Trump's Reset With Zelensky Triggers Warning From MAGA
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Back in February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky left the White House early after a tense meeting with Donald Trump that ended in a heated exchange. This week, he stood in the same room smiling for cameras, cracking jokes with Trump, and accepting compliments on his suit from the assembled press pool as European leaders looked on.
The shift in tone was stark. Administration officials described the atmosphere as "terrific" and "really productive," and Vice President JD Vance — who clashed with Zelensky during the previous visit — kept a low profile.
Yet for Trump's MAGA base, the change in mood did little to ease concerns over what came next.
Trump's sudden openness to offering NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine has drawn a sharp rebuke from his hardcore allies, reigniting tensions over America's role in the war.
Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist and a leading voice in the "America First" movement, launched a direct attack on the proposed security deal. Speaking on his War Room podcast, Bannon condemned the talks as globalist overreach — though he stopped short of naming Trump directly.
"I want to give a security guarantee to the citizens of the United States on these invaders right now. That's the security guarantee I want," Bannon said. "This entire war is so that Ukraine could be a Western country. Well, I don't give a tinker's d---."
BANNON: Why should America give Ukraine an Article 5 security guarantee? This war started with EU and NATO globalists forcing Russia's hand. Now they want U.S. taxpayers on the hook for trillions while Larry Fink takes over Davos. Total scam. pic.twitter.com/RQ2Z9h3sft — Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) August 18, 2025
His objections reflect a growing unease among conservatives who see the potential for Article 5-like protections — NATO's mutual defense clause — as a fundamental betrayal of the movement's anti-interventionist core.
"There can't be any guarantee here from the United States, because that's going to inextricably link us to this conflict," Bannon told Politico. "If we don't fund this, it stops happening. The Europeans don't have the hardware or the money."
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office at the White House on August 18, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Trump is hosting President Zelensky at the White House...
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office at the White House on August 18, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Trump is hosting President Zelensky at the White House for a bilateral meeting and later an expanded meeting with European leaders to discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. More
Getty Images
Online, the grassroots echoed that frustration. "All I heard were Article 5 and security guarantees," one user wrote on X. "If POTUS agrees with that, we MAGA are out. Sorry, but you broke your promise."
Highlighting that divine, another wrote: "Get out of Ukraine! No more US money! No more US weapons! No Article 5 US security guarantees! World War II is over!"
Ukraine Cannot Join NATO, Trump Says
Trump, for his part, has drawn a firm line. In a series of posts ahead of the summit, he reiterated that Ukraine would not join NATO, declaring "no going into NATO by Ukraine" and claiming Zelensky "can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to."
Instead, Trump has backed the idea of a standalone security framework — stopping short of NATO membership — that would still offer Ukraine significant protection.
According to U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, that framework could include "security guarantees," obligating the U.S. and European allies to respond if Ukraine is attacked. Witkoff called the potential agreement "game-changing," though the details remain vague.
Chief Strategist to the President Steve Bannon speaks during the Semafor World Economy Summit 2025 at Conrad Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Chief Strategist to the President Steve Bannon speaks during the Semafor World Economy Summit 2025 at Conrad Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC."When we talk about security guarantees, we're talking about the security of the entire European continent," French President Emmanuel Macron said. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte added that discussions would include guarantees similar to those already extended to alliance members.
While Trump said Tuesday he gave "his assurance" that no U.S. troops would be sent to defend Ukraine's border, a senior official told Politico the president might support a U.S. peacekeeping role "if it was the final piece of the puzzle."
That ambiguity has only deepened anxiety among MAGA-aligned Republicans. Many see any military commitment abroad as a step back toward the kind of endless wars Trump once promised to end.
"The war we got to win is right here in this country," Bannon said. "That's the war that we got to be focused on."
Like the MAGA base, Ukraine has been wary of what security guarantees will ultimately look like. Zelensky said the U.S. had sent a strong signal on the matter but noted he could not provide concrete details until more were finalized in the next 10 days.
However, Zelensky also stressed that peace must be "lasting" and not repeat the shortcomings of the "so-called 'security guarantees' of 1994."
"They didn't work," Zelensky said on Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'South Park' Turns Up The Heat On Trump With 'Perfect' Return Of Beloved Character
'South Park' released a new clip teasing Wednesday night's episode that features the return of a fan-favorite character as the show appears set to continue trolling President Donald Trump. The clip shows Towelie ― a sentient towel who loves to get high ― arriving by bus in Washington, D.C. to find the city under military control. 'This seems like the perfect place for a towel,' Towelie says as he watches a tank roll past the White House ― mimicking the real-life situation in which Trump has sent the National Guard into the city. Trump has claimed the military is needed to bring order to a city besieged by crime. However, the violent crime rate there dropped in both 2024 and 2025, leading critics to blast the move as a 'stunt.' 'South Park' has pulled a few stunts of its own since the show returned last month, mocking corporate parent Paramount for caving to Trump by agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit over '60 Minutes' that most legal observers considered frivolous. Related: Trump has claimed the settlement includes PSAs, and 'South Park' mockingly gave him one at the end of the episode, which showed a very realistic Trump stripping in the desert until he was naked, complete with a talking 'teeny tiny' penis. The show continued to go after Trump and his administration in the second episode, which focused mostly on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The next episode airs Wednesday night on Comedy Central, and will stream on Paramount+. 'South Park' Goes Scorched-Earth On Trump In Shockingly NSFW Season Premiere Aubrey Plaza Details 'Awfulness' After Her Husband's Shocking Death Elon Musk Was Not Pleased With 'Silicon Valley' Show's Portrayal Of Tech Parties
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.
The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception. The government's lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can't be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They're asking the justices to overturn the appeals court's decision. Trump's Justice Department has sided with gun owners in other cases The department's defense of the law is particularly notable as the Trump administration has sided with gun rights advocates in other cases – including one in which they declined to appeal a lower court's ruling against a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun. More: Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules But on the issue of drug use, the government is appealing four cases to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to focus on one involving a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was charged with unlawfully owning a Glock pistol because he regularly smoked marijuana. The FBI had been monitoring Ali Danial Hemani because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which the government has designated a global terrorist group, according to filings. The government also alleges Hemani used and sold promethazine, an antihistamine used to treat allergies and motion sickness that can boost an opioid high, and used cocaine, although he was prosecuted based on his marijuana use. Hemani's attorneys said the government is trying to 'inflame and disparage' Hemani's character and the only facts that matter are that he was not high when the FBI found the Glock 19 in his Texas home. Hemani was charged with violating the federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who 'is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.' More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Appeals court ruled past drug use not enough to stop gun ownership The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law can't be applied to Hamani under the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision that gun prohibitions must be grounded in history that is "consistent with our tradition of gun regulation." While history and tradition support 'some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon,' the appeals court said, 'they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.' The Justice Department said the appeals court got it wrong. Laws that existed at the time the country was founded restricted the rights of habitual drinkers, even when they were sober, they argued. 'And for about as long as legislatures have regulated drugs, they have prohibited the possession of arms by drug users and addicts – not just by persons under the influence of drugs,' they wrote. Law used in hundreds of prosecutions, including Hunter Biden's Since the federal government created its background-check system for firearms in 1998, the federal restriction on drug users has stopped more gun sales than any requirement other than the ban on felons and fugitives owning weapons, according to the filing. And it's used in hundreds of prosecutions each year, they said. (Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned by his father during President Joe Biden's final weeks in office, was convicted in 2024 of violating the law by purchasing a gun despite having a known drug addiction.) Hunter Biden trial recap Joe Biden's son guilty on all charges in historic gun case Hemani's lawyers argue that the government's interpretation of the law makes no sense when an estimated 19% of Americans have used marijuana and about 32% own a firearm. That means millions of Americans are violating the law that could put them behind bars for up to 15 years, they said in a filing. The appeals court, Hemani's lawyers said, correctly applied the Supreme Court's past decisions and 'common sense' to rule that 'history and tradition only supports a ban on carrying firearms while intoxicated.' In addition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two other appeals courts have issued rulings that restrict use of the federal ban: both courts ruled there should be individualized assessments of defendants' drug use to determine if their rights could be restricted. Trump administration touts program to restore gun rights The Justice Department argues that 'marginal' cases are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, through a federal program the Trump administration restarted that lets individuals petition to have their gun rights restored. The administration's championship of that program makes it less surprising that the Justice Department is vigorously defending the ban on drug users having guns, said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a research center. In addition, the administration has shown a broad desire to crack down on illegal drug use. 'In some sense, when those two areas are colliding – gun rights and anti-drug policies – it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,' he said. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Willinger said there's a relatively strong chance the Supreme Court will get involved, which the justices tend to do when a lower court strikes down or restricts the application of a federal criminal law – especially if the government asks them to intervene. But the high court could also wait to see how other appeals courts handle similar cases and how well the Justice Department's program for restoring gun rights addresses these concerns, he said. The court could announce whether it will take up the issue this fall.
Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump is fighting something in D.C., but it isn't crime
When the man says no, the agent continues. 'Yeah, Trump's got all federal agencies coming together, seven days, and going out trying to stop the violent crime, all kind of stuff,' the agent says. He continues: 'Smoking, drinking in public, right, it can't happen.' I'm a Detroit-born, Boston transplant at heart, but I've worked as a journalist in Washington for nearly two decades. Though I've built my career here working only for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Understandably, I have some very strong and very personal views about the president's Advertisement Most obviously, sending armed federal agents and the National Guard to patrol the streets of the nation's capital bears all the hallmarks of a But from my local vantage point, I see even more layers to this dangerous gambit. Advertisement First, let's dispel the idea that Trump's effort is driven in any way by a true desire to make D.C. a better place to live and visit. Trump points to anecdotal evidence, like the If Trump really wanted to fight crime here, there are many things he could do that would actually help, starting with telling his fellow Republicans in Congress to release No, Trump's crime crusade is about something else. Aside from satisfying his Trump loves a shock-and-awe-style attack on perceived domestic enemies. Look at Trump's immigration crackdown, complete with images of suspected immigrants being detained and held in brutally inhumane facilities with nicknames like 'Alligator Alcatraz.' It's a show put on by the former reality show host and the latest episode is brought to you from Democratic-controlled cities he has long railed against. Crime fighting isn't the point. Cruelty is. Advertisement It's gut wrenching to see it happening in a place so filled with history, culture, and joy. It's a richness that comes not just from transplants like me or its world-renown cultural institutions (which are They, and I, want safe, well-policed, and well-resourced communities. Not a federal takeover. And I'm exhausted by the crime hot takes from people who couldn't identify Ironically, even if you thought soldiers should be sent here, they are also being sent from Ohio, the only state that Even Trump's claim that Advertisement Trump is selling a dangerous lie about the city I've made a life in. My D.C. is one of Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
