President Trump gives Russia less than two weeks to end war in Ukraine
More: Putin stalls. Trump changes his mind. Ukraine targets Moscow. Latest on the war.
Trump said he will likely announce the new deadline by July 29.
"I want to be generous, but we just don't see any progress being made," he said. "It would be sanctions and maybe tariffs - secondary tariffs."
Trump on July 14 announced the United States would put secondary tariffs on countries that do business with Russia if a peace deal is not reached within 50 days, which falls on Sept. 2. Trump's new, shortened deadline would be sometime between Aug. 7 and 11.
"He's got to make a deal," Trump said of Putin. "Too many people are dying it. It's a really bloody war."
More: Russia continues record-setting attacks on Ukraine after Trump call, US arms cutoff
When Trump's second term began, the president placed equal blame on Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the war still raging three and a half years later.
But Trump has zeroed in on Putin in recent weeks as the Russian leader repeatedly rebuffs the American president's attempts to broker a ceasefire and pushes forward with drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Losing patience with Putin, Trump has accused his Russian counterpart of being open to a ceasefire during private conversations, only to carry out attacks on Ukraine afterward.
"You would think, based on common sense, you would think he would want to make a deal. We'll find out," Trump said.
Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump wants to roll back $7 billion in grants for solar projects in low-income communities
The Trump administration is reportedly considering terminating a $7 billion grant program aimed at helping low- and moderate-income families install home solar panels, part of the White House's larger campaign to claw back billions in Biden-era climate spending. The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of drafting termination letters to the 60 state agencies, nonprofit groups, and Native American tribes awarded the funding through the Solar for All initiative, part of the Biden administration's landmark 2022 climate law. The agency said Tuesday it has not made a final decision about the grants. Environmental groups say if Trump does go through with the cancellation, the effort will face legal challenges. Wiping away the grants would halt many projects before they were complete. The first Solar for All projects, efforts to install residential solar and battery storage systems for tribal communities in Montana and South Dakota, went online in October 2024. 'One in five households on reservations lack access to electricity, and this program was an opportunity to close that gap,' Cody Two Bears, the chief executive of Indigenized Energy, told The New York Times, which first reported on the cancellation effort. 'But those were just two kickoff projects to show what was coming for the next five years.' Critics of the Trump administration and climate experts said cancelling the grants, which were projected to serve about 900,000 people, would be bad public policy that hurts low-income families and the climate. 'Solar for All is laser focused on helping nearly a million low-income families afford electricity at a time when their bills keep going up,' Zealan Hoover, the EPA's former director of implementation, told The Washington Post. 'If the Trump administration is serious about energy abundance and affordability, then they should be working hard to accelerate — not terminate — these grants.' 'Solar for All means lower utility bills, many thousands of good-paying jobs and real action to address the existential threat of climate change,' Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who championed the program, said in a statement on Tuesday. 'At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong — it's absolutely insane.' In March, the EPA said it was terminating a separate pot of $20 billion in climate funding, prompting a legal challenge. In April, a federal judge issued an injunction siding with grant recipients. The administration's One, Big Beautiful Bill spending package, signed in July, repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the single largest portion of climate money under the Biden law, and ordered any unassigned funds back to the U.S. Treasury. There is an ongoing legal battle between grantees and the federal government over the fate of much of the IRA's climate funding. Grantees say much of the funds were legally obligated before Trump took office and immune from presidential action, while the administration claims it claw the funds back.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US judge blocks Trump officials from diverting disaster prevention grants
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Tuesday from diverting funds from a multibillion-dollar grant program designed to protect communities against natural disasters. US district judge Richard Stearns in Boston issued a preliminary injunction preventing the government from spending money allocated to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (Bric) program for other purposes. Twenty mostly Democratic-led states sued the administration last month, saying the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) lacked power to cancel the Bric program without congressional approval. Fema is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Neither agency immediately responded to requests for comment. Created in 2018 during Donald Trump's first term, the Bric program helps state and local governments protect major infrastructure such as roads and bridges before the occurrence of floods, hurricanes and other disasters. According to the lawsuit, Fema approved about $4.5bn in grants for nearly 2,000 projects, primarily in coastal states, over the last four years. But the agency announced in April it would end the program, calling it wasteful, ineffective and politicized. Stearns said that while Fema does not appear to have since canceled grants, states should not have to wait to sue until after they lose funding, while the cancellation of new grants suggested Fema considered an eventual shutdown a fait accompli. He also said the states have shown a realistic chance of irreparable harm if the Bric program ended. 'There is an inherent public interest in ensuring that the government follows the law, and the potential hardship accruing to the states from the funds being repurposed is great,' the judge wrote. 'The Bric program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives,' Stearns added. 'The potential hardship to the government, in contrast, is minimal.' Led by Massachusetts and Washington, the 20 states that sued also include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The offices of Massachusetts' and Washington's attorneys general had no immediate comment.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Pfizer CEO says pharmaceutical companies want to work with Trump to make medicine more affordable
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced that major pharmaceutical companies are ready to work with the Trump administration to make medicines more affordable and directly available to consumers. This move comes after Trump demanded that 17 drugmakers expand direct-to-consumer options and lower prices to match those in other industrialized countries, threatening to use 'every tool' if they did not comply. Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb have already revealed plans to offer their blood thinner Eliquis at a lower price online, building on Pfizer's existing direct-to-consumer telehealth and prescription services. Other companies, such as Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, are also exploring direct access for their obesity drugs, aiming to bypass pharmacy benefit managers. Despite potential sector-specific tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, which could escalate to 250 percent, Pfizer expects to meet its financial forecasts, though experts have refuted Trump's claims of significant drug price reductions.
