Putin Says Russia to Seek Defense Cuts Though It Depends on War
President Vladimir Putin said Russia plans to cut defense spending, acknowledging growing strains on the budget even as he insisted that reductions would depend on winning his war in Ukraine.
Russia is spending 6.3% of gross domestic product on defense this year and 'that's a lot,' Putin told reporters in Minsk, Belarus, on Friday. 'It's one of the problems, including for the budget, that we have to resolve,' and Russia paid a price in inflation from the increased expenditure, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about 'troubling message'
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies. That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration. 'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jackson warns of ‘existential threat to law' posed by court's nationwide injunctions ruling
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing dissent in response to the Supreme Court's majority opinion on Friday that limited federal judges' ability to temporarily pause President Donald Trump's executive orders nationwide. The 6-3 decision, authored by Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, allows the president to implement his order to end automatic birthright citizenship as litigation on the matter continues. As The New York Times reported, 'the practice of giving citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the order.' The decision is expected to have far-reaching impacts on other aspects of the president's agenda, as he stated later Friday that his administration 'can now promptly file to proceed' with policies that had been subject to nationwide injunctions. Jackson, the newest member of the court, joined fellow Democratic-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissent that was also joined by Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee. But Jackson wrote a separate dissent as well, in which she warned that the court's 'decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.' She continued: It is important to recognize that the Executive's bid to vanquish so-called 'universal injunctions' is, at bottom, a request for this Court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says 'do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,' what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government's wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it. Scroll to Page 98 below to read Jackson's full dissent, or click here. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sotomayor joined by Jackson, Kagan in fiery birthright citizenship dissents
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices issued fiery dissents Friday in response to the conservative majority's decision to let President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order go into effect in some parts of the country. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson that the decision that the majority played into the president's hand by cutting back the ability of judges on lower courts to issue injunctions blocking Trump's policies nationwide. She noted the government has not asked for complete stays of the injunctions because, to get such relief, it would have to prove Trump's order narrowing birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil who don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status is likely constitutional. 'So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game,' she said, pointing to the Trump administration's bid to tear down nationwide injunctions. 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,' she said. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' Sotomayor argued the rule of law is 'not a given,' and the high court 'abdicates its vital role' in fighting for its survival in America today. 'With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' She read her dissent from the bench, the second time this term she has done so. In a separate, solo dissent, Jackson went a step further. She called the court's 6-3 decision along ideological lines an 'existential threat to the rule of law.' 'It is important to recognize that the Executive's bid to vanquish so-called 'universal injunctions' is, at bottom, a request for this Court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior,' Jackson wrote in her dissent. 'When the Government says 'do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,' what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this. That is some solicitation.' Jackson suggested the Constitution was designed to 'split the powers of a monarch' between three governing branches to protect the American people from overreach. She said those core values are 'strangely absent' from the majority ruling. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent,' she wrote. In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett forcefully pushed back against Jackson's suggestion the court shirked on its duty to protect the people from government overreach. She said she would 'not dwell' on Jackson's argument, claiming it is at odds with 'more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
