Why Trump Just Sent the National Guard into Washington D.C. Vantage with Palki Sharma
Donald Trump has declared 'Liberation Day' in Washington D.C. — but it looks more like a siege. Using an obscure clause in the 1973 Home Rule Act, he's taking temporary federal control of the city's police and sending in 800 National Guard troops. Trump says it's to fight chaos, gangs, and crime. The numbers? Violent crime is at a 30-year low. So why is Trump deploying the National Guard? Is it to distract from other issues. Palki Sharma tells you.
See More
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
WATCH: B-2 bomber flies over as Trump welcomes Putin ahead of Alaska summit
United States President Donald Trump Saturday greeted his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska with a dramatic military display. A B-2 stealth bomber, the one used in strikes against Iranian nuclear sites in June, flew over the base, accompanied by four F-35 fighter jets, as reported by ABC News. Two officials told ABC that a pair of B-2 stealth bombers had been flown in prior to the summit, while the F-35s arrived from nearby Eielson Air Force Base. F-22 Raptors, stationed at Elmendorf, lined the red carpet as the leaders walked by. The Pentagon declined to comment on whether Trump personally ordered the show of force. Trump has repeatedly praised B-2, calling it 'an amazing machine' and recently announced plans for 'new and enhanced' models. Trump just flew a B-2 stealth bomber over Putin's head… Absolutely incredible. — Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) August 15, 2025 As The New York Times reported, Putin stepped onto US soil for the first time in a decade, arriving to an unusually warm welcome. Trump clapped as his Russian counterpart walked toward him along a red carpet flanked by fighter jets. Both men paused to look skyward as the stealth bomber roared overhead. Inside, the summit unfolded beneath a banner reading 'Pursuing Peace.' However, despite the grand staging, the two leaders struggled to deliver progress on Ukraine. At one point, an ABC News journalist shouted: 'President Putin, will you stop killing civilians?' The Russian leader smirked and gestured to his ear as if he could not hear the question. Trump quickly moved him along toward the awaiting presidential limousine. The two leaders then met privately with advisers. Following the meeting, the Russian president told the reporters that the 'roots' of Moscow's concerns in Ukraine must be addressed before any peace deal could be reached. That, he implied, included the removal of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's government, as per the New York Times. Putin suggested the next meeting could take place in Moscow, responding to which Trump said, 'That's an interesting one. I could see it possibly happening.' (With inputs from ABC News, The New York Times)
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
No deal or ceasefire: What the ‘failed' Alaska summit could mean for India
US President Donald Trump's push for a ceasefire in Ukraine did not yield results, with Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly not yielding. In the run up to the highly talked-up meeting in Alaska, Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin. In the end, though, the Russian President seems to have come out as a clear winner, having got his moment in the spotlight when he transformed from a global pariah to one who got to share the stage with the leader of the world's most powerful country. In return, he gave pretty much nothing, it would seem. Previously Trump had threatened a tougher approach to Russia, with warnings of more sanctions if Moscow ignored calls for a ceasefire. He has not followed through yet, and it remains to be seen if he does anything now. There are no dates for a future summit, nor agreement on whether anything at all was decided between the two sides. And in a briefing that followed, it was Putin who inexplicably got to speak first, and a weary-eyed Trump spoke later, and no questions were taken. The apparent failure of the talks may come as a relief for Ukrainian and European leaders, who were worried that Trump would yield to Putin's demands and follow up on his earlier talk of swapping land. New Delhi too had one eye on America's frigid outpost over 15000 kilometers away, to see if anything came out of the spectacle that could impact India's prospects. There was some hope in India that if they reached a deal of some kind, that outcome would provide relief to New Delhi with respect to the secondary tariffs imposed on India. There was a belief here that the 25 per cent additional punitive tariff could possibly go away if the Trump administration believed that it was making some kind of progress with Putin on stopping the war. On the flip side, there was also the worst case scenario for India: if something came out of the meeting that looked really bad for Trump, personally or politically, then India would have to pay a price for that. This is despite the fact that the secondary tariffs seem to be less about Russian oil, and more about gaining leverage on India for not having concluded a trade deal with the US on Trump's terms and for having publicly debunked the American President on his claims of having brokered a ceasefire in the four-day way with Pakistan. There are two worrying statements for India that came in the context of the Alaska talks. Trump, in an interview with Fox News Friday, said that Russia 'lost' India as an oil client (after he imposed secondary tariffs on New Delhi), while discussing on Friday the economic aspect of the Russian leader coming to the negotiating table. Earlier in the week, he'd said that the secondary sanctions on India had forced Putin to agree to the talks. 'Certainly, when you lose your second largest customer and you're probably going to lose your first largest customer, I think that probably has a role,' he said. India is Russia's second largest customer for crude, while China, despite being first, has escaped secondary sanctions.. On Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Washington could raise its current 25 per cent secondary tariff on India if Trump's meeting with Putin failed to make headway on Ukraine. He also asked the European Union to impose a similar secondary levy on India. 'We put a secondary tariff on Indians for buying Russian oil, and I could see if things don't go well (in Friday's Trump-Putin meeting), then sanctions or secondary tariffs could go up,' Bessent told Bloomberg Television.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 minutes ago
- First Post
The Alaska summit, Trump's personal failure, and the war that won't end
Trump sought a personal win—a headline-grabbing breakthrough he could sell at home; though the optics were managed to portray warmth and progress, but in substance, he leaves Alaska with neither a deal with Putin nor increased diplomatic leverage The Alaska summit was billed as a possible turning point in the Russia–Ukraine war; instead, it was a carefully choreographed non-event. (Image: AFP) The much-hyped Alaska meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded with no ceasefire, no agreement, and no concrete pathway toward ending the Russia–Ukraine war. For all the showmanship—a warm tarmac greeting, twin handshakes, and a joint limo ride—the summit produced little more than vague assurances, cryptic references to 'progress', and a reminder that when it comes to this war, 'there's no deal until there's a deal'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Outcome: All Optics, No Substance After nearly three hours behind closed doors, Trump conceded, 'We didn't get there', before exiting without taking questions. His earlier claim that there was only a '25 per cent chance' of failure now looks like a self-inflicted blow to his credibility as a self-styled peacemaker and dealmaker. Putin described himself as 'sincerely interested' in ending what he called a 'tragedy' but offered no specifics. He warned against 'sabotage' by Ukraine and Europe and insisted that 'primary causes' of the conflict must be addressed—Kremlin code for its longstanding demands on arresting Nato expansion and ensuring territorial recognition of the territory gained. Apparently Putin did not compromise on any of his demands and handled Trump with his vast diplomatic experience, leaving a window for further talks. Trump, for his part, said, 'Many points were agreed to,' but admitted that 'one significant' disagreement remained, without disclosing what it was. His pledge to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders 'soon' was small consolation to Kyiv, which had been excluded from the talks. Putin's parting words—'Next time in Moscow'—hinted at a possible sequel, but there's no sign of a trilateral summit involving Ukraine. War Aims and Strategic Calculus Russia's goals have been consistent since the beginning and were not compromised, namely: solidify territorial control over captured regions, prevent Nato's eastward expansion, no Nato membership for Ukraine, no militarisation of Ukraine and secure sanctions relief. The Alaska summit was an opportunity to appear diplomatic without making binding concessions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Kyiv insisted on restoring territorial integrity and rejecting any 'land-for-peace' swaps. Zelenskyy will find some consolation there, as his land was not swapped, although no agreement on a ceasefire will not reduce his pain. Trump sought a personal win—a headline-grabbing breakthrough he could sell at home. The optics were managed to portray warmth and progress, but in substance, he leaves Alaska with neither a deal nor increased diplomatic leverage. Pre-Negotiation Positions Russia entered willing to talk ceasefire terms but only under conditions preserving military gains. It exhibited strategic maturity by not responding to President Trump's rhetoric of 'severe consequences if no ceasefire' but stuck to its position. Ukraine was opposed to any talks that exclude Kyiv and refused concessions on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which made the ceasefire prospects near impossible. The US pursued exploratory diplomacy, with Trump hinting at creative solutions—including unspecified compromises—that alarmed some allies. During the pre-negotiation stage, Trump's stance was inconsistent between pragmatism, rhetoric, the influence of the US deep state and last-day pressure from European counterparts and Ukraine. Putin thus entered the negotiations from a position of strength with clarity on the outcome. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Implications of Failure For Ukraine, the inconclusive outcome is a mixed blessing—no dangerous unilateral deal, but also no relief from daily shelling. For Russia, the meeting offered propaganda value: Putin stood beside the US president as an equal, reinforcing his legitimacy on the world stage. For Trump, the optics of coming home empty-handed after promising a breakthrough will sting. The '25 per cent failure' threshold he set has become a self-own, inviting criticism from both allies and adversaries. Internationally, the summit leaves the war right where it was—grinding on in the trenches—while signalling that Washington is willing to engage Moscow directly, even without Ukraine in the room. That precedent could shape future diplomacy in ways that European members of Nato and Kyiv may find troubling. What's Next? The summit outcome doesn't stop Putin from continuing Russian aggression to improve ground position in its favour. The outcome could see intermittent backchannel talks and another high-profile but low-yield summit. The absence of a flawed deal could keep Nato unity intact with renewed pressure on sanctions and tariffs. The risk remains that repeated summits without progress may erode US credibility and give Moscow breathing space to regroup militarily. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The dissatisfied Nato and Ukraine will expect President Trump to act on secondary tariffs, sanctions and military support to Ukraine, but that might jeopardise any undeclared gains in the Alaska Summit for President Trump, if there are any. Putin's confidence in this summit is a direct reflection of his strong position on the battlefield, which gives him more leverage than Nato. Ukraine or Europe don't hold any card to dictate terms to Russia, and their position is unlikely to change without full support of the US. Conclusion The Alaska summit was billed as a possible turning point in the Russia–Ukraine war; instead, it was a carefully choreographed non-event. Trump's showmanship produced good optics but no substance, Putin pocketed the legitimacy boost without paying in concessions, and Ukraine was left to watch from the sidelines. In diplomacy, sometimes no deal is better than a bad one—but for battered Ukraine, 'no deal' also means no relief. The danger now is that repeated inconclusive engagements will normalise a frozen conflict, giving Moscow an edge earned by battlefield successes. For countries affected by secondary tariffs/sanctions, the risk remains! STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The author is a strategic and security analyst. He can be reached at Facebook and LinkedIn as Shashi Asthana, @asthana_shashi on Twitter, and personal site. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
