To end the war in Ukraine, Trump should treat Putin the way he's treating Harvard
But if Trump used the same punitive tactics on Putin that he continues to inflict on universities and international students in the US, Russia's war against Ukraine might be coming to an end.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Unable to bend Harvard to his will, Trump has launched an onslaught of attacks against the university. They include
Advertisement
And since the Trump administration's assault on higher education is much bigger than Harvard, Secretary of State
But it's a much different story in Trump's dealings with Putin. Even some Republican legislators who usually keep their lips buttoned when it comes to criticizing the president are prodding him to do more than say that he's 'disappointed' in Putin.
Advertisement
'I believe president trump was sincere when he thought his friendship [with] Putin [would] end the war,' Republican
Grassley went further. 'Pres Trump [should] take the decisive action [against] Putin that he takes [against] Harvard. Sanctions for Putin like no fed grants for Harvard.'
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as stalwart a Trump sycophant as they come, said in The Wall Street Journal that the Senate is willing to do what Trump so far has not: slap severe sanctions on Russia.
'As [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune said last week, if Mr. Putin continues to play games, the Senate will act,' Graham wrote. 'I'm hoping for the best, but when it comes to the thug in Moscow, we should all prepare for more of the same.'
Trump has said that he's considering sanctions against Russia, but so far that's been a hollow threat. On his social media site, Trump said: 'What Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened in Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He's playing with fire!'
There's about as much heat coming from the White House as from a televised holiday
Trump is dithering as Ukrainians die, and Putin does whatever he wants. The president loves to portray himself as strong and decisive, but that's never been the case where Putin is concerned.
Advertisement
Even after Trump called Putin 'crazy' on social media and claimed that 'something happened to him,' the Kremlin reacted to him as if he were a child having a meltdown. Trump, Russian officials said, was experiencing 'emotional overload.'
Whatever Trump is going through, it's not provoking him to hatch a decisive plan to confront Putin and force him to comply with a fairly negotiated plan to exit his war. Asked by a reporter on May 28 whether he believed that Putin 'actually wants to end the war,' the president gave a cryptic answer.
'I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks, within two weeks,' he said. If Putin is 'tapping us along,' Trump said his administration 'would respond a little bit differently.'
It's unlikely anything will change in two weeks. When it comes to Putin, the president has the goalposts on wheels. It's easier for Trump to attack education and international students than to face down the dictator he has called a 'friend,' because when Putin flexes, Trump flinches.
Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
20 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court battles.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Begins Putting Its Stamp on Giant Trump Tax, Debt Limit Bill
(Bloomberg) -- Significant changes are in store for President Donald Trump's signature $3.9 trillion tax-cut bill as the Senate begins closed-door talks this week on legislation that squeaked through the House by a single vote. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Where the Wild Children's Museums Are The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania At London's New Design Museum, Visitors Get Hands-On Access Senate Republican leaders are aiming to make permanent many of the temporary tax cuts in the House bill, a move that would increase the bill's more than $2.5 trillion deficit impact. But doing so risks alienating fiscal hawks already at war with party moderates over the bill's safety-net cuts. It amounts to a game of chess further complicated by the top Senate rules-keeper, who will decide whether some key provisions violate the chamber's strict rules. Jettisoning those provisions — which include gun silencer regulations and artificial intelligence policy — could sink the bill in the House. House Republicans' top tax writer, Representative Jason Smith, on Friday said that senators need to leave most of the bill untouched in order to ensure it can pass the House in the end. 'I would encourage my counterparts, don't be too drastic, be very balanced,' he said. Trump worked the phone as Republican senators returned to work in Washington Monday after a one-week holiday break. Josh Hawley of Missouri said in a mid-afternoon social media post that he 'just had a great talk' with the president on the legislation and they agreed no Medicaid benefits would be cut. Hawley, who has been a vocal supporter of preserving Medicaid benefits, didn't specify if he believes the House bill — projected to cut health care coverage coverage for about 7.7 million people by changing eligibility requirements — reduces benefits. GOP wrangling imperils Republicans' goal of sending the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' to Trump's desk by July 4. But the real deadline is sometime in August or September, when the Treasury Department estimates the US will run out of borrowing authority. The House bill would raise the government's legal debt ceiling by $4 trillion, which the Senate wants to increase to $5 trillion in order to push off the next fiscal cliff until after the 2026 congressional elections. That's just one of the major changes the Senate will weigh in the coming weeks. Here are others: Permanent Business Breaks Senate Finance Chairman Mike Crapo's top priority is making permanent the temporary business tax cuts that the House bill sunsets after 2029. These are the research and development tax deduction, the ability to use depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) as the basis for interest expensing, and 100% bonus depreciation of certain property, including most machinery and factories. Senate Republicans plan to use a budget gimmick that counts the extension of the individual provisions in the 2017 Trump tax bill as having no cost. That gives them room to make the additional business tax cuts and possibly extend some of the new four-year individual cuts in the House bill like those on tips and overtime. Deficit hawks could demand new offsets, however, either in the form of spending cuts or ending tax breaks like one on carried interest used by private equity. SALT The House expanded the state and local tax deduction limit from $10,000 to $40,000 to get blue-state Republicans behind the bill. But SALT isn't an issue in the Senate, where high-tax states like California, New York and New Jersey are represented by Democrats. 'I can't think of any Senate Republicans who think more than $10,000 is needed and I can think of several who think the number should be zero,' said Rohit Kumar, a former top Senate staffer now with PWC. That includes deficit hawks like Louisiana's John Kennedy, who has balked at the House's SALT boost. Senators could propose keeping the current $10,000 SALT cap as a low-ball counter, forcing the House to settle from something in the ballpark of a $30,000 cap, Kumar said. The Senate could also change new limits on the abilities of passthrough service businesses to claim SALT deductions. Green Energy Moderate Republicans in the Senate are pushing back on provisions in the House bill that gut tax credits for solar, wind, battery makers and several other clean energy sectors. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she's seeking to soften aggressive phaseouts of tax credits for clean electricity production and nuclear power. She has the backing of at least three other Republicans, giving her enough leverage to make demands in a chamber where opposition from four GOP senators would kill the bill. Their demands will run headlong into ultraconservatives, who already think the House bill doesn't get rid of tax benefits for clean energy fast enough. Medicaid, Food Stamps Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin say they're willing to sink the bill if it doesn't cut more spending. 'I think we have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about reductions,' Johnson said recently on CNN. They haven't made specific demands yet, but they could start off where the House Freedom Caucus fell short — cutting the federal matching payment for Medicaid for those enrolled under Obamacare and further limiting federal reimbursement for Medicaid provider taxes charged by states. Conservatives' demands are in stark contrast to Republican senators already uncomfortable with the new Medicaid co-pays and state cost-sharing for Medicaid and food stamps in the House bill. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Jim Justice and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Hawley join Murkowski in this camp. Boosting their case is Trump, who told the Freedom Caucus to stop 'grandstanding' on more Medicaid cuts. Regulatory Matters There's an extensive list of regulatory matters in the House bill that could be struck if they are found to break Senate rules for averting a filibuster and passing the legislation by a simple majority. Provisions likely to be challenged for not being primarily budgetary in nature include a repeal of gun silencer regulations, preemption of state artificial intelligence regulations, staffing regulations for nursing homes and abolishing the Direct File program at the Internal Revenue Service. The House bill's provisions limiting the ability of federal judges to hold administration officials in contempt, ending funding for Planned Parenthood, requiring congressional review of new regulations and easing permitting of fossil fuel projects are also vulnerable. The biggest Senate rules fight will be over using the 'current policy' budget gimmick to lower the cost of the bill. Senate Republican leaders could explore bypassing rules keeper Elizabeth MacDonough if she finds the accounting move breaks the rules. Battles over these provisions could take weeks. 'I think it would be very difficult to get it out of the Senate quickly,' said Bill Hoagland, a former top Republican Senate budget staffer now with the Bipartisan Policy Center. Spectrum Sales A major auction of government radio spectrum that would generate an estimated $88 billion in revenue is another unresolved fight. Ted Cruz of Texas, the Senate Commerce chair, backs the spectrum sale but Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota has vowed to protect the Defense Department, which has warned auctioning off its spectrum would degrade its capabilities and cost hundreds of billions for retrofits. The proposal would free up key spectrum for wireless broadband giants like Verizon and Elon Musk's Starlink. Estate Tax Majority Leader John Thune and 46 other Republican senators back a total repeal of the estate tax, which would likely cost several hundred billion dollars over a decade, benefiting the heirs of the richest 0.1%. That could make it too pricey for the Senate to include. The House bill permanently increases the estate tax exemption to $15 million for individuals and $30 million for married couples, with future increases tied to inflation. --With assistance from Emily Birnbaum. (Updates with Trump phone call to Hawle in sixth paragraph.) YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oregon Senate passes bump stock ban, allows expansion of gun-free zones
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A gun safety bill is making its way through the Oregon legislature, which would ban bump stocks and allow local governments to decide whether to allow firearms in public meeting spaces. The Oregon Senate passed — the Community Safety Firearms Act — on Thursday, which would create new crimes for possessing bump stocks — or devices that turn semi-automatic guns fully automatic. Under the bill, local governments would also have the authority to limit concealed handgun license holders from bringing firearms in public buildings where official meetings are held, such as city halls. 'Something was not right': Oregon Coast safari park received complaints for nearly a decade Following the bill's passage, Oregon Senate Democrats said the legislation marks 'action for community safety.' 'Being elected to serve means guarding the people who put their trust in us: protecting their safety, defending their rights, and leading with humility and common sense,' said Senator Anthony Broadman (D –Bend). 'As a father, a hunter, a responsible gun owner, and an Oregon Senator, I know Senate Bill 243 honors that responsibility.' 'Rapid-fire activators are simply tools of mass destruction and do not belong in our communities,' added Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D –Eugene & Springfield), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chief sponsor of the bill. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'It's time to call these devices what they are. They give legal firearms the same dangerous abilities as machine guns,' said Senator Lisa Reynolds (D –Portland). 'If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a machine gun.' The bill passed the Senate in a 17-12 vote along party lines, with the Oregon Senate Republican Caucus calling the legislation 'deeply flawed.' 'The people who follow the law deserve policies that respect them. The people who break the law deserve consequences,' said Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles). 'Senate Bill 243 targets responsible Oregonians, not criminals. That's a mistake we've made before. We should learn from it, not double down on it.' Candlelight vigil marks 15th anniversary of Kyron Horman's disappearance According to the Senate Republican Caucus, 'there is no credible evidence' that banning bump stocks will reduce gun violence. 'This bill does not address the core issues driving gun violence in our communities,' said Senator Bruce Starr (R-Dundee). 'It doesn't target criminals. It doesn't invest in mental health or illegal gun trafficking enforcement. Instead, it creates new penalties for responsible gun owners who already follow the law, store their firearms safely, and have undergone background checks.' The Republican caucus noted they offered their own proposals in a minority report, which was rejected by Democrats. Kohr Explores: Salmon fishing season arrives in Oregon The proposals from Republicans included repealing , a bill from 2021 that allows school districts and local governments to decide whether to allow concealed handgun license holders to bring firearms into public buildings. Other proposals from the Republican caucus included preventing people who have been charged with drug-related misdemeanors from owning guns along with another provision requiring participants in deflection programs to transfer their firearms to a law enforcement agency, a gun dealer or a third party until their deflection program is completed. After passing the Senate on Thursday, the bill moves to the Oregon House of Representatives, where the bill will have its first reading on June 2. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
