Trump orders US nuclear subs repositioned over ex-Russian leader's statements
Mr Trump posted on his social media site that based on the 'highly provocative statements' from Mr Medvedev he had 'ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'.
The president added: 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.'
It was not immediately clear what impact Mr Trump's order would have on US nuclear subs, which are routinely on patrol in the world's hotspots, but it comes at a delicate moment in the Trump administration's relations with Moscow.
Mr Trump has said that special envoy Steve Witkoff is heading to Russia to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire in its war with Ukraine and has threatened new economic sanctions if progress is not made.
He cut his 50-day deadline for action to 10 days, with that window set to expire next week.
The post about the sub repositioning came after Mr Trump, in the wee hours of Thursday morning, had posted that Mr Medvedev was a 'failed former president of Russia' and warned him to 'watch his words'.
Mr Medvedev responded hours later by writing: 'Russia is right on everything and will continue to go its own way.'
Mr Medvedev was president from 2008 to 2012 while Russian President Vladimir Putin was barred from seeking a second consecutive term but stepped aside to let him run again.
Now deputy chairman of Russia's National Security Council, which Mr Putin chairs, Mr Medvedev has been known for his provocative and inflammatory statements since the start of the war in 2022, a U-turn from his presidency, when he was seen as liberal and progressive.
He has frequently wielded nuclear threats and lobbed insults at Western leaders on social media.
Some observers have argued that with his extravagant rhetoric, Mr Medvedev is seeking to score political points with Mr Putin and Russian military hawks.
Mr Trump and Mr Medvedev have gotten into online spats before.
On July 15, after Mr Trump announced plans to supply Ukraine with more weapons via its Nato allies and threatened additional tariffs against Moscow, Mr Medvedev posted, 'Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care'.
Earlier this week, he wrote: 'Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10″ and added, 'He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Call for Nato action after Russian drone intrudes on Lithuania
Lithuania has called for Nato help to boost its air defences after Russian military drones repeatedly violated its airspace. 'Last Monday, a Russian military drone violated Lithuanian airspace,' said Kęstutis Budrys, the foreign minister in Vilnius. 'This marks the second such incident in less than a month. Similar airspace violations have also been reported recently by other allies.' Budrys added that he and the defence minister, Dovilė Šakalienė, had asked the Nato secretary general for 'immediate measures to enhance air defence capabilities in Lithuania and accelerate the full implementation of the rotational air defence model. Air defence is vital to allied security. Securing Nato's eastern flank must remain a top priority for the alliance.' Amid the nuclear row between Donald Trump and Dmitry Medvedev, the Kremlin has moved to play down the latter's role in Russian decision-making, the Institute for the Study of War has said. The thinktank said Medvedev was subsequently being portrayed as having a 'different assessment' from Putin on nuclear issues. An ISW assessment said: 'The Kremlin regularly uses Medvedev to introduce nuclear threats into the Russian and international information spaces.' Medvedev, a high-ranked official who was once prime minister of Russia, as well as a proxy for Putin in the presidency, accused Trump of taking 'a step towards war' by tightening an ultimatum for Russia to seek peace. Trump in response said he had moved two nuclear submarines into position 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. The ISW further assessed that 'Kremlin officials utilised three main framings to respond to Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines: posing Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines as 'emotional,' discounting the threat that this decision poses to Russia, and posturing Russia as a more responsible international actor than the United States … These official Russian responses ignore the Kremlin's history of frequently using nuclear saber-rattling to push the west to make decisions that benefit Russia. On the battlefield, the ISW said that Ukrainian forces had recently advanced near Pokrovsk, which Russian forces have been trying to capture since at least July 2024. Russian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk, Siversk, Toretsk, and Velykomykhailivka, the institute said. Russian claimed on Tuesday to have captured the village of Sichneve in east-central Dnipropetrovsk region. The Reuters news agency, which carried the claim, said it could not independently confirm it. Donald Trump has said he will make a decision on whether to sanction countries that purchase Russian oil after a meeting with Russian officials scheduled for Wednesday. That is when Steve Witkoff – real estate promoter, friend of Trump and officially his Russia envoy – is due to meet with Russian leadership in Moscow. A Bloomberg report suggested that Putin might agree to a ceasefire in terms of airstrike but not on the ground. Also on Tuesday, the Financial Times reported that Trump's administration is considering additional sanctions on Russia's 'shadow fleet' of oil tankers that illicitly move Russian oil. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine's president, said on Tuesday he'd had a 'productive' conversation with Trump about ending the war, sanctions on Russia and the finalisation of a US-Ukraine drone deal. Ukraine, he said, had long supported US proposals for an immediate ceasefire and had proposed a number of formats to implement a halt to the fighting. 'We have spoken with and proposed to Russia quiet in the skies, no missile and drone attacks and specifically no attacks on civilian infrastructure or on the energy sector. All of this has been violated by the Russians and in a very cynical fashion.' The $300m superyacht of a sanctioned Russian billionaire is being auctioned off. The 348-foot (106-metre) Amadea was seized in Fiji in April 2022 from its former owner, Suleiman Kerimov, and is berthed in San Diego California. The auction is being held by National Maritime Services, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, company. Sealed bids are being accepted until 10 September subject to a $10m deposit. The US Congress has passed legislation allowing the sale of seized Russian assets to fund humanitarian assistance for Ukraine.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump wants to roll back $7 billion in grants for solar projects in low-income communities
The Trump administration is reportedly considering terminating a $7 billion grant program aimed at helping low- and moderate-income families install home solar panels, part of the White House's larger campaign to claw back billions in Biden-era climate spending. The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of drafting termination letters to the 60 state agencies, nonprofit groups, and Native American tribes awarded the funding through the Solar for All initiative, part of the Biden administration's landmark 2022 climate law. The agency said Tuesday it has not made a final decision about the grants. Environmental groups say if Trump does go through with the cancellation, the effort will face legal challenges. Wiping away the grants would halt many projects before they were complete. The first Solar for All projects, efforts to install residential solar and battery storage systems for tribal communities in Montana and South Dakota, went online in October 2024. 'One in five households on reservations lack access to electricity, and this program was an opportunity to close that gap,' Cody Two Bears, the chief executive of Indigenized Energy, told The New York Times, which first reported on the cancellation effort. 'But those were just two kickoff projects to show what was coming for the next five years.' Critics of the Trump administration and climate experts said cancelling the grants, which were projected to serve about 900,000 people, would be bad public policy that hurts low-income families and the climate. 'Solar for All is laser focused on helping nearly a million low-income families afford electricity at a time when their bills keep going up,' Zealan Hoover, the EPA's former director of implementation, told The Washington Post. 'If the Trump administration is serious about energy abundance and affordability, then they should be working hard to accelerate — not terminate — these grants.' 'Solar for All means lower utility bills, many thousands of good-paying jobs and real action to address the existential threat of climate change,' Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who championed the program, said in a statement on Tuesday. 'At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong — it's absolutely insane.' In March, the EPA said it was terminating a separate pot of $20 billion in climate funding, prompting a legal challenge. In April, a federal judge issued an injunction siding with grant recipients. The administration's One, Big Beautiful Bill spending package, signed in July, repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the single largest portion of climate money under the Biden law, and ordered any unassigned funds back to the U.S. Treasury. There is an ongoing legal battle between grantees and the federal government over the fate of much of the IRA's climate funding. Grantees say much of the funds were legally obligated before Trump took office and immune from presidential action, while the administration claims it claw the funds back.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
US judge blocks Trump officials from diverting disaster prevention grants
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Tuesday from diverting funds from a multibillion-dollar grant program designed to protect communities against natural disasters. US district judge Richard Stearns in Boston issued a preliminary injunction preventing the government from spending money allocated to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (Bric) program for other purposes. Twenty mostly Democratic-led states sued the administration last month, saying the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) lacked power to cancel the Bric program without congressional approval. Fema is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Neither agency immediately responded to requests for comment. Created in 2018 during Donald Trump's first term, the Bric program helps state and local governments protect major infrastructure such as roads and bridges before the occurrence of floods, hurricanes and other disasters. According to the lawsuit, Fema approved about $4.5bn in grants for nearly 2,000 projects, primarily in coastal states, over the last four years. But the agency announced in April it would end the program, calling it wasteful, ineffective and politicized. Stearns said that while Fema does not appear to have since canceled grants, states should not have to wait to sue until after they lose funding, while the cancellation of new grants suggested Fema considered an eventual shutdown a fait accompli. He also said the states have shown a realistic chance of irreparable harm if the Bric program ended. 'There is an inherent public interest in ensuring that the government follows the law, and the potential hardship accruing to the states from the funds being repurposed is great,' the judge wrote. 'The Bric program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives,' Stearns added. 'The potential hardship to the government, in contrast, is minimal.' Led by Massachusetts and Washington, the 20 states that sued also include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The offices of Massachusetts' and Washington's attorneys general had no immediate comment.
