Trump shares sympathetic exchange with Ukrainian journalist whose husband is fighting in war
President Donald Trump shared a tender exchange with a Ukrainian journalist who told him during a press conference at the conclusion of the NATO summit that her husband was fighting in the war in their home country.
The reporter, who said she was working for the BBC, shared that her husband is a soldier in Ukraine and that she currently lives with their children in Warsaw, Poland, more than three years after the Russian invasion.
Calling on reporters in The Hague, Netherlands, Trump granted a question to the woman after noticing she was "all excited."
"Where are you from?" Trump asked.
"I'm from Ukraine," she told an inquisitive Trump. She asked the president if the U.S. is ready to sell more anti-air missile systems, known as Patriots, to Ukraine.
"We know that Russia has been pounding Ukraine really heavily right now," she added.
Trump asked the reporter, "Are you living yourself now in Ukraine?"
"My husband is there," she said.
Noticing her emotion, Trump interjected, "Wow. I can see you're … you know, it's amazing."
The woman added, "And me with the kids, I'm in Warsaw, actually."
Trump continued to ask the woman about her personal connection to the news she was reporting on. She responded that her husband was indeed a solider currently in Ukraine, drawing an audible reaction from Trump.
"Wow. That's rough stuff, right? That's tough," Trump said. "Let me just tell you, they do want to have the anti-missile missiles, as they call them, the Patriots. And we're going to see if we can make some available."
"You know, they're very hard to get. We need them too," Trump said. "We were supplying them to Israel, and they're very effective. 100% effective. Hard to believe how effective. And they do want that more than any other thing, as you probably know. That's a very good question. And I wish you a lot of luck. I mean, I can see that it's very upsetting to you."
"Say hello to your husband. Okay?" Trump added.
Trump met with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the NATO summit earlier Wednesday and suggested that increased spending by the trans-Atlantic alliance could help prevent future Russian aggression against its neighbors.
At the press conference, Trump laced into CNN and the New York Times over their coverage of the U.S. strikes on Iran, but he displayed warmth to the Ukrainian journalist and her question about Patriot missiles.
Over the course of the war, the U.S. has routinely pressed for allies to provide air defense systems to Ukraine, but many are reluctant to give up the high-tech systems, particularly countries in Eastern Europe that also feel threatened by Russia.
NATO members agreed to raise their spending targets by 2035 to 5% of gross domestic product annually on core defense requirements as well as defense-and security-related spending. That target had been 2% of GDP.
Trump said that the Ukraine crisis "has also highlighted the urgency of rebuilding our defense industrial base, both in the United States and among the allied nations." He said the U.S. cannot be dependent on foreign adversaries for critical minerals.
Shortly after seeing Zelenskyy, Trump said he would soon meet with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. He cited having difficulties dealing with both leaders.
Trump was asked by a different reporter if the United States would contribute any more money to Ukraine's defense this year in addition to the $5 billion that allies are giving.
"As far as the money going, we'll see what happens," Trump said. "Look, Vladimir Putin, really end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven't seen before for a long time."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CIA director says Iran's nuclear sites 'severely damaged'
The head of the CIA has said US strikes "severely damaged" Iran's nuclear facilities and set them back years, diverging from a leaked intelligence report that angered President Donald Trump by downplaying the raid's impact. John Ratcliffe, the US spy agency's director, said key sites had been destroyed, though he stopped short of declaring that Iran's nuclear programme had been eliminated outright. It comes a day after a leaked preliminary assessment from a Pentagon intelligence agency suggested core components of Iran's nuclear programme remained intact after the US bombings. President Trump again maintained the raid had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities. The Republican president took to social media on Wednesday to post that the "fake news" media had "lied and totally misrepresented the facts, none of which they had". He said Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth and other military officials would hold an "interesting and irrefutable" news conference on Thursday at the Pentagon "in order to fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots". It came as Israel and Iran seemed to honour a fragile ceasefire that Trump helped negotiate this week on the 12th day of the war. Speaking at The Hague where he attended a Nato summit on Wednesday, Trump said of the strikes: "It was very severe. It was obliteration." He also said he would probably seek a commitment from Iran to end its nuclear ambitions at talks next week. Iran has not acknowledged any such negotiations. But US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff told US network NBC there has been direct and indirect communication between the countries. Ratcliffe's statement said the CIA's information included "new intelligence from an historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years". Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has also come out in support of Trump's assessment on the damage to Iranian nuclear facilities. "If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordo, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do," she wrote on X. The US operation involved 125 military aircraft, targeting the three main Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. New satellite images show six craters clustered around two entry points at Fordo, with similar craters spotted at Isfahan. But it is unclear if the nuclear facilities located deep underground were wiped out. A report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency was leaked to US media on Tuesday, estimating that the US bombing had set back Iran's nuclear programme "only a few months". The US defence secretary said that assessment was made with "low confidence". How much does leaked US report on Iran's nuclear sites tell us? Satellite images reveal new signs of damage at Iranian nuclear sites Make Iran Great Again? 'Tehrangeles' community in LA reflects on US strikes Officials familiar with the evaluation cautioned it was an early assessment that could change as more information emerges. The US has 18 intelligence agencies, which sometimes produce conflicting reports based on their mission and area of expertise. UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said on Wednesday that there is a chance Tehran moved much of its highly enriched uranium elsewhere as it came under attack. But Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told Al Jazeera on Wednesday: "Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that's for sure." He did not elaborate. A report by the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission said the strike on Fordo "destroyed the site's critical infrastructure". The damage across all the sites, the report said, has pushed Iran's timeline for nuclear weapons back by "many years". Yet Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to the chairman of the Iranian parliament, said shortly after the US strikes that "no irreversible damage was sustained" at Fordo. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear programme is peaceful. US intelligence agencies have previously said Tehran was not actively building atomic weapons.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Inside the NATO charm offensive that shocked as much as it delivered
It must have been the last thing NATO's chief needed. Late Tuesday, on the eve of a crucial summit that would lock in a generational investment in NATO's defense, Donald Trump's Truth Social account pinged with a single photo: a gushing message signed 'Mark Rutte,' written in a carbon-copy Trump style and overflowing with sycophantic praise for the US president. 'You are flying into another big success in the Hague this evening,' Rutte's message read. 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' he continued. 'You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.' While the diplomatic world has bent toward many norms of the Trump White House, this was extreme. Doubling down on the comments the following day, saying Trump deserved credit for his actions on Iran and NATO, Rutte waded through many observers' incredulity at his kowtowing tone. But as the summit crescendoed, there was a growing sense he may have pulled off a diplomatic masterstroke. Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister, is no stranger to dealings with Trump, having deployed his easy charm in several visits to Washington, DC, during Trump's first term. Exuding an easygoing, relaxed image – his signature boyish grin never far from his face – Rutte's charm offensive echoes that of other NATO leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron has charted up a boisterous bromance with Trump; Finnish President Alex Stubb bonded with him over rounds of golf, and Italian far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has won a reputation as something of Trump whisperer: She's a 'fantastic woman,' in Trump's words. Rutte's message – signed with his surname – perhaps spoke of a less pally relationship. So did one of Trump's reactions Wednesday: 'I think he likes me. If he doesn't, I'll let you know. I'll come back and I'll hit him hard,' Trump announced in his Wednesday news conference. But in The Hague, Rutte seemed ready to do anything to burnish the US president's ego and save him face. Trump's decision to attack Iran's nuclear program was 'extremely impressive,' the NATO chief told Trump. 'The signal it sends to the rest of the world that this president, when it comes to it, yes, he is a man of peace, but if necessary, he is willing to use strength.' Time and again around the summit, Rutte's interjections soothed Trump's passage – softening his landing after a fiery 'f**k' at Iran and Israel's latest exchange of missiles lit up international headlines. Rutte's response: a jokey aside in front of the world's cameras. 'Daddy has to sometimes use strong language,' he said beside Trump, after the US president used the analogy of two children fighting to describe the conflict between Iran and Israel. Rutte later said he wasn't referring to Trump as 'daddy' but was merely using a metaphor. The Dutchman didn't spare praise for Trump's strikes on Iran – a conflict technically outside the NATO wheelhouse – as the president railed against suggestions in a leaked government assessment that undercut his claim the strikes 'obliterated' parts of Iran's nuclear program. 'The secretary general knows that personal relationships go a long way with this administration,' Torrey Taussig, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former NATO policy adviser at the Pentagon, told CNN. 'I do think this is a kind of hold-your-nose moment. Ensure there are no fireworks in The Hague. Get a good photo op and go home,' she added. Beyond Rutte, the whole summit was sculpted around Trump. Slimmed down, the schedule featured a single session for leaders; experts have suggested this was for Trump, who earlier this month skipped the ending of the G7 summit, missing a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Of course, the summit result is largely pre-ordained, after rounds of pre-negotiations to ensure the leaders had to only rubber-stamp declarations. Ukraine's war with Russia – by far the most pressing issue on NATO's agenda – was also excised from the summit's final declaration, the first time it has been missing since Russian President Vladimir Putin's full invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Even the crown jewel of the gathering, the promise to spend 5% of gross domestic product on defense (split into core defense requirements and 1.5% on defense-related spending by 2035), was a Trump-branded product. Back in January, Trump lofted the idea of a 5% spending target for NATO members, a figure that hadn't been given serious consideration before, as members limped towards 2%. 'They can all afford it. They're at 2% but they should be at 5%,' he told journalists. But Rutte may have had the last laugh. The summit was, by all accounts, a win for NATO: Members unanimously agreed to boost spendings to post-Cold War highs – and thanked Trump for it. 'In diplomacy, you try to get a goal and an aim, and what did we achieve here? We achieved an historic result, where NATO went back to its roots of collective defense,' Finland's Stubb told CNN on the sidelines of the summit. Spain was a notable exception, pushing for softened language that may have left a loophole for the Iberian nation to meet its responsibilities for NATO military capabilities without having to spend 5% of GDP. (The final summit declaration signed by NATO members referred only to 'allies' in its clauses on spending, while others spoke of commitments 'we' will make.) Leaders – led, of course, by Rutte – singled out Trump as the sole pressure responsible for finally corralling NATO allies to previously unthinkable spending targets. Boosted defense spending 'is the success of President Donald Trump,' Polish President Andrzej Duda told journalists at the summit. 'Without the leadership of Donald Trump, it would be impossible,' he added. His Lithuanian counterpart suggested a new motto for the alliance, 'Make NATO great again,' as he welcomed the pressure Trump had levied on stingy allies. 'I'm up for all the pressure we can get,' Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene told CNN. Smaller nations on the front lines with Russia were buoyed by an alliance-wide commitment to meeting spending levels they had largely led the charge on. One Western European official ahead of the summit shared fears with CNN the summit would be marred by another diplomatic spat around Trump. But in public, comment on Rutte's messaging to Trump was largely off limits, with leaders waving off or swerving around questions. Finland's president wouldn't be drawn on the NATO secretary general's messages, but he said, however, 'Diplomacy has so many different forms.' Casualties – particularly from diplomatic skirmishes with Trump – were fewer than expected. Only Spain caught flak from the US president over its foot-dragging over the 5% GDP spend. 'It's terrible what they've done,' Trump said, threatening to use trade talks to force Madrid into line. 'We're going to make them pay twice as much,' he said. Even Zelensky – who has had a turbulent relationship with Trump – came away with wins. While he stopped short of committing further US aid to Ukraine, Trump suggested Kyiv may see future Patriot missile system deliveries from the United States – and he slammed Putin as 'misguided,' conceding the Russian leader may have territorial designs that extend further than Ukraine. Finally, Trump's own views on NATO – often a prickly subject for the famously transactional president – saw a reversal. 'These people really love their countries,' Trump said of the NATO leaders at his news conference concluding the NATO summit. 'It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them protect their country.' 'I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing,' he added, 'but I left here a little bit different.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Senate struggle over Medicaid cuts threatens progress on Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — One key unsettled issue stalling progress on President Donald Trump's big bill in Congress is particularly daunting: How to cut billions from health care without harming Americans or the hospitals and others who provide care? Republicans are struggling to devise a solution to the health care problem their package has created. Already, estimates say 10.9 million more people would be without health coverage under the House-passed version of the bill. GOP senators have proposed steeper reductions, which some say go too far. 'The Senate cuts in Medicaid are far deeper than the House cuts, and I think that's problematic,' said GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Senators have been meeting behind closed doors and with Trump administration officials as they rush to finish up the big bill ahead of the president's Fourth of July deadline. Much of the package, with its tax breaks and bolstered border security spending, is essentially drafted. But the size and scope of healthcare cuts are among the toughest remaining issues. It's reminiscent of the summer during Trump's first term, in 2017, when Republicans struggled to keep their campaign promise to 'repeal and replace' the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, only to see the GOP splinter over the prospect of Americans losing health coverage. That legislation collapsed when then-Sen. John McCain famously cast a thumbs-down vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is determined to avoid that outcome, sticking to the schedule and pressing ahead with voting expected by the end of the week. 'This is a good bill and it's going to be great for our country,' Thune said, championing its potential to unleash economic growth and put money in people's pockets. The changes to the federal health care programs, particularly Medicaid, were always expected to become a centerpiece of the GOP package, a way to offset the costs of providing tax breaks for millions of Americans. Without action from Congress, taxes would go up next year when current tax law expires. The House-passed bill achieved some $1.5 trillion in savings overall, a large part of it coming from changes to health care. The Medicaid program has dramatically expanded in the 15 years since Obamacare became law and now serves some 80 million Americans. Republicans say that's far too high, and they want to shrink the program back to a smaller size covering mainly poorer women and children. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Republicans are 'trying to take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans.' Democrats are uniformly opposed to what they call the 'big, ugly bill.' Much of the health care cost savings would come from new 80-hour-a-month work requirements on those who receive Medicaid benefits, even as most recipients already work. But another provision, the so-called provider tax that almost all the states impose to some degree on hospitals and others that serve Medicaid patients, is drawing particular concern for potential cuts to rural hospitals. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said several senators spoke up Wednesday during a private meeting indicating they were not yet ready to start voting. 'That'll depend if we land the plane on rural hospitals,' he said. States impose the taxes as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics decry the system as type of 'laundering' but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide the health care coverage. The House-passed bill would freeze the provider taxes at current levels, while the Senate proposal goes deeper by reducing the tax that some states are able to impose. 'I know the states are addicted to it,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. But he added, 'Obviously the provider tax needs to go away.' But a number of GOP senators, and the hospitals and other medical providers in their states, are raising steep concerns the provider tax changes would decimate rural hospitals. In a plea to lawmakers, the American Hospital Association said the cuts won't just affect those who get health coverage through Medicaid, but would further strain emergency rooms 'as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people.' 'And worse, some hospitals, especially those in rural communities, may be forced to close altogether,' said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the hospital group. The Catholic Health Association of the United States noted in its own letter that Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for one in five people and nearly half of all children. 'The proposed changes to Medicaid would have devastating consequences, particularly for those in small towns and rural communities, where Medicaid is often the primary source of health care coverage,' said Sister Mary Haddad, the group's president and CEO. Trying to engineer a fix to the problem, senators are considering creating a rural hospital fund to help offset the lost Medicaid money. GOP senators circulated a proposal to pour $15 billion to establish a new rural hospital fund. But several senators said that's too high, while others said it's insufficient. Collins has proposed the fund be set at $100 billion. 'It won't be that big, but there will be a fund,' Thune said. Hawley, who has been among those most outspoken about the health care cuts, said he's interested in the rural hospital fund but needs to hear more about how it would work. 'Getting the fund is good. That's important, a step forward,' Hawley said. But he asked: "How does the fund actually distribute the money? Who will get it to hospitals? ... Or is this just going to be something that exists on paper?' He has also raised concerns about a new $35 per service co-pay that could be charged to those with Medicaid that is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. __
