it real? Is it proper?' Nearly 25 million naturalized citizens live in the U.S., and we are accustomed to extra scrutiny. I expect supplemental questions on medical forms, close inspection at border crossings, and bureaucratic requests to see my naturalization certificate. But I had never doubted that my U.S. citizenship was permanent, and that I was guaranteed the same rights of speech, assembly, and due process as natural-born Americans. Now I'm not so sure. Last month, the Department of Justice released a civil-enforcement memo listing the denaturalization of U.S. citizens as a top-five priority and pledging to 'maximally pursue' all viable cases, including people who are 'a potential danger to national security' and, more vague, anyone 'sufficiently important to pursue.' President Trump has suggested that targets could include citizens whom he views as his political enemies, such as Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayoral candidate who was born in Uganda and naturalized in 2018: 'A lot of people are saying he's here illegally,' Trump said. 'We're going to look at everything.' Looking at everything can be unnerving for naturalized citizens. Our document trails can span decades and continents. Thankfully, I was naturalized as a child, before I had much background to check, before the internet, before online surveillance. I was born in Brazil, in 1981, during the twilight of its military dictatorship, and transplanted to the United States as a baby through a byzantine international-adoption process. My birth mother had no way of knowing for sure what awaited me, but she understood that her child would have a better chance in the 'land of the free.' I don't consider myself 'a potential danger to national security' or 'sufficiently important to pursue,' but I also don't believe that American security is threatened by international students, campus protesters, or undocumented people selling hot dogs at Home Depot. I'm a professor who writes critically about American power, I believe in civil disobedience, and I support my students when they exercise their freedom of conscience. Because I was naturalized as a child, I didn't have to take the famous civics test—I was still learning that stuff in school. I just rolled my fingertips in wet ink and held still for a three-quarter-profile photograph that revealed my nose shape, ear placement, jawline, and forehead contour. My parents sat beside me for an interview with an immigration officer who asked me my name, where I lived, and who took care of me. But these days, I wonder a lot about that civics test. It consists of 10 questions, selected from a list of 100, on the principles of democracy, our system of government, our rights and responsibilities, and milestones in American history. The test is oral; an official asks questions in deliberately slow, even tones, checking the responses against a list of sanctioned answers. Applicants need to get only six answers correct in order to pass. Democracy is messy, but this test is supposed to be easy. However, so much has changed in the past few years that I'm not sure how a prospective citizen would answer those questions today. Are the correct answers to the test still true of the United States? What does the Constitution do? The Constitution protects the basic rights of Americans. One of the Constitution's bedrock principles can be traced back to a revision that Thomas Jefferson made to an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, replacing 'our fellow subjects' with 'our fellow citizens.' As with constitutional theories of executive power, theories of citizenship are subject to interpretation. Chief Justice Earl Warren distilled the concept as 'the right to have rights.' His Court deemed the revocation of citizenship cruel and unusual, tantamount to banishment, 'a form of punishment more primitive than torture.' By testing the constitutional rights of citizenship on two fronts—attempting to denaturalize Americans and to strip away birthright citizenship—Trump is claiming the power of a king to banish his subjects. In the United States, citizens choose the president. The president does not choose citizens What is the ' rule of law'? Nobody is above the law. Except, perhaps, the president, who is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. Trump is distorting that principle by directing the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to enforce his own vision of the law without regard for constitutional norms. Civil law is more malleable than criminal law, with fewer assurances of due process and a lower burden of proof. ICE raids rely on kinetic force to fill detention cells. Denaturalization cases can rely on stealthy legal proceedings. In 2018, the Trump administration stripped a man of his citizenship. He was married to a U.S. citizen and had been naturalized for 12 years. The administration accused him of fraudulently using an alias to apply for his papers after having been ordered to leave the country. In an article for the American Bar Association, two legal scholars argued that this was more likely the result of a bureaucratic mix-up. Whatever the truth of the matter, the summons was served to an old address, and the man lost his citizenship without ever having had the chance to defend himself in a hearing. The DOJ is signaling an aggressive pursuit of denaturalization that could lead to more cases like these. In the most extreme scenarios, Americans could be banished to a country where they have no connection or even passing familiarity with the language or culture. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful? Checks and balances. Denaturalization efforts may fail in federal court, but the Trump administration has a habit of acting first and answering to judges later. When courts do intervene, a decision can take weeks or months, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that federal judges lack the authority to order nationwide injunctions while they review an individual case. FBI and ICE investigations, however, can be opened quickly and have been accelerated by new surveillance technologies. How far might a Trump administration unbound by the courts go? Few people foresaw late-night deportation flights to El Salvador, the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, a U.S. senator thrown to the ground and handcuffed by FBI agents for speaking out during a Department of Homeland Security press conference. To many Americans who have roots in countries with an authoritarian government, these events don't seem so alien. What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment? Speech. And all the rights that flow from it: Assembly. Religion. Press. Petitioning the government. During the McCarthy era, the Department of Justice targeted alleged anarchists and Communists for denaturalization, scrutinizing the years well before and after they had arrived in the U.S. for evidence of any lack of 'moral character,' which could include gambling, drunkenness, or affiliation with labor unions. From 1907 to 1967, more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. Even if only a handful of people are stripped of their citizenship in the coming years, it would be enough to chill the speech of countless naturalized citizens, many of whom are already cautious about exercising their First Amendment rights. The mere prospect of a lengthy, costly, traumatic legal proceeding is enough to induce silence. What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy? Help with a campaign. Publicly support or oppose an issue or policy. If, apparently, it's the 'proper' campaign, issue, or policy. What movement tried to end racial discrimination? The civil-rights movement. The question of who has the right to have rights is as old as our republic. Since the Constitutional Convention, white Americans have fiercely debated the citizenship rights of Indigenous Americans, Black people, and women. The Fourteenth Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, and equal protection under the law for Black Americans, was the most transformative outcome of the Civil War. Until 1940, an American woman who married a foreign-born man could be stripped of her citizenship. Only through civil unrest and civil disobedience did the long arc of the moral universe bend toward justice. The 1964 Civil Rights Act opened the door for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended the national-origin quotas that had limited immigration from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. The act 'corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation,' President Lyndon B. Johnson said as he signed the immigration bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. The possibility of multiracial democracy emerged from the civil-rights movement and the laws that followed. Turning back the clock on race and citizenship, and stoking fears about the blood of America, is a return to injustice and cruelty. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen? To support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now Americans like me have to wonder if we can hold true to that promise, or whether speaking up for the Constitution could jeopardize our citizenship.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store