Why JD Vance believes a Zelensky-Putin meeting would not be productive
Before Vance left Washington for the trip, he sat down for an interview on Fox News which aired on Sunday, in which he told host Maria Bartiromo that a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy would not be productive without Trump. 'I think fundamentally, the President of the United States has to be the one to bring these two together. We're, of course, going to talk to the Ukrainians. I actually spoke with the Ukrainians this morning. Marco has been talking to them quite a bit. We're going to keep that dialogue open,' Vance noted, describing the delicate balancing act that America is currently playing in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Vance then added that 'fundamentally, this is something where the President needs to force President Putin and President Zelenskyy to really sit down to figure out their differences.' US President Donald Trump confirmed on his Truth social media platform that he would meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15. 'The highly anticipated meeting between myself, as President of the United States of America, and President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the Great State of Alaska,' Trump wrote. 'Further details to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President has warned that 'decisions without Ukraine' would not bring peace to the region. Zelensky has ruled out ceding any territory to Russia as Putin continued his offensive last Friday, killing four civilians and wounding 10. Writing on social media, the Ukrainian President said: 'Any decisions against us, any decisions without Ukraine, are also decisions against peace. They will achieve nothing. Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.'
He said Ukraine was 'ready for real decisions that can bring peace' but added it should be a 'dignified peace', without giving details. A Downing Street spokesperson said that Keir Starmer and Volodymyr Zelensky both agreed that the meeting between Vance, Lammy, and the Ukrainian would be a 'vital forum to discuss progress towards securing a just and lasting peace'.
'Both leaders welcomed President Trump's desire to bring this barbaric war to an end and agreed that we must keep up the pressure on Putin to end his illegal war,' the spokesperson added. Vance publicly dressed down Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for not being respectful enough to President Donald Trump during a dramatic Oval Office meeting at the White House back in February.
At the time, the vice president launched into attack mode after he felt Trump was being disrespected by the Ukrainian president. 'Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media,' Vance said after Zelensky repeatedly interrupted and disputed statements made by Trump.
A source familiar with the meeting at the White House told DailyMail.com at the time that Zelensky's demeanor was surprising to American officials in the room. 'No one expected the meeting to play out as it did, because nobody expected [him] to act that way,' the source said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
The nearly 150-year old law that Trump is testing with domestic troop deployment
As President Donald Trump pushes the bounds of military activity on domestic soil, a polarizing debate has emerged over a nearly 150-year old law that regulates when federal troops can intervene in state issues. About 800 National Guard troops filed into Washington, D.C., on Tuesday after President Donald Trump said — without substantiation — that they were needed to reduce crime in the 'lawless' national capital. Thousands of miles away, a judge in California is hearing arguments about whether the president's recent decision to federalize Guard personnel in Los Angeles during protests against immigration raids violated federal law. Trump has also created militarized zones along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a major shift that has thrust the army into immigration enforcement like never before. The cases in both California and Washington mainly hinge on Posse Comitatus Act, which passed in 1878 and largely prevents the military from enforcing domestic laws. Experts say that in both cases there are clear limitations to the law's enforcement. Here is what to know about the law. Posse Comitatus Act stops military from enforcing US law The Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute that prevents the military from enforcing domestic law. It also prevents the military from investigating local crimes, overriding local law enforcement or compelling certain behavior. Posse Comitatus can be bypassed by a congressional vote or in order to defend the Constitution. The Insurrection Act of 1807 can also trigger the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act and allows the president to deploy the military domestically in cases of invasion or rebellion. There is an exception for the U.S. Coast Guard, which has some law enforcement responsibility. The military is also allowed to share intelligence and certain resources if there is an overlap with civilian law enforcement jurisdiction, according to the Library of Congress. Law was enacted after Reconstruction era The law was enacted in 1878 following the post-Civil War era known as Reconstruction. Pro-segregationist representatives in Congress wanted to keep the military from blocking the enforcement of Jim Crow laws that allowed racial segregation. But the spirit of the law also has roots going all the way back to the Revolutionary War, when the founders of the United States were scarred by the British monarchy's absolute military control, said William C. Banks, a professor at the Syracuse University College of Law. 'We have a tradition in the United States, which is more a norm than a law, that we want law enforcement to be conducted by civilians, not the military,' Banks said. That ethos — ingrained in National Guard personnel starting in basic training — becomes especially powerful in the case of the Posse Comitatus Act, because the law has hardly been tested before now, said Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. 'There is no authoritative precedent on exactly where these lines are, and so that's why over the years the military's own interpretation has been so important,' Vladeck said. Law applies to 'federalized' troops The Posse Comitatus Act typically doesn't apply to the National Guard because members of the Guard report to the governor, not the federal government. But when Guard personnel are 'federalized" they are bound by the act until they are returned to state control, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The state of California said in a federal lawsuit that the Trump administration violated the act when it deployed National Guard soldiers and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles following June protests over immigration raids. The Trump administration has argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply because the president used a provision known as Title 10 to federalize the troops. It allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Attorneys for the federal government also argue that the troops are not enforcing domestic laws and are only acting to protect federal property and agents. In Washington, by contrast, the president is already in charge of the National Guard and can legally deploy troops for 30 days without congressional approval. Vladeck said that both deployments over the past three months suggest that the Trump administration 'appears to be trying to dance around the Posse Comitatus Act" rather than disregard it altogether. "There is a lot in the water about the Trump administration being lawless. What is striking is actually how much the administration is trying to wrap itself in the law,' Vladeck said. Law depends on executive branch policing itself Beyond the legal exceptions written into the law, there is a practical question of how to enforce it, said Joseph Nunn, counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. Because the Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, not a civil one, the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for prosecution in criminal court, Nunn said. 'It's premised on the executive branch policing itself,' he said. That leaves unclear legal standing for whether a state government like California's has a right to sue in civil court in the first place. The ruling in the California case will likely be a narrow interpretation based on the circumstances of the Guard's deployment in Los Angeles, Vladeck said. But he said it could still dictate how the administration uses the Guard in other cities like Chicago and New York, where Trump has threatened to federalize troops next. ___
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
White House orders a review of exhibits at Smithsonian museums ahead of nation's 250th birthday
The White House is ordering a wide-ranging review of the Smithsonian museums and exhibitions ahead of the country's 250th birthday with a goal of aligning the institution's content with President Donald Trump 's interpretation of American history. In a letter sent Tuesday to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, the White House laid out in detail the steps it expects the organization to take as part of the announced review. The examination will look at all public-facing content, such as social media, exhibition text and educational materials, to 'assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter said. The Smithsonian said it remained committed to 'scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history." 'We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents,' it said in a statement. The review, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, is the latest attempt by the president to bring the country's cultural institutions in line with his vision. In March, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which accused the Smithsonian of coming under the influence of a 'divisive, race-centered ideology' and called upon it to 'remove improper ideology' from the institution's museums. In February, Trump removed the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees, replaced them with his supporters and named himself chairman. He vowed to end events featuring performers in drag, indicating he would take on a larger role in dictating the institution's programming schedule. The review of the Smithsonian will initially focus on eight museums — the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The letter said additional museums would be reviewed in subsequent phases. Civil rights leaders have criticized the administration's particular focus on the National Museum of African American History and Culture as efforts to minimize Black Americans' contributions to the country and to recast the obstacles they faced throughout history. The Smithsonian has repeatedly denied allegations that it has changed or removed exhibit details in response to pressure from the administration. Recently, the institution removed references to Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit on the American presidency. A spokesman for the museum said the references, which were added in 2021, were intended to be a temporary measure and said a future exhibit would include details on all presidential impeachments. The review ordered by the White House directs the museums to submit materials from exhibits and drafts for upcoming events within 30 days. Within 120 days, the letter said, museums will be expected to take corrective action, 'replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions."
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
The Trump family has raked in an astonishing $3.4 billion over his two presidencies, new report claims
President Donald Trump and his family may have made billions off his two presidencies, a new report claims. The New Yorker reports that Trump and his family have pocketed an estimated $3.4 billion thanks to his two terms as president. Its tally includes profits from cryptocurrencies, the president's MAGA-branded merchandise and his Mar-a-Lago estate. The outlet estimated that, thanks to Trump's two presidencies, the family has made $2.37 billion from cryptocurrency; $339.6 million from financial ventures; $270.8 million from hospitality; $116 million from media; and $277.7 million across other sources, including his private jet, legal fees and merchandise. In response to this report, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Independent: ' The claims that this President has profited from his time in office are absolutely absurd — in comparison to what he could have made if he didn't have to deal with the fake news and corrupt political opponents, the President has lost hundreds of millions of dollars to serve this country.' 'The American people love him precisely because he is a successful businessman, not in spite of it,' Leavitt added. 'The Trump Family is highly respected for always conducting their dealings by the book, unlike past presidents, such as the Biden Crime Family. President Trump has always practiced integrity and transparency, which is why he is and has been forthcoming in sharing his financial disclosures.' Much of the Trump family's estimated earnings have come from various cryptocurrency ventures, The New Yorker reports. This includes an estimated $385 million in profit from the coins $TRUMP and $MELANIA, which he launched just before Trump took office in January, according to the outlet. The Independent has reached out to the Trump Organization and Trump Media for comment. While the president has embraced cryptocurrency, so have his allies. About one in five of Trump's high-level cabinet picks hold significant assets in cryptocurrency, according to a July analysis by The Washington Post. At the time, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said these figures reflected the success Trump's picks had in the private sector and insisted there were no conflicts of interest. In addition to his cryptocurrency ventures, The New Yorker estimates Trump has made an estimated $27.7 million from his Trump Store merchandise. The outlet noted that Trump is the first Presidential candidate to run a private online store, which competes with his campaign to sell MAGA merchandise. The New Yorker's total included an estimated $1.3 million from Trump's 'God Bless the USA' Bibles and $2.8 million from Trump-branded watches. These figures were previously reported in Trump's 2024 financial disclosure report, which was released in June. Trump reported more than $600 million in income on the form, according to Reuters. The New Yorker estimates Trump's presidencies have also generated an extra $125 million in profit from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. This estimated extra profit came, in part, from Trump's own campaign events at the club, as well as events held by other GOP candidates, organizations and high-profile figures, the outlet reports. In its estimate, The New Yorker also included an estimated $100 million from supporters' contributions that Trump reportedly used to pay for legal fees. While a political campaign fund can't be used for a candidate's personal legal battles, a loophole allowed him to convert campaign funds into political action committees, which are subject to looser restrictions, the outlet claimed. This cash funded his defense across several cases, including Trump's historic hush money trial last year, according to the report. In that case, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a payoff to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and is appealing the conviction.
