Analysis: Could Trump convince MAGA to support Ukraine?
The US will send weapons to Ukraine through NATO, the president said during a meeting in the Oval Office with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Trump also laid out a new deadline for Russia — threatening trade consequences, including secondary sanctions, if a peace deal isn't reached in 50 days.
Even before the weapons announcement, which the president had telegraphed last week, the hawks were celebrating.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina previewed the announcement Sunday as a 'turning point' and added, 'The game, regarding [Vladimir] Putin's invasion of Russia, is about to change.'
Trump's tougher tactic toward Russia – albeit with a 50-day deadline that's much more generous than the 'two weeks' he floated earlier this summer – follows days of him expressing newfound skepticism of Putin's intentions, after years of equivocations and a curiously kid-gloves approach to Russia.
But the timing is also far from ideal for Trump, politically speaking. He is already dealing with a backlash from the MAGA base over his administration's botched handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. And the base in recent years has steadily moved away from Ukraine.
It's too soon to know for sure how this new show of support for Ukraine will play. Will it be like the recent US strikes on Iran, when an initially skeptical MAGA base quickly embraced Trump's move? Or could it be another mark against Trump with his base?
It's complicated. It seems quite possible MAGA could again come on board with Trump's approach, in large numbers – as they often have in similar situations. But some of the skepticism of Ukraine is pretty deep-seated.
The most recent data show most of the Republican Party base thinks the US government is doing 'too much' to help Ukraine.
A March poll from Marquette University Law School showed 59% of Republicans agreed with that sentiment. An earlier poll from Gallup pegged that number at 56%. Only about 1 in 10 Republicans wanted the US to do more.
A poll from Reuters and Ipsos around the same time showed Republicans opposed continuing to send weapons and financial aid to Ukraine, 63-34%.
A big reason why: Republicans just don't seem to think there is much at stake for the United States in Ukraine.
Pew Research Center polling from March showed just 25% of Republican-leaning Americans were 'extremely' or 'very' concerned about Russia defeating Ukraine. Just 29% worried that much about Russia going on to invade other countries. And just 40% regarded Russia as an 'enemy' (down from 69% after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022).
The Reuters poll also showed 58% of Republicans tended to agree with the statement that 'the problems of Ukraine are none of our business, and we should not interfere.'
Those numbers suggest most of Trump's base would not be on board with a hard pivot toward Ukraine.
But that Reuters poll also hinted at how things could shift.
For instance, it showed only 17% of Republicans 'strongly' agreed with the sentiment that Ukraine's problems were none of our business. Just 27% strongly opposed continuing to send weapons and financial aid.
So most of those who sided against Ukraine weren't completely firm in their views – and could seemingly adjust them.
And the data also point to how that could happen.
Trump's argument for turning against Putin is essentially that he's not a reliable negotiator or serious about the president's much-desired peace deal. Trump last week decried the Russian leader's 'bullshit,' saying, 'He's very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' Trump has also criticized Russia's ramped-up offensives in recent days and weeks.
Russia hawks and Trump's critics have expressed apoplexy that it took him this long to come to that supposed realization. But it's also an argument – Trump gave Putin a chance, but Putin failed to take advantage of it – that could land on the right.
The Pew poll, for instance, showed just 27% of Republicans said Putin was committed to a lasting peace with Ukraine.
The Gallup survey also got at this. Nearly half of Republicans (48%) were at least 'somewhat' worried that peace deal would be too favorable to Russia, and 69% worried that Russia would violate the terms of any agreement.
In other words, there remains a lingering skepticism of Putin on the right that could come to the fore. Yes, only 40% labeled Russia an 'enemy' in that Pew poll, but we've also seen that number much higher very recently.
Republicans' views on the war and on Russia have turned on a dime before — always in the direction Trump guided them.
But it's also not clear it would happen to the extent it did with the Iran strikes, when a CNN poll after they were launched showed 8 in 10 Republicans approved of Trump's decision.
While many Republicans' views on Ukraine appear soft, Trump's non-interventionist allies have spent years cultivating skepticism of Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, often using disinformation. Remember the backlash to Zelensky's Oval Office meeting in February, when Vice President JD Vance seemed to be baiting the Ukrainian president to create a scene, and MAGA turned sharply against Zelensky.
These segments of Trump's base are likely more dug in against helping Ukraine than they were against striking Iran – a situation that sprung up rapidly and also allied the US with Israel.
To the extent Trump does land firmly in Ukraine's corner, he'll likely bring most of his base with him. But he'll again be challenging a significant portion of his most ardent supporters to question whether this is what they voted for.
Stay tuned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
14 minutes ago
- Associated Press
America's only rare earth producer gets a boost from Apple and Pentagon agreements
MP Materials, which runs the only American rare earths mine, announced a new $500 million agreement with tech giant Apple on Tuesday to produce more of the powerful magnets used in iPhones as well as other high-tech products like electric vehicles. This news comes on the heels of last week's announcement that the U.S. Defense Department agreed to invest $400 million in shares of the Las Vegas-based company. That will make the government the largest shareholder in MP Materials and help increase magnet production. Despite their name, the 17 rare earth elements aren't actually rare, but it's hard to find them in a high enough concentration to make a mine worth the investment. They are important ingredients in everything from smartphones and submarines to EVs and fighter jets, and it's those military applications that have made rare earths a key concern in ongoing U.S. trade talks. That's because China dominates the market and imposed new limits on exports after President Donald Trump announced his widespread tariffs. When shipments dried up, the two sides sat down in London. The agreement with Apple will allow MP Materials to further expand its new factory in Texas to use recycled materials to produce the magnets that make iPhones vibrate. The company expects to start producing magnets for GM's electric vehicles later this year and this agreement will let it start producing magnets for Apple in 2027. The Apple agreement represents a tenth of the company's pledge to invest $500 billion domestically during the Trump administration. And although the deal will provide a significant boost for MP Materials, the agreement with the Defense Department may be even more meaningful. Neha Mukherjee, a rare earths analyst with Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, said in a research note that the Pentagon's 10-year promise to guarantee a minimum price for the key elements of neodymium and praseodymium will guarantee stable revenue for MP Minerals and protect it from potential price cuts by Chinese producers that are subsidized by their government. 'This is the kind of long-term commitment needed to reshape global rare earth supply chains,' Mukherjee said. Trump has made it a priority to try to reduce American reliance on China for rare earths. His administration is both helping MP Materials and trying to encourage the development of new mines that would take years to come to fruition. China has agreed to issue some permits for rare earth exports but not for military uses, and much uncertainty remains about their supply. The fear is that the trade war between the world's two biggest economies could lead to a critical shortage of rare earth elements that could disrupt production of a variety of products. MP Materials can't satisfy all of the U.S. demand from its Mountain Pass mine in California's Mojave Desert. The deals by MP Materials come as Beijing and Washington have agreed to walk back on their non-tariff measures: China is to grant export permits for rare earth magnets to the U.S., and the U.S. is easing export controls on chip design software and jet engines. The truce is intended to ease tensions and prevent any catastrophic fall-off in bilateral relations, but is unlikely to address fundamental differences as both governments take steps to reduce dependency on each other. ___ Associated Press reporters David Klepper and Didi Tang contributed to this report from Washington D.C. Michael Liedtke contributed from San Francisco.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘American death zones': Trump admin announces $30m for Gaza aid program where dozens have been killed trying to get food
The Trump administration has approved $30 million in funding for a controversial American non-profit to deliver aid in Gaza, even after hundreds of Palestinians have been reported killed trying to get food at its sites in recent weeks. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.-based non-profit now run by an evangelical preacher who was a White House adviser during Donald Trump's first term, launched operations in May following a months-long Israeli blockade of nearly all food and aid. But Gaza's health ministry says that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed since then while attempting to get food at GHF sites and other aid points run by the United Nations in the north of the territory. In response to a question about the high death toll, a State Department spokesperson denied the 'false allegations' of killings at GHF sites, telling The Independent that 'most incidents are occurring at non-GHF aid sites that operate near GHF. And none of this would be happening if Hamas would lay down their arms.' 'Hamas will stop at nothing to stay in power and disseminated false propaganda in order to do so,' they added. But testimony collected by The Independent from Palestinians whose family members have been killed at the sites paints a picture of chaos and death. Some have described them as 'American death zones' because of the contractors who patrol them. Salwa Al-Daghma, 50, told The Independent that her brother Khaled, a 36-year-old father of five, was killed earlier this month while trying to get food for his family. 'Hunger is the reason. There is no food. He went to feed his wife and children. He went to provide them with food, but he left and never returned,' she said. 'When relatives came to tell me something, I assumed it was my son. They told me it was my brother, so I started screaming and crying.' 'This aid is a morsel of food soaked in blood. They don't want to help us; they are actually killing us,' she added. Iyad Abu Darabi, a 48-year-old father of six, said his son was killed when he went to get rice from a GHF distribution point. 'My son went to get some flour for his family, but came back in a coffin and a death shroud,' he said. 'This aid is a trap. It's in a barren land surrounded by fences, and the gates are opened for tens of thousands to fight over without any order. They leave people fighting each other over food,' he added. Almost all aid that has entered Gaza since Israel lifted a total blockade now runs through the GHF, which operates four food distribution sites that are overseen by American private security contractors and situated alongside Israeli army positions, which provide security at the perimeter. Israeli soldiers have described the sites as 'killing fields' and said they were ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians in shocking testimony released this week. "Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas – just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire," one soldier told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "We open fire early in the morning if someone tries to get in line from a few hundred meters away, and sometimes we just charge at them from close range. But there's no danger to the forces," the soldier added. The soldier quoted by Haaretz said he was 'not aware of a single instance of return fire. There's no enemy, no weapons," at the sites. The story includes testimony from an Israeli army officer who said his unit fired machine guns, mortars and threw grenades at civilians approaching the aid distribution centers because 'a combat brigade doesn't have the tools to handle a civilian population in a war zone.' Despite the dozens of deaths, the U.S. State Department has continued to back the GHF politically, and on Thursday said it would fund the group to deliver aid in Gaza. 'This support is simply the latest iteration of President Trump's and Secretary Rubio's pursuit of peace in the region," State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters at a regular news briefing. It is unclear why the Trump administration has decided to deliver aid to Gaza exclusively through the GHF, but former officials from the U.S. state department and USAID who have worked on emergency aid delivery described the new system as 'grotesque', 'dangerous' and part of a larger plan to use aid to control the movement of Palestinians. 'What is so infuriatingly tragic about this is that it's playing out exactly as any experienced humanitarian could have predicted,' said Jeremy Konyndyk, who oversaw famine relief at USAID for three years during the Obama administration and is now president of Refugees International. 'When you have an aid distribution model that is premised on forcing huge crowds of desperately hungry people to cluster directly adjacent to IDF military installations, you're going to get massacres,' he added. Mr Konyndyk said it was 'not a coincidence' that most of the distribution sites were in the south of Gaza, at a time when the Israeli army was trying to force Palestinians out of the north of the territory. 'A basic principle of humanitarian response is you move the aid as close to you can to where the people are. They're doing the opposite of that, the diametric opposite of that, which suggests that they want to draw people to the south,' he said. 'I think that is highly suggestive of the longer-term agenda here,' he added. Stacey Gilbert, who resigned from the state department in 2024 over the Biden administration's failure to hold Israel accountable for blocking aid to Gaza, also believes the sites are located primarily in the south to draw Palestinians away from the north. 'This is trying to draw them all to one area, to get them away from the area that Israel doesn't want them in,' she said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz hit out at the Haaretz story in a joint statement, describing the testimonies as 'contemptible blood libels.' 'These are malicious falsehoods designed to defame the IDF, the most moral military in the world,' the statement said. The IDF said it is 'operating to allow and facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid by the American 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation' (GHF), and to secure the routes leading to the distribution centers, in order to allow the aid to reach the civilians rather than Hamas.' It added that it 'strongly' rejected the accusations raised in the Haaretz article. 'The IDF did not instruct the forces to deliberately shoot at civilians, including those approaching the distribution centers. To be clear, IDF directives prohibit deliberate attacks on civilians,' it said in a statement. The GHF's Interim Executive Director John Acree said in a statement provided to The Independent that 'there have been no incidents or fatalities at or in the immediate vicinity of any of our distribution sites.' 'However, IDF is tasked with providing safe passage for aid-seekers to all humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza, including GHF. GHF is not aware of any of these incidents but these allegations are too grave to ignore and we therefore call on Israel to investigate them and transparently publish the results in a timely manner,' he added. Acree said the GHF was 'grateful for the support from President Trump and his administration in getting life-saving aid directly into the hands of the Palestinian people in Gaza'. The GHF's current leader, Johnnie Moore, an evangelical preacher who was a White House adviser in the first Trump administration, said in a post on X on Thursday that the group has delivered more than 46 million meals to Gazans since it began its operations in May. Israel imposed a full blockade on aid into Gaza when a ceasefire collapsed in March, pushing the population to the edge of famine. When aid is finally permitted to enter, many convoys are overwhelmed by hungry families and civilians in desperation, and armed gangs have reportedly exploited the chaos on occasion to steal the aid.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Graham, Blumenthal hail Trump's new Russia sanctions plan
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who have been pushing for a Russia sanctions bill, on Monday hailed President Trump's threat of tougher sanctions on Moscow if Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn't wind down his country's attacks on Ukraine in the coming weeks. 'It is long overdue for the financial backers of Russia's atrocities in Ukraine to pay a price for buying cheap energy products and marking it up in order to benefit their economies. The days of doing this without consequences are coming to an end,' the senators said in a joint statement after Trump's remarks at the White House. 'The combination of more American-made, European-purchased weapons for Ukraine and tariffs on the financial backers of Putin's brutal war has changed the game.' Trump warned Russia on Monday that he's prepared to levy 100 percent secondary economic sanctions in 50 days, which would target other nations that do business with Russia. 'We're very, very unhappy with [Russia], and we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in about 50 days,' Trump said during a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. 'We are very unhappy — I am — with Russia.' Graham and Blumenthal have a Russia sanctions bill with more than 80 co-sponsors in the Senate. The latest version would empower Trump to impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from any nation that purchases Russian uranium, gas or oil. 'Finally, as President Trump indicated, we will join our colleagues in continuing to work with the White House on our bipartisan Russia sanctions legislation that would implement up to 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas, and do not help Ukraine,' the senators said Monday. 'The congressional legislation authorizing tariffs and sanctions would truly be a sledgehammer for President Trump to end this war, and it will allow for maximum flexibility to achieve that end.' 'The benefit of our approach is that it blends congressional authorization of tariffs and sanctions with flexibility for presidential implementation, making it rock solid legally and politically,' they added. Trump, who has previously praised Putin, has been expressing increasing frustration with Russia's leader over what he described as disingenuous efforts to end the conflict with Ukraine. Trump campaigned on brokering a peace deal between the warring rivals last year. He reiterated that position during Monday's White House meeting. 'I go home and tell the first lady, 'I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation.' She says, 'Oh really? Another [Ukrainian] city was just hit,'' Trump recalled. 'We're very, very unhappy with them and we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days,' he said. 'Tariffs at about 100 percent.' The White House later clarified that Trump meant 'secondary sanctions' and not tariffs. 'You can do tariffs or you can do sanctions, those are both tools in his toolbox,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters after the president's remarks. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
