US ambassador to Russia leaves Moscow, embassy statement says
MOSCOW, June 27 (Reuters) - Lynne Tracy, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, is leaving Moscow, her embassy said on Friday, noting she had served through one of the most strained periods in relations between Moscow and Washington.
The departure of a career diplomat appointed under the administration of former president Joe Biden comes as Russia and the United States discuss a potential reset in their ties which sharply deteriorated after Moscow launched its full-scale war in Ukraine in 2022.
President Donald Trump has said there are potentially big investment deals to be struck, but is growing increasingly frustrated that his efforts to broker a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine have so far not resulted in a meaningful ceasefire.
"I am proud to have represented my country in Moscow during such a challenging time. As I leave Russia, I know that my colleagues at the embassy will continue to work to improve our relations and maintain ties with the Russian people," the embassy cited Tracy as saying in a statement.
It said Tracy's time in post had been marked by her belief that meaningful dialogue was important even during difficult times, the embassy said.
The embassy said earlier this month that Tracy, who arrived in Moscow in January 2023 and was greeted by protesters chanting anti-U.S. slogans when she went to the Foreign Ministry to present her credentials, would leave her post soon.
Her successor has not been publicly named.
Her tenure is similar in duration to her predecessor, John Sullivan, who served as ambassador for two years and seven months from February 2020 to September 2022.
Tracy was notably involved in efforts to win the release of U.S. citizens jailed in Russia, including journalist Evan Gershkovich and former marine Paul Whelan, who were eventually freed in August 2024 as part of a big East-West prisoner swap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court expected to rule on Obamacare preventive care task force
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday on the legality of a key element of the Obamacare law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive medical care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. The federal government has appealed a lower court's determination that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under Obamacare has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. Its 16 members are appointed by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. Several individual Christian plaintiffs and two small businesses sued in federal court in Texas in 2020 to challenge the task force's structure. It was the latest in a years-long series of challenges to Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court. Before the case was narrowed to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs had included a religious objection to being required to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. They claimed that such drugs "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use." The U.S. government's appeal of the decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially was filed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration before being taken up by Republican President Donald Trump's administration. Public health advocates had warned that life-saving tests and treatments that have been cost-free under most insurance plans may become subject to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them, if the justices upheld the 5th Circuit's ruling. A key question in the case was whether the task force wields power to such an extent that its members, under the Constitution's "appointments clause," are "principal officers" who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate or "inferior officers" not subject to these requirements. The task force is made up of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. It reviews medical evidence and public feedback and issues recommendations about which preventive services would be most effective for detecting illnesses earlier or addressing ailments before a patient's condition worsens. The task force has identified, opens new tab dozens of preventive services as having a high or moderate net benefit to patients including screenings to detect diabetes and various types of cancer, statin medications to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, and interventions to help patients quit smoking or unhealthy alcohol use. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the task force's structure violates the Constitution, as the plaintiffs claimed. The justices during April 21 arguments in the case posed questions over whether the law gives the HHS secretary the appropriate level of supervision over the task force, including the power to influence its recommendations and fire members at will, or if it operates as a largely independent governmental body whose recommendations effectively have the force of law. The Justice Department urged the justices to view the task force's members as "inferior officers." Hashim Mooppan, a Justice Department lawyer, told the justices that the HHS secretary can remove task force members at will, review their recommendations and prevent them from taking effect, and can require the task force to obtain his approval before it issues any recommendations. The plaintiffs contended that the task force's lack of supervision and insulation from removal makes its members "principal officers." The 5th Circuit's ruling also rejected the government's request to remove certain offending words from the Obamacare provision at issue - a process called severing - in order to make that part of the law conform to the Constitution.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Russia and Ukraine trade more long-range drone attacks that are a hallmark of their war
Russian forces launched 363 Shahed and decoy drones as well as eight missiles at Ukraine overnight, the Ukrainian air force said Friday, claiming that air defenses stopped all but four of the drones and downed six cruise missiles. Russia's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said that 39 Ukrainian drones were downed in several regions overnight, including 19 over the Rostov region and 13 over the Volgograd region. Both regions lie east of Ukraine. Long-range drone strikes have been a hallmark of the war, now in its fourth year. The race by both sides to develop increasingly sophisticated and deadlier drones has turned the war into a testing ground for new weaponry. The Ukrainian air force said that 359 incoming drones were either intercepted or electronically jammed. The Ukrainian attack forced three Russian airports to briefly suspend flights, officials said. The authorities also briefly closed the Crimean Bridge overnight as drones targeted Crimea. Neither Russia nor Ukraine reported any major damage or casualties in the attacks. Russia manufactures Shahed drones based on an original Iranian model, churning out thousands of them at a plant in the Tatarstan region. It has upgraded the Shaheds with its own innovations, including bigger warheads. They are known as suicide drones because they nosedive into targets and explode on impact, like a missile. The incessant buzzing of the propeller-driven Shahed drones is unnerving for anyone under its flight path because no one on the ground knows exactly when or where the weapon will hit. Being outgunned and outnumbered in the war against its bigger neighbor, Ukraine also has developed its own cutting-edge drone technology, including long-range sea drones, and has trained thousands of drone pilots. Smaller, short-range drones are used by both sides on the battlefield and in areas close to the roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line. Those drones, fitted with onboard cameras that give their operators a real-time view of possible targets, have also struck civilian areas. The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said in a report published Thursday that short-range drone attacks killed at least 395 civilians and injured 2,635 between the start of the war and last April. Almost 90% of the attacks were by the Russian armed forces, it reported. The strikes not only spread fear among civilians but also severely disrupt daily life by restricting movement and limiting access to food and medical services, the report said. ___
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Parenting is not just for pronatalists: the progressive case for raising kids
A few months ago, I was at a playground just a couple of blocks from our home in Washington DC, when a mom I barely knew turned to me mid-conversation and said: 'I think I might be the deep state.' The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more. It was mid-March. Doge was tearing through the city, dismantling federal agencies at dizzying speed. Donald Trump, re-elected on a promise to 'shatter the deep state', had fired thousands of longtime civil servants in his first weeks back in office. The job cuts have been top of mind in Washington. Most of my kids' playdates these days begin with nap schedule updates and end in quiet dread. It isn't just jobs. International students are being deported. Measles outbreaks are creeping closer. The climate crisis is at our doorstep: blizzards one week, wildfires the next. Every day brings fresh threats to public safety, democracy and the planet itself. 'It makes you wonder,' she said as we pushed our daughters on the swings, 'what kind of world did we bring our kids into?' It's a question I can't stop thinking about. I've lived in and reported on parenting across five continents, and what continues to astonish me is how uniquely punishing early parenthood is in the west, especially for those most committed to building a fairer world. Progressives are rightly vocal about how hard it is to raise kids, but too often, we forget to make the case for why it's still worth it. In the face of so many overlapping crises, the decision to have children can feel reckless, or worse, like an act of denial. But parenting can also be something else entirely: a stubborn act of hope. Raising children offers a crash course in progressive values. It's a way of tying ourselves more deeply to the future, of feeling the stakes of climate change, inequality and injustice – not as distant headlines, but as urgent matters affecting someone whose lunch you just packed. By failing to make a case for children and families, the left has surrendered these issues to the pronatalist right. We've handed over the 'family values' agenda, allowing it to be defined by a rigid, exclusionary vision of parenthood. Project 2025, the policy blueprint shaping much of Trump's current agenda, pledges to 'restore' a Christian nationalist view of the family unit as 'the centerpiece of American life'. Figures such as JD Vance and Elon Musk, as well as the conservative Heritage Foundation, have declared childbearing a moral and civic duty. Some have even proposed medals and cash for mothers. At this year's March for Life, Vance called for 'more babies in the United States of America' and more 'beautiful young men and women' to raise them. When we see child rearing as a private project, we forget that many of the movements that shaped the left – civil rights, labour, climate justice – were powered by people who looked at the next generation and decided they were worth fighting for. In his most well-known speech, Martin Luther King Jr didn't just dream of a better world for himself, he dreamed that his four little children would grow up in a nation where they would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. His vision was rooted in legacy. That's what parenting does. It gives shape to our politics. It puts flesh on our ideals. It forces us to ask: what are we building and who is it for? Raising children doesn't distract from that work; it clarifies it. Of course, parenthood isn't the only path to caring about the future – but it makes it harder to look away. It compels us to feel the weight of policy decisions in our bones. It blows open our empathy and softens the edges of individualism. Suddenly, every child becomes your child. Every policy becomes personal. You start noticing the stroller-unfriendly sidewalks, the unaffordable summer camps, the lack of paid leave – not just for yourself, but for all parents. There's science behind this shift. Researchers have found that becoming a parent activates a 'parental caregiving network' in the brain, lighting up areas tied to empathy, emotional processing and social understanding. It happens in both mothers and fathers. For dads especially, the extent of this neurological change is closely tied to how much hands-on caregiving they do. In other words, caregiving rewires our brains to connect more, care more and notice the needs of others. At its best, parenting strengthens the very instincts progressives say they want to build society around. I've seen this empathy in action. Before I had kids, I was reporting on the Rio Olympics and walking the beach one night with a colleague, a mother of two, when we were approached by a group of children begging for money. I clutched my purse and walked faster. But my co-worker slowed down, took off her blazer and wrapped it around a shivering child about her son's age. 'Get home,' she said gently. 'Your mom is probably looking for you.' I could tell right away we were operating on different levels of empathy. She saw that child as an extension of her own kids. I wasn't there yet. But eventually, I got there, too. When I finally became a mother, I began to see stories I covered differently. Now, when I interview parents who've lost children to gun violence in Brazil's favelas, I understand their grief in a new way. I report with deeper urgency and deeper care, seeing myself in their shoes, and my children in theirs. This rewiring of the brain creates a political opening. It expands our sense of who counts as 'us'. It softens the boundary between self and other. In doing so, it changes how we interpret harm, not as something happening 'out there', but as something personal, urgent and unacceptable. Yet, the demands of caregiving can pull us away from political life. A 2022 UK study found that parenthood temporarily reduces political participation among mothers. The reason is obvious: we're exhausted. Calling your representatives between diaper changes feels impossible. I get it. Some days, I fantasize about deleting all my news apps, retreating into a cozy, apocalypse-adjacent bubble with my kids, and calling it a day. 'Generally, I think parents are the worst at advocating for themselves because they are just too damn tired. It's one more thing in the lives of people who already have too much expected of them,' Jennifer Glass, professor at the University of Texas's department of sociology and Population Research Center and an expert on parental happiness, told me. But parenting doesn't have to distract from political work. It can fuel it. When we do organize, our sharpened parental empathy can translate into political power. Around the world, it's progressive movements, often driven by the demands of parents, that have expanded what family support can look like. In Sweden, it was working mothers who pushed for what became the world's most generous parental leave system, eventually adding incentives for men to take their fair share. In Singapore, multigenerational bonds are built into policy: the government gives housing grants to families who live near grandparents and tax breaks to elders who help with childcare. In France, parents helped lead the 1968 protests that birthed a cooperative childcare system. But when progressives step back from family values, conservatives fill the void. This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. According to the United Nations, the share of countries with explicit pronatalist policies has nearly tripled since 1976. But these visions often center on traditional gender roles and narrow definitions of family, excluding anyone who doesn't fit the mold. We shouldn't let the only cultural narrative around parenting come from those who see it as a tool for enforcing hierarchy and control. Progressives must also fight for a say in the values shaping the next generation. A 2023 Pew survey found that 89% of teenagers raised by Democratic parents identify with or lean toward the Democratic party. For Republican parents, the number is nearly as high, at 81%. That suggests political identity is often passed down through environment and lived experience: what kids hear at the dinner table, what they see modeled at home and which communities shape their worldview. From there, each new generation brings fresh ideas about justice. Social progress doesn't only happen by changing the minds of the old; it happens through generational renewal. Throughout the country, youth raised in the shadow of mass shootings are leading the charge for gun reform. In Montana, young people took the government to court over climate change and won. In Sweden, Greta Thunberg sparked a global climate movement at 15. These movements exist because someone raised those children to believe they had not just the right, but the responsibility, to shape the world around them. But if we step back from parenting, or treat it as apolitical, we leave that space wide open. The right is more than ready to fill it. That's why they're fighting so hard to control what children are taught, which books they read, whose families are visible in their classrooms and which identities are allowed to exist. This is the moment for the left to reclaim family as a public good. Progressives shouldn't just defend the right to abortion, we must fight for people's ability to have families and raise them with dignity. That means paid leave, universal childcare, affordable healthcare and a livable planet. It also means rejecting the caricature that progressives are a party of 'childless cat ladies' while conservatives corner the market on family values. We are, and always have been, the natural home of pro-family policy. After all, children tether us to the future, but also to each other. Progressive values thrive in that space of interdependence, where no one is expected to go it alone. Caring for kids – whether as parents, educators, neighbors or policymakers – demands a communal ethic of care. I've seen this ethic in action across the world. While writing my book, Please Yell at My Kids, I spent years studying how families around the world raise children in community. In the Netherlands, children as young as eight walk themselves to school. Parents trust that if they need help, a community member will step in. In Denmark, babies nap unattended in strollers outside cafes – not because parents are careless, but because they trust the society around them. In Mozambique, where formal support systems often fail, mothers rely on each other for food, childcare and safety, transforming neighborhoods into extended families. These cultures aren't perfect, but they understand that raising a child isn't a private endeavor. It's a collective one. Some understandably hesitate to bring children into a world on fire. Others worry that parenting means stepping back from activism or ambition. But for many, becoming a parent doesn't dilute that drive; it crystallizes it. Climate change isn't just a policy failure – it's the air your child will breathe. Gun violence isn't abstract – it's a possibility you carry every time you drop them off at school. The broken systems you tolerated suddenly become intolerable when your child has to navigate them, too. This isn't about idealizing parenthood. It's about refusing to surrender this human experience to those who would use it to divide us. So yes, the world is on fire. But refusing to bring children into it won't put the flames out. What may, perhaps, is raising a generation bold enough to rebuild it. Marina Lopes is the author of Please Yell at My Kids: What Cultures Around the World Can Teach You About Parenting in Community, Raising Independent Kids, and Not Losing Your Mind, out now
