
North Korea Ignores Trump's Overtures
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
North Korea continues to give the United States the cold shoulder, despite President Donald Trump's apparent willingness to resume dialogue with the country's supreme leader, Kim Jong Un.
State media has branded Washington a "hostile force" after Trump expressed confidence in his ability to end a potential conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
Why It Matters
Trump claims to have considerable leverage over Kim, citing their correspondence during his first term in office. During this period, he also met with Kim face-to-face in a failed effort to entice the North Korean leader to draw down his regime's United Nations-sanctioned nuclear weapons program, which Pyongyang claims is necessary to deter aggression by the U.S. and its South Korean ally.
The stalled talks sent bilateral ties into a chill, with North Korea moving to enshrine its nuclear weapons capability into its constitution and resuming its ballistic missile launches and bellicose rhetoric that drove up tensions with the South.
Newsweek reached out to the North Korean embassy in China by email with a request for comment.
What To Know
Rodong Sinmun, the official mouthpiece of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party, took aim at the U.S.—without mentioning it by name—in an editorial published Sunday.
"Hostile forces have, for over 10 years, clung to unprecedentedly harsh sanctions and blockades in an attempt to make us abandon the path of self-reliance," the article said.
It went on to praise North Korea's continued determination to resist "imperialists," saying that their designs can only be countered by "stockpiling strong power to defend the nation's sovereignty and security."
The article was published just two days after Trump touted his "good relationship" with Kim, but did not confirm or deny he had reached out to the North Korean strongman.
Trump also expressed confidence he could resolve any conflict that might break out between Pyongyang and Seoul. Because Korean War hostilities ended with an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty, the neighbors technically remain in a state of war.
Earlier this month, North Korea-focused outlet NK News reported Trump had written a letter to Kim, seeking to open the door for renewed dialogue.
According to an "informed high-level source" cited by the outlet, in-person attempts to deliver the letter were rebuffed by staff members of North Korea's U.N. office.
What's Next
The conditions in which Kim would agree on returning to the negotiating table remain unclear, but analysts widely concur North Korea is unlikely to accept any deal that demands full denuclearization.
Meanwhile, Russia's war in Ukraine and heightened tensions in the Middle East in the wake of the war between Iran and Israel are likely to keep North Korea off the White House's list of immediate priorities.
What People Have Said
Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Friday: "If there is a conflict, I get along with him very, very well. And we'll get the conflict solved.
"I've had a good relationship with Kim Jong Un [...] but somebody's saying if there's a potential conflict—I think we'll work it out, and if there is it wouldn't involve us."
Andrei Lankov, visiting research fellow for the Seoul-based Sejong Institute think tank, wrote in a June analysis: "Under current circumstances, compared with 2019, North Korea is under much less pressure to engage in negotiations with the United States.
"This might mean that the North Korean side will not start where the talks ended in 2019, and will make a few steps back, withdrawing some of their 2019 proposals which might be seen now as excessively generous [...] This might mean that the U.S. delegation would have to accept the conditions it rejected in Hanoi in 2019 or accept the collapse of the talks."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Rep. Greg Steube says passing Trump megabill in the House will likely ‘be a challenge'
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) said on Monday passing President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in the House will likely 'be a challenge.' 'I do think you're gonna have some challenges on the House side. We can only lose three votes,' Steube told NewsNation's Blake Burman on 'The Hill.' 'You've got 218 you got to get to, we can only lose three, if we lose four the bill's dead, and you've got things in here that moderates don't like, and you've got things in here that conservatives don't like. So, it is certainly going to be a challenge.' House moderate Republicans and hard-line conservatives have recently expressed rising opposition to the Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' only days before the lower chamber is set to consider the legislation. Democrats have already expressed their own vehement distaste for the bill, with members like Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) calling it a 'big bad betrayal bill' and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) saying it is an 'evil bill.' 'If Republicans pass this big bad betrayal bill, they are quite literally ensuring that more poor Americans will DIE so that billionaires and giant corporations can get a tax cut,' Jayapal said in a post on the social platform X Monday. Former close Trump ally Elon Musk said Monday he would support primary challengers to any Republicans who backed Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!' Musk said on X.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats fail to overturn ruling that tax cuts in GOP megabill don't add to deficit
The Senate voted along party lines Monday that making the expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent as part of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' could be scored as deficit neutral and therefore comply with the Byrd Rule, allowing the bill to pass with a simple-majority vote. Democrats failed to defeat the ruling by the Senate chair, which Republicans control, that the chamber's 940-page One Big, Beautiful Bill Act does not violate the 1974 Congressional Budget Act by using a controversial 'current policy' baseline to score the extension of President Trump's expiring tax cuts as not adding to the deficit. If the tax portion of the bill were scored on a 'current law' baseline, which assumes the 2017 Trump tax cuts would expire at the end of 2025, then it would add an estimated $3.5 trillion to federal deficits between 2025-34 and would add to deficits after 2034 — beyond the 10-year budget window allowed by the Byrd Rule. Scored this way, the Republican bill would fail the rule, which governs what legislation is eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the reconciliation fast track, and Republicans would be forced to rewrite large parts of the measure. But when scored with a 'current policy' baseline, the Congressional Budget Office projects the tax cuts in the Finance Committee's section of the bill would increase deficits by not more than $1.5 trillion between 2025-34 and would not increase on-budget deficits after 2034. Democrats argued a current policy baseline had never been used before in a budget reconciliation bill, and had never been used to score an extension of expiring tax cuts as not adding to future deficits, and therefore was not in compliance with the Senate's Byrd Rule. And Democrats highlighted over the weekend that most of the Republican reconciliation package uses a 'current law' baseline to project the cost of the legislation. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) accused Republicans of 'deploying fake math and budgetary hocus-pocus to make it seem like their billionaire giveaways don't cost anything.' Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused Republicans of 'going nuclear' to blow up the Senate rules so they can make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. 'This is the nuclear option. It's just hidden behind a whole lot of Washington, D.C., lingo,' Wyden said on the floor. Wyden pointed out through a parliamentary inquiry that the Finance portion of the bill used two different baselines, current policy and current law. Senate Democrats had tried to schedule a meeting with Republican Budget Committee staff and with the parliamentarian to discuss whether using a current policy baseline violated Senate precedent and the Byrd Rule, but Republicans 'flat-out refused' to participate in such a meeting, according to a person familiar with the conversations. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday morning that Republicans are not overruling the parliamentarian and asserted the parliamentarian has said it is up to him as Budget chair to set the baseline. And he argued Democrats in the past have supported the use of a current policy baseline to project the cost of legislation, although it hasn't been done before for a budget reconciliation package. He noted former Democratic Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (N.D.) used a current policy baseline for a past farm bill. Republicans also point out former President Obama's budget office supported using a current policy baseline to score the extension of the expiring tax cuts from the George W. Bush era at the end of 2012. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on the floor Monday that former Obama Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jeff Zients supported using the current policy baseline for the 2012 fiscal cliff deal. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Hundreds of National Guard forces deployed to L.A. by Trump could be sent to wildfire duty
Why is Trump allowed to keep the National Guard in L.A.? A military commander has discussed shifting some California National Guard troops away from the Trump administration's weekslong deployment to deal with protests in Los Angeles so they can help fight wildfires, two U.S. officials told CBS News. Gen. Gregory Guillot, the leader of U.S. Northern Command, made the request to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, proposing that 200 out of roughly 4,000 California National Guard members be moved from Los Angeles to wildfire duty elsewhere in California. The request to shift some troops to wildfire duty was first reported by The Associated Press. The purpose of the possible move is to help prepare for wildfire season, one U.S. official said. The other official said they could be placed on standby to respond to wildfires. Wildfires can happen at any time of year in California, but they usually peak in the summer and fall. The state expects an "early and active season" this year, with above-average activity in July and August, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire. The Los Angeles deployment has been controversial and subject to legal challenges. President Trump called up around 4,000 Guard members — and deployed around 700 Marines — over California Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections, moves Mr. Trump argued were necessary to protect federal buildings and immigration agents from chaotic protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Newsom argued the deployment was illegal and unnecessary. When Mr. Trump initially called up the California National Guard to deal with protests, the state had warned the move could interfere with its wildfire response. The state relies on Guard forces to supplement crews from Cal Fire — and as wildfires become more frequent and severe, state officials have said more resources are needed. Newsom's office said last week the Guard's firefighting force was only at 40% capacity due to the Los Angeles deployment. "This deployment comes when California is in the midst of peak wildfire season for both Northern and Southern California and may need to rely on their crucial support," the state of California wrote in a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the deployment. A federal district court judge initially sided with the state in its lawsuit, but a panel of appellate court judges paused that ruling, allowing Mr. Trump to maintain control of the Guard. The troops were shifted to federal service earlier this month under a law known as Title 10, which lets the president call up National Guard forces during a "rebellion" or if "the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The Trump administration argued those conditions were met due to threats of violence against immigration agents who carried out arrests in the Los Angeles area. Newsom objected to the move, and the state quickly filed a lawsuit calling it a "power grab." The state argued that under the law cited by the administration, Mr. Trump does not have the legal authority to call up the Guard without permission from the governor. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ultimately sided with the Trump administration, allowing troops to remain in Los Angeles while the state's lawsuit is heard. The court wrote that Mr. Trump most likely "lawfully exercised his statutory authority" to federalize the Guard, and that the law "does not give governors any veto power."