Trump envoy arrives in Kyiv as US pledges Patriot missiles to Ukraine
Trump last week teased that he would make a 'major statement' on Russia on Monday. Trump made quickly stopping the war one of his diplomatic priorities, and he has increasingly expressed frustration about Russian President Vladimir Putin's unbudging stance.
Putin "talks nice and then he bombs everybody,' Trump said late Sunday, as he confirmed the U.S. is sending Ukraine badly needed U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles to help it fend off Russia's intensifying aerial attacks.
A top ally of Trump, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said Sunday that the conflict is nearing an inflection point as Trump shows growing interest in helping Ukraine fight back against Russia's full-scale invasion. It's a cause that Trump had previously dismissed as being a waste of U.S. taxpayer money.
Also, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was due in Washington on Monday and Tuesday. He planned to hold talks with Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as well as members of Congress.
Talks during Kellogg's visit to Kyiv will cover 'defense, strengthening security, weapons, sanctions, protection of our people and enhancing cooperation between Ukraine and the United States,' said the head of Ukraine's presidential office, Andrii Yermak.
___
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans are considering changes to Trump's request for $9.4 billion in spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans were exploring changes Tuesday to President Donald Trump's request to cancel $9.4 billion in previously approved spending targeted by his Department of Government Efficiency, signaling potential difficulties ahead of an important test vote. The president is looking to claw back $1.1 billion of funding authority from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and about $8.3 billion from foreign aid programs that aim to fight famine and disease and promote global stability. Congress has until Friday to get a bill to the president's desk for his signature or the spending stands. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said some GOP senators would like to see 'modest changes' to the bill. He'll need nearly every Republican senator on board to get the package approved, but some are questioning the severity of the cuts to public media and to a global health program known as PEPFAR that has saved millions of lives since it was established under then-President George W. Bush. 'We're trying to find out if there's a path forward that gets us 51 (votes) and stays consistent with what the White House proposed in terms of a rescissions package,' Thune told reporters. Republicans were expected to hear directly from Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during their weekly conference luncheon on Tuesday as the White House worked to address their concerns. The White House campaign to win over potential holdouts was already having some success. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., tweeted that he would vote to support the measure after working with the administration to 'find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.' Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she still had questions about what the administration was seeking to cut from global health programs. Other senators are worried that the cuts to public media could decimate many of the 1,500 local radio and television stations around the country that rely on some federal funding to operate. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes more than 70% of its funding to those stations. Democrats are expected to unanimously oppose the package. They see the president's request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They also warn it's absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don't like. 'It shreds the appropriations process,' said Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. 'The Appropriations Committee, and indeed this body becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.' If senators vote to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. The House has already shown its support for the president's request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but if the Senate amends the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote. 'We're encouraging our Senate partners over there to get the job done and to pass it as it is,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday. 'That's what we did.' Republicans who vote against the measure also face the prospect of incurring Trump's wrath. He has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the rescissions package. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he said. ____ Congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro and staff writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report. Kevin Freking, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
17 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Dismantling the Department of Education, Without Saying Why
The Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump to dismantle the Department of Education. But it won't say why. Yesterday—almost exactly a week after the Court lifted a lower court's block on Trump's plans to fire thousands of federal employees—a majority of the justices decided to give the president the go-ahead for a different set of mass layoffs. Last week, the Court provided a handful of sentences that vaguely gestured at why it might have allowed the administration to move forward. This week, it offered nothing at all. There's something taunting, almost bullying, about this lack of reasoning, as if the conservative supermajority is saying to the country: You don't even deserve an explanation. Whereas last week's case involved orders to lay off employees from across the entire federal government, this week's involves just the Education Department. Over the course of his 2024 campaign and in the first few months of his second term, Trump repeatedly announced his plans to close the agency. The department was 'a big con job,' he told reporters in February, and he would 'like to close it immediately.' In March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced plans to cut the department's workforce in half. Trump followed up with an executive order mandating that McMahon 'take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.' There was one minor problem with this plan: The executive branch, at least theoretically, did not have the unilateral authority to abolish the Education Department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979. A coalition of states, school districts, and unions sued, and a federal district court temporarily blocked the administration from moving forward. That court order required the department to rehire employees already laid off, pointing to both the Constitution and a statutory prohibition against 'arbitrary and capricious' actions by federal agencies. David A. Graham: What does the Department of Education actually do? In that lower court, the government argued that it sought only to improve the 'efficiency' and 'accountability' of the department through 'reorganization,' but District Judge Myong J. Joun was unconvinced. 'A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,' he wrote. An appeals court upheld Joun's ruling, freezing Trump's plans while the district court continued to weigh the underlying legal questions. At this point— stop me if you've heard this one before —the Supreme Court stepped in. Despite a frustrated dissent from the Court's three liberal justices, the majority's unsigned emergency ruling allowed Trump to carry out his plans while the litigation in the lower courts continues. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, 'but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave.' She went on: 'The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.' The odd protocol of the Court's emergency docket—sometimes called the 'shadow docket'—means that the underlying question of whether Trump has the legal authority to tear apart the Education Department remains unresolved, even as a majority of the justices have allowed him to carry out his plans. Courts—even the Supreme Court—could still find the department's dismantling illegal down the road. But in the meantime, the agency will have been devastated, perhaps irreparably. Layoffs will dramatically reduce the staffing of the already overworked Office of Civil Rights, which is responsible for ensuring equal access to education, including for disabled students. The administration will eviscerate the office responsible for helping students with financial aid for higher education; the government has said that this portion of the agency's portfolio will be shifted over to the Treasury Department, but what this will look like in practice is unclear. The cuts will almost erase the Institute for Education Science, which publishes authoritative data on American schools and has already missed key deadlines this year. Given the potentially devastating effects of the Supreme Court's ruling on congressionally mandated programs, it's all the more galling that the majority didn't bother to provide even a cursory explanation of its thinking. This terseness has become common as the Court has scaled up its use of emergency rulings—rulings that, it's hard not to notice, have a striking tendency to align with the Trump administration's priorities. Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and an authority on the shadow docket, tallied the Education Department order as the 15th since early April in which the Court has granted Trump emergency relief, and the seventh in which the justices have provided not a word of explanation. (Until recently, the shadow docket was used far more rarely, and only for truly urgent matters.) Do the conservative justices feel that the president really does have the legal authority to destroy a Cabinet department on his own? Or perhaps they believe that the plaintiffs lacked the ability to bring the case at all in federal court? Maybe the reason was something else altogether. There's no way to know. This silence is damaging, both to the legitimacy of the Court and to the rule of law. The judiciary is a branch of government that is meant to provide reasons for its actions—to explain, both to litigants and to the public, why judges have done what they have done. This is part of what distinguishes law from the raw exercise of power, and what anchors the courts as a component of a democratic system rather than setting them apart as unaccountable sages. With a written opinion, people can evaluate the justices' reasoning for themselves. Without it, they are left to puzzle over the Court's thinking like ancients struggling to decipher the wrath of gods in the scattering of entrails.
American Military News
17 minutes ago
- American Military News
Conscription age for fmr. officers may be raised to 70 in Sweden
A new proposal in Sweden suggests that the Scandinavian nation could increase the upper conscription age limit for former officers from 47 to 70. The proposal comes as Sweden is taking steps to increase defense spending amid rising tension in the region due to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. According to Reuters, investigators involved in a government-appointed review announced the conscription age limit suggestion on Monday, saying, 'The Swedish Armed Forces' need for officers justifies an extended military service duration that should apply, regardless of the state of alert, to those who were previously employed as professional officers or reserve officers.' Reuters reported that if the proposal is approved in Sweden, former military officers up to 70 years old could be recalled to service in the Swedish Armed Forces. According to Reuters, the war between Russia and Ukraine has forced the Scandinavian country to change its defense plans, ultimately leading to Sweden joining NATO last year. The outlet noted that Sweden has doubled its defense spending to 2.4% of the country's gross domestic product and is planning to increase defense spending to 3.5% of the country's gross domestic product by 2032. READ MORE: Putin drafts 160,000 men for Russian military as Ukraine war continues The BBC previously reported that Sweden reintroduced military conscription for men and women in 2017, which took effect in 2018. At the time, a Swedish spokesperson said, 'The Russian illegal annexation of Crimea [in 2014], the conflict in Ukraine and the increased military activity in our neighbourhood are some of the reasons [for the conscription].' According to Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson revealed the results of the Swedish government's inquiry regarding ways the country could expand the size of the Swedish Armed Forces in the event of a future conflict during a press conference on Monday. The outlet noted that Jonson previously announced a goal of increasing Sweden's military from 88,000 personnel to 115,000 personnel. During Monday's press conference, Johnson said, 'We are making very large investments now in military defence. Much of the focus has been on strengthened materiel supply.' 'But we will also need to continue working to strengthen the Armed Forces' personnel supply,' Jonson added.
