logo
White House hasn't ruled out Zelensky being in Alaska during Trump-Putin meeting on Friday

White House hasn't ruled out Zelensky being in Alaska during Trump-Putin meeting on Friday

CNNa day ago
A diplomatic scramble unfolded Saturday after President Donald Trump announced he would meet his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, next week in Alaska, as European leaders rushed to understand the terms of the meeting and ensure Ukraine was not being left out of discussions about its future.
In the English countryside Saturday, European officials presented their case to Vice President JD Vance in a hastily arranged meeting. The leaders of several European nations said afterward that while they supported Trump's diplomatic efforts, any peace talks must be preceded by a ceasefire and Ukraine itself must be actively involved.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not named as a participant in the Alaska summit, to take place Friday between Trump and Putin. However, the White House has not completely ruled out including Zelensky in some meetings, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. One White House official stressed that anything involving Zelensky would likely happen after the Trump-Putin meeting.
The summit has come together very quickly, and details are still in flux. An exact location has yet to be announced.
A White House official said Trump remained 'open to a trilateral summit with both leaders' but that 'the White House is planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin.'
Since Trump unveiled plans to meet with Putin in a post to social media Friday, there has been an intensive diplomatic effort behind the scenes to get US allies on board.
Trump's announcement notably did not say whether or when Zelensky would be included in the process. Zelensky and European leaders, meanwhile, have been emphatic that Ukraine needs to be part of any discussions about ending the war.
In the Saturday meeting hosted by Vance at the manor home of the British foreign secretary, European officials laid out their terms and sought more information from US officials about the plan Putin presented Wednesday to US envoy Steve Witkoff.
They emphasized a number of points, Western officials said: that Ukraine must be involved in the talks, that a ceasefire is in place before other steps are taken, and that if Ukraine makes territorial concessions, Russia must also concede land it currently occupies.
A statement afterward from the leaders of France, Italy, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Finland said the group welcomed 'President Trump's work to stop the killing in Ukraine, end the Russian Federation's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace and security for Ukraine.'
But it spelled out terms of a peace plan that appeared to differ from the one Putin has put forward, in which he is seeking significant territorial concessions, according to Western officials.
'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine,' the joint statement read. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.'
The statement also said any diplomatic agreement to end the war must include 'robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.'
The terms amounted to an attempt by European leaders to scramble a response to the rapidly unfolding diplomacy, which was set in motion this week with Witkoff's meeting in Moscow.
Pressed by reporters for details on the contours of a deal, Trump indicated Friday that it could include 'some swapping of territories.'
The way the Europeans understand it, Putin presented a proposal that would require Ukraine to give over the entire eastern Donbas region, which Russia partially occupies. But the exact contours of the plan remained somewhat unclear, even after several follow-up phone conversations between the Europeans and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Witkoff.
The fate of the two other regions that have been in Moscow's sights — Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which Russia only partially occupies — wasn't clear. Nor was the status of US security guarantees going forward, the officials said.
That has left European leaders, who have expressed concern about the possibility of Ukraine ceding territory, rushing to get more details on what a ceasefire would entail.
To allay some of those concerns, Vance convened the hourslong meeting Saturday with UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and European and Ukrainian officials to lay out the US' view of negotiations, as well as American officials' understanding of Russia's stance. Witkoff attended the meeting virtually.
A US official told CNN that 'significant progress' was made, but it is still unclear whether there is European or Ukrainian buy-in heading into Friday's critical meeting.
After Saturday's meeting, Zelensky said he believed the US was listening.
'Our arguments are being heard. The dangers are being taken into account,' he said in an address.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The American Fighting to Pry His Company Back From the Kremlin's Grasp
The American Fighting to Pry His Company Back From the Kremlin's Grasp

Wall Street Journal

time2 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

The American Fighting to Pry His Company Back From the Kremlin's Grasp

American businessman Leonid Smirnov first got the feeling that something was off when local Russian newspapers began airing rumors that the government was looking at taking over his company, the biggest producer of canned goods in the country. It was only when he received a phone call from an employee at 3:30 a.m. at his Los Angeles residence last October that he found out for sure that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the nationalization of Glavprodukt. His was the first U.S.-owned company to fall victim to what is now a mounting wave of Kremlin business seizures.

Decade-old photo misrepresented as South Korean reaction to Trump's tariffs
Decade-old photo misrepresented as South Korean reaction to Trump's tariffs

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Decade-old photo misrepresented as South Korean reaction to Trump's tariffs

An old photo of a crowd celebrating former South Korean leader Park Geun-hye's impeachment has resurfaced in social media posts falsely claiming it shows the public's reaction to Donald Trump saying the United States will impose a 15 percent tariff on the country's goods. The photo -- juxtaposed next to an image of a 2007 protest against a proposed free trade agreement between Seoul and Washington -- was taken nearly a decade before Trump's tariff announcement. The photo of a joyous crowd, superimposed with Korean-language text that reads "Response to 15 percent tariffs", was shared on Facebook on August 7, 2025. The photo is contrasted with an image of a protest, which is labelled "Response to 0 percent tariffs". The comparison circulated after Trump's July 30 announcement of a 15 percent tariff on South Korean imports -- below a 25 percent tariff that the US president had threatened earlier -- after extensive trade negotiations with Seoul (archived link). South Korean President Lee Jae Myung of the centre-left Democratic Party called the agreement the "first major trade challenge" since his administration came into power in June after the impeachment of Yook Suk Yeol from the conservative People Power Party (archived link). Opinion polling shows that a significant proportion of South Koreans believed Lee had fared well in negotiations, crediting him with avoiding a collapse in trade talks and preventing even harsher measures (archived link). The image comparison was also shared in similar posts elsewhere on Facebook and Threads, as well as on right-wing forum Ilbe. "That's why we say leftists are brain-dead," read a comment on one of the posts. Another said: "What are those people thinking?" But the image comparison misleadingly uses a photo unrelated to any trade agreement between Washington and Seoul. Impeachment rally A reverse image search on Google found the photo of the celebrating crowd in a report published by The Korea Economic Daily on December 10, 2016 -- nearly a decade before Trump's tariff demands (archived link). According to its caption, the photo shows citizens cheering the impeachment of then-president Park Geun-hye, who was embroiled in a corruption scandal (archived link) The photo was taken shortly after lawmakers passed the impeachment bill, following months of peaceful mass protests calling for Park's removal. A reverse image search of the protest photo used in the false posts led to an article published in left-wing online newspaper Newscham on January 16, 2007 (archived link). Its caption says it shows protesters in Seoul rallying against the US-Korea free trade agreement (FTA), which was signed later that year (archived link). Opponents of the FTA feared it would flood the Korean market with cheap US agricultural products, threatening the livelihoods of domestic farmers (archived link). Lee and his administration are frequent targets of disinformation online, which AFP has debunked multiple times.

The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom
The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom

CNN

time32 minutes ago

  • CNN

The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom

Lawyers for President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to face off Monday to determine whether the president violated a 147-year-old law when he deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles – against the wishes of the Democratic governor. In June, as hundreds of people gathered in Los Angeles to protest a string of immigration raids that targeted workplaces and left dozens of people detained or deported, the president federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objection of Newsom and local officials, who said the deployment would only cause further chaos. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can't enforce US laws. The president's lawyers said in a court filing that the duties of the National Guard troops and a handful of Marines also dispatched were narrowly circumscribed: They were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel, and they didn't engage in any law enforcement activities. Newsom filed a lawsuit June 9 against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying they violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment. Trump's lawyers say the act, which prevents the use of the military for enforcing laws, doesn't provide a mechanism for a civil lawsuit. But Newsom's lawyers have argued the president illegally made an 'unprecedented power grab' – and even violated the Constitution – by overruling local authorities to send in the military. The president and Hegseth 'have overstepped the bounds of law and are intent on going as far as they can to use the military in unprecedented, unlawful ways,' Newsom's lawyers say in a complaint. The trial represents a crucial moment for determining how much power a US president can lawfully exercise over the military on domestic soil. During his first term, Trump had often speculated openly about the possibility of deploying the military on American soil, whether to suppress protests or combat crime. Now he's talking about deploying the National Guard to the nation's capital over recent high-profile crimes. The trial also represents an escalation of the feud between Trump and Newsom, which saw the president threaten to have the Democratic governor arrested during the Los Angeles protests. Newsom described the comment as 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The judge set to preside over the bench trial, Charles R. Breyer, previously granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, ruling that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard and that the protests didn't amount to an insurrection. But just hours later, an appeals court paused his ruling, allowing the deployment to continue. Here's more on what to know about the upcoming trial – and the three laws Newsom's team says Trump and Hegseth violated. The trial is taking place in San Francisco, presided over by Breyer, who sits on the US District Court for the Northern District of California, with proceedings scheduled from Monday to Wednesday. At the center of the legal proceedings is the Posse Comitatus Act, which largely prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent law and policy organization. 'Posse Comitatus' is a Latin term used in American and British law to describe 'a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county,' according to the Brennan Center. The act, signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, consists of just one sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' Newsom's lawyers say the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was a violation of the act since it bars 'the military from engaging in civil law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by law,' according to the complaint. But Trump's lawyers insist the National Guard and Marines didn't engage in any civil law enforcement – and therefore didn't violate the act. Moreover, they say the act itself doesn't provide any mechanisms for its enforcement in a private civil lawsuit. Newsom's lawyers also argue that by overriding California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which governs the sharing of power between the federal government and the 50 states. The amendment says 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Trump and Hegseth's move to call up the National Guard against the governor's wishes 'infringes on Governor Newsom's role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State's sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power,' Newsom's complaint says. Policing and crime control are some of the most crucial uses of state power, Newsom's lawyers say. Additionally, Newsom's lawyers argue Trump and Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a court must 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action' that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,' that is 'contrary to constitutional right (or) power,' or that is 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.' Hegseth and the Department of Defense 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom, who has not consented to their actions or been afforded the opportunity to consult on any deployment. Such agency actions are unauthorized, unprecedented, and not entitled to deference by this Court,' reads the complaint. Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, have focused in their filing on a little-used law they cited to federalize the National Guard. Section 12406(3) of the US Code says the president can federalize the National Guard of any state in three circumstances: if the US is being invaded or faces danger of invasion; if there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion; or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The law, however, stipulates the orders should be issued 'through the governors.' Newsom's lawyers say Trump didn't consult with the governor before issuing the order. Breyer previously pointed out Trump's memo directed Hegseth to consult the governor before federalizing the National Guard – but that he didn't. The Los Angeles deployment was only the second time in US history that a president has used the 'exclusive authority' of this law to federalize the National Guard, according to Newsom's lawyers. The first was when President Richard Nixon called on the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service strike. And it's the second time since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, that a president activated a state's national guard without a request from the governor – though he used a different law to do so. Trump's lawyers say the president was unable to enforce federal immigration law 'as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property' with 'the regular forces' – so the deployment falls within the limits of Section 12406(3). With only 300 National Guard troops still deployed in Los Angeles, Newsom's lawyers are looking mostly for symbolic relief: a declaration the memorandum used to federalize the National Guard and Hegseth's orders were unauthorized and illegal. The remaining troops are stationed at Joint Forces Training Base – Los Alamitos, Newsom says, 'without a clear mission, direction, or a timeline for returning to their communities.' Newsom's team is also asking for 'injunctive relief' prohibiting Hegseth and the Department of Defense from federalizing and deploying the California National Guard and military without meeting legal requirements, including the cooperation of the governor. Finally, they ask to recoup the state of California's costs and attorneys' fees and 'such additional relief as the court deems proper and the interests of justice may require.' Trump's lawyers indicated in a court filing they plan to call as a witness Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, deputy commanding general of the National Guard. Sherman is expected to discuss the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles and their compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. Newsom's lawyers also plan to call Sherman, as well as US Army official William B. Harrington to testify about the activities of Task Force 51, the command post activated to coordinate deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also expected to testify about the federalized National Guard's activities in support of federal law enforcement officials during immigration enforcement operations.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store