Trump reduces timeline for Russia to agree to ceasefire or face consequences
Trump had said July 14 that Russia would face additional sanctions and tariffs if it did not stop fighting in Ukraine within 50 days, putting the deadline at Sept. 2. But Monday, the president indicated he would push up that time frame to early August.
Sign up for the latest from The Hill here
'We thought we had that settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv and kills a lot of people in a nursing home or whatever,' Trump said standing alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 'You have bodies lying all over the street. And I say that's not the way to do it. So we'll see what happens with that. I'm very disappointed. I'm disappointed in President Putin.
'I'm going to reduce that 50 days. I gave him to a lesser number, because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen,' Trump added.
During a sit-down conversation with Starmer later, the president said he would move up the timeline to initiate sanctions against Moscow to 'about 10 or 12 days from today,' adding, 'We just don't see any progress being made.'
The president earlier this month said the U.S. would impose 'severe' tariffs on Russia if Moscow did not agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine in the next 50 days. Trump indicated he would impose a 100 percent 'secondary' tariff, which would target other nations that do business with Russia, in a bid to further hurt the Russian economy.
Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 after amassing troops at the border. Trump campaigned on a pledge to end the war within 24 hours, a time frame he later claimed was 'sarcastic.'
While Trump has at times complained about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's approach to the conflict, he has in recent weeks expressed increasing frustration with Putin as Moscow continues to fire missiles into Ukraine despite the White House's push for a ceasefire.
Trump earlier this month also announced NATO members would finance the purchase of additional U.S. weapons to be sent to Ukraine.
Updated at 9:18 a.m. EDT
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mexico sets minimum export prices for fresh tomatoes
By Brendan O'Boyle MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Mexico has set minimum export prices for fresh tomatoes to protect its domestic production and ensure internal supply after a bilateral agreement with the U.S. expired, Mexico's economy and agriculture ministries said in a joint statement on Sunday. The decision follows Washington's withdrawal in July from a 2019 deal between the two countries which regulated Mexican tomato exports to the U.S.. The Trump administration on July 14 announced a duty of about 17% on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. While the new pricing rules apply exclusively to definitive exports, they don't restrict export volumes or impose maximum prices. Prices will be reviewed annually or sooner if market conditions demand, the Mexican ministries said. Minimum export prices per kilogram are set at $1.70 for cherry and grape tomatoes, $0.88 for Roma tomatoes, $0.95 for round tomatoes, and $1.65 for round tomatoes with stems. Other varieties, such as cocktail and heirloom tomatoes, will also have a minimum price of $1.70. According to official figures, Mexico exported $3.3 billion of tomatoes last year. "This action reinforces the government's commitment to agricultural competitiveness, dignified rural employment, and food sovereignty," the ministries said. The ministries added that Mexican associations of tomato producers have expressed support for the agreement, which entered into force immediately after its publication on August 8 in the government's official gazette. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth subverts Congress by ordering racist Confederate monument's return to Arlington
The verbal gymnastics by our Defense secretary whenever he orders a Confederate monument to go back up is truly Olympian. To wit, Secretary Pete Hegseth just ordered the army to refurbish a 1914 Arlington Confederate Monument to the tune of $10 million and restore it by 2027. Hegseth called it a 'reconciliation monument … taken down by woke lemmings.' In his announcement, Hegseth avoids the actual name of the monument, 'The Arlington Confederate Monument.' In fact, nothing in his statement mentions the Confederacy at all. There's a reason for that: Congress passed a law in 2019 preventing the Department of Defense from naming or renaming anything after the Confederacy. Hence, 'reconciliation monument.' I study Confederate commemoration. This structure is one the cruelest, most racist monuments in the country, and its location at the sacred ground of Arlington National Cemetery makes it even more offensive. The monument clearly commemorates the Confederacy and its purpose — chattel slavery. It depicts a tearful, overweight enslaved woman, a 'mammy,' cradling the child of her Confederate enslaver, supporting him as he departs for war. The monument portrays faithful slaves and kind white masters, a historical lie. Slavery featured legal rape, torture and selling husband from wife, child from mother. The monument came down because Congress, with a Republican-controlled Senate, passed a law directing the Pentagon 'to remove all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America.' President Trump vetoed the $800 billion defense bill because it required the changing of nine base names like Fort Lee and Fort Benning that honored Confederates. Those bases were named during World War I and World War II, when the Army and the American South were segregated and few Black southerners could vote. Congress overturned Trump's veto with a supermajority. To execute that order, Congress created a Naming Commission on which I served as vice chair. We were no 'woke lemmings.' The eight commissioners appointed by Congress and the secretary of Defense included three Republicans, one Democrat, and four retired flag officers. When the commission members visited the Confederate monument in 2022, we were shocked by its overt racist imagery and anti U.S. sentiments. We voted unanimously to recommend removal. Hegseth and neo-Confederate groups argue that the Commission sought to 'erase history.' Not quite. Classes still study the Civil War, slavery, the Confederacy, and Jim Crow. Removing the names of bases named after confederate generals or racist monuments changed who and how we commemorate, our remit from Congress, not history. Hegseth further declares that the monument was done in the spirit of reconciliation. He gets his history grossly wrong. Reunion had already occurred in 1868 when President Andrew Johnson magnanimously granted amnesty for treason to all Confederates. By 1877, all the former rebelling states had full political rights and representation. In 1914, the Arlington Monument celebrated not reconciliation, but the victory of white supremacy. Before 1877, over 2,000 Black men held elective office, including a Black U.S. senator from Mississippi. By 1914, even though Mississippi and South Carolina were majority Black, almost no one of color could vote, much less hold office. Jim Crow triumphed. Reconciliation did not include 9 million African Americans in the South who lived in a racial police state without voting rights enforced by a terror campaign of lynching. In 1914, the NAACP's Crisis magazine counted 55 African Americans lynched. In Louisiana, three Black men were burned alive at the stake. Another mob doused a Texas man with gasoline and placed him in an 'oil-soaked, dry-goods box' and set him on fire. None of the perpetrators were ever brought to justice. Commemoration should inspire us. Who we commemorate should reflect our values. Instead of spending $10 million to restore that monument, we should commemorate the 1,800 United States Colored Troops and thousands of other U.S. Army Civil War soldiers buried in Arlington who helped destroy chattel slavery, freed 4 million men, women and children from human bondage, protected democracy and the saved the United States of America. By ordering the monument back, Hegseth is subverting Congress and the will of the American people. He is telling us that the values of 1914, white supremacy, and Jim Crow are this country's — and the Army's — values. This monument has everything to do with racism and nothing to do with reconciliation. Suggesting otherwise is a perversion of U.S. history and an insult to everyone buried in Arlington Cemetery. Brigadier General Ty Seidule, U.S. Army (Retired) served as the Vice Chair of the Naming Commission. His is the Hinchcliff Professor of History at Hamilton College and his forthcoming book with Connor Williams is A Promise Delivered: Ten American Heroes and the Battle to Rename Our Nation's Military Bases.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
NATO chief on whether Trump is at risk of rewarding Russia for invading Ukraine: ‘I don't think the risk is there'
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Sunday that he doesn't believe there is a risk that peace negotiations in Alaska with President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will reward Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. ABC News's Jonathan Karl asked Rutte on 'This Week' if he believed, like former national security adviser John Bolton does, that negotiations are sliding in Russia's favor, which could potentially reward the country for its invasion. 'No, I don't think the risk is there,' Rutte replied. 'And all my respects for John, and please send him my best regards, but I would not agree on this point with him. We have seen President Trump putting incredible pressure on Russia.' 'So, this is all clear evidence that President Trump is absolutely adamant to bring this war to an end, but also to keep maximum pressure on Putin,' Rutte later added. Rutte said the Friday meeting between to two leaders was important because it 'is testing Putin, how serious he is in this whole process, which will then have to continue after Friday, with Ukraine involved, with others involved, to bring this war to an end.' Trump and Putin are set to meet in Alaska on Friday to discuss peace negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not invited to the summit; however, the White House and the NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said there is a possibility he will attend. Bolton, who was the national security advisor during Trump's first term, said Saturday on CNN's 'The Source' with host Kaitlan Collins, 'The only better place for Putin than Alaska would be if the summit were being held in Moscow.' 'So, the initial setup, I think, is a great victory for Putin,' he continued. On Aug. 6, Trump signed an executive order adding a 25 percent tariff on India's purchases of Russian oil, bringing the tariffs up to a total of 50 percent. The tariffs will be in effect 21 days after Trump signed the executive order. This was intended to let India negotiate with Russia; however, in the meantime, India's leader has reaffirmed its bipartisan relations with the Kremlin. 'We also reviewed the progress in our bilateral agenda, and reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership. I look forward to hosting President Putin in India later this year,' Narendra Modi said. The NATO chief also mentioned Trump's actions within the international organization as proof that the president is dedicated to this peace deal. 'He was the one delivering the big success at the NATO summit, the 5 percent spending commitments in June, one of the biggest foreign policy successes of the U.S. in the last couple of years,' he said. Rutte also mentioned the deal struck in July between the Trump administration and NATO countries to send more weapons to Ukraine. The meeting in Alaska will discuss territorial claims. Last week, Putin shared a ceasefire agreement with the Trump administration, which asked for control of Eastern Ukraine. Zelensky adamantly opposed the deal by posting on X, 'Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace.' Rutte said the negotiations would include talks about territory as well as 'security guarantees' and 'the absolute need to acknowledge that Ukraine decides of its own future, that Ukraine has to be a sovereign nation, deciding on its own geopolitical future, of course, having no limitations to its own military troop levels, and for NATO to have no limitations on our presence on the Eastern flank in countries like Latvia, Estonia and Finland.' Whitaker reassured on Sunday that no matter what deal is struck between the parties, there will be verification that both countries are acting towards peace.
