The MAGA factions fighting about Epstein
TAXONOMY OF A MOVEMENT — It's been a contentious time inside the MAGA coalition. In the last month alone, competing factions of President Donald Trump's supporters have repeatedly squared off over the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, the 'big, beautiful' spending bill and Trump's immigration crackdown.
But no issue has exposed the underlying fault lines in the MAGA tent quite like the so-called Epstein files.
The furor has centered on a new government review of the evidence surrounding the disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, who died in federal prison in 2019 after being arrested on child sex trafficking charges. The unsigned report, released jointly by the FBI and Department of Justice last Monday, found no evidence of an incriminating 'client list' or a wider blackmail ring surrounding Epstein, and it concluded the financier died by suicide in his prison cell. Those findings ran contrary to the numerous theories — many of them endorsed by members of Trump's own administration — that Epstein kept a list of the many powerful people to whom he supplied underage victims and was murdered as part of a far-reaching government conspiracy.
The report has sparked furious backlash from various parts of the MAGA coalition, much of it directed toward Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had promised a comprehensive account of the Epstein case, and FBI Director Kash Patel, who helped popularize various conspiracy theories surrounding the Epstein case before joining the administration. On Saturday, Trump — a longtime associate of Epstein — tried to tamp down the intra-MAGA revolt with a post on Truth Social reiterating his support for Bondi and suggesting that the Epstein files had been manufactured by his Democratic opponents. Yet Trump's digital missive appears to have done little to quell the MAGA movement's fury over the controversy.
The controversy over the Epstein files demonstrates that dissonant strands persist despite Trump's domination of the party. Meanwhile, the controversy has pushed the MAGA movement to the brink of its most serious political schism since Trump returned to office in January.
The landscape of the controversy is still shifting, as different members of Trump's coalition either fall in line or fall out. But as it stands now, here is a taxonomy of the various factions duking it out over the Epstein files. For a more comprehensive list, read the full report at POLITICO Magazine.
The 'Nothing to See Here'-ers
Several members of Trump's administration — including Bondi and Patel — entered their new jobs stoking suspicion about a government coverup of the Epstein files and promising to use their new power to get to the bottom of the case. But now that they're in the government, they're claiming that they've gotten to the bottom — and there's nothing much to see down there.
That was the gist of DOJ and the FBI's report, and the message has been reenforced by Bondi and Patel in the week since. 'The conspiracy theories just aren't true, never have been,' wrote Patel — who promoted theories about Epstein's 'black book' in 2023 — in a post on X over the weekend. Bondi, meanwhile, has walked back previous comments suggesting that Epstein's client list was 'sitting on [her] desk,' claiming she meant all the files relating to the Epstein case.
The leader of the 'nothing to see here' gang is, of course, Trump himself. 'Let's … not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about,' Trump wrote in his Truth Social post on Saturday.
The Deep State Redux
Another group of Trump's supporters have revived a favorite MAGA leitmotif to explain the lack of disclosure in the Epstein case: that the 'deep state' is outmaneuvering Trump's deputies to thwart the democratic will and protect itself and its elites. This faction's most voluble mouthpiece is Steve Bannon, the de facto leader of MAGA's nationalist-populist faction, though his position has received some qualified support from other MAGA activists like Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec.
Speaking at the TPUSA summit this weekend, Bannon argued that 'you can easily fit in the Epstein situation' into the alleged history of deep state efforts to foil Trump. The lack of new information in the report, Bannon alleged, is proof that Trump's allies still do not have a sufficiently powerful foothold in the national security state and intelligence apparatus — a position that at once absolves Trump and his deputies of blame and simultaneously makes the case for extending the MAGA incursion deeper into government institutions.
Notably, Bannon has trod lightly around other conservatives' demands that Bondi, Patel and other Trump appointees be fired or step down. 'You could have [Deputy FBI Director] Dan Bongino resign, or Pam Bondi resign … but what you're going to have is turmoil,' Bannon said this weekend. 'What we want to do is not upend FBI and DOJ. We need to get to the bottom of Epstein.'
The Israel Skeptics
A slightly distinct slice of the MAGA movement has zeroed in on Epstein's alleged ties to Israeli, suggesting that Epstein's sex trafficking activities could have been part of a joint U.S.-Israeli 'honeypot' operation designed to ensnare valuable intelligence targets. Last week, MAGA media megastar Tucker Carlson released a lengthy podcast interview laying out this theory with the conservative commentator Saagar Enjeti, who pointed to Epstein's relationship with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and past reporting suggesting that Epstein may have had ties to U.S. intelligence. The implication, left mostly unstated by its proponents, is that Epstein was either killed or coerced into committing suicide to prevent details of a possible operation from coming to light.
Notably, this line of critique is emerging from the members of the MAGA coalition who most vocally opposed the U.S. bombings of Iran and who have most openly criticized the U.S. relationship with Israel. Those views, as well as their continued skepticism over the Epstein case, have brought Carlson and his backers into more or less open conflict with Trump. 'I like Trump. I campaigned for Trump,' Carlson said in a recent interview with NBC News. 'But I've got my views.'
The Lukewarm Podcast Bros
So-called podcast bros like Joe Rogan and Andrew Schulz jumped on the Trump train in 2024, but the Epstein files controversy — as well as Trump's other recent moves backing away from his more populist agenda items — seem to be giving them second thoughts. On a podcast this weekend, Schulz, wearing a tin-foil hat as a gag, accused Trump of covering up the facts of the Epstein case, saying the administration's recent report is 'insulting to our intelligence.' Rogan, meanwhile, posted this sardonic message: 'Shout out to all the people that still don't believe in conspiracies. Your ability to stick to your guns is inspiring.'
Those comments come on the heels of a handful of other criticisms that the podcast bros have levied at Trump in recent weeks, suggesting that their flirtation with the MAGA movement may be coming to an end. Earlier this month, Rogan criticized Trump's 'insane' immigration crackdown for targeting non-criminal migrants, and Schulz has gone after Trump for reneging on his campaign promises by bombing Iran and adding to the federal debt with his 'big, beautiful bill.'
Although Rogan and Schulz are, by their own admission, not diehard MAGA loyalists, their criticisms could spell political trouble for Trump, whose ability to win over disaffected but not particularly ideological young men proved critical to his 2024 victory. But the honeymoon seems to be ending. As Schulz put it last week, 'Trump is doing the exact opposite of everything I voted for.'
Team Elon
Elon Musk, as a team of one, has not passed up on the opportunity to beat up on his ex-bestie as he tries to stake out a new political lane separate from Trump. 'How can people be expected to have faith in Trump if he won't release the Epstein files?' Musk posted last week. He added: 'Seriously. He said 'Epstein' half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein. Just release the files as promised.'
Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com. Or contact tonight's author at iward@politico.com or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @ianwardreports.
What'd I Miss?
— Trump agrees to send weapons to Ukraine: President Donald Trump announced today that NATO allies will finance the purchase of air defense systems and other weapons for Ukraine, his most significant move yet to support Kyiv in a war with Russia he's long hoped to end. The weapons, worth 'billions of dollars,' will be built by the U.S. defense industry and financed by European countries, Trump said. Trump made the announcement during an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who heralded the president's decision as 'really big.'
— Cuomo announces uphill general election bid for New York City mayor: Andrew Cuomo will mount a long-shot independent bid for New York City mayor after he decisively lost a Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani. The former governor made the announcement in a social media post that showed images of him speaking with people on city streets — a seeming echo of Mamdani's popular short-form videos interacting with New Yorkers. In his announcement, Cuomo framed the race as a two-man contest with the 33-year-old democratic socialist, ignoring incumbent Eric Adams, Republican Curtis Sliwa and independent Jim Walden.
— Pentagon probes examine key Hegseth allies: Two of the Pentagon's top investigative bodies are digging into a pair of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's close aides and their role in the controversy surrounding government use of the Signal app to discuss sensitive information, according to three people familiar with the probes. The Defense Department Inspector General's office first opened an investigation in early April into whether Hegseth violated the agency's standards for sharing classified information by using the commercial messaging app to discuss active attack plans in Yemen.
— Pentagon will start using Musk's Grok: The Defense Department will begin using Grok, the artificial intelligence chatbot started by billionaire Elon Musk's startup xAI. In a post to Musk's social media platform X, xAI unveiled Grok for Government, 'a suite of products that make our frontier models available to United States Government customers.' The deal marks a significant step for Musk's AI. The South African tech billionaire has positioned his program as a direct competitor to OpenAI, which also reached a contract, in the defense and technology space.
— Texas failed to spend federal aid for disaster protection: In the past decade, as extreme weather killed nearly 700 people in Texas, the state relinquished $225 million in federal grant money that it was supposed to spend on protecting residents from disasters, federal records show. The money had come from a special federal disaster program that's given states billions of dollars for projects such as flood protection, tornado safety and the type of warning systems that could have saved some of the 129 people killed in Texas' recent flash flooding. Texas had rejected two requests from the flooded county for a small portion of the federal money to set up a flood-warning system. But Texas, like most states, has chosen not to spend a significant chunk of its mitigation grant money. States routinely let the government reclaim unspent money — or let available money go unused for as long as 20 years, according to an analysis of federal records by POLITICO's E&E News.
— Supreme Court allows mass layoffs at Education Department as Trump seeks to close the agency: A divided Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Education Department to fire almost 40 percent of its workforce four months after President Donald Trump ordered his administration to begin closing down the department. The justices, by an apparent 6-3 vote announced today, lifted an injunction a federal judge in Boston granted in May against the firings. That judge found that the staff cuts were so drastic they would prevent the department from carrying out duties mandated by Congress. He also said the mass firings appeared to be part of Trump's plan to eliminate the Education Department entirely, despite a lack of congressional authorization to do so.
AROUND THE WORLD
GROWING CONCERNS — Don't focus so much on Ukraine that you miss the severe threats to European security brewing in Libya. That's the message Italy and Greece are trying to deliver to their EU and NATO allies, but without much success.
Migrant flows from Libya are spiking again, at a time Rome is increasingly concerned about Russia's growing influence in the unstable North African nation, wielded through arms supplies and a potential new naval base in the northeastern port of Tobruk.
Athens has also sent two warships to conduct patrols off Libya in response to the migration surge and its strategic concerns that its archrival, Turkey, is working with the Libyans to carve up the Mediterranean into maritime zones for energy exploration. The zones claim waters just south of the Greek island of Crete, while Athens deems them illegal under international maritime law.
STRIKING BACK — The European Union is looking at targeting €72 billion in U.S. goods in a second round of trade countermeasures, including aircraft, cars and car parts, according to a list seen by POLITICO today.
The bulk of those exports targeted are industrial goods, totaling €65.7 billion, while €6.4 billion in agricultural products would also be hit if EU countries back the new retaliatory tariffs. The list includes bourbon whiskey, despite intense lobbying from France and Ireland to shield the drinks sector from U.S. President Donald Trump's reprisals.
The biggest line item in the 200-page list is aircraft and aircraft parts, with tariffs set to target almost €11 billion of U.S. exports — potentially dealing a heavy blow to plane maker Boeing.
SOCIAL MEDIA SHUTDOWN — The European Commission said today countries can implement their own national bans for minors on social media, in new guidelines under its powerful Digital Services Act.
The EU executive has been under pressure in recent months to roll out measures to protect minors online. National governments in France, Denmark, Spain and elsewhere have called for social media restrictions, with some criticizing the EU for not acting quickly enough.
France and the Netherlands have supported an outright ban of social media for minors under 15. Greece has said it thinks parental consent should be required for children under a certain age. Denmark, which currently helms work in the Council of the EU, is pushing for stronger EU-level actions.
Nightly Number
RADAR SWEEP
THE MONEY BEHIND THE MUSIC — If you've ever thought that the music played at your favorite restaurant perfectly matches its vibe, that's no mistake. And it comes at a price. Since 1917, public venues have had to license and pay royalties on each song they play, or they can face charges up to $150,000 per violation. Songwriters rely on these royalties to make a living, especially as streaming has reshaped the music industry. But now, some restaurants, bars, hotels are wondering if it's worth the price as the cost of licensing contracts have skyrocketed in recent years. Ashley Carman and Aruni Soni report for Bloomberg.
Parting Image
Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter.
Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas could lose political clout in census that would exclude undocumented immigrants
"Texas could lose political clout under Trump's call for a new census that excludes undocumented immigrants" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization. WASHINGTON — As Texas moves to redraw its congressional map at the behest of President Donald Trump, the White House is pushing ahead on another proposal to safeguard GOP power in Washington that could have major implications for Texas. Last week, Trump said he had ordered the Commerce Department to start working on a new census that does not count undocumented immigrants. Excluding 'people who are in our Country illegally,' as Trump declared on social media, would fulfill a longtime conservative priority and mark a reversal from the longstanding practice of counting all people residing in the United States, legally or not, in the once-a-decade headcount. With an estimated 1.7 million undocumented immigrants living in Texas, the move could have major ramifications for the state's political sway. One of the main motivations for White House officials in pushing forward a new census is the potential to reallocate political power, including Electoral College votes, from Democrat-dominated states to ones controlled by Republicans, according to two people with knowledge of the effort who were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations they were not authorized to publicly speak about. The White House also sees a new census as an opportunity to correct an overcount of people in predominantly blue states from the 2020 census, which they argue gave too much political power to Democratic strongholds. The push comes as Texas' GOP-controlled Legislature is attempting to overhaul the state's congressional lines to net Republicans up to five more seats — a process left in limbo by Democratic lawmakers' departure from the state. Blue states — including California, New York and Illinois — have threatened to retaliate by crafting new districts of their own that would kick Republican lawmakers out of power. Trump's census proposal is all but certain to face constitutional challenges and logistical hurdles, and it would require cooperation from the U.S. Census Bureau and its staff of largely apolitical career civil servants. But in his seven months in office, Trump has shown an unparalleled ability to bend the levers of power to his will and push the norms that have restrained previous presidencies. How does the census determine political power? Planning a national census is a yearslong process that typically happens once per decade, generating population and demographic data that is used to determine how billions of federal dollars are allocated and how many seats each state gets in Congress. States receive the number of districts that correspond to their total population, so that the more people living in a state, the more representatives they get to send to the U.S. House. The census headcount also dictates each state's footprint in the Electoral College, which is used to decide presidential elections and is based on how many House members a state elects, plus their two senators. Texas, for example, has two senators and 38 House members, giving it a whopping 40 Electoral College votes. This distribution has long been based on the total number of people living in a given state, irrespective of citizenship. Under the Trump-backed proposal, only those residing in the country legally would be counted. Such a change would have ripple effects across the nation. States with higher undocumented populations could see some of their congressional districts redistributed to states with fewer undocumented residents. It's not immediately clear how this would change the country's political balance. California, Texas, New York and Florida — a mix of red and blue states — are among those with the highest number of unauthorized immigrants, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington-based think tank. Texas comes in at No. 2 behind California, with 1.7 million undocumented immigrants as of 2019, according to the think tank's estimates. Red states that are home to a disproportionate number of undocumented immigrants, like Texas and Florida, could see a decrease in their counted population, thwarting their political power and throwing a wrench in Republicans' plans, some experts believe. 'I don't understand how illuminating them is going to be advantageous to Republicans,' said Jennifer Van Hook, a sociology and demography professor at Pennsylvania State University. But blue states, most notably California and New York, have seen a population exodus in recent years, primarily to Republican-controlled states. The Democrats' top redistricting organization, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, has said it expects to see California, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island and other blue states lose seats under the traditional apportionment that will follow the 2030 census. Meanwhile, Texas, Florida, Arizona and Georgia could add districts thanks to their massive population growth, the NDRC predicts, noting that Texas could see a three-seat pickup. Republicans are betting population increases in red states with large undocumented populations would outweigh the losses they can expect by not counting those undocumented residents. Referring to an overcount of some Democratic states in the 2020 census, Vice President JD Vance asserted that if the Trump administration conducted a new census, 'you'd have 10 additional Republican seats and 9 fewer Democrat seats,' forecasting states like Ohio and Florida could gain political clout. But not everyone is convinced a new census that omits undocumented residents would benefit one party over the other. Robert Warren, a demographer at the Center for Migration Studies, created hypothetical electoral maps for each census dating back to 1980 that did not count undocumented immigrants. His research found that excluding the undocumented population had little to no effect on how congressional districts are doled out. 'It wouldn't shift enough seats to make any difference, and that's been true for five straight censuses,' he said in an interview with The Tribune. Constitutional and procedural concerns Paul Mitchell, a redistricting expert working in California Democratic politics, believes that not counting all people who live in a particular state runs afoul of the 14th Amendment, which requires House seats to be allocated based on the 'whole number of persons in each state.' 'The Constitution very clearly says that apportionment is determined by the number of people, not citizens,' he said. If Trump's plan is carried out, it is all but certain to face legal challenges. Trump's firing of the head of Bureau of Labor Statistics over poor job numbers he claimed were inaccurate has disturbed some demography experts, who worry about what it portends for the accuracy of any census data obtained through atypical means. The president's announcement said the new data would be calculated from 'modern day facts and figures,' including 'information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024.' While it remains unclear exactly how this would work, Van Hook said there's been a fast-growing push to carry out an 'administrative record census.' This new type of count would use data from other federal agencies — such as tax records, Medicare records and other government databases — to create a model of the nation without a full-fledged census survey. But these databases are complex and incomplete, potentially proving inaccurate. An administrative records census could 'leave out a lot of people who are not in official record systems,' Van Hook said, including undocumented immigrants and 'people who don't really want to be found.' Even if the accuracy met census standards, carrying out such a complex new project could prove difficult before the 2028 election. 'The Census Bureau is a giant aircraft carrier, and they have to turn everything around, and it takes them months and months and months and months to do that,' Van Hook said. 'It doesn't seem plausible.' Some legislation has been proposed to ameliorate the concerns, or at least lay the legal groundwork for an unconventional quick-turn census. A bill by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, would require a revamp of the census before the 2026 elections. It would also give the bureau latitude to obtain the data through any method approved by the commerce secretary, 'including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys.' Another proposal, the 'Equal Representation Act,' would implement a citizenship question on the 2030 census and exclude non-citizens from being counted in the apportionment of House seats and Electoral College votes. A version of the bill passed the House last year with broad support from Texas Republicans but failed to advance in the Senate. This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Texas could lose clout in census that would exclude undocumented people
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
A UFC fight at the White House? Dana White says it's happening as part of deal with Paramount.
Hours after Paramount and UFC announced a billion-dollar rights deal, Dana White said he had yet to hear from his friend, President Donald Trump, on his thoughts about the fight company's new streaming home. That was fine with White. The UFC CEO was set to travel to Washington on Aug. 28 to meet with Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, to catch up and discuss logistics on the proposed Fourth of July fight card next year at the White House. Trump said last month he wanted to stage a UFC match on the White House grounds with upwards of 20,000 spectators to celebrate 250 years of American independence. 'It's absolutely going to happen,' White told The Associated Press. 'Think about that, the 250th birthday of the United States of America, the UFC will be on the White House south lawn live on CBS.' The idea of cage fights at the White House would have seemed improbable when the Fertitta brothers purchased UFC for $2 million in 2001 and put White in charge of the fledging fight promotion. White helped steer the company into a $4 billion sale in 2016 and broadcast rights deals with Fox and ESPN before landing owner TKO Group's richest one yet — a seven-year deal with Paramount starting in 2026 worth an average of $1.1 billion a year, with all cards on its streaming platform Paramount+ and select numbered events also set to simulcast on CBS. ESPN, Amazon and Netflix and other traditional sports broadcast players seemed more in play for UFC rights — White had previously hinted fights could air across different platforms — but Paramount was a serious contender from the start of the negotiating window. The Paramount and UFC deal came just days after Skydance and Paramount officially closed their $8 billion merger — kicking off the reign of a new entertainment giant after a contentious endeavor to get the transaction over the finish line. White said he was impressed with the vision Skydance CEO David Ellison had for the the global MMA leader early in contract talks and how those plans should blossom now that Ellison is chairman and CEO of Paramount. 'When you talk about Paramount, you talk about David Ellison, they're brilliant businessmen, very aggressive, risk takers,' White said. 'They're right up my alley. These are the kind of guys that I like to be in business with.' The $1.1 billion deals marks a notable jump from the roughly $550 million that ESPN paid each year for UFC coverage today. But UFC's new home on Paramount will simplify offerings for fans — with all content set to be available on Paramount+ (which currently costs between $7.99 and $12.99 a month), rather than various pay-per-view fees. Paramount also said it intends to explore UFC rights outside the U.S. 'as they become available in the future.' UFC matchmakers were set to meet this week to shape what White said would be a loaded debut Paramount card. The UFC boss noted it was still too early to discuss a potential main event for the White House fight night. 'This is a 1-of-1 event,' White said. There are still some moving parts to UFC broadcasts and other television programming it has its hands in as the company moves into the Paramount era. White said there are still moving parts to the deal and that includes potentially finding new homes for 'The Ultimate Fighter,' 'Road To UFC,' and 'Dana White's Contender Series.' It's not necessarily a given the traditional 10 p.m. start time for what were the pay-per-view events would stand, especially on nights cards will also air on CBS. 'We haven't figured that out yet but we will,' White said. And what about the sometimes-contentious issue of fighter pay? Some established fighters have clauses in their contracts that they earn more money the higher the buyrate on their cards. Again, most of those issues are to-be-determined as UFC and Paramount settle in to the new deal — with $1.1 billion headed the fight company's way. 'It will affect fighter pay, big time,' White said. 'From deal-to-deal, fighter pay has grown, too. Every time we win, everybody wins.' Boxer Jake Paul wrote on social media the dying PPV model — which was overpriced for fights as UFC saw a decline in buys because of missing star power in many main events — should give the fighters an increased idea of their worth. 'Every fighter in the UFC now has a clear picture of what the revenue is…no more PPV excuses,' Paul wrote. 'Get your worth boys and girls.' White also scoffed at the idea that the traditional PPV model is dead. There are still UFC cards on pay-per-view the rest of the year through the end of the ESPN contract and White and Saudi Arabia have teamed to launch a new boxing venture that starts next year and could use a PPV home. White, though, is part of the promotional team for the Canelo Álvarez and Terence Crawford fight in September in Las Vegas that airs on Netflix. 'It's definitely not run it's course,' White said. 'There were guys out there who were interested in pay-per-view and there were guys out there that weren't. Wherever we ended up, that's what we're going to roll with.' White said UFC archival footage 'kills it' in repeat views and those classic bouts also needed a new home once the ESPN deal expires. Just when it seems there's little left for UFC to conquer, White says, there's always more. Why stop at becoming the biggest fight game in the world? Why not rewrite the pecking order in popularity and riches and go for No. 1 in all sports? 'You have the NFL, the NBA, the UFC, and soccer globally,' White said. 'We're coming. We're coming for all of them.'
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Zelenskyy and other European leaders to speak with Trump ahead of his Friday summit with Putin
BERLIN — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday arrived in Berlin for talks with the German chancellor and virtual meetings with U.S. President Donald Trump and other European leaders ahead of Friday's planned summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has convened the virtual meetings in an attempt to make sure European and Ukraine's leaders are heard ahead of the summit in Alaska, where Trump and Putin are expected to discuss a path toward ending Moscow's war in Ukraine. Zelenskyy and the Europeans have been sidelined from that summit. German government spokesperson Steffen Meyer said the intention of Wednesday's meetings was to 'make clear the position of the Europeans.' Zelenskyy is due to meet with European leaders first, in preparation for a virtual call with Trump and Vice President JD Vance about an hour later. A call among leaders of countries involved in the 'coalition of the willing' — those who are prepared to help police any future peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — will take place last. The Ukrainian leader on Wednesday said his government has had over 30 conversations with partners ahead of the summit in Alaska, but reiterated his doubt that Putin would negotiate in good faith. Writing on his official Telegram channel, Zelenskyy said there was 'currently no sign that the Russians are preparing to end the war,' and urged Ukraine's partners in the United States and Europe to coordinate efforts and 'force Russia to peace.' 'Pressure must be applied on Russia for an honest peace. We must take the experience of Ukraine and our partners to prevent deception by Russia,' Zelenskyy said. Trump has said he wants to see whether Putin is serious about ending the war, now in its fourth year, describing Friday's summit as 'a feel-out meeting' where he can assess the Russian leader's intentions. Yet Trump has disappointed allies in Europe by saying Ukraine will have to give up some Russian-held territory. He has also said Russia must accept land swaps, although it was unclear what Putin might be expected to surrender. European allies have pushed for Ukraine's involvement in any peace talks, fearful that discussions that exclude Kyiv could otherwise favor Moscow. Trump on Monday ducked repeated chances to say that he would push for Zelenskyy to take part in his discussions with Putin, and was dismissive of Zelenskyy and his need to be part of an effort to seek peace. Trump said that following Friday's summit, a meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders could be arranged, or that it could also be a meeting with 'Putin and Zelenskyy and me.' The Europeans and Ukraine are wary that Putin, who has waged the biggest land war in Europe since 1945 and used Russia's energy might to try to intimidate the European Union, might secure favorable concessions and set the outlines of a peace deal without them. The overarching fear of many European countries is that Putin will set his sights on one of them next if he wins in Ukraine. Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from the remaining 30% of the Donetsk region that it still controls as part of a ceasefire deal, a proposal the leader categorically rejected. Zelenskyy reiterated that Ukraine would not give up any territory it controls, saying that would be unconstitutional and would serve only as a springboard for a future Russian invasion. He said diplomatic discussions led by the U.S. focusing on ending the war have not addressed key Ukrainian demands, including security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression and including Europe in negotiations. Three weeks after Trump returned to office, his administration took the leverage of Ukraine's NATO membership off the table — something that Putin has demanded — and signaled that the EU and Ukraine must handle security in Europe now while America focuses its attention elsewhere. Senior EU officials believe that Trump may be satisfied with simply securing a ceasefire in Ukraine, and is probably more interested in broader U.S. geostrategic interests and great power politics, aiming to ramp up business with Russia and rehabilitate Putin. Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine have been closing in on a key territorial grab around the city of Pokrovsk, in the eastern Donbas region comprises Ukraine's eastern industrial heartland that Putin has long coveted. Military analysts using open-source information to monitor the battles have said Ukraine's ability to fend off those advances could be critical: Losing Pokrovsk would hand Russia an important victory ahead of the summit and could complicate Ukrainian supply lines to the Donetsk region, where the Kremlin has focused the bulk of military efforts. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces struck an oil pumping station in Russia's Bryansk region overnight on Wednesday, according to a statement from Ukraine's General Staff. Ukrainian drones struck the Unecha station which supplies the Russian army, the statement said, adding that damage and a large fire was reported in the area around the pumping station. Unecha transports oil to two pipelines with an annual capacity to pump 60 million tons. The operation was carried out by units of the Unmanned Systems Forces of Ukraine's army and the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Defense Ministry, the statement said.
