If the US doesn't give Ukraine what it needs it would be a big setback for Ukraine, EU and NATO, Denmark says
U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy are expected to discuss the abrupt halt in some key U.S. weapons deliveries to Kyiv in a call on Friday, the Financial Times reported on Thursday.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report. The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment.
"If the U.S. decides not to provide Ukraine with what is needed, it would be a serious setback for Ukraine and for Europe and for NATO," Frederiksen told a joint press conference with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in connection with Denmark's takeover of the EU Presidency.
"The war in Ukraine has never only been about Ukraine. This is a war about the future of Europe," she added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Temporarily Keeps NJ Liquor Licenses—But Faces Special Rules
New Jersey granted temporary liquor permits to two of President Donald Trump's golf clubs Monday—but is requiring alcohol profits be held in separate accounts and barring their payout to Trump's companies—as the state's investigation into whether his convictions disqualify the businesses from pouring enters its second year. President Donald Trump sips a glass after making a toast at the United Nations during the 72nd ... More session of the General Assembly in 2017. (AFP PHOTO / Brendan Smialowski) AFP via Getty Images A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to hush-money payments during the 2016 campaign, crimes each punishable by up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. New Jersey law bars anyone convicted of crimes 'involving moral turpitude'—including 'dishonesty, fraud or depravity' severe enough to typically be punishable by more than a year in prison—from holding a liquor license, according to a state handbook, first reported by Forbes in June 2024. After Trump's conviction, New Jersey's Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) declined to renew the liquor licenses at his Bedminster and Colts Neck clubs, instead issuing a series of temporary permits—first for 90 days pending a hearing, then extended. On Monday, with the latest temporary licenses set to expire, the ABC issued six-month permits, letting the clubs continue to serve alcohol but requiring liquor proceeds be kept in separate accounts, banning their payout to Trump's companies and demanding extra records on the clubs' ownership, according to copies of the permits obtained by Forbes. Losing the liquor licenses would be one of the few direct penalties Trump could face from his felony conviction. 'We are pleased with this latest extension of our licenses and look forward to working cooperatively with the ABC to ensure that our valued members and guests continue to enjoy the finest services and amenities at our world-renowned clubs,' a spokesperson for the Trump Organization told Forbes in a statement. The Trump Organization contends Trump's conviction shouldn't matter because he isn't listed as a holder, officer or director on any New Jersey liquor license, according to a statement provided after Forbes' initial report. Key Background New Jersey regulators determined in 2024 that Trump holds a 'direct beneficial interest' in the clubs' liquor licenses, because he receives profits from them, countering his argument that the conviction shouldn't matter. Court records and Trump's financial disclosures show he is the sole owner of the clubs through a series of LLCs held by a revocable trust, of which he is also the sole beneficiary and sole provider of assets. The Trump Organization confirmed in an April regulatory filing in the United Kingdom that, as president, Trump retains control over his businesses. Other states, however, reached different conclusions: A spokesperson for California's alcohol regulator, for example, previously told Forbes because Trump transferred the license for his Los Angeles-area club to Donald Trump Jr. in 2017, he is no longer part of the license—even though he remains the sole beneficiary of the underlying business. The ABC does not appear to have publicly explained why it's taken more than a year to decide if Trump's felony convictions should cost his clubs their liquor licenses. Crucial Quote 'Profiting from a liquor license is a privilege, not a right granted by law,' Allison Inserro, a spokesperson for the New Jersey attorney general, told Forbes. She added the special conditions were 'consistent with the division's obligation to ensure that all liquor licensees comply with the law.' Big Number $49.2 million: That's the income Trump reported from his Bedminster and Colts Neck golf clubs in his June 2025 financial disclosure, which appears to cover all of 2024. News Peg Trump's conviction in May 2024 made him the first former U.S. president to become a felon. Surprising Fact Golf markers featuring the presidential seal have appeared at five Trump courses, including Bedminster, a potential violation of federal law barring its use for commercial purposes. Trump's Bedminster club received a 32 out of 100 health inspection score in May, the lowest grade in Somerset County, and was issued a 'conditionally satisfactory' C grade after it was flagged for 18 violations, including all three requirements in the 'food protected from contamination' category. On a subsequent reinspection, the club earned a B grade with a score of 86—the lowest score possible to still receive that grade. Forbes Valuation Forbes estimates Donald Trump is worth about $5.3 billion, with crypto making up the bulk of his wealth. Further Viewing After Years Of Lying, Trump Organization Tries To Figure Out How Big Its Properties Actually Are (Forbes) Trump's Properties Charged Defense Department $1 Million, New Documents Reveal (Forbes) How Trump Built A Golf Empire With Secret Financing (Forbes) Here's How Much Trump Received For Hosting Saudi-Backed Golf Tournament (Forbes) How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business (Forbes)
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court to weigh transgender athlete bans
The US Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to wade into the hot-button issue of transgender athletes in girls and women's sports. The court said it would hear cases next term challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female competition. More than two dozen US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned male at birth from taking part in girls or women's sports. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court's decision to hear the cases comes two weeks after it upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender minors. The Supreme Court also recently backed a move by President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the issue of transgender athletes, to have transgender troops dismissed from the military. Trump issued an executive order in February aimed at banning transgender athletes from girls and women's sports. "From now on women's sports will be only for women," Trump said. "With this executive order the war on women's sports is over." The executive order allows federal agencies to deny funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete on girls or women's teams. In a high-profile case, the University of Pennsylvania agreed this week to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights complaint stemming from the furor around swimmer Lia Thomas. The Department of Education said that UPenn had entered into a resolution agreement vowing to comply with Title IX, the federal law which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program. It follows an investigation by the department's Office for Civil Rights which found the university had violated Title IX by allowing transgender swimmer Thomas to compete in women's competitions. Thomas became a lightning rod around the debate over transgender athletes in women's sport after competing in female collegiate competitions in 2022. She had earlier swum on UPenn's men's team while undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Critics and some fellow swimmers said she should not have been allowed to compete against women due to an unfair physiological advantage. - 'Discriminatory laws' - The Idaho case accepted by the Supreme Court stems from the Republican-led state's 2020 "Fairness in Women's Sports Act." It was challenged by a transgender athlete at an Idaho university and lower courts ruled that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. West Virginia's 2021 ban on transgender athletes was challenged by a middle school student who was not allowed to compete for the girls' track team. An appeals court ruled that the ban was a violation of Title IX. "We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play," Joshua Block, a senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status," Block said. The Supreme Court will hear the cases during the term beginning in October and issue a ruling next year. cl/bgs
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Three reasons why Republicans cut Medicaid
More Medicaid enrollees are voting Republican — a result of President Donald Trump's success in wooing lower-income voters. So, why did the GOP slash deeply into the health insurance program in its megabill? Three reasons: Republicans desperately needed money to avoid a big tax increase next year, they wanted to claw back Biden-era policies GOP lawmakers say led to lax eligibility checks and more fraudulent benefit claims and they wanted to curb the Medicaid expansion enacted by then-President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats in the Affordable Care Act. The bill targets unsustainable spending by adding work requirements and restricting tools states use to get more federal dollars, not the benefits of people who really need them, Republicans said. 'We secured Medicaid for those who need it most: mothers, children, seniors and people with disabilities,' said Kentucky's Brett Guthrie, who crafted the Medicaid provisions in the House. 'Democrats continue to fearmonger and misrepresent what is in this bill.' The Republican base now includes more working-class and low-income people, many of whom receive their health insurance through Medicaid. But the traditional sentiment of many Republican lawmakers toward the social safety-net program — that it provides handouts on taxpayers' dime — has largely remained the same. That's become increasingly clear over the past few days and months as Republican lawmakers have crafted their One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The sweeping legislation — which passed Thursday and is now headed to Trump's desk — includes more than $1 trillion in health care cuts, the vast majority of which come from the federal-state health insurance program that serves more than 70 million low-income Americans. That helped create the budget savings needed to extend trillions in tax cuts a previous Republican Congress and Trump enacted in 2017. They otherwise would have expired at year's end. As Republicans began to consider their bill in January, Trump promised to 'love and cherish' Medicaid. But he ultimately embraced the cuts as necessary to get the bill passed and lobbied reluctant GOP representatives and senators to go along. 'A lot of the policy agenda of the party is still kind of rooted in a libertarian, Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan, kind of [viewpoint]' said Jake Haselswerdt, an associate professor at the University of Missouri's Truman School of Government and Public Affairs. 'The economic populism has not been fully embraced yet.' Only next year's election will show whether Republicans face a reckoning from their new Medicaid-dependent constituents. Republicans have argued that the cuts — expected to cost millions of people their insurance — were not cuts at all, but instead aim to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Conservatives have pointed to rapid spending growth and the ability of states to work the system to extract more federal dollars. 'Medicaid expenses have risen uncontrollably,' the Manhattan Institute think tank said last year in urging an overhaul. The institute's report urged reforms that would protect 'the program's mandatory acute-care spending' while going after 'expansions of eligibility and benefits made at the discretion of states.' That's what Republicans aimed to do, said Georgia's Buddy Carter, who worked closely with Guthrie on the Medicaid provisions in the House. The bill 'saves and sustains Medicaid and is there for those who truly need it,' he said during the floor debate Thursday. Republicans of yesteryear might have pursued a more direct approach, proposing to cap federal spending with a block grant or to eliminate the Obamacare expansion. Republican lawmakers did consider those options, but opted instead to include work requirements for some people on the program and to crack down on loopholes they say states and hospitals abuse to enrich themselves through more federal money. 'They have this justification of going after waste, fraud and abuse, so you could argue that the shifting politics of Medicaid did affect them,' said Haselswerdt. 'It did kind of shift the window of what was possible. But obviously the window of what was possible still includes what amounts to very sizable cuts.' Republicans say the changes are sorely needed to reverse problems that erupted in the Biden administration. They point to lax eligibility controls that saw coverage explode during President Joe Biden's tenure. 'Biden-era policies led to enormous enrollment of people not eligible and corporate welfare through Medicaid payments well in excess of Medicare rates,' said Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank. The megabill's tax provisions are costly, and Republicans needed to find some way to offset them — to both appease deficit hawks in their ranks and comply with Senate rules that require budget bills to be deficit-neutral within a 10-year window. Other entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, which both serve elderly people, were deemed too politically risky to touch. Trump has been even more adamant about not reducing benefits in Medicare and Social Security, a cornerstone of his first campaign in 2016, than he was about Medicaid. Cutting programs for the elderly is a third rail that Republicans have learned to steer clear of after getting burned when then-President George W. Bush and then-Speaker Paul Ryan tried. Republicans also largely see the two programs as earned entitlements because they are funded with payroll taxes, whereas Medicaid is still viewed by many in the party as a handout, even though most recipients work, policy experts said. 'Social Security and Medicare also clearly have a beneficiary group of elderly who are politically active, but Medicaid is politically easier to go after because you're talking about kids and poor people and people with disabilities,' said Chris Howard, a professor of government and public policy at William & Mary in Virginia. With Social Security and Medicare off the table, Medicaid became one of the only targets for Republicans to find cuts of the size they needed to pay for Trump's policy priorities. 'When you have to pay for stuff in the federal budget, there are only a couple of programs they can look at,' said GOP health strategist Joel White, president and CEO of the consulting firm Horizon Government Affairs. 'The money lined up.' Trump's remaking of the Republican Party aside, the rhetoric around the Medicaid debate was familiar to anyone who's paid attention to politics over the last several decades. Republicans said the Medicaid expansion had exploded the welfare state by allowing 'video-game-playing young men' too lazy to work to enjoy taxpayer-funded health care. Democrats said Republicans were shredding the social safety net to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would lead to a $1.1 trillion cut to health spending over the next decade and 11.8 million people tossed off coverage. The CBO does not have an updated score yet on the version of the bill that narrowly passed the House on Thursday after several health provisions were dropped, such as a penalty on states for coverage of undocumented immigrants. Recent polling shows that Democrats appear to be winning the messaging war. A poll released June 26 from Quinnipiac University found 55 percent of U.S. voters were opposed to the bill compared with 29 percent in support and 16 percent didn't have an opinion. Another poll from health research group KFF found 64 percent of U.S. adults opposed the bill and 35 percent were in favor. 'The combination of these deep cuts to food and health care, which most people strongly believe are important kinds of benefits, and the tax cuts for the rich — it's going to be very easy for Democrats to portray Republicans as the sort of heartless friends of the rich,' said Howard. White said Republicans have long had problems talking about health care, and lawmakers must keep to their message that the policy changes go after abuses. 'There are simple things they can say: 'If you are an able-bodied adult, you need to work or volunteer in your community and get educated,'' he said. White added that Republicans need to explain more clearly why the cuts are necessary to shore up the program for those truly in need and that those kicked off can obtain insurance through an employer or an Obamacare exchange. 'All members of Congress need to say what is at stake, which is the integrity and long-term stability of the Medicaid program,' he said.
