Trump Brings a Day of Historic Shame for the United States
In time, I feel pretty certain we'll learn that this ambush was planned in advance. If you watch the tape of this afternoon's Oval Office meeting, you'll see that Volodymyr Zelenskiy wasn't saying anything confrontational or disrespectful. He was explaining the history of the situation as he saw it. But the fix was in.
To review quickly: The confrontation starts with Donald Trump saying, 'I'm aligned with the world … I'm aligned with Europe.' Then JD Vance interjects with a denunciation of Joe Biden and praise of Trump for leading this round of diplomacy. Then Zelenskiy starts to explain how Vladimir Putin invaded his country in 2014, and no one did anything. Then he even said (at 2:10), 'God bless, now, President Trump will stop him.'
Then he noted the signed agreements Putin had violated and asked Vance, 'What kind of diplomacy are you talking about?' And that's when Vance delivered his lecture, after which Trump came with his warnings that Zelenskiy was 'gambling with World War III.' We all know where it went from there.
Last weekend, I went to the Principles First conference in Washington, a large gathering convened mostly by anti-Trump former Republicans. Garry Kasparov, the Russian dissident, was one of the speakers. He uttered a very simple line that chilled the thousand or so people in the room: 'The United States has changed teams.'
If anyone doubted that before this horrifying exchange Friday, it surely can't be doubted now. You had the president of Ukraine who, whatever his flaws, was representing a democracy—a struggling and imperfect democracy, for sure, but one that was invaded by a gangster regime; a country of 38 million people ravaged by a country of 144 million. He came to Washington willing to meet with a president whom he knows to be hostile but ready to sign a totally one-sided deal giving that president control over his country's mineral rights. That he decided not to sit there in silence as lies were being told about him and the nature of Putin's invasion was renamed impertinence. And in that moment, about three minutes and change into the tape linked to above, the United States of America symbolically and visibly switched from being the leader of the free world to being a partner of the global authoritarian axis.
I know; our leadership of the free world has been awfully spotty. But at least we declared ourselves to be seeking such a thing. At least it was possible for critics and dissenters to hold the United States to its words and its stated principles. No, that didn't save many lives in Iraq. But in diplomacy, it counts for something. For allies, it means that they can tune to our frequency, seize on some bedrock consistency, and foster engagement. It also means that at least in theory, and sometimes in practice, we promote democracy and liberation around the world—and that where we fail to do that, we can be rightly criticized, corrected, and on occasion, shamed.
That's gone. Now, we are in theory and practice on the side of autocracy.
Just Friday morning, Zelenskiy met with a bipartisan delegation of senators. That meeting apparently went very well. Senators from both parties praised him. Republican Roger Wicker tweeted about 'the huge step forward' represented by the meeting and the looming deal. Well, that's open to question, but at least it showed that Republican senators were ready to give Zelenskiy some support.
Later, after what happened in the White House, Wicker deleted the tweet.
And he's been one of the few courageous members of that party. Now he'll hide. But hiding is a lot better than what some of them are doing. Exhibit A, to no one's surprise, is Lindsey Graham.
Last week, Graham said to Zelenskiy: 'You're the ally I've been waiting for all my life.' Friday afternoon, he called Zelenskiy 'disrespectful, and I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskiy again.'
'Disrespectful.' Note the word. Note its focus on Trump personally; Trump's feelings. This isn't how people talk in democracies. It's how they talk in countries where the moods and whims of the Dear Leader dictate policy. And that, alas, is where we now live.
They may yet circle back to a deal—a deal that was one-sided enough that you wouldn't be thought a fool to observe that Ukraine was getting screwed, but at least it was a bridge to something better. Instead, it will be somewhat up to the public opinion of the governed to decide if our nation isn't screwed as well—for now, we're still enough of a democracy that that matters.
Whether we can say that a year from now is an interesting question. MAGA America, of course, loves what happened. Normal Earth America is appalled. Then there are those famous people in the middle. The ones who thought Trump would lower egg prices on day one. The ones who thought the businessman would bring order. The ones who have now in many cases personally been caught up in the chaos and disorder in which Trump and his co-president revel, and lost their jobs. We can only hope that, while they probably don't especially care about Ukraine, they find their president's behavior mildly embarrassing.
And I wonder what they'll find it six months from now, or a year, or two years, or whenever Putin finds the time to be right, that he'll regroup and try to wipe Ukraine off the map. Because he'll do it if he can. And the president of the United States won't lift a finger.
We'll be able to trace it all to this disgraceful moment, this day of historic shame for the United States. We've changed teams.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
31 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California City Terminates 'Divisive' ICE Contract Amid L.A. Protests
Glendale, California, which is located just minutes from Los Angeles where anti-ICE protests erupted this weekend, has decided to end a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold detainees in its jail. In a press release Sunday, city officials said that 'public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive.' 'And while opinions on this issue may vary—the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this City stands for—public safety, local accountability, and trust,' the statement said. Ahead of the unrest in Los Angeles, Glendale had come under some scrutiny over a 2007 contract to house ICE detainees despite a 2018 sanctuary state law ensuring that no local law enforcement resources are used for the purpose of immigration enforcement. In one year, the city collected $6,000 to house ICE detainees, and The Los Angeles Times reported that the city receives $85 per detainee per day. In the last week, two ICE detainees were held in Glendale's detention center, leading to an outcry over the city's potentially unlawful compliance, as the Trump administration has moved to increase the number of daily ICE arrests. But it seems that Glendale will no longer be complicit in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The statement continued, emphasizing that local law enforcement was not responsible for enforcing immigration law, and that the city would remain in compliance with the law. 'The Glendale Police Department has not engaged in immigration enforcement, nor will it do so moving forward,' the statement said. Just a few miles away in downtown Los Angeles, massive anti-ICE protests are still ongoing after immigration authorities arrested at least 44 immigrants Friday. In response to the protests, Donald Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy the National Guard, which has used tear gas, flash grenades, and rubber bullets against the protesters and journalists. The decision on behalf of Glendale is a victory for the protestors, and a clear response to the ongoing direct action in Los Angeles, as well as the Trump administration's escalating efforts to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
