Conservative Karol Nawrocki Wins Poland Presidential Election By Narrow Margin
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Conservative Karol Nawrocki has won Poland's weekend presidential runoff election, according to the final vote count. Nawrocki won 50.89% of votes in a very tight race against liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who received 49.11%.
The close race had the country on edge since a first round two weeks earlier and through the night into Monday, revealing deep divisions in the country along the eastern flank of NATO and the European Union.
An early exit poll released Sunday evening suggested Trzaskowski was headed to victory before updated polling began to reverse the picture hours later.
The outcome indicates that Poland can be expected to take a more nationalist path under its new leader, who was backed by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
30 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Column: Court says Trump tariffs are presidential overreach
The Trump administration's arbitrary moves to restructure the international trade environment to accommodate White House whims have suddenly run into reality, specifically established laws. This confrontation is still in the early stages, but it does not bode well for President Donald Trump and his ardent protectionist associates. On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade went back to basics in a decision featuring the reminder that, under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade. This fundamental power is not overridden by the ability of the president to address trade challenges in an emergency. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage,' a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. 'That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.' The ruling came in response to two lawsuits. One was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan organization, on behalf of five small U.S. companies that import goods from countries targeted by Trump's tariffs. The other was filed by a dozen state governments within the U.S. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, is coordinating the states' efforts against the administration. He has declared the tariffs to be economically devastating, reckless and unlawful. Small businesses seeking relief include an importer of wine and other alcoholic beverages based in New York and a maker of educational kits and musical instruments located in Virginia. President Trump has been basing his unilateral tariff authority on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter near the end of December 1977. The law authorizes the president to declare 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,' with the proviso that such threats must originate, 'in whole or substantial part outside the United States,' and requires the president to provide updates to Congress every six months. An incentive for this legislation was a desire in Congress to clarify and restrict presidential actions justified under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, a law which reflected the emergency leading to U.S. entry into World War I as a formal declared combatant. The immediate incentive for our nation to enter that war was the declaration by Germany of unrestricted submarine warfare. The 1917 law had been used to justify a variety of presidential initiatives, not all related to foreign policy and international developments. Declared national emergencies then still technically in effect included the 1933 banking crisis related to the hoarding of cash and gold, the 1950 Korean War crisis, a 1970 emergency related to a strike by postal workers and a 1971 emergency related to the deteriorating fiscal condition of the federal government. Key powers granted include the ability to block transactions and take control of the assets of the parties involved in the threats. This section was used by the Trump administration to justify the new tariffs. IEEPA was passed during a time of congressional assertiveness. Another important factor, no doubt, was President Carter's fixation on clear, orderly administration, which he carried to extremes. The severe national crises, traumas and wars described above contrast with today's long-term growth and prosperity, and blessed absence of direct involvement in war. The judicial veto of presidential overreach shows our system is working.
Fox News
31 minutes ago
- Fox News
SCOOP: House GOP circles wagons on Trump tax-and-spend bill as Senate seeks changes
The House GOP is quietly mounting a pressure campaign on the Senate to accept its version of President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" even as lawmakers in the upper chamber signal they'll be making changes. Tensions are simmering between Republicans in the two chambers as they work to pass a massive tax, immigration and energy bill via the budget reconciliation process. The House Budget Committee held a staff-level communications briefing on Monday, two sources told Fox News Digital, the same day the Senate returned from the Memorial Day week recess to begin consideration of the massive bill. Senate Republicans have vowed to tweak the House's offering to varying degrees, with some wanting to tackle even deeper spending cuts and others wanting to soften the blows to Medicaid and green energy subsidies. While lawmakers in the upper chamber are still working out the kinks of their approach, they agree the bill will be different. Both sources interpreted the meeting as a way to get ahead of Senate Republicans' criticism of certain aspects of the bill. Documents viewed by Fox News Digital that were handed to House Republican aides show specific talking points about the bill's taxpayer savings, Medicaid provisions and green energy subsidy rollbacks, among other topics. The document pushed back on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate that the bill would add more than $2 trillion to the deficit over a decade. "The cost of the bill ($4.12 trillion) is surpassed by the savings ($4.29 trillion) associated with mandatory spending reforms ($1.7 trillion) and economic growth ($2.6 trillion)," the document said. It suggested House Republicans assume 2.6% economic growth over 10 years rather than the CBO's unprecedentedly low 1.8%. "House Budget is desperately circling the wagons with staff and members to make sure they do not forget the fight is not over on messaging why their bill is better than their Senate rivals," one House GOP aide told Fox News Digital. "They got jammed with the Senate version in the blueprint round and are using every tool at their disposal to make sure it doesn't happen again." A senior House GOP aide also told Fox News Digital, "The Senate should heed President Trump's wishes to get [the bill] to his desk before July 4th." The House passed its version of the legislation late last month after a marathon all-night session full of debate and Democrat procedural motions to delay. The mammoth bill is aimed at permanently extending Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while also including new tax relief for senior citizens and eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages. It would also send new funding to the U.S.-Mexico border and to enhance Immigrations and Customs Enforcement while rolling back a significant portion of the green energy subsidies from the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). To save money and cut down on what Republicans see as waste, fraud and abuse of government safety nets, the bill would introduce Medicaid work requirements for certain able-bodied recipients beginning in December 2026. It would penalize states that allowed illegal immigrants into the Affordable Care Act-expanded Medicaid population while rewarding states that did not. Both the IRA subsidies and Medicaid reforms are emerging as pain points for the Senate GOP's three-seat majority. The document obtained by Fox News Digital appears to target specific senators' concerns. For example, one portion of the Q&A specifically said, "No," the bill does not put rural hospitals at risk. "The bill reinvests funds to reopen rural emergency hospitals and ensure cost-effective care access," the messaging guidance said. On the rescinded IRA funds, it said, "The bill targets unused or duplicative funds from programs such as the Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and sustainable jet fuel. These projects aligned more with ideological goals than infrastructure priorities." Another note mentioned the electric vehicle (EV) credit rollback, arguing it would "ensure all vehicles contribute to the Highway Trust Fund." "EVs cause more wear and tear due to their higher weight but pay no fuel taxes. The bill imposes modest user fees starting no later than the end of FY 2026 and terminates in FY 2035, indexed to inflation," it said. But it's not clear that senators with those concerns will heed the House's arguments right now. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told reporters Tuesday, "It's going to hurt rural hospitals in my state." Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged to reporters on Tuesday that while there was discontent over "individual pieces" of the bill, Republicans must agree on something that will pass the chamber. "Failure is not an option. We've got to get to 51, so we'll figure out the path forward to do that over the next couple of weeks," Thune said. Other senators, meanwhile, have argued they want to make deeper cuts than what the House came up with. "The House bill, they're not even scratching the surface. It's not even the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we need to do to return to a reasonable, pre-pandemic-level spending," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said on Fox Business last week. When reached for comment, the House Budget Committee referred Fox News Digital to recent comments by Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas. "Some senators will say we went too far on entitlement reform and health care and welfare, and then you'll have ... [f]olks like [Sens.] Rick Scott, Ron Johnson, who are dear friends of mine, all well-intentioned, will say we don't cut enough spending," Arrington said on Fox News last week. "Well, the fact is, you can only cut as much as you can get the vote to pass it out of your chamber. And we cut almost $1.7 trillion in spending, which is the largest spending cuts in American history by twofold." "There's always room for improvement, and I welcome that, especially on the fiscal reform side, but we've got to get the votes."
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points
Following the second round of direct peace talks with Ukraine, the Russian side leaked its proposal on how to end its war — effectively a demand for Ukraine's surrender. Yet, if the intentions of the Kremlin are no secret — continue the war until a political or military victory — getting information on what people in Russia think of their country's war and the prospects for peace is a more complicated endeavor. While those based in Russia interviewed by the Kyiv Independent share a desire for peace, they are no supporters of Ukraine and its sovereignty. Despite speaking on condition of anonymity and with the ability to freely express their views, Russians inside the country spoke along the official Russian lines — accusing Ukraine of stalling the negotiations or even arguing that there will be no peace as long as Ukraine remains an independent country. These views are in line with polls conducted in Russia, which some believe are untrustworthy. Around 64% of the respondents in Russia favored peace talks, according to a poll by the independent Russian pollster Levada Center published on June 2. However, a majority of respondents (73%) believe that Ukraine should make concessions prior to a ceasefire. Only 18% think that Moscow should agree to a ceasefire and then resolve all other issues. Read also: 5 Ukrainian regions, ban on NATO, limits on Kyiv's army — Russian media publishes Moscow's official peace demands The Kyiv Independent interviewed people with different backgrounds and views, including those who have a track record of being opposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime. They spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. One of them, a 40-year-old photographer, used to attend rallies against Putin. Yet the photographer's past opposition to Putin did not make her a supporter of Ukraine, nor did it mean she acknowledged her country's faults. In a conversation with the Kyiv Independent, the photographer expressed nostalgia for the Soviet Union and said that she believes there will be no peace until former Soviet republics are reunited under the Kremlin's wing. "Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus would unite into one country," she said. "And then there would be no more problems. And all the foreign agents would get kicked out." She also argued that "recognizing all the (occupied) territories as part of Russia is a done deal." Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimea peninsula in 2014. The Kremlin also announced the illegal annexation of Ukraine's Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts in 2022 despite only partially controlling them. According to a document leaked after the second round of talks with Ukraine, Russia is demanding the official recognition of all these annexations. Additional demands include Ukraine's neutral status, a ban on the country's NATO bid and other possible military alliances, and an official end to Western arms supplies and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. According to a source in the Ukrainian President's Office, the Russian delegation effectively showed it doesn't want a peace settlement and is simply buying time to prolong the war. President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Kyiv would not recognize any of the occupied territories as Russian. Read also: Who is Vladimir Medinsky? The Putin aide leading Russia's delegation at Ukraine peace talks Unlike the photographer, a Russian official who previously worked with Putin's aide Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation during the Istanbul talks, was more ambivalent. He opposed Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 but has grown more skeptical of Kyiv's position since then and accused Ukraine of stalling the negotiations. The official shared his personal opinion. He is not connected to the actual talks. He told the Kyiv Independent that "any negotiations are a good thing." "It's a step forward," he said. "It's better than a demonstrative refusal to negotiate. I agree with (U.S. President Donald) Trump that people shouldn't be dying. Enough already." He argued, however, that an unconditional ceasefire is currently "technically and politically impossible" because it would be to "Ukraine's advantage." He accused Ukraine of disrupting the talks, saying that it had not sent a proper negotiating team to Istanbul. Ukraine has sent a delegation headed by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to Istanbul, while Russia has sent a low-level delegation headed by Medinsky. The official claimed that Ukraine "got carried away and deceived itself with their own propaganda" and "put too much faith in their (Western) partners," the points often mentioned by Russian state TV. Putin did not attend the Istanbul peace talks despite an invitation from Zelensky to meet him face-to-face. Ukrainian and Western observers have argued that Russia is disrupting the peace negotiations. The official, who used to work with Medinsky in a field unrelated to negotiations, went on to praise him as a manager and negotiator. Read also: As Russia refuses to accept ceasefire, will Trump pressure Moscow? An IT specialist living in Russia offered a third perspective, blaming neither Moscow nor Kyiv for the war. "My attitude toward political events is similar to how I view developments on financial markets... or even like the weather," he told the Kyiv Independent. "In my worldview, what happens in all these spheres is the result of a sufficiently large number of actors and factors... rather than the result of malice, stupidity, or genius on the part of specific individuals." He said he would be calm about any outcome of the peace talks. The IT professional told the Kyiv Independent, however, that the war had had a negative impact on his life from a practical standpoint: salaries in the IT sector have dropped, there are fewer job opportunities, and there are major difficulties with accepting payments from abroad. He also said that financially he can afford not to work but has to have a permanent job to defer potential mobilization. "But in my view, neither peace nor a ceasefire in Ukraine would actually resolve any of the above problems," he said. "Once this episode of the confrontation ends, another one will just begin." He added that "the key indicator of readiness to end the confrontation is the willingness of all parties to agree on the legal status of the disputed territories." "We're nowhere near that," he continued. Read also: 'There we go again' — For war-weary Europe, Trump-Putin call yet another signal to 'wake up' In contrast with those based in Russia, Russian political exiles living abroad put the blame squarely on Putin, although they did not blame the Russian people in general for continuing to wage it. "(Putin is) continuing the war while dragging out these endless negotiations — talks about talks, meetings for the sake of more meetings — hiding everything behind vague, meaningless language, all while keeping the war going," Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza told the Kyiv Independent. Kara-Murza survived poisoning attempts by Russia's Federal Security Service in 2015 and 2021, according to Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, and The Insider. He was jailed in Russia in 2023 for criticizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine and released and sent abroad in 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange with the West. Kara-Murza also said that "Putin is playing Trump brilliantly — because if you just listen to the tone of Trump's statement, it was filled with admiration and enthusiasm after a conversation that, once again, was absolutely meaningless in substance." He was referring to Trump's statement after a phone call with Putin on May 19, during which the Russian president again rejected an unconditional ceasefire. Trump said the call "went very well" and once again refused to impose sanctions against Russia. Kara-Murza argued that Trump and Putin get along because "they have the same kind of authoritarian mindset, they share the same psychological profile." "I think Trump really wanted to rule the way Putin does — without checks and balances, without a parliament, without opposition, without an independent press," he added. "Even people who were present at their meetings during his first term have said that Trump, in Putin's presence, was like a rabbit staring at a boa constrictor. So I think Trump genuinely admires Putin — personally and sincerely — and wants to be like him." Kara-Murza is skeptical about the prospects for peace under Putin. "I'm convinced that no lasting, long-term — let alone just — peace can exist or will exist as long as Putin's regime remains in power," Kara-Murza said. He said that "the only real way to stop this war is a democratic Russia." "Only when Russia has a normal, legitimate, freely elected government that respects its own laws and the rights of its own citizens will it begin to respect civilized norms of international behavior and return to its internationally recognized borders," Kara-Murza added. In contrast with Kara-Murza, Russians inside the country who spoke on condition of anonymity were more ambivalent about Putin's role, often blaming Ukraine or both sides. At the same time, Kara-Murza does not extend the blame for the war to Russia as a whole. In 2024, he criticized the sanctions imposed against Russia, saying that only individual sanctions against Putin's inner circle were appropriate. Read also: 'Conditions for Ukraine's surrender' — Why Putin's demands for ceasefire make no sense Another Russian opposition figure, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov, is on the far end of the spectrum — he is one of the few Russians who unequivocally support sanctions against Russia and call for Ukraine's victory. He told the Kyiv Independent that "Putin wants to use negotiations to buy time, to normalize his status as a legitimate leader instead of an invading war criminal, and to distract and sideline Ukraine's allies from taking stronger action against Russia." "Putin's impossible demands have not changed," he added. "He's not offering any concessions, and Trump isn't asking Russia to make any. Despite Putin ignoring European and American deadlines for a ceasefire, the only pressure Trump applies is against Ukraine." Kasparov also said that "until there is real pressure via military aid to Ukraine and crippling sanctions on Russia… Putin will have no interest in ending the war." "As I have said from the start, the only real peace is Ukrainian victory," he added. Kasparov said that Trump "is working together with Putin to pressure Ukraine into surrendering so he can claim to be a peacemaker." "Trump gave a deadline (for a ceasefire), Putin ignored it," he added. "In their phone call, Putin spouted a bunch of garbage about plans and frameworks, and Trump just said it was all fine." Read also: Can Russia sustain its war effort as ruble plummets, inflation soars? Arkady Moshes, a Russian-born researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, argued that "there is nothing to talk about" as far as Russian-Ukrainian talks are concerned. "(Russia) is playing for time," he said. "They only agreed to imitate their participation in the negotiations because America wanted it. They want to give Trump a chance to say to his audience that he has already brokered something." He also said that Putin "is interested in continuing the warfare." "He's still driven by the thinking that Russia has material advantages over Ukraine," Moshes added. "So Putin still plays for victory and not a draw." He said Russia's maximalist demands and unwillingness to compromise show that it is not interested in peace. "This is the plan, that you come to the talks, put forward maximalist demands, and then blame the other side for not agreeing," Moshes added. After deadly Russian missile and drone attacks in May, Trump expressed strong disapproval of the latest escalation. "I'm not happy with Putin," he told reporters on May 25, adding on Truth Social that the Russian president has gone "absolutely" crazy. So Trump "faced the wall" and "had to make choices" — either to impose sanctions on Russia or not, Moshes said. But instead of actually imposing sanctions, Trump just threatened to do so without taking any action, he added. "Putin is not afraid of these kinds of threats," Moshes said. "He would be afraid of sanctions, but not of threat of sanctions." Read also: 'Trump doesn't know how to deal with gangsters' — US lets Ukraine down, once again We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
