Trump deploys two nuclear submarines after Medvedev comments
This is being done "just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social.
Where the submarines will be sent is unclear. In his post, Trump only referred to "appropriate regions."
"Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances," he said.
Trump and Medvedev have been publicly clashing for days. The dispute began after Trump gave Russia a new ultimatum for a ceasefire or peace agreement with Ukraine, shortening the deadline from 50 days tp 10 to 12. It now expires next week.
In response, Medvedev threatened a direct military confrontation between Russia and the United States, stating on the platform X that any ultimatum was a step towards war.
He also referred to Trump as "grandpa" and mocked him, saying the US president should remember the dangers of zombies when philosophizing about the death of the Indian and Russian economies.
Trump had previously stated that he intended to impose at least 25% tariffs and a "penalty" on India because it buys a lot of energy from Russia, calling both economies dead.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
40 minutes ago
- New York Post
Miranda Devine: Russiagate lies are being exposed — and everybody is watching, even the Dems
Despite the best efforts of Russiagate-complicit media to dismiss as 'Russian disinformation' the latest revelations in this escalating scandal implicating Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the treasonous 'years-long coup' against President Trump, the public is paying attention and wants heads to roll. According to a Rasmussen poll released Monday, two-thirds of voters (65%) are following declassified releases over the past month by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Sen. Chuck Grassley 'very closely' (32%) or 'somewhat closely' (33%), repudiating the calculated media silence about the Obama administration's fake narratives and manipulation of intelligence to frame Donald Trump as a Kremlin stooge to cover up Hillary Clinton's wrongdoing. The poll of 1,172 likely voters, conducted July 29-31, shows 54% believe Obama administration officials committed serious crimes in 'manipulating intelligence,' with 37% saying it's 'very likely' and 17% saying it's 'somewhat likely.' A staggering 69% agree it is critical that the perpetrators be held accountable 'for the survival of our country.' Dems interested too Even more disturbing for Democrats is that it's not just Republicans who are concerned. The poll shows 56% of Democrats are following the investigation, 32% believe serious crimes were committed and 59% agree the perpetrators must be 'held accountable.' The respective Republican comparison is 75%, 83% and 86%. Hispanics are more cynical about the scandal than either black or white voters, with 66% saying serious crimes were committed and 74% wanting accountability, compared to 51% and 65% respectively for blacks, and 53% and 69% respectively for whites. Men are more concerned than women, with 74% vs. 59% following the revelations closely; 60% vs. 49% believing there is serious criminality; and 72% vs. 66% favoring accountability. It's a demonstration of the impotence of Democrat-allied media, like The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC and CBS, who showered themselves with praise and Pulitzer Prizes for their since-debunked stories about Russiagate and are hoping their audience is willing to be duped again. But like the boy who cried wolf, no one is listening anymore. According to Gabbard's office, ABC, CBS and NBC spent a total of 2,284 minutes covering Russiagate, yet they have devoted only 2 minutes and 17 seconds on the disclosures of the last couple of weeks. Even when they mention the story, it's to try to debunk it. Obama administration CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper and Hillary Clinton lawyer Marc Elias have fanned out across their favorite media outlets desperately trying to extinguish public interest. 'I am imploring, like honestly, I'm just imploring the media, do not report this as a legitimate investigation,' Elias told MSNBC. 'Do not report this as 'They are opening an investigation into John Brennan' . . . Report this as the misuse, the abuse, the authoritarian takeover of the Department of Justice. That should be the headline.' Hah! Too bad for Elias, it's no longer 2016. The public — and Donald Trump — are wiser and more determined to put heads on pikes. The renewed scrutiny of the 'Obama administration's conspiracy to subvert Trump's 2016 victory and presidency,' as Gabbard puts it, began early last month, when CIA Director John Ratcliffe released a bombshell review of the Intelligence Community Assessment, ordered by Obama on Dec. 9, 2016, that falsely claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump. The review found Brennan, Clapper and then-FBI Director James Comey were 'excessively involved' in the ICA drafting, rushed its completion before Trump took office and forced the inclusion of the discredited Steele dossier, over the objections of the CIA's Russia experts, suggesting a 'potential political motive.' 'Treasonous conspiracy' That ICA was the genesis of Russiagate, casting doubt over the legitimacy of Trump's 2016 election and sabotaging his first term, with Obama the 'ringleader,' says Trump, and Democrat-allied media was crucial to its success. Every week, Post columnist Miranda Devine sits down for exclusive and candid conversations with the most influential disruptors in Washington. Subscribe here! What followed Ratcliffe's bombshell was a systematic release by Gabbard and Grassley of evidence that exposed the Obama and Biden administrations' weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence agencies against Trump. July 18: Gabbard releases a declassified report that finds that at a meeting in the Oval Office on Dec 9, 2016, Obama directed top national security officials, including Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Andrew McCabe, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch and Avril Haines, to create a new intelligence assessment saying Russians meddled in the election on behalf of Trump, contradicting multiple intelligence assessments to the contrary released previously. Gabbard describes the plot as a 'treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate.' July 23: Gabbard holds a press conference at the White House to announce that she has sent criminal referrals to the DOJ and FBI implicating Obama and his national security team in 'seditious conspiracy.' She alleges Brennan suppressed intelligence showing Russia was not favoring Trump. She also releases a declassified House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report that had been withheld even from the committee. It shows that in September 2016, Russia's foreign intelligence service had obtained DNC emails showing Clinton was suffering from 'intensified psycho-emotional' and physical problems. Russian spies also had a Clinton campaign email discussing a plan to tie Trump to Putin to distract Americans from Hillary's email-server scandal. July 30: Brennan and Clapper write an op-ed in The New York Times branding as 'patently false' allegations from Gabbard and Ratcliffe 'that senior officials of the Obama administration manufactured politicized intelligence, silenced intelligence professionals and engaged in a broad 'treasonous conspiracy' to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump.' Gabbard responds by releasing a whistleblower's account detailing the pressure applied to him to agree to a bogus assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. 'I was pressured to alter my views,' the intelligence analyst-turned whistleblower claimed. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters His boss told him in January 2017: 'There is reporting you are not allowed to see, if you saw it, you would agree . . . Isn't it possible Putin has something on Trump, to blackmail and coerce him? . . . You need to TRUST ME on this.' The whistleblower tried repeatedly to report his concerns about the fraudulent ICA to multiple government officials, including the inspector general for the intelligence community and former special counsel John Durham, but was rebuffed and ignored. 'Consequences' 'There must be consequences,' White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday. 'Because, if we have a country where we can continue to have FBI careerists and CIA careerists, deep staters, who will fabricate and doctor evidence . . . to try to go after their political enemies, up to and including the president, if we continue to create the impression and the reality that there is not a criminal, a severe criminal penalty for such conduct, it will never stop,' he said. Yes, this is not about looking in the rearview mirror or pursuing petty vendettas, as Trump critics say. It's about holding the coup-plotters accountable as a deterrent, restoring the integrity of our intelligence and law enforcement institutions and righting a historic wrong committed against the American people.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Largest National Org Of OB-GYNs Cuts Financial Ties With Trump Admin
The country's largest organization of OB-GYN providers announced this week that it will stop accepting funds from the federal government. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has more than 60,000 members nationwide, will reject federal funding for all programs and contracts in response to the Trump administration's policies, Axios reported Friday. ACOG appears to be the first nationwide physician organization to cut ties with the Trump administration since President Donald Trump enacted his large-scale campaign to slash all federal initiatives for diversity, equity and inclusion. The national organization states on its website that diversity, equity and inclusion are part of the group's core values, which are integral to combating racism and oppression in medical care. The organization declined to expand on how this funding cut will impact its services but reiterated that ACOG remains committed to quality patient care and improving health outcomes. 'After careful deliberation, ACOG has made an organization-wide decision to stop accepting federal funding for all ACOG programs and activities for current contracts,' ACOG said in a statement to HuffPost on Friday. 'Recent changes in federal funding laws and regulations significantly impact ACOG's program goals, policy positions, and ability to provide timely and evidence-based guidance and recommendations for care.' The organization said it will continue to work with the Trump administration on policymaking decisions and advocating for OB-GYNs. 'We will evaluate opportunities to partner with the government in the future where our program goals align,' the statement reads. In response, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told HuffPost on Friday afternoon: 'Protecting the civil rights and expanding opportunities for all Americans is a key priority of the Trump administration, which is why he took decisive actions to terminate unlawful DEI preferences in the federal government.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment. ACOG has been at odds with Trump since his conservative Supreme Court repealed federal abortion protections. The fall of Roe v. Wade created a domino effect of state abortion bans that put pregnant people's lives in danger and threatened to criminalize reproductive health providers.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's extensive tariffs have already started to generate a significant amount of money for the federal government, a new source of revenue for a heavily indebted nation that American policymakers may start to rely on. As part of his quest to reorder the global trading system, Trump has imposed steep tariffs on America's trading partners, with the bulk of those set to go into effect Thursday. Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year. Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data. Indeed, Trump has routinely cited the tariff revenue as evidence that his trade approach, which has sown uncertainty and begun to increase prices for consumers, is a win for the United States. Members of his administration have argued that the money from the tariffs would help plug the hole created by the broad tax cuts Congress passed last month, which are expected to cost the government at least $3.4 trillion. 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
