A high-stakes 'listening exercise.' What's at stake in Trump's meeting with Putin.
One of the biggest diplomatic events of Donald Trump's second term will unfold in Alaska as the president meets with his Russian counterpart in a bid to end the war in Ukraine.
Trump is betting a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Aug. 15 can generate a breakthrough that has so far proved elusive, even as the White House says it's just a 'listening exercise.'
'At the end of that meeting, probably the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made,' Trump said Aug. 11.
More: Trump-Putin summit spotlights Alaska's strategic importance, vulnerability
The trip is Putin's first to the United States in a decade, and his first meeting with an American president since a chilly sit-down with President Joe Biden in 2021. The next year Putin invaded Ukraine, initiating the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, one that has killed more than 250,000 Russian and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers, according to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The summit is being closely watched by Ukrainian and European leaders, who are worried that any peace terms discussed could be unfavorable to Kyiv.
Here's what to know about Trump's Alaska meeting with Putin.
More: What's latest in Russian-Ukraine war? A closer look at the map ahead of Trump-Putin meet
Ukraine has been largely left out
Much of the discussion leading up to the summit has been about who won't be there.
Ukrainian President Volodoymyr Zelenskyy isn't attending, which raises questions about how much can be achieved when one of the sides pivotal to any peace deal won't be present.
Zelenskyy and European leaders said no decisions about a peace agreement can be made without Ukraine. Zelenskyy spoke with Trump twice ahead of the summit, the second time on a call that included European leaders.
"I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal," Trump declared Aug. 11.
Jockeying over territorial concessions
Trump is trying to push Moscow into an accord that Kyiv and its allies fear will include the loss of significant territory seized by Russia in its 3-year-old war.
Speculating about an eventual deal on Aug. 8, Trump said it would involve 'some swapping of territories."
That drew a sharp response from Zelenskyy, who said, 'Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier.'
But Trump has continued to push, saying on Aug. 11 that he was a 'little bothered' by the Ukrainian leader's assertion that a land swap would violate the country's constitution.
"There will be some swapping,' Trump insisted Aug. 11. 'There will be some changes in land.'
The debate over territorial concessions hangs over the summit. Putin claims four Ukrainian regions – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – as well as the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which he annexed in 2014.
Trump's relationship with Putin in the spotlight
Trump has had a famously warm relationship with Putin over the years, often praising the Russian autocrat. Trump reportedly shared classified intelligence with Russian officials during his first term and tried to soften U.S. opposition to Russia's past aggression against Ukraine and its human rights violations.
Meanwhile, Ukraine and Zelenskyy featured in one of the lowest points of Trump's first term. He was impeached over allegations that he pressured Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on political rival Joe Biden.
Trump's friendly approach to Putin has largely continued as he worked to get a peace deal and focused his ire on Zelenskyy, most notably during an explosive Oval Office meeting when the two clashed publicly. Trump told the Ukrainian leader he didn't 'have the cards' when it came to resolving the conflict in the country's favor.
Lately, though, Trump has repeatedly slammed Putin and complained about his unwillingness to stop the fighting.
Putin escalated his attacks on Ukraine ahead of the summit, which former GOP House speaker and Trump ally Newt Gingrich called 'a sign of very bad faith.' Trump said Aug. 13 that there would be 'very severe consequences' if Putin does not agree to end the war.
Economic sanctions in play
Trump's tougher approach to Russia is exemplified by his announcement July 14 that he would levy stiff secondary tariffs on countries that do business with Moscow.
The administration took a step toward punishing Russia's oil customers on Aug. 6, imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India over its imports of Russian oil. It marked the first financial penalty aimed at Russia in Trump's second term.
The broader sanctions Trump had said he'd place on Putin if a ceasefire was not reached by Aug. 8 appear to be on hold.
The summit could help determine whether Trump follows through on the sanctions.
Trump plays down expectations
Though meeting with Putin is a big step, Trump and the White House are downplaying the chances for a breakthrough.
"This is really a feel-out meeting, a little bit,' Trump said Aug. 11.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the summit a 'listening exercise for the president.'
'Look, only one party that's involved in this war is going to be present,' Leavitt said Aug. 12.
A Trump-Putin reunion
Trump and Putin will meet in Anchorage, Alaska, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, home to about 30,000 service members, their families and civilian employees.
Alaska was once part of Russia – the U.S. bought it for $7.2 million in 1867 − and is separated by the Bering Strait from the Russian mainland by just 55 miles at the narrowest point.
More: Trump-Putin summit spotlights Alaska's strategic importance, vulnerability
Trump met with Putin multiple times during his first term, including in Helsinki, Finland, in 2018. Putin denied interfering in the 2016 election, comments that Trump embraced, saying Putin 'was extremely strong and powerful in his denial" despite U.S. intelligence assessments pointing to interference by Moscow on Trump's behalf.
Contributing: Reuters; Michael James, Francesca Chambers, Joey Garrison, Tom Vanden Brook, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy and Lauren Villagran, USA TODAY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump tax law could cause Medicare cuts if Congress doesn't act, CBO says
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump's tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday. The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump's signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net. Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so. Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts. 'Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,' Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. 'American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump's attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.' Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls. As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
CEO of paid protest company says it works with both sides of the aisle
(NewsNation) — President Trump alleged Friday that Democrats are paying protesters to fight his Washington, D.C., crime policies. But how do paid protests actually work? NewsNation spoke with Adam Swart, the CEO of Crowds on Demand, about his company that provides services 'for impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events,' according to its website. 'All of our protesters are sincere advocates for the cause at hand. We've been in business 13 years, so we have a large roster of people we know and have networks of others we can call upon to be compensated for expressing their sincere points of view,' Swart said. Swart said compensation for protests is typically in the low hundreds of dollars, depending on the assignment. He said organizing a protest 'is like buying an ad.' He said his company receives requests for both conservative and liberal causes. 'We have been clear that we work with both liberals and conservatives on causes that align with common-sense values. Democrats are hiring our company, and so are Republicans,' he said. He did not disclose what protests his company has been asked to be a part of. Swart previously told NewsNation that he turned down $20 million to provide protesters for ' Good Trouble Lives On ' protests in July. 'I'm rejecting it not because I don't want to take the business, but because frankly, this is going to be ineffective; it's going to make us all look bad,' Swart said of the anti-Trump protests at the time.
San Francisco Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
