Russia strikes Ukraine, killing 5, after Putin, Trump call
Russia launched drone strikes on Ukraine early Thursday, killing five people — just one day after President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone.
While Trump called the conversation between the two leaders a 'good' one, he acknowledged that the 75-minute discussion would not lead to 'immediate peace.' The continued strikes, he said, were in response to Ukraine's weekend attack on Russian air bases.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russian forces struck the city of Pryluky, in the north-central region of Chernihiv, leading to the fatalities. At least nine others were injured in the blast, The Associated Press reported. Several of the victims, according to the news wire and the nation's leader, were related to a local rescue team member.
'Unfortunately, his wife, daughter and one-year-old grandson were killed. And this is the 632nd child during the full-scale war,' Zelensky wrote in a Thursday post on Telegram, with images of the damage.
He described the event as a terrorist attack that warranted more sanctions on Russia, saying the end of the war will only come through 'strength.'
'Russia is constantly trying to buy time for itself to continue the killings. When it does not feel strong enough condemnation and pressure from the world, it kills again,' Zelensky said.
However, Kremlin officials said the drone strike was justified.
'The president described the Kyiv regime as a terrorist regime, because it was the regime's leadership that consciously gave the order, the command, the order to blow up a passenger train,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, referring to Sunday's attack.
Leaders from across the globe have urged Putin to ease conflict on the battlefield to no avail despite direct talks between Russia and Ukraine under the guise of a potential ceasefire.
Trump has warned that his Russian counterpart was 'playing with fire' in recent weeks.
'What Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD,' Trump posted late last month on Truth Social. 'He's playing with fire!'
He also suggested the consistent attacks on Ukraine are a sign that Putin has gone 'absolutely crazy,' ramping up his criticism of the bloodshed in Eastern Europe.
The Kremlin earlier this week dismissed the likelihood of a meeting anytime soon between Trump, Putin and Zelensky, despite Trump's invitation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. An explosive, and very public, feud between President Donald Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday (June 5) has raised doubts over the future of America's space industry. The war of words could place $22 billion of SpaceX's government contracts with multiple U.S. space programs at risk, according to one estimate, although the real figure — which remains classified — could be significantly higher. Following threats from the president on his social media platform Truth Social that the U.S. could cancel the government contracts and subsidies awarded to Musk's companies, the CEO of SpaceX retorted that his space company would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Hours later, Musk responded to a follower telling him to "cool off" by saying "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." The disagreement began on Tuesday (June 3) when Musk criticized the administration's proposed tax and spending bill on his social media platform X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk wrote on X. Related: 'No radio astronomy from the ground would be possible anymore': Satellite mega-swarms are blinding us to the cosmos — and a critical 'inflection point' is approaching This then escalated into a full-blown social media feud on Thursday, with Musk claiming that Trump's name appears in unreleased files relating to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The White House condemned these allegations. "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted," representatives wrote on X. Trump then claimed Musk "just went CRAZY," posting: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" SpaceX's Dragon capsule is a reusable spacecraft capable of carrying up to seven passengers and cargo to and from Earth orbit, according to SpaceX. NASA currently relies on the capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), so canceling these government contracts effectively eliminates America's ability to launch astronauts to space from American soil, Live Science's sister website, reported. NASA also heavily relies on SpaceX for other space programs, having selected the Starship Human Landing System (HLS), a lunar lander variant of the company's next-generation Starship spacecraft, to carry American astronauts to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years aboard the 2027 Artemis 3 mission. NASA is investing $4 billion into Starship's development, and canceling its contract could seriously handicap NASA and the future of U.S.-led space exploration. While other competitors exist, such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin and Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, they lag far behind SpaceX. RELATED STORIES —Facing steep funding cuts, scientists propose using black holes as particle colliders instead of building new ones on Earth —Trump's 2026 budget would slash NASA funding by 24% and its workforce by nearly one third —NASA plans to build a giant radio telescope on the 'dark side' of the moon. Here's why. The Starliner capsule is not yet certified to fly operational astronaut missions and was responsible for "stranding" two astronauts on the ISS for nine months last year. The astronauts returned to Earth on March 18 aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule, and neither Boeing nor NASA have offered any significant updates into fixes that will make Starliner flightworthy. SpaceX's lead on its competitors is reflected in the size of its government subsidies. In April, the U.S. Space Force, the military branch of U.S. space exploration, awarded the company nearly $6 billion in launch contracts, while the United Launch Alliance received $5.4 billion and Blue Origin $2.4 billion. In response to the feud between Musk and Trump, NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens declined to comment on SpaceX, but she did tell Reuters that "we will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met." NASA's deputy administrator Lori Garver told Reuters that, as well as not being in national interests, canceling SpaceX's contacts would probably not be legal. However, she also added that "a rogue CEO threatening to decommission spacecraft, putting astronauts' lives at risk, is untenable."
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Worried Northwestern lab directors describe ‘bleak' atmosphere in wake of Trump research funding freeze
The Trump administration's freezing in April of $790 million in federal research funding for Northwestern University has left concerned lab directors without key grants from the National Institutes of Health and forced the university to spend millions to keep vital research afloat and to continue to pay graduate workers and scientists. Carole LaBonne, a professor of molecular biosciences at Northwestern, said the situation at the prominent research institution can only be described as 'bleak' as the halt in federal funds continues to send shockwaves across the Evanston campus. 'You're at risk of losing an entire next generation of scientists, and these are the researchers who are going to be driving tomorrow's discoveries and cures,' LaBonne told the Tribune. 'It has short-term impacts, it has long-term impacts — it's terrifying; it's completely senseless.' Northwestern officials did not confirm how much the university is spending to keep research going there, but LaBonne said that is widely known among the science faculty, who were recently notified by the dean of the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences in a meeting that it is costing Northwestern more than $10 million a week. 'The university is working very hard to advocate on behalf of research and our researchers,' a Northwestern spokesperson said in a statement. 'Our lifesaving research improves our society and has a multibillion-dollar impact on our economy.' In recent letters to the campus community, Northwestern President Michael Schill and other administrators said the university has received about 100 stop-work orders, mostly Department of Defense-funded research projects, and about 50 grant terminations. In addition, officials said Northwestern researchers have not received payments for National Institutes of Health grants since March, signaling that those funds have been frozen, despite no official word from the Trump administration. They also wrote that the university would continue to fund research affected by stop-work orders and the federal funding freeze. 'This support is intended to keep these projects going until we have a better understanding of the funding landscape,' the officials wrote. 'We expect and hope to recoup the costs of this research once federal funding is restored. However, this commitment places significant financial stress on the University and is not a permanent solution.' LaBonne said the scientific community at Northwestern is living in 'existential dread' as the question of how the university can continue to sustain big-budget research without grant reimbursements looms large. 'Financially, you're going to cripple universities. And when you cripple universities, you're going to cripple not only our health and scientific discoveries in this country, but also our economy,' she said. 'The federal government depends on universities to conduct the research that keeps our nation healthy, safe and economically competitive.' Part of LaBonne's lab work at Northwestern touches on pediatric cancers, and NIH funding has historically fueled breakthroughs in cancer treatments. 'Forty years ago, more than 60% of children that were diagnosed with cancer would have died within five years of the diagnosis. Today, there's a 90% survival rate,' she said. For years, work in LaBonne's lab has centered on understanding the normal development of the neural crest — a stem cell population central to the evolution of the vertebrates — and understanding how cancer can result from the aberrant development of this cell type. Such research never ends, LaBonne said, adding that she fears that some long-standing research programs won't be sustainable for much longer with federal funding in limbo. Sadie Wignall, a molecular biosciences professor at Northwestern, agrees. 'There is a lot of anxiety and apprehension because of the uncertainty of the situation, and that uncertainty is what is very difficult to navigate,' said Wignall. 'Many research labs here have NIH funding. I run my lab entirely off NIH funding. Am I going to be able to continue to pay the staff in my lab? Am I going to be able to continue to take graduate students into my lab?' Two NIH grants pay the salaries of four doctoral students and two research scientists in the Wignall Lab, which is investigating the dynamics and mechanics of how reproductive cells divide. Wignall also directs the Interdisciplinary Biological Sciences Graduate Program, which trains graduate students to get postdoctorates in biomedical science on the Evanston campus. The funding freeze affects those early-career scientists, she said, explaining that students go through three 10-week lab rotations culminating in a match system. But uncertain funding means labs can't take new doctoral students to train them, which means fewer students get the opportunity to study and work at Northwestern's myriad research facilities. 'We're right at that point of the year for our first-year class where they've been rotating through different research labs to try to decide where they want to do their Ph.D. research, but with the funding freeze and canceled grants, there are now a lot of labs that thought they wanted to recruit a student this year and now can't,' Wignall said. 'If current first-years can't find a lab to join, they'll likely have to exit the Ph.D. program.' How federal funding works At the beginning of every grant year, the NIH or the National Science Foundation sends a Notice of Award detailing approval for a certain amount of spending in the next grant year, but a check isn't sent to Northwestern. It's essentially an 'IOU,' explained Wignall. 'So as I make purchases on my grant and as I pay salaries, Northwestern sends an invoice to the NIH that says, 'Professor Wignall has charged these approved funds, please reimburse us,'' she said. 'That usually happens about every two weeks — an invoice is sent for every NIH grant to the NIH, then they send a check to cover that spending. And then at the end of the year, just like you do in a bank account, you have your balance. You try to spend down to zero on approved funds.' Northwestern recently has been submitting those requests to the NIH, hoping that the money will flow again, but nothing has been reimbursed since late March. 'All of the labs that are doing research are basically accumulating debt because we're spending money that we were promised, but it's not being sent, and the university is the one on the hook for that money right now,' Wignall said. The Trump administration's decision to freeze nearly all of Northwestern's annual federal research funding stems from federal investigations into allegations of antisemitism and civil rights violations at the university amid the school's handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus. The Trump administration also froze $1 billion in federal funds for Cornell University and stripped more than $2 billion in federal grants from Harvard University and blocked its international student enrollment. The administration also has ordered U.S. embassies and consular sections to stop scheduling new interviews for student visa applicants. LaBonne and other academics are highly skeptical of the Trump administration's reasoning, particularly the claims of widespread antisemitism on campus. 'Just about everything they're doing was clearly laid out in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 and that happened before Oct. 7 — before the encampments on campus,' LaBonne said. 'None of this has to do with any of that. It's about hurting universities, and why you would want to do that when they're so centrally important to our scientific research enterprise and the economics of the U.S. is mind-blowing.' Wignall, like LaBonne and other lab directors, said she's 'extremely grateful' to the board of trustees and the administration for helping to support their research. LaBonne said support is crucial, not just for the research itself but also because research labs train scientists, and science majors at top research universities expect hands-on training in faculty labs. 'But all of us researchers understand that the university can't support us forever and at some point they're going to have to shut down some labs. It's very uncertain if my lab will be fine a month from now or two months from now,' Wignall added. A tiny pacemaker fit for newborn babies At Northwestern's Efimov Lab in Chicago, research associate Eric Rytkin is working with a team of graduate students on several projects, including the world's smallest pacemaker. Their study, published in the journal Nature, demonstrates that the device, which is smaller than a grain of rice, can be non-invasively placed in the body. And although it is suitable for hearts of all sizes, researchers say the pacemaker is particularly beneficial to the tiny, fragile hearts of newborn babies with congenital heart defects. The project was made possible through an NIH grant, Rytkin said, and a new grant was issued recently, but the award has yet to be distributed. Still the pacemaker project remains secure, Rytkin said, thanks to Northwestern and interest from the national scientific community. But another project — a device aimed at delivering painless shocks to defibrillate the heart — is being tabled. 'I can say that everything here boils down to the quality of life of patients. Of course there are lifesaving therapies, but whether these lifesaving therapies will be well tolerated by this person, and whether it will affect their physical or moral well-being of that person is equally as important as the years of life,' Rytkin said. Rytkin said while it's common in the industry to prioritize certain research projects over others, it isn't ideal to have to put ideas on the back burner. 'As researchers we would like to have academic freedom to explore other ideas which are not aimed at immediate gain or immediate profit, but may have and may result in wonderful spinoffs and technological models at a later date,' Rytkin said. 'And if the devices are getting translated, it's the most likely path that they're going to be acquired by some big corporation like Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott — they're all American companies.' Lichao (James) Tang, a joint Ph.D. student who earned a master's in biomedical engineering from Northwestern University, performed surgeries on lab animals during the pacemaker development. Tang said the hope is for the pacemaker to be clinically tested in humans in five years, but that might now hinge on federal funding. NIH spending also supports Tang's salary. 'The freeze affects our overall lab budget, because we have a lot of money to spend, either to purchase research animals, or to purchase materials, to fabricate devices,' Tang said. 'We can only buy the things that are super necessary right now.' Like many of his colleagues involved in research labs, Tang has concerns about the future of science and research. 'I've been in the U.S. for a very long time, but prospective students will definitely have (to think about their choices). Without all the issues with federal funding and student visas, I think America would definitely be their top choice,' said Tang, who is from China. 'It's getting harder to even get a student visa right now. And even if you come here, say for a Ph.D. program where you have at least a five-year commitment, the current uncertainty would make students think, 'If I come here, what if my funding is not guaranteed?'' Attracting top talent from other countries The halt in student visa interviews and the funding freeze will make it much more difficult for the U.S. to attract top minds from around the world, experts say. 'The reality is that there is a race for global talent around the world,' said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 'The truth of the matter is, international students are going into fields like STEM that are in very high demand, but where there's a massive skill gap that exists in this country. These students are playing a very critical role in filling this gap that we're seeing.' A recent NAFSA breakdown looks at the national and state benefits from international students and how much money they've contributed to universities and colleges. According to the data, international students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have contributed $567.5 million to the local economy and supported 6,158 jobs; at the University of Chicago, $428.1 million and 4,965 jobs; at Northwestern, $323.7 million and 3,573 jobs; and the University of Illinois Chicago, $184.9 million and 1,886 jobs. LaBonne said the cuts are detrimental to many sectors of the U.S. 'The government doesn't fund university labs to help universities' bottom line — it funds the best ideas and people to meet national priorities,' she said. 'The resulting discoveries spill over to benefit all of society: new medicines, new companies, new military capabilities. This has been called one of the most productive partnerships in American history.' Academics have long argued that federally funded technologies like the revolutionary-gene editing tool CRISPR, CAR-T Therapy for cancer, vaccines and research unlocking treatments for diseases such as ALS and Alzheimer's are solid arguments for why Congress and the White House should ensure consistent and robust funding for science. LaBonne said the funding decreases touch virtually every area of science and goes far beyond the diversity, equity and inclusion programs the Trump administration wants to cut. An April executive order from the Trump administration mandated the elimination of DEI-related programs in federal agencies, resulting in the NSF canceling hundreds of project grants at universities. In February, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz published a list identifying more than a third of the NSF grants that were being terminated, of which a handful were Northwestern grants. In a statement, the NSF said it has undertaken a review of its award portfolio. 'The agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities,' NSF officials said. On its website, the NSF said it is canceling awards that are not in line with its priorities, including those focused on DEI, environmental justice and 'misinformation/disinformation.' According to Grant Watch — a website that tracks the termination of scientific research grants under the Trump administration — more than 20 NIH grants related to research into HIV/AIDS, child development, substance use, vaccine hesitancy in Black communities, family planning and more were canceled at Northwestern. Lab directors at Northwestern noted there's a rigorous process for procuring federal grants each submission cycle. After a proposal is submitted, 20 to 30 scientists from across the country with subject matter expertise review the proposal and give them scores. Months later, another advisory council approves the recommendations and greenlights a federal grant. 'This is not easy money; this is highly competitive for the best ideas and the best processes,' LaBonne added. Wignall, who's said she's trying to stay positive despite the chaos, said the cost of stripping resources away from scientific research is insurmountable and will have an impact far beyond the current political situation. 'I think this is going to have a really chilling effect on future generations of students, because people will look at this career and say that science is not a safe career — It's too dependent on political whims,' Wignall said. 'Traditionally, science has been science. Support for science has been very bipartisan and we really hope that we can turn this around … otherwise we're really going to lose our excellence as a nation.'
Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
