If Ukraine needs a wake-up call regarding how much agency it truly has, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s humiliating decision to sign the rare minerals dealwhich would see America and Ukraine jointly extract valuable raw materials such as lithium and titanium, will do the trick. It’s hard to get more symbolic than watching the head of a client state get lambasted in the Oval Officehaving the United States cut off sharing intelligence with his military, then shambling back over to his overseer to pay up.

There are, however, two underreported facets to this shameful episode that can help us understand the nature of both Washington and Ukraine. We can witness, in real time, the masks coming off of Washington’s foreign policy complex; we can also see why this particular betrayal is so traumatic and painful given Ukraine’s tragic history.

We can witness, in real time, the masks coming off of Washington’s foreign policy complex.

The refreshing thing about President Donald Trump is that he speaks the quiet part out loud. Politicians and think tankers who comprise Washington’s sprawling foreign policy establishment — “the Blob,” as it was called by Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes — love warbling about Ukraine’s battling on the front lines of freedom and Kyiv’s being our cherished partner, brimming with agency and sovereignty.

Trump doesn’t warble. Trump, who loves harping on Europe’s needing to pay for its own security, has made it clear that freedom ain’t free: If Ukraine wants the weapons it needs to hold Russia at bay, it better cough up its minerals.

The thing is, when it comes to looting Ukraine, the Blob is little different from Trump. Foreign policy insiders’ lofty concerns about Kyiv’s agency evaporate in the face of economic “opportunities.”

“Putin had two goals in invading Ukraine: robbing its territory, and robbing its sovereignty by preventing them from joining NATO,” thundered Sen. Chris CoonsD-del., On Feb. 16.

But just one day prior, Sen. Coons was striking a markedly different tone about Ukraine’s minerals.

“If this is an investment opportunity where American companies and other companies from Europe would be involved in mining and processing, so that we can be independent of Chinese sources of these strategic minerals, and if his helps deepen and strengthen our partnership to help ensure the security of Ukraine going forward … that would be a positive thing,” he told CNBC.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s robbing Ukraine is a horrific violation of sovereignty; the United States’ doing so is a positive. Let freedom ring.

Or take Peter Dickinson — the editor of a Ukraine-centric blog for the Atlantic Councila Washington-based foreign policy think tank that receives funding from arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, the kingdom of Bahrain, the Charles Koch Foundation and the U.S. Energy Department, among other luminaries. “We hear lots of talk about geopolitics and what Putin wants, but we should not underestimate the agency of the Ukrainian people or their desire for a democratic European future,” Dickinson told Bloomberg in 2022.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s robbing Ukraine is a horrific violation of sovereignty; the United States’ doing so is a positive. Let freedom ring.

Later that year, the X handle of Business Ukraine Mag (a publication edited and published by Dickinson) took Elon Musk to the woodshed, posting, “Elon Musk seems unaware that Ukrainian sovereignty is not up for discussion.” Things appear to have changed last month, however, when Dickinson was quoted in a Blue Light News article with the amazing headline “Ukraine reels in Trump with mineral riches.” (It could have also read: “Bully’s victim reels in bully with lunch money.”)

Dickinson acknowledged that for Kyiv, it “would mean a lot less mineral wealth in future” before adding, “But I doubt anyone is very concerned about that.” He continued, “Compared to the alternative of the country being wiped off the map entirely, it looks like a very good deal indeed! Most Ukrainians certainly seem to view it as perhaps distasteful but ultimately a no-brainer.”

The hypocrisy of Ukraine’s purported Washington advocates only deepens given the role its territorial resources play in Ukraine’s identity — and the danger that could lurk for Zelenskyy, of all people, if he is strong-armed into conceding them.

It’s hard to overstate the role land plays in the Ukrainian psyche. One modern interpretation of the country’s blue-over-yellow flag is that it represents blue skies over the golden wheat fields of Ukraine. Even the months of the year are named after the agricultural cycle — August is Sickle-time, for the harvest; November is Leaf-fall, for autumn.

This love of their land — and fear of losing it — was watered with blood after Holodomor: the 1932-1933 manmade faminecourtesy of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, after he ordered the grain seized from Ukraine. The famine, which many (including me) consider a genocide, saw almost 4 million Ukrainians perish of hunger. Every morning, dead bodies littered the streets as people collapsed where they walked. Cannibalism was commonplace.

Stalin sold the stolen wheat to industrialize the Soviet Union, including its military, which was used to keep Kyiv under Moscow’s power for the next 50-plus years; Ukraine’s grain helped forge Ukraine’s chains.

Ultranationalist elements of Ukraine seized on Holodomor to create the antisemitic lie that the famine was orchestrated by Jews. Starting with World War II, that deadly trope was used to “justify” Ukrainian participation in the Holocausta “you killed us, we killed you” narrative that persists on the Ukrainian far right to this day.

You can see it in graffiti scrawled on a Jewish social services center in the western city of Uzhhorod in 2017: “We remember. 1932-1933. We’ll take revenge.” The years referred to the famine; the graffiti appeared on the day Ukraine commemorates Holodomor victims.

The image of Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s first Jewish president, signing away his country’s rare minerals couldn’t be more perfect for Ukraine’s far right. He might as well be maniacally rubbing his hands together while being handed a bag with dollar signs.

Considering Kyiv is teetering on losing the war, which could unleash various nightmare scenarios, that image is not just disgusting but dangerous. Jews haven’t done well when they have been blamed for wars.

The kicker to the rare minerals deal is that much of the resources are in Ukraine’s east, either in Russia-controlled territory or in a no-man’s-land covered with land mines. Realistically, Zelenskyy has as much ability to give them away as I do. The only bankable outcome of this sordid mess is just a further painful reminder of how screwed Ukraine is.

Lev Golinkin

Lev Golinkin writes about refugee and immigrant identity, as well as Ukraine, Russia and the far right. He is the author of the memoir “A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka.”

Democrats seem to have been outplayed by Republicans when it comes to managing the latest government shutdown battle. And perhaps their biggest mistake was underestimating House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. By a 54-46 vote on Friday night, the Senate approved the funding bill to keep the government open that the Republican-controlled House had passed on Tuesday.

This shutdown cycle was not without drama. On Thursday, the evening before the deadlineSenate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reversed the position he’d taken earlier in the week and vowed to help pass the House’s short-term continuing resolution bill. This must have been a tough call for the New York Democrat. As Schumer wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times“As bad as passing the continuing resolution would be, I believe a government shutdown is far worse.”

And while Schumer did not ultimately vote yes on the bill itself, his advocacy and yes vote on the cloture motion likely secured Friday night’s outcome.

On Friday morning at least, the Democrats were torn into two camps: fight Trump tooth and nail, which would lead to a shutdown and the potential chaos and pain that would bring, or swallow a partisan CR and at least keep the lights on. There were also specific fears that a shutdown would allow President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to accelerate some of their most aggressive agenda items, including mass federal layoffs and governmental reorganizing. “Musk has already said he wants a shutdown, and public reporting has shown he is already making plans to expedite his destruction of key government programs and services,” said Schumer from the Senate floor on Thursday.

Schumer calculated ultimately the Democrats would be blamed for the impact on “the most vulnerable Americans, those who rely on federal programs to feed their families, get medical care and stay financially afloat. Communities that depend on government services to function will suffer.”

However, in many ways, the die had already been cast. On Tuesday night, Johnson passed the spending bill with nearly unanimous GOP support. And then promptly sent his members home.

The speaker certainly had some help from both the president and White House officials. Trump himself was working the phoneswhile Vice President JD Vance reportedly “assured Republican members that Trump would continue cutting federal funding with his Department of Government Efficiency initiative and pursue impoundment — that is, holding back money appropriated by Congress.”

Johnson is often thought of as the accidental speaker. And it’s true that he was pulled out of quasi-obscurity after the caucus took down his predecessor Kevin McCarthy just 17 months ago. At the time of his elevation, Johnson had no leadership experience, and the political class had very low expectations. But he had Trump in his corner.

(Trump did blow up a bill in December carefully negotiated by Johnson and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. But Johnson eventually prevailed, with Democratic votes, and a spending bill was passed.)

Last December’s funding bill was always a temporary stopgap measure that would only fund the federal government through March 13, 2025. More surprising was that Johnson was able to get the House to pass its budget outline last monthwith only losing a single vote. This should have served as a canary in the coal mine moment for Democrats.

The real blunder Schumer made was miscalculating just how good Johnson has become at playing political hardball. The thought of Johnson passing a six-month continuing resolution with just Republican votes seemed highly unlikely last year, and that was what both Jeffries and Schumer were counting on. They were operating on the premise that, just like with the last CR, Republicans were going to need Democratic votes to get the bill to the president’s desk, leaving room for negotiations.

Johnson defied the odds and passed the CR, losing just one Republican vote, and picking up an extra yes vote from Maine Democrat Jared Golden. That left Schumer floundering, and with only one option to keep the government open.

There is a lesson to be learned here, and now would be a good time for Democratic leadership — as well as Senate Majority Leader John Thune — to recognize Johnson’s skills. They don’t have to like him or agree with him, but going forward they should respect him, and maybe even fear him.

Susan Del Pure

Susan Del Percio is a Republican strategist and a political analyst for NBC News and BLN.

Earlier this month, a collection of people and entities affiliated with President Donald Trump — specifically, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, DTTM Operations LLC and Eric Trump — sued Capital One bank for having “unjustifiably” closed numerous Trump-associated bank accounts in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The lawsuit pleads that “de-banking” — closing depositors’ bank accounts — was originally meant to stop fraudsters from having access to banking facilities but it morphed into a way to punish depositors for their political beliefs. The lawsuit explains that completely legal gun and ammunition dealers or payday lenders often found themselves de-banked by unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with the businesses’ political beliefs. The plaintiffs claim to have been damaged by this type of de-banking when Capital One closed Trump accounts because of the Trumps’ “political views.” The Trumps seek damages under an assortment of state consumer protection laws.

Just how many ways is this lawsuit silly? Let me count them.

As a purely legal matter, the Trumps don’t appear to have suffered any recoverable money damages. According to the lawsuit, Capital One closed the Trump bank accounts. Presumably, the bank returned the Trumps’ money to them — the lawsuit doesn’t say otherwise, and it’s inconceivable the bank would have stolen the Trumps’ money. (A representative for Capital One declined to comment for this article.)

It’s true that individual depositors with small accounts — such as gun shops — might have trouble setting up new banking relationships after they were “de-banked,” but a large real estate business, such as the Trump Organization, would have had no trouble on that score. So while we don’t know for certain, the Trumps’ situation was presumably this: Capital One closed the Trumps’ bank accounts, Capital One returned the Trumps’ money, the Trumps promptly found a new bank, and the Trumps, uninjured, went on with their business.

A fundamental element of any lawsuit is that a plaintiff must have suffered damages. Here, except perhaps for the inconvenience of changing bankers, the Trumps suffered none.

Where’s the case?

But that’s just the legal flaw in this lawsuit. Think for a moment about the practical flaws.

Just how many ways is this lawsuit silly? Let me count them.

Is any jury going to believe that Capital One stopped its banking relationship in the months after Jan. 6 because of Donald Trump’s political beliefs? Did the bank really think, “Donald Trump doesn’t like affirmative action and he opposes DEI, so we should close his accounts”?

Or is it far more likely — and in fact almost certainly true, and sure to be believed by a jury in a heartbeat — that Capital One closed the Trumps’ bank accounts because it didn’t care to be associated with a person who appeared to have incited an insurrection and then stood by silently for three hours as rioters ransacked the Capitol?

Just about everyone in America — all Democrats, and even some Republicans — knew that Trump was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” of Jan. 6, as then-GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell put it at the time.

This wasn’t a matter of politics; it was a matter of morality.

Capital One didn’t close the Trumps’ bank accounts because of Trump’s political views. Capital One has denied that it closed the bank accounts for political reasons, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable to surmise that the bank didn’t care to be associated with anyone — Democratic, Republican or independent — who tried to interfere with the counting of votes in a presidential election. Handling financial transactions for Trump both would have been immoral and would have posed a reputational risk for the bank. Ending that relationship wasn’t improper; it was sane.

Although many Americans seem to have forgiven Trump’s gross misconduct over the four years since the Jan. 6 riot, that misconduct could fully justify Capital One’s closing of the bank accounts.

But the practical flaws in the Trumps’ lawsuit don’t stop there.

In any lawsuit, the parties are permitted to take discovery — gather information — from each other. Capital One will thus have the right to request documents and take testimony from Donald Trump and others about Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6. As the House Jan. 6 committee proceedings made clear, there is nothing about Trump’s conduct in early January 2021 that is praiseworthy; there is much that should be condemned. Does Trump really want to relive, and again place in the public eye, the events of one of the most notorious days in his life?

There are many reasons for the Trumps to abandon this lawsuit. There is only one reason for them to pursue it: to get a financial settlement.

There’s no legal reason for Capital One to settle the Trumps’ newest lawsuit. The lawsuit is both defensible and embarrassing for Trump to pursue. But there are surely practical reasons — avoiding the wrath the federal government could inflict on a bank — for Capital One to cough up some dough to make this go away.

Is that justice? Not by a long shot.

But does it appear to be a recurring way for Trump to profit while he has the government on his side? Bank on it.