Trump administration not participating in UN two-state solution conference
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the U.N. two-state solution conference is an 'ill-advised stunt that will further embolden Hamas and undermine our serious diplomatic efforts to end the war.'
'The United States will not participate in the July UN two-state solution conference,' Bruce wrote on social platform X. 'We will continue to work with partners towards a resolution.'
President Trump has held back from endorsing long-standing U.S. policy supporting a two-state solution to end the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, which aims to establish a Palestinian state in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip while preserving Israel's security.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for decades pushed policies aimed at undermining the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. During a meeting at the White House in July, Trump deferred to Netanyahu on whether the Israeli leader supports a two-state solution. Netanyahu answered that Palestinians could have self-government, but that Israel should maintain ultimate security control.
Trump for the most part sides with Netanyahu and Israel, but the president has routinely shown he will act unilaterally on policies he views are in his interest. Trump has signaled he wants to be able to take credit for establishing ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh's red line is no normalization with Israel absent a Palestinian state.
Last week, Trump dispatched his ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, to meet with Palestinian Authority Vice President Hussein al-Sheikh. Part of negotiations to end the war between Israel and Hamas is finding an alternative governing body for the strip. While the Palestinian Authority is present in the strip, it is not viewed as the most credible actor or strongest political body to exercise control.
And negotiations for a ceasefire to the war have stalled. The latest conflict began when Hamas launched a terrorist attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages. The death toll in Gaza during the conflict is around 60,000 people, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which doesn't distinguish between militants and civilians
The Trump administration has put the blame on Hamas as being a barrier to peace, but international outrage over Israel's demolition of the Gaza Strip and the humanitarian crisis wrought on the Palestinians has isolated Jerusalem.
Last week, French President Emanuel Macron announced that Paris would recognize a Palestinian state, a largely symbolic move but one that likely triggered alarm in Jerusalem over whether other major industrialized nations would follow suit and grant recognition of Palestinian statehood.
Trump on Monday signaled a break with Netanyahu when he acknowledged there was 'real starvation' happening.
Over the weekend, Israel announced it would open up additional humanitarian corridors to provide aide in Gaza, pause fighting to allow for distribution and carry out aid drops.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
US, UK 'disagree' on Gaza plan but 'share' same goal Vance says ahead of Lammy meeting
Vice President JD Vance struck a conciliatory tone on Friday after touching down in London when he told reporters the U.S. and U.K. may disagree on strategy when it comes to ending the war in Gaza, but they "share" the same goal of peace. "We have no plans to recognize a Palestinian state," Vance said ahead of a meeting with U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy. "I don't know what it would mean to really recognize a Palestinian State, given the lack of a functional government there. "Obviously, it's not an easy problem to solve, or it would have already been dealt with," he added, noting the need to not only eradicate Hamas but to end the humanitarian crisis across the Gaza Strip. "But we share, I think, that focus and that goal. "We may have some disagreements about how exactly to accomplish that goal, and we'll talk about that today," Vance added. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in late July a major shift in UK policy toward Israel and said that if Jerusalem does not agree to a ceasefire by September, it would recognize a Palestinian state – a status that Israeli leaders have long objected to. Starmer's warning, which echoed similar positions taken by France and Canada, was in direct response to growing frustration with Israel over its continued military operations and the dire humanitarian situation that Palestinians have been facing for months. Though the U.K.'s approach to dealing with the escalating situation runs counter to President Donald Trump's position when it comes to recognizing a two-state solution, Trump has also increasingly expressed his concern over access to food aid and the "real starvation" there. It is unclear how the U.S. will be increasing its involvement to help with food aid, but the Trump administration has distanced itself from its top allies when it comes to Israel's military operations in Gaza, with Trump telling reporters on Monday that it was "pretty much up to Israel." Israel's security cabinet on Friday approved a plan formed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to occupy Gaza City despite international pushback. But Netanyahu countered any immediate geopolitical outcry in a post on X and said, "We are not going to occupy Gaza - we are going to free Gaza from Hamas. "Gaza will be demilitarized, and a peaceful civilian administration will be established, one that is not the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, and not any other terrorist organization," he added. "This will help free our hostages and ensure Gaza does not pose a threat to Israel in the future." The plan is still expected to be met with international condemnation, but it's not the only issue at the top of Western minds as Vance and Lammy meet on Friday. "We have a lot to discuss. There's a lot going on in the world," Vance said. "Of course, the situation in the Middle East, the situation with Ukraine and Russia. There's a lot of news there and a lot of things to update each other on." Apart from the major international security concerns, the duo are also expected to address economic partnerships, which could include recent U.S. tariff announcements.
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
How closely do congressional delegations reflect how people vote? Not very
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Constitution makes it clear: 'The People' get to pick those who'll represent their interests in the U.S. House of Representatives. But just how closely do those choices reflect the overall political leanings of the people? The question is at the heart of a power play in Texas, where Republicans are trying to reshape the state's congressional boundaries to help them maintain control of the House in next year's midterm elections. In many cases, a state's congressional delegation doesn't align very closely with what would seem to be the will of the voters, although that's not always because of partisan gerrymandering. Every state decides how to draw its own congressional boundaries. Some, like California, rely on independent redistricting commissions, while most leave it to the state Legislature and the governor to hammer out a plan. It's states where one party controls all the levers of government where redistricting dramas like the one in Texas often play out as the majority tries to maximize its power. Regardless of the process, the resulting maps often produce congressional delegations much more lopsided in favor of one party than the state's partisan demographics might suggest. A state's presidential vote result isn't a precise tool for measuring what its congressional delegation ought to look like, but it can provide a compelling point of comparison. Politicians frequently cite it when decrying partisan redistricting practices they think are unfair. President Donald Trump, who's pushing Texas and other GOP-controlled states to redraw their maps, said this week Republicans were 'entitled to five more seats' in Texas based in part on the size of his win there in November. Trump won 56% of the Texas vote, but Republicans already hold 65% of the state's congressional delegation — which would rise to 79% if the GOP's new maps are adopted and past voting patterns hold in the next election. During an event with Texas Democratic lawmakers in Boston, Missouri state Rep. Ashley Aune cited her state's presidential vote results in warning of possible Republican-driven redistricting efforts there. 'Fifty-eight percent of Missouri voted for Trump, but they want to send an 87% representation to Congress,' said Aune, a Democrat. It's actually fairly common for a state's congressional delegation not to align with statewide presidential vote results. In 41 of the 44 states with more than one congressional district, the party of the winning presidential candidate had a larger share of the state's congressional seats than its share of the presidential vote, an Associated Press analysis found. In most cases, it was a much larger share, a gap of at least 10 percentage points. Here's a comparison of the congressional delegations and presidential vote results in a sampling of states, including some of those considering a redraw of their congressional boundaries after Texas called its special session. California and Illinois In remarks to CNBC, Trump pointed to California and Illinois as justifications for redrawing the Texas map in Republicans' favor. 'You notice they go to Illinois for safety, but that's all gerrymandered,' he said in reference to the Texas Democrats who relocated to the Chicago area to block, at least temporarily, the Republican redistricting efforts. 'California's gerrymandered. We should have many more seats in Congress in California,' he said. He's right about Illinois: Democrats have gerrymandered the lines so they hold 14 of the 17 House seats. Not so in California. Democrats there do have an outsized majority, holding 43 of the state's 52 House seats, about 83%. Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, received about 59% of the November vote. But that's not because of Democratic gerrymandering. A ballot initiative took the process away from state lawmakers and gave it to an independent citizens commission. California's lopsided map is due in part to the way like-minded people cluster: California Democrats tend to live in and near major cities that get more congressional districts because of their population. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis scored a legal victory in July when the state Supreme Court upheld his congressional redistricting plan redrawing a district with a large Black population. That plan resulted in Republicans holding about 71% of the state's 28 U.S. House seats. Trump carried the state in November with 56% of the vote. DeSantis later indicated there may be more 'defects' in the map that need to be addressed before the next census. Republicans held an 18-7 advantage over Democrats in Florida's House delegation after the 2000 census. Democrats slowly narrowed the gap, reaching 13 seats to Republicans' 14 after the 2018 election. But Republicans reestablished their advantage after the redistricting that followed the 2020 census, when they reached the 20-8 split they hold today. New York Democrats have long enjoyed an advantage at the New York ballot box in presidential and congressional elections. Harris received nearly 56% of the vote in 2024, while Democrats hold 73% of the state's 26 House seats. With Democratic advantages in both chambers of the state Legislature, New York might have been a ripe target for Democrats looking to offset Republican redistricting gains in Texas and elsewhere. But they would need to amend the state constitution to conduct a new round of redistricting before the next census. That constraint means the earliest Democrats could enact a new map would be for 2028. North Carolina North Carolina, among the most closely divided states, has been embroiled in its own redistricting drama. State Republicans implemented new House boundaries in 2023 that turned a 7-7 congressional delegation into one in which Republicans took a 10-4 advantage with the 2024 elections. Several districts are now the subject of a federal lawsuit, with Democrats alleging Republicans illegally diluted Black voting power. North Carolina has been among the most competitive states in the last several presidential elections. While Trump carried the state in November with about 51% of the vote, it has elected Democrats as governor and attorney general and to other statewide offices. In the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama narrowly edged Republican John McCain with 49.7% of the vote. The congressional delegation at the time mirrored that with an almost even split, with Democrats holding seven seats and Republicans six after the 2010 midterms. But following rounds of Republican-controlled redistricting after the 2010 census, Republicans held a 10-3 or 9-4 advantage in the congressional delegation for the rest of that decade. After the 2020 census, a Democratic-majority North Carolina Supreme Court threw out a Republican-drawn plan and permitted elections under a map adopted by trial judges that produced the 7-7 split. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the boundaries to be used in the 2022 elections. After flipping to a Republican majority in 2023, the state Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering wasn't outlawed by the state constitution, allowing GOP lawmakers to redraw a congressional map in use today that led to their party's 10-4 majority. Minnesota Minnesota is the state where the congressional breakdown most closely matches the 2024 presidential result. Harris received 51% of that vote, compared with Trump's 47%. Democrats and Republicans split the state's eight House seats with court-imposed maps. Nevada Nevada, where a Democratic Legislature drew the lines, is the only state where the party of the winning presidential candidate is outnumbered by the other party in the state's congressional delegation. Trump received 51% of the vote in Nevada, but Democrats hold three of the state's four House districts. ___ Associated Press writer Leah Willingham in Boston contributed to this report.
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Trump is planning a massive IPO of the government's mortgage companies
President Donald Trump and his economic advisers are planning a historic sale of stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned mortgage giants that help provide stability and affordability to America's home loan market. The plans, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, have not yet been finalized, and Trump continues to weigh various options, according to a senior administration official. But the White House believes an initial public offering of up to 15% of the two companies' shares could raise $30 billion, which could make it the largest IPO in history. The president has been weighing an IPO for years. Trump's first administration tried — and failed — to privatize Fannie and Freddie from the government conservatorship. But Trump has renewed his effort in his second term. In May, he posted on Truth Social that he was 'giving very serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public.' He said would consult with cabinet members and make a decision 'in the near future.' Trump has met with various Wall Street bank CEOs in recent weeks, including JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, Goldman Sachs' David Solomon and, this week, Bank of America's Brian Moynihan, with whom Trump discussed a potential Fannie and Freddie IPO, according to a source familiar with their discussions. Many of Trump's allies in the Republican Party have long advocated for ending the government conservatorship that Fannie and Freddie were placed under during 2008 global financial crisis. The conservatorship ensured their survival during the housing crisis that precipitated the Great Recession, but government control of the two entities was intended to be temporary. Proponents say the companies are viable on their own, and returning Fannie and Freddie to the public could help raise money for a government that is flooded with debt. But some economists have warned that attempts to privatize Fannie and Freddie could upset the balance in the mortgage market, making it even more expensive for Americans to borrow money to purchase a home. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, estimated in 2024 that privatization could cost the typical American taking out a new mortgage between $1,800 and $2,800 per year. Critics have also noted that Fannie and Freddie have enormous backing from hedge fund investors, so much of the proceeds of an IPO would go to wealthy financial backers, not taxpayers. The companies guarantee 70% of America's mortgages. Although they don't issue mortgages to borrowers, Fannie and Freddie help ensure America's housing market functions properly: They buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them for investors, helping money flow in and out of the housing market. Fannie and Freddie are both instrumental in making 30-year mortgages possible – and relatively affordable (although rates have surged in recent years for a variety of reasons). An IPO would return Fannie and Freddie to their pre-2008 state, when they were publicly traded companies backed by the US Treasury. They were placed under government control on September 7, 2008, after facing massive losses amid crashing home values. A week later, Lehman Brothers collapsed, sparking a global financial crisis.
