Trump's Reason For Not Ending Ukraine War In 24 Hours Brutally Mocked
President Donald Trump had to admit his failure to fulfill one of his most popular ― and ludicrous ― campaign promises on Wednesday.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours and even told Fox News' Sean Hannity he was '100% sure' he could keep that promise.
However, despite Trump's subsequent election and inauguration in January, the war between Russia and Ukraine has continued with no real end in sight.
Trump didn't have a decent answer on Wednesday when Austrian reporter Johannes Petrov noted, 'You once said that you would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. You later said you said that sarcastically.'
'Of course I said that sarcastically,' Trump replied, which prompted Petrov to ask, 'But you've been in office for five months and five days, why have you not been able to end the Ukraine war?'
At first, Trump admitted that ending geopolitical conflicts between rival countries is 'more difficult than people would have any idea.'
He also played the blame game.
'Vladimir Putin has been more difficult,' he said about the Russian president. 'Frankly, I had some problems with [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy, you may have read about them. And it's been more difficult than other wars,' Trump said, before listing the various wars he's had an easier time 'ending.'
Here's a clip of the exchange.
Reporter: 'You once said you would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours… You've now been in office for five months and five days. Why have you not been able to end the Ukraine war?'Trump: 'Because it's more difficult than people would have any idea.' pic.twitter.com/lqs2KdLxmL
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) June 25, 2025
Of course, people on social media had thoughts about Trump's inability to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours.
And, yes, there was snark. Lots and lots of snark.
Trump being called out on lie, blames everyone else lol
— Gamecock Joe- Beamer Train!! GTF ON or STFU (@joeblowgamecock) June 25, 2025
Trump was humiliated in front of the entire world when ask about his promise to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
— Brad (@BraddrofliT) June 25, 2025
No way https://t.co/C9xpBLHAhE
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) June 25, 2025
'It's more difficult than people would have any idea, because my boss won't like it if I lean in on Ukraine's side to pressure him to stop fighting a war he still wants to win. My hands are tied.' https://t.co/JuJEVzuVp9
— Rick Petree (@RickPetree) June 25, 2025
pic.twitter.com/iYKjtgcB20
— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) June 25, 2025
It's The Art of the Con. pic.twitter.com/Hs1PpOWMsB
— Ashik (@AshikJ) June 25, 2025
Anyone checked on the pets in Springfield Ohio?
— Travis Matthew (@Matthewtravis08) June 25, 2025
Who knew healthcare was so complicated?
— 𝕊𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕖_𝔾𝕦𝕣𝕝 (@SundaeDivine) June 25, 2025
Trump in 2017 when it was clear he couldn't repeal and replace Obamacare like he promised: "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated."Trump today on why he failed to end the Russia/Ukraine war: "It's more difficult than people would have any idea."I sense a pattern. https://t.co/N7Fcs8mzy7
— Biscuit Salad (@BiscuitSalad) June 25, 2025
No. We all KNEW it was more difficult than HE was saying it was. He was BSing the voters about it and MAGA just swallowed that nonsense down whole and bought the lie.He should know this as a CEO: if you're not smart enough to do the job, you should be let go immediately.
— John Rocha (@TheRochaSays) June 25, 2025
Putin Is Still Attacking Ukraine, But NATO's Bigger Problem Is Mollifying Trump
NATO Chief Says Alliance Still Strongly Backing Ukraine ― Even As Trump Backs Away
How The Israel-Iran Conflict Could Impact The Ukraine War
Trump Says It May Be Better To Let Ukraine, Russia 'Fight For A While'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is getting more expensive as the world's attention is on Iran
The long-awaited summer collision course for President Trump's economic agenda is here and now competing for attention with geopolitics. The competing storylines are playing out — just in parallel — after a weekend where the president's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" saw a new, higher price tag and the removal of key provisions in developments that were fully overshadowed by a weekend attack on Iran. Trump's priorities for taxes and the debt ceiling — not to mention tariffs — still face key deadlines in the weeks ahead, even as foreign affairs take center stage. On Saturday evening, shortly after the attacks on Iran commenced, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) even released an analysis that made official how recent Senate changes to Trump's tax-cut bill are likely to increase the package's price tag by hundreds of billions of dollars. The group found that the Senate's changes on the tax front — once economists untangled a key budget gimmick — mean the bill will potentially add about $4.2 trillion to the deficits in the years ahead if passed as is. The bill is also undergoing a close examination by the Senate parliamentarian, who is moving section by section and has already deemed some provisions — such as defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and making cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — are not in line with Senate reconciliation rules. More changes are likely coming this week that could further increase the price tag and political pressure, even as key Republicans are still saying they will vote no, throwing into doubt a GOP goal of final votes within days. It all could also have near-term economic impacts. Wells Fargo head of global fixed income strategy Brian Rehling said in a recent Yahoo Finance appearance that developments in the bill could be "more consequential" to things like interest rates for the time being over even signals from the Federal Reserve. These developments come just weeks before Trump and the Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill signed into law by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that means the Senate will need to pass this bill this week to keep the timeline on pace. The weekend's Joint Committee on Taxation analysis focused specifically on the Senate Finance Committee's tax proposals and offered a headline number that would appear to be good news for fiscal hawks: It found the projected cost of the revised bill comes to about $441 billion over the coming decade. But that calculation came from an accounting maneuver known as a "current policy" baseline, which allows the bill to be calculated assuming current tax levels stay the same. That means Congress can say the cost of extending expiring provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is free, at least for accounting purposes. Republicans defend the practice, with Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo offering that it "more accurately reflects reality." But the bottom line is that these zeroed-out tax extensions are projected to add about $3.8 trillion to the national debt, versus the scenario of Congress doing nothing. "Ignore the $441 number, which is both trying to hide the cost of extensions and gimmick some specific policies to make them look cheaper," offered Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget following the release. Andrew Lautz of the Bipartisan Policy Center also offered a detailed breakdown of the differences brought by the assumptions, such as how it makes the approximately $2.1 trillion in costs from extending individual tax rate cuts look like they instead come to $83 billion. Goldwein, Lautz, and others say the full price tag that should be considered is the total impact to the nation's debt of $4.2 trillion over the next decade. The new price tag projections also come as Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is going through the bill line by line to see if it complies with the Senate's strict reconciliation rules. It's part of a wonky Senate process known colloquially as a "Byrd bath," after a rule enshrined by Robert Byrd of West Virginia, that sets limits on what can be fast-tracked and what is subject to the normal 60-vote threshold. MacDonough has already analyzed the Banking, Commerce, Judiciary, and Homeland Security committee portions of the bill and found a series of provisions that must be taken out. So far, pieces that appear set to be removed from the bill include one that would have placed a funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and others that cut the SNAP program. The apparent removal of cuts to the SNAP program around state matching funds could have a significant fiscal impact. Those provisions were previously estimated to save roughly $128 billion. One other closely watched provision by the tech community — to cut broadband funding for states that regulate artificial intelligence — has been allowed to stay in but still faces political opponents pushing to have it struck from the package. It's a series of rulings that Republicans contend aren't yet final but appear set to change the makeup of the overall package. "The Byrd Rule is enshrined in law for a reason, and Democrats are making sure it is enforced," Oregon's Jeff Merkley, the top Democratic senator on the Budget Committee, said in a statement. Even more significant changes could be coming in the days ahead, with the parliamentarian scheduled to take a pass at the Senate Finance Committee's portion of the bill. That's where the biggest ticket items reside, such as tax provisions and Medicaid cuts. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CIA director says Iran's nuclear sites 'severely damaged'
The head of the CIA has said US strikes "severely damaged" Iran's nuclear facilities and set them back years, diverging from a leaked intelligence report that angered President Donald Trump by downplaying the raid's impact. John Ratcliffe, the US spy agency's director, said key sites had been destroyed, though he stopped short of declaring that Iran's nuclear programme had been eliminated outright. It comes a day after a leaked preliminary assessment from a Pentagon intelligence agency suggested core components of Iran's nuclear programme remained intact after the US bombings. President Trump again maintained the raid had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities. The Republican president took to social media on Wednesday to post that the "fake news" media had "lied and totally misrepresented the facts, none of which they had". He said Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth and other military officials would hold an "interesting and irrefutable" news conference on Thursday at the Pentagon "in order to fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots". It came as Israel and Iran seemed to honour a fragile ceasefire that Trump helped negotiate this week on the 12th day of the war. Speaking at The Hague where he attended a Nato summit on Wednesday, Trump said of the strikes: "It was very severe. It was obliteration." He also said he would probably seek a commitment from Iran to end its nuclear ambitions at talks next week. Iran has not acknowledged any such negotiations. But US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff told US network NBC there has been direct and indirect communication between the countries. Ratcliffe's statement said the CIA's information included "new intelligence from an historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years". Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has also come out in support of Trump's assessment on the damage to Iranian nuclear facilities. "If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordo, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do," she wrote on X. The US operation involved 125 military aircraft, targeting the three main Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. New satellite images show six craters clustered around two entry points at Fordo, with similar craters spotted at Isfahan. But it is unclear if the nuclear facilities located deep underground were wiped out. A report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency was leaked to US media on Tuesday, estimating that the US bombing had set back Iran's nuclear programme "only a few months". The US defence secretary said that assessment was made with "low confidence". How much does leaked US report on Iran's nuclear sites tell us? Satellite images reveal new signs of damage at Iranian nuclear sites Make Iran Great Again? 'Tehrangeles' community in LA reflects on US strikes Officials familiar with the evaluation cautioned it was an early assessment that could change as more information emerges. The US has 18 intelligence agencies, which sometimes produce conflicting reports based on their mission and area of expertise. UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said on Wednesday that there is a chance Tehran moved much of its highly enriched uranium elsewhere as it came under attack. But Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told Al Jazeera on Wednesday: "Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that's for sure." He did not elaborate. A report by the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission said the strike on Fordo "destroyed the site's critical infrastructure". The damage across all the sites, the report said, has pushed Iran's timeline for nuclear weapons back by "many years". Yet Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to the chairman of the Iranian parliament, said shortly after the US strikes that "no irreversible damage was sustained" at Fordo. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear programme is peaceful. US intelligence agencies have previously said Tehran was not actively building atomic weapons.
Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The US and Iran have had bitter relations for decades. After the bombs, a new chapter begins.
A B-2 bomber arrived at Whiteman Air Force Base Mo., on Sunday, the same aircraft used to carry out the US's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend. David Smith/Associated Press This change of tone, however fleeting, came after the intense U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear-development sites this week, Iran's retaliatory yet restrained attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar and the The U.S. attack on three targets inflicted serious damage but did not destroy them, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Here are some questions and answers about the long history of bad blood between the two countries: Advertisement Why did Trump offer blessings all around? In the first blush of a ceasefire agreement, even before Israel and Iran appeared to be fully on board, Trump exulted in the achievement. 'God bless Israel,' he posted on social media. 'God bless Iran.' He wished blessings on the Middle East, America and the world, too. When it became clear that all hostilities had not immediately ceased after all, he took to swearing instead. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f— they're doing,' he said on camera. Advertisement In that moment, Trump was especially critical of Israel, the steadfast U.S. ally, for seeming less attached to the pause in fighting than the country that has been shouting 'Death to America' for generations and is accused of trying to assassinate him. Why did U.S.-Iran relations sour in the first place? In two words, Operation Ajax. That was the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA, with British support, that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and handed power to the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Western powers had feared the rise of Soviet influence and the nationalization of Iran's oil industry. The shah was a strategic U.S. ally who repaired official relations with Washington. But grievances simmered among Iranians over his autocratic rule and his bowing to America's interests. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, with a heavy escort, as he entered a car to leave the airport in Tehran in 1979 after arriving back in the country. FY/Associated Press All of that boiled over in 1979 when the shah fled the country and the theocratic revolutionaries took control, imposing their own hard line. How did the Iranian revolution deepen tensions? Profoundly. On Nov. 4, 1979, with anti-American sentiment at a fever pitch, Iranian students took 66 American diplomats and citizens hostage and held more than 50 of them in captivity for 444 days. It was a humiliating spectacle for the United States and President Jimmy Carter, who ordered a secret rescue mission months into the Iran hostage crisis. In Operation Eagle Claw, eight Navy helicopters and six Air Force transport planes were sent to rendezvous in the Iranian desert. A sand storm aborted the mission and eight service members died when a helicopter crashed into a C-120 refueling plane. FILE - Remains of a burned-out U.S. helicopter lis photographed in the eastern desert region of Iran, April 27,1980, one day after an abortive American commando raid to free the U.S. Embassy hostages. (AP Photo, File) Uncredited/Associated Press Diplomatic ties were severed in 1980 and remain broken. Iran released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981. That was just long enough to ensure that Carter, bogged in the crisis for over a year, would not see them freed in his term. Advertisement Was this week's U.S. attack the first against Iran? No. But the last big one was at sea. On April 18, 1988, the U.S. Navy sank two Iranian ships, damaged another and destroyed two surveillance platforms in its largest surface engagement since World War II. Operation Praying Mantis was in retaliation against the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf four days earlier. Ten sailors were injured and the explosion left a gaping hole in the hull. Did the U.S. take sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Not officially, but essentially. The U.S. provided economic aid, intelligence sharing and military-adjacent technology to Iraq, concerned that an Iranian victory would spread instability through the region and strain oil supplies. Iran and Iraq emerged from the 1980-1988 war with no clear victor and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, while U.S.-Iraq relations fractured spectacularly in the years after. What was the Iran-Contra affair? An example of U.S.-Iran cooperation of sorts — an illegal, and secret, one until it wasn't. Retired Air Force Major Gen. Richard Secord recieved some advice from his attorney Thomas Green while testifying on Capitol Hill before a congressional committee holding hearings on the Iran-Contra affair, in 1987, LANA HARRIS/Associated Press Not long after the U.S. designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 — a status that remains — it emerged that America was illicitly selling arms to Iran. One purpose was to win the release of hostages in Lebanon under the control of Iran-backed Hezbollah. The other was to raise secret money for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua in defiance of a U.S. ban on supporting them. President Ronald Reagan fumbled his way through the scandal but emerged unscathed — legally if not reputationally. How many nations does the U.S. designate as state sponsors of terrorism? Only four: Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria. The designation makes those countries the target of broad sanctions. Syria's designation is being reviewed in light of the fall of Bashar Assad's government. Advertisement Where did the term 'Axis of Evil' come from? From President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address. He spoke five months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the year before he launched the invasion of Iraq on the wrong premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He singled out Iran, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq and said: 'States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.' In this January 2002 photo, former President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" during his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill. DOUG MILLS/Associated Press In response, Iran and some of its anti-American proxies and allies in the region took to calling their informal coalition an Axis of Resistance at times. What about those proxies and allies? Some, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are degraded due to Israel's fierce and sustained assault on them. In Syria, Assad fled to safety in Moscow after losing power to rebels once tied to Islamic State terrorism but now cautiously welcomed by Trump. In Yemen, Houthi rebels who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and pledge common cause with Palestinians have been bombed by the U.S. and Britain. In Iraq, armed Shia factions controlled or supported by Iran still operate and attract periodic attacks from the United States. What about Iran's nuclear program? In 2015, President Barack Obama and other powers struck a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear development in return for the easing of sanctions. Iran agreed to get rid of an enriched uranium stockpile, dismantle most centrifuges and give international inspectors more access to see what it was doing. This image released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency shows President Hassan Rouhani has he listened to explanations on new nuclear achievements at a ceremony to mark "National Nuclear Day," in Tehran in April 2018. Uncredited/Associated Press Trump assailed the deal in his 2016 campaign and scrapped it two years later as president, imposing a 'maximum pressure' campaign of sanctions. He argued the deal only delayed the development of nuclear weapons and did nothing to restrain Iran's aggression in the region. Iran's nuclear program resumed over time and, according to inspectors, accelerated in recent months. Advertisement Trump's exit from the nuclear deal brought a warning from Hassan Rouhani, then Iran's president, in 2018: 'America must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace. And war with Iran is the mother of all wars.' How did Trump respond to Iran's provocations? In January 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top commander, when he was in Iraq. Then Iran came after him, according to President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland. Days after Trump won last year's election, the Justice Department filed charges against an Iranian man believed to still be in his country and two alleged associates in New York. Coffins of Gen. Qassem Soleimani and others who were killed in Iraq by a US drone strike were carried on a truck surrounded by mourners, in the city of Kerman, Iran, in January 2020. Uncredited/Associated Press 'The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran's assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump,' Garland said. Now, Trump is seeking peace at the table after ordering bombs dropped on Iran, and offering blessings. It is potentially the mother of all turnarounds.
