The Dictatorship
Team Trump lowered expectations before the Putin summit. Now we may know why.
Last week, the White House blew past its own deadline of imposing sanctions on Russia for continuing its three-year invasion of Ukraine, and then, in a misguided effort to clean up that mistake, President Donald Trump gifted Russian President Vladimir Putin a one-on-one meeting in Alaska. It was impossible to make sense of what Trump expected to gain by doing so. It’s not even clear what Trump wants, other than a Nobel Peace Prize.
Trump said he and Putin had decided not to try for a ceasefire at all, “which often times do not hold up.”
It’s even less apparent now what Trump wanted and expected. But after Trump and Putin met for more than two hours Friday, and then praised each other to the media for about 12 minutes, it was clear that Trump, in his rush to meet with Putin, not only risked whatever was left of his image as a dealmaker-in-chief, but he also may have damaged the United States’ image as a global champion for democracy.
Did the meeting bring us any closer to a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine? Trump said the two countries “haven’t quite gotten there” but “made some headway” and then landed on the tried-and-true holding statement that “there’s no deal until there’s a deal.”
He said, “I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate. And I’ll, of course, call up President Zelenskyy and tell him about today’s meeting. It’s ultimately up to them.”
Then, early on Saturday, a few more details were released. Trump said he and Putin had decided not to try for a ceasefire at all, “which often times do not hold up,” but instead work directly on a peace agreement. Zelenskyy confirmed he would visit Trump in Washington to discuss that possibility on Monday. But the end result of Friday’s meeting remains unchanged.
Notably, before the summit, Trump had upset Zelenskyy and Europe when he said, with no input from Ukraine, that in a ceasefire deal “there’ll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.” Russia elaborated that it anticipated getting control of all of eastern Ukraine. At the same time, the Trump team planned to move ahead with revoking the legal statuses of more than 200,000 Ukrainian refugees living in the United States.
While even anodyne meetings between friendly heads of state are typically highly choreographed, with goals and discussion boundaries outlined well in advance by other officials, Trump’s freewheeling style and misplaced confidence that he has a personal relationship with Putin, a former KGB officer, created an unnecessary level of unpredictability to the proceedings in the days leading up to the so-called “Pursuing Peace” event.
“If you roll into the meeting not prepped, you can get jammed by Putin,” Michael McFaul, who was U.S. ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration, said last week. “Summits are to achieve an objective that advances American national interests. They’re the means to end, and I sometimes feel that Trump feels the meeting is an end in itself.”
Trump’s misplaced confidence that he has a personal relationship with Putin, a former KGB officer, created an unnecessary level of unpredictability to the proceedings.
When it appeared that Trump was going to walk into that meeting with Putin and offer him part of Ukraine on a platter, other countries took up the pro-democracy mantle the U.S. had dropped. The European Union objected to the concept of appeasing invaders who ignore national boundaries, an experience Europeans are keen to avoid after the infamous 1938 meeting that preceded World War II. Also, after a virtual meeting with Trump and other leaders, French President Emmanuel Macron affirmed that “the territorial issue relating to Ukraine cannot and will not be negotiated by anyone but the Ukrainian president.” But Macron maintained that something needed to come out of this meeting, such as a ceasefire and a return of kidnapped Ukrainian children.
The pressure on Trump to actually consider the details and impacts of his statements worked — at least to a degree. The White House dramatically lowered the expectations that any ceasefire or peace settlement would be reached by referring to the summit as “a listening session,” during which Trump would simply tell Putin, “You’ve got to end this war.” Shortly before the meeting began, Trump also stated he is “open to the possibility of security guarantees” for Ukraine, though how that can be managed without membership in NATO — the multinational entity holding the line against Russian aggression — remains to be seen.
At the beginning of the meeting, there was a palpable sigh of relief from European allies as the real-time decision was made for Trump and Putin to meet alongside their senior diplomats. This at least guaranteed that there’d be some level of note-taking, that American officials would have basic insight into the discussions and that the world would not be left to rely solely on the Russian spin of the events. The idea of Trump meeting Putin without those parameters in place wouldn’t have been a worry if Trump hadn’t had secret meetings with Putin in the past where no one else knows what really happened.
But Russia clearly felt like it could flex its muscle even heading into this meeting. The Russian foreign minister arrived in the U.S. wearing a CCCP sweatshirt, something he has not done before. Russian officials began telling media outlets they anticipated getting mineral rights in Alaska.
While the Russian energy sector and economy is suffering, the truth is Putin didn’t need anything more than a photo of him on the same military base the U.S. once used to counter the Soviets. Trump legitimized Putin as the leader of a superpower that must be dealt with directly and not a rogue state kicked out of the G8. Trump completely ignored U.S. sanctions and the international arrest warrant for Putin, essentially siding with Putin against the democratic world order. He again illustrated how potentially easy it is for him to be manipulated into playing second fiddle to Putin’s imperial ambitions, gaining nothing for himself or the U.S. in return.
The Russian foreign minister arrived in the U.S. wearing a CCCP sweatshirt.
After 20 minutes of speaking in Russian to the mostly American media, Putin, who speaks English well enough, closed out his time in Alaska by saying: “Next time, in Moscow.”
Trump said Putin’s remark would get him “a little heat,” but that he “could see it possibly happening.”
Putin naming Moscow as the site of a follow-up meeting is another way way of proclaiming that Russia is back in the great power game.
Thanks to the president who wants us to believe he’s the world’s best negotiator and maker of deals.
Nayyera Haq is an assistant dean at Syracuse Maxwell School of Public Affairs. She previously served as a senior director focusing on national security and economic policy at the White House, a senior adviser at the State Department and spokesperson at the U.S. Treasury, where she advised the country’s top leaders. She hosts conversations on SiriusXM talk radio and was an evening news anchor and chief foreign affairs correspondent for the Black News Channel.
The Dictatorship
Judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS
WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.
The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.
Moss ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”
“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Moss’ decision is “a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law.”
“NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them. The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Jackson said in a statement.
PBS, with programming ranging from “Sesame Street” and “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” to Ken Burns’ documentaries, has been operating for more than half a century. NPR has news programming from “All Things Considered” and cultural shows like the “Tiny Desk” concerts. For decades, the fates of both systems have been part of a philosophical debate over whether government should help fund their operations.
Punishment for ‘past speech’ cited in decision
The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.
“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.
Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.
“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.
NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.
“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.
PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”
Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.
A victory, though incremental, for press freedom
Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”
“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”
The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.
“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”
NPR and three public radio stations sued administration officials last May. While Trump was named as a defendant, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.
Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.
___
AP Media Writer David Bauder and AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile
More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”
The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:
Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that.’
‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon now.
The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.
If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.
But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.
A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.
Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.
Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.
And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.
Mission accomplished, I guess?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal
Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.
Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.
“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.
Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.
Lawmakers were back to square one.
But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.
Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.
Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.
“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.
Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.
Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.
“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”
“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’






