The Memo: Trump adopts new aggressive stance on Russia
Even though there is a lengthy hiatus of 50 days before those sanctions would take effect, it's still a notable shift from the president.
Trump had long been skeptical of the pace and scale of U.S. aid to Ukraine.
It has been only a little more than four months since he and Vice President Vance had a famously fractious meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.
In the aftermath of that meeting, where Zelensky was assailed for his supposed ingratitude and the weakness of his bargaining position, it seemed like the choking off of U.S. military aid to Kyiv was near-certain. That, in turn, would make a Russian victory in the war begun by President Vladimir Putin's February 2022 invasion equally inevitable.
Now, the picture looks very different. Trump — for reasons that appear personal as much as strategic — has become increasingly irritated with Putin's refusal to bring the war to an end.
On Monday, meeting at the White House with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Trump complained that he enjoys 'very pleasant' phone calls with Putin only to see Russian 'missiles go off that night.'
The accusation of double-dealing or disingenuousness on the part of Putin has become more of a centerpiece of Trump's rhetoric recently.
On Monday, he contended that Putin 'didn't fool' him, even as he held that the Russian leader had pulled the wool over the eyes of past Presidents Biden, Obama and George W. Bush.
Just last week, Trump made a similar point in even more pointed terms, saying, 'We get a lot of bulls‑‑‑ thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time but it turns out to be meaningless.'
Now, of course, the question is how meaningful Trump's own shift will be.
The most obviously substantive move is the provision of weapons — notably Patriot air defense systems.
The deal by which those, and other weapons, will be bought by European NATO members and then transferred on to Ukraine seems to resolve one central tension in the conflict. It enables Trump to vastly reduce the cost to the U.S. Treasury Department — and thus to U.S. taxpayers — of military aid to Ukraine, while bolstering Ukraine's defenses and ameliorating the panic from U.S. allies in Europe that Trump's isolation would invite greater Russian expansionism.
Referring to NATO allies, Trump said Monday, 'We are going to be sending them weapons, and they're going to be paying for them. We're not buying it, but we will manufacture it, and they're going to be paying for them.'
The Wall Street Journal, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the upcoming weapons transfers, reported that the package could be worth about $10 billion.
The Department of State says the United States has provided almost $67 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia's invasion.
The sanctions element of Monday's proposal was a bit more vague.
Trump initially used the word 'tariffs' to describe what he had in mind as a tactic to deepen Russia's economic isolation. But it fell to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to clarify that Trump was in fact suggesting the imposition of economic sanctions on Moscow's trading partners.
Those sanctions are supposedly going to take effect if a peace deal is not arrived at within Trump's 50-day time frame.
There are a few obvious caveats.
The most obvious is whether Trump will follow through given his propensity to move in unpredictable ways.
A second is whether Putin would try to persuade the president, during that period, that it is actually Ukraine that is being the more stubborn party.
A third mixed signal came even Monday, when Trump appeared lukewarm about the proposed congressional legislation that would ramp up sanctions on Russia directly.
Even so, it's notable that the more hawkish members of the GOP, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have been vocally enthusiastic about Trump's apparent shift.
There are, too, some in Republican circles who believe Trump's instinctive isolationism has been diluted somewhat by the perceived success of the recent U.S. airstrikes against targets in Iran — strikes that resulted neither in any casualties for the U.S. nor created any serious danger of getting sucked into a longer war.
The American public also seems to have an appetite for tougher economic measures against Russia.
An Economist/YouGov poll last month found that 44 percent of Americans surveyed favored increasing sanctions on Russia and 19 percent wanted to maintain sanctions at their current level, while only 15 percent wanted to reduce or eliminate sanctions.
Much remains uncertain, including how Putin will react to Monday's announcements. And, of course, the biggest vexing question is how many concessions either Russia or Ukraine are willing to make to end the war.
But Trump, long derided by critics for his softness on Putin, is this time taking a harder line than he ever has before.
The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
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
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump admin to open nation's largest immigration detention center in Texas with $1.2B contract
The Trump administration will open the nation's largest immigration detention center in Texas thanks to a massive contract worth $1.2 billion, according to a report. The feds will be able to hold up to 5,000 illegal immigrants at a time at Fort Bliss Army base in El Paso, Texas, to meet the demands of the rapidly expanding Trump administration's deportation campaign, Bloomberg reported. Shackled migrants walk toward a military transport plane before their deportation from the US. US Department of Defense/AFP via Getty Images The Department of Defense awarded the contract, which ends Sept. 30, 2027, to Virginia-based Acquisition Logistics LLC to set up a tent city on the base. The Trump administration has sought to erect temporary facilities to hold migrants as it attempts to make room for the 3,000-person quota it's seeking to collar each day. The effort has been turbocharged by a new flood of $45 billion for new detention beds from Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The massive spending bill will double Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detention capacity, with the goal of holding 100,000 illegal immigrants at a time as the Trump administration seeks to carry out 1 million deportations each year. ICE opened 'Alligator Alcatraz,' a tent detention center erected by the state of Florida in the middle of the alligator-infested swampland of the Everglades, earlier this month. The feds can currently hold up to 3,000 illegal immigrants there and hope to expand that to 5,000. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also set his sights on two additional military bases, Camp Atterbury in Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, for the deportation campaign, according to the Associated Press. The Trump administration has set out to deport one million illegal immigrants each year. AFP via Getty Images 'We're looking for any available bed space we can get that meets the detention standards we're accustomed to,' Trump's border czar Tom Homan said Friday. 'The faster we get the beds, the more people we can take off the street,' he added. Fort Bliss has previously been used for immigration purposes, housing unaccompanied migrant kids and Afghan refugees following the US withdrawal from the war-torn country, according to Stars and Stripes.
Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Supreme Court allows Trump to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who had been fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge. The justices acted on an emergency appeal from the Justice Department, which argued that the agency is under Trump's control and the president is free to remove commissioners without cause. That's what Trump did in May, providing no reason for removing all three Democratic commissioners on the five-person board, despite a federal law that allows commissioners to be fired only for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance.' The court provided a brief, unsigned explanation that the case is similar to earlier ones in which it allowed Trump to fire board members of other independent agencies, whom Congress protected from arbitrary dismissals. The three liberal justices dissented. 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote for herself, as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. The fired commissioners had been serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch. Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive. The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. Kagan wrote that the court already has 'all but overturned Humphrey's Executor.' Other removals are making their way to the high court, including the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the very agency at issue in Humphrey's Executor. Last week, a federal judge ordered Rebecca Slaughter reinstated as a commissioner. Slaughter returned to work Friday. By Tuesday, she had been sidelined again after an appeals court temporarily blocked the judge's order. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence.
Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
House Democrats launch bid to subpoena Justice Department for Epstein files
WASHINGTON — House Democrats launched a bid Wednesday to subpoena President Donald Trump's Justice Department for files in the sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, goading GOP lawmakers to defy Trump and Republican leadership to support the action. Democrats on a subcommittee of the powerful House Committee on Oversight made a motion for the subpoena Wednesday afternoon, just hours before the House was scheduled to end its July work session and depart Washington for a monthlong break. The subcommittee's Republican chairman, Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana, postponed a vote on the matter until the end of the meeting. While several Republicans on the panel are members of a right-wing faction and have called for the release of the files, it was not clear whether they would vote for the subpoena. During a brief break in the meeting, Higgins told reporters he expected the motion for the subpoena to pass with some changes. 'If the Republican Party, if our colleagues on this committee don't join us in this vote, then what they're essentially doing is joining President Donald Trump in complicity,' Rep. Summer Lee, the Pennsylvania Democrat who made the motion for the subpoena, told reporters outside the hearing room. The move by Democrats showed how they were doing practically everything in their power to force Republicans to act on the Epstein files. House Speaker Mike Johnson — caught between demands from Trump and clamoring from his own members for the House to act — has resisted calls for action and prepared to send the House home a day early. Johnson told reporters earlier Wednesday there was no need to vote on legislation calling for the release of the Epstein files this week because the Trump administration is 'already doing everything within their power to release them.' Yet Democrats have delighted this week in pressing Republicans to support the release of the files. Their efforts halted the GOP's legislative agenda for the week and turned attention to an issue that Trump has unsuccessfully implored his supporters to forget about. 'They're fleeing our work, our job and sending us back home because they don't want to vote to release these files. This is something that they ran on. This is something that they talked about: the importance of transparency, holding pedophiles accountable,' Lee said. Democratic leaders are hoping to make the issue about much more than just Epstein, who died in his New York jail cell six years ago while he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges. 'Why haven't Republicans released the Epstein files to the American people? It's reasonable to conclude that Republicans are continuing to protect the lifestyles of the rich and the shameless, even if that includes pedophiles,' said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries at a news conference. 'So it's all connected.' It comes as both parties are gearing up to take their messaging to voters on Trump's big multitrillion-dollar tax breaks and spending cuts bill. For Republicans, it's 'beautiful' legislation that will spark economic growth; for Democrats, it's an 'ugly' gift mostly to the richest Americans that undermines health care for low-income people. Yet as furor has grown on the right over the Trump administration's reversal on promises related to Epstein, several Democrats have seized on the opportunity to divide Republicans on the issue. 'This goes to a fundamental sense of, 'Is our government co-opted by rich and powerful people that isn't looking out for ordinary Americans? Or can we have a government that looks out for ordinary Americans?'' said Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who has put forward a bipartisan bill meant to force release of the files. Republican leaders accuse Democrats of caring about the issue purely for political gain. They point out that the Department of Justice held on to the Epstein investigation through the presidency of Democrat Joe Biden. Trump's Justice Department is also seeking the release of testimony from secret grand jury proceedings in the Epstein case, though that effort is unlikely to produce new revelations. The House Oversight Committee, with support from Republicans, also advanced Tuesday a subpoena for Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, for a deposition. However, those lawmakers who want Congress to take a stronger role in the Epstein files have cautioned that Maxwell, who is serving a prison sentence for helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls, may be an unreliable witness. 'It's a good idea, but it's not enough. It's not nearly enough,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has pushed the bipartisan bill to pry the records from the Justice Department.
