Trump announces deal to send weapons to Ukraine through NATO
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump promised to lower energy costs – his tax bill will raise them for people in red states the most
The cost of electricity is poised to surge across the US in the wake of Republican legislation that takes an axe to cheap renewable energy, with people in states who voted for Donald Trump last year to be hardest hit by the increase in bills. As air conditioners crank up across the US during another sweltering summer amid an unfolding climate crisis, rising energy costs will become even more severe for households due to the reconciliation spending bill passed by Republicans in Congress and signed by Trump, who called it the 'big, beautiful bill', on 4 July. By stripping away support for cheap solar and wind energy production, the legislation is set to cause electricity rates paid by families and businesses, many already struggling to pay their bills, to rise by much as 18% by 2035, according to an analysis by Energy Innovation, an energy and climate policy thinktank. Household energy costs, which span electricity and gas use, will rise by $170 on average every year by 2035, the report finds, with Republican-leaning states bearing the brunt of the increases. Bills in Missouri will spike the most, by $640 a year, with the next largest increases – in Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Texas – all also hitting states that voted for Trump in last year's presidential election. Trump won the election, in part, by promising to lower inflation and cut US energy costs in half within a year. In office, he has sought to boost fossil fuel consumption while slashing incentives for clean energy projects and barring them from federal lands. 'I don't want windmills destroying our place,' the president said last month. 'I don't want these solar things where they go for miles and they cover up a half a mountain that are ugly as hell.' But the Republican bill's wiping out of tax credits for renewables will stymie wind and solar projects that are typically now cheaper than gas or coal, forcing utilities to rely more heavily on existing, inefficient gas generators, Energy Innovation said. This will push up energy costs across the US, particularly in states that have not enacted their own policies to boost renewables. 'Demand for electricity is increasing and without renewables we aren't able to meet that new demand,' said Dan O'Brien, senior analyst at Energy Innovation and author of the new study. 'We've seen US power prices generally fall over the past 75 years, but with this bill for the first time we will see sustained increases in power costs. Lower-income folks in rural areas in red states will have compounding impacts from this bill – their states voted to pass this but it will really harm them in the long term.' Environmental groups were scathing of the Republicans who voted for the reconciliation bill. 'After an election where cost-of-living was the driving issue that pushed millions of working-class Americans to check the box for Donald Trump, it's mind-boggling that Republicans just passed a bill that will raise costs across the board,' said Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, a climate change advocacy organization, who called the legislation 'one of the most catastrophic bills in a generation'. Electricity prices for American households have already increased above the rate of inflation since 2022, with a slew of new data centers for artificial intelligence helping push up overall demand for power. This trend has placed further strain upon 'energy insecure' people who struggle to meet the cost of heating, cooling and lighting their homes. Around 34m households, more than a quarter of all dwellings in the US, reported difficulties in paying energy bills in 2020. 'A lot of people are struggling and it's a hardship that's often not highlighted,' said Michelle Graff, an energy policy expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Lower-income people, as well as those who are Black, Hispanic, elderly, have young children or live in poorly constructed and badly insulated homes, are most at risk of this sort of energy insecurity. 'For a lot of these folks, even $10 extra on their bill each month will result in difficult trade-offs, such as forgoing medicines or food for their families,' Graff said. 'Increasing those bills month after month will have a big impact upon households on the margins.' Electricity price rises are regulated by the states and some jurisdictions offer help to residents struggling to pay their bills, as Maryland did last month. But such assistance is now being stripped away at the federal level, with the Trump administration seeking to eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (or Liheap), which aids around 6m US households with their bills. The reconciliation bill also deletes subsidies for the construction of energy-efficient homes and upgrades to home cooling, heating and insulation systems. 'That is a lifeline for many, many Americans,' Graff said of the Liheap program. 'There is this mismatch where the hardships are getting worse while we are cutting assistance for people to address that hardship.' Across the US, utilities have pushed for $29bn in higher rates so far this year, which is 142% more than the same period in 2024, a recent report found. At least 16 states, meanwhile, allow utilities to cut off power to people during extreme heatwaves if they have not paid their bills. Such cutoffs can prove deadly – last month, Shauna Thomas, a 55-year-old woman, was found dead in her stiflingly hot St Louis, Missouri, apartment after her electricity was halted for non-payment. 'Air conditioning and access to electricity is life-saving, but in most states there are very limited protections for these shut-offs,' said Diana Hernandez, a researcher of energy and health inequities at Columbia University. 'People are reluctant to put on their AC because of the fear of a high bill. It's easy for them to get into a debt spiral and hard for them to get out of it. This can end up as a life-or-death matter.' Extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of deaths in the US, with advancing global temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels causing longer and fiercer heatwaves. This summer in the US is expected to be hotter than the long-term norm for the season, with explosive demand for cooling causing a strain upon the grid in some places – in June, 110,000 people in New York City lost power due to a surge of electricity use during a hot spell. In the hottest parts of the US, lengthy power blackouts could prove catastrophic. If a prolonged heatwave and a blackout hit Phoenix, Arizona, at the same time, half of the city's 1.6 million residents would require urgent medical help and 1% of the population would die, a 2023 study warned. 'Climate change is upon us and as it gets hotter and hotter, there will be more hardship that people face in trying to keep themselves cool,' said Hernandez. 'It used to be that people thought about energy access in the winter months, to help keep them warm, but that has changed now. As we keep getting hotter years, this problem isn't going away.' The White House was contacted for comment.
Scottish Sun
22 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
‘Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow?' Explosive Trump call ‘asking Ukraine leader to make Putin ‘feel the pain'' revealed
BRING THE PAIN 'Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow?' Explosive Trump call 'asking Ukraine leader to make Putin 'feel the pain'' revealed Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) DONALD Trump reportedly asked Volodymyr Zelensky whether Kyiv could strike Russia's two biggest cities — if the US supplied the right firepower. The bombshell July 4 call marks a stunning shift in Trump's approach to the Ukraine war — with the peacemaker-turned-hawk now eyeing direct strikes on Russian cities to bring Putin to heel. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meet during the NATO Heads of State and Government Summit earlier this year Credit: Getty 2 Trump reportedly asked Zelensky if he could hit Moscow and St Petersburg Credit: Getty 'Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? Can you hit St Petersburg too?' Trump asked during the call, according to the Financial Times, citing two sources briefed on the exchange. Zelensky's answer was swift and direct: 'Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.' Trump, far from recoiling at the idea, backed it — describing the plan as a way to 'make them [Russians] feel the pain' and force the Kremlin into a ceasefire. It's the clearest sign yet that Trump is done playing diplomatic games with Vladimir Putin — and is now preparing to take the fight to Russia's doorstep. The White House has refused to comment on the bombshell report. But it comes hot on the heels of Trump's blistering crackdown on Moscow, including a pledge to hit Russia with 100 percent tariffs if Putin doesn't agree to a peace deal within 50 days. The Financial Times revealed that following the call, a list of long-range weapons was shared with Zelensky in Rome during meetings with US defence officials and Nato intermediaries. The weapons discussed included the Tomahawk cruise missile, with a 1,600km range, and the Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms), which Ukraine has already used to hit Russian-occupied areas — and in some cases, targets deeper inside Russia. More to follow... For the latest news on this story, keep checking back at The U.S. Sun, your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, sports news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures, and must-see videos. Like us on Facebook at TheSunUS and follow us on X at @TheUSSun
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
'We still hate it' - Trump's Nato weapons deal sparks MAGA anger
Some conservative members of Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement have reacted angrily to the president's plans to sell weapons to Nato, arguing it is a betrayal of his promise to end US involvement in foreign wars. On Monday, Trump said he would send weapons to Ukraine via Nato, while also threatening Russia with more tariffs if a deal to end the war is not reached in 50 Congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene, a key Trump ally, and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon are among those who have criticised the decision, with Bannon telling his podcast listeners Ukraine is a "European war". The White House has emphasised that Europe will pay for the US-made weapons. In an interview with the New York Times, Greene - an isolationist member of Congress from Georgia who has been one of the most loyal Trump supporters on Capitol Hill - said the move was at odds with what she had promised voters on the campaign trail."It's not just Ukraine; it's all foreign wars in general and a lot of foreign aid," she said. "This is what we campaigned on. This is what I promised also to my district. This is what everybody voted for. And I believe we have to maintain the course." I'm 'disappointed but not done' with Putin, Trump tells BBCTrump unveils Ukraine weapons plan at White HouseTrump sought to emphasise that the weapons would be paid for rather than given as direct aid, saying on Monday: "We're not buying it, but we will manufacture it, and they're going to be paying for it."But in a rare public disagreement with the president, Greene expressed scepticism that US taxpayers would ultimately avoid bearing any cost and, in a post on social media, criticised "backdoor deals through Nato"."Without a shadow of a doubt, our tax dollars are being used," she told the New York Times, arguing that indirect costs such as US training missions and contributions to Nato qualify as US involvement. "I said it on every rally stage: no more money to Ukraine. We want peace. We just want peace for those people," she said. "And guess what? People haven't changed." 'We still hate it' One former Trump campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to Politico, said Europe's purchase of the weapons "mitigates" the anger from Trump's isolationist supporters."But we still hate it," the official said. "This is not our war, and escalation isn't in America's interest." Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Trump, said on his War Room podcast that "Ukraine is getting so dangerous". "It's a European war. Let Europe deal with it," he said. "They have the resources. They have the manpower." "We're about to arm people we have literally no control over," Bannon said of Ukraine. "This is old-fashioned, grinding war in the bloodlands of Europe - and we're being dragged into it." In a statement quoted by Politico, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said that Trump's MAGA base "aren't panicans like the media"."They trust in Trump, and they know that this president is restoring peace through strength." The BBC has contacted the White House for comment. A White House official who spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity disagreed that the president's base opposed his moves. They pointed to one recent poll that suggested nearly two-thirds of Trump voters support continuing to send arms to in the Trump administration have also defended the president's decision, with Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby writing on X that Trump's "America First message is that our alliances have to be fair and equitable". "This is eminently reasonable but was treated for many years as heresy," he added. "Yet now with the historic Nato commitment we see that it can work." That recent commitment from Nato leaders to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their economic output was praised by Trump supporters on Monday, who argued that even with the new weapons deal Europe was taking on more responsibility for its in an exclusive interview with the BBC on Monday, just hours after he met Nato chief Mark Rutte at the White House, Trump said the alliance was now "paying its own bills".He affirmed his support for the organisation's common defence principle, and said he was "disappointed but not done" with Russia's Vladimir president said that he had thought a deal to end the war in Ukraine was on the cards with Russia four different times.
