The Dictatorship
Trump is pushing Zelenskyy to the negotiating table in ways Biden never did
Whether out of an overwhelming sense of humanity or his ongoing desire to secure a Nobel Peace PrizePresident Donald Trump is working hard to resolve the war in Ukraine with a diplomatic settlement as soon as possible. And it appears he’s willing to levy an extraordinary amount of pressure to get there. The Trump administration’s change in approach has gotten European leaders nervous at best and downright distraught at worst. On Thursday, nearly a week after Trump shouted over Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in their televised Oval Office meetingEuropean leaders held an emergency summit to cope with the fallout.
Trump’s objective is less about ending it in a “just peace” as Kyiv and Washington’s European allies frequently proclaim and more about ending it, period.
“It’s time to stop this madness,” Trump told lawmakers Tuesday in his first speech to Congress since getting his election. “It’s time to halt the killing. It’s time to end the senseless war.” Who can argue with the sentiment? The conflict in Ukraine, which entered its fourth year last month, killed tens of thousands of people and resulted in more than $500 billion worthof damage. The pace of the fighting isn’t getting any less intense over time. The Ukrainian army is holding its own but remains under severe pressure from a larger adversary whose leader, Vladimir Putin, has elevated the warabove all other priorities.
Trump, however, is receiving strong pushback over the tactics he’s using to bring the war to a close. Unlike his predecessor, Joe Biden, Trump’s objective is less about ending it in a “just peace” as Kyiv and Washington’s European allies frequently proclaim and more about ending it, period. And unlike Biden, Trump is not afraid to use the stick to get the combatants to cooperate. Since Washington ultimately has more leverage over Kyiv than Moscow — the U.S. has provided Ukraine $120 billionin assistance, including $67 billion in military aid, since the war began — Trump has chosen to use the tools he has to bring Zelenskyy into compliance with a diplomatic process he clearly wants to succeed. The Trump administration has paused not only military supportto Ukraine but also intelligence cooperationalthough national security adviser Mike Waltz and CIA Director John Ratcliffe suggested the next morningthat the pause could be lifted if the Ukrainians formally enter peace talks.
Some foreign policy analysts and Democratic lawmakersare aghast. Others have compared Trump’s about-face on the war to the U.S. switching sides during World War II. Alexander Vindman, a former National Security Council aide, even claimedthat Trump was now pursuing a Russia First policy.
But amid all the hyperbole, it’s important to consider several key points.
First and foremost, the Trump administration is absolutely correct to strive for a diplomatic settlement to this war. Although the Russians have made their fair share of mistakes during the course of three years of combat, the facts on the ground and the trends on the battlefield remain at Kyiv’s disadvantage. The Ukrainians are still licking their wounds from a 2023 counteroffensive in the east, which stalled outin short order and produced little in the way of tangible territorial gains. Outside of an incursion into Russia’s Kursk province last summer — Russia has reportedly retaken about half of the landthe Ukrainians originally captured — the Ukrainian army has been on the defensive for well over a year.
All of this is exacerbating Ukraine’s systemic manpower issues. Vice President JD Vance was overly obnoxious about it during his argument with Zelenskyy last week, but he wasn’t wrong: The Ukrainians are hurting for personnel and have resorted to extraordinary measures, like plucking draft-age men off the streets, to fill in the ranks. Ukrainian troops at the front haven’t had a decent rest since the first bombs were dropped in February 2022, a consequence of Ukrainian politicians remaining highly resistant to a nationwide mobilization, which would involve drafting younger men into the army.
The Russians have their problems, too. According to one assessment, more than 780,000 Russianshave been killed or injured in the war to date. The difference, however, is that Russia is still recruiting enough replacementsevery month to account for the casualties. Kyiv, therefore, must engage in some serious introspection and ask itself whether it serves Ukraine’s interests to let the war continue, or whether it’s better to cut a deal now before the hole becomes too deep to climb out of. In the end, this is a decision only Zelenskyy, not Trump, can make.
Second, the collective freak-out over Trump’s latest Ukraine moves glosses over a key point: Continuing the Biden administration’s policy on the war would have effectively meant signing the U.S. up to a failed approach. Yes, Biden and his advisers did an admirable job assembling a multinational coalition on Ukraine’s behalf in short order. Without the tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance, from air defense to medium-range ballistic missiles, Ukraine’s position would be worse than it is today.
The weapons deliveries and international support, however, were supposed to be a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The end Biden should have striven for was a diplomatic settlement to end the war on terms acceptable to the combatants. At the very least, Biden could have started the process. Instead, he outsourced U.S. policy on the war to Zelenskyy, who remained steadfast in his belief that Ukraine could win the conflict militarily. Talk from U.S. officials about supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” combined with Biden’s opposition to dragging Kyiv into a peace discussion it didn’t want to have, ultimately proved counterproductive because it allowed Zelenskyy to defer talks indefinitely. Why think about concessions to your enemy when you have a superpower pledging total, unconditional support?
Finally, it’s vital to recognize that U.S. and Ukrainian interests aren’t identical. Even Biden recognized this; while he was committed to defeating Russia’s invasion just as Zelenskyy was, he was also rightly concerned about escalation dynamics and sought to balance support for Ukraine’s war effort with conflict-avoidance between NATO and Russia. Ultimately, Ukraine is in a fight for its survival and wants to win the war — or at least negotiate a peace on its terms. The U.S., though, has bigger fish to fry than Ukraine, and one of them is to ensure that Washington and Moscow, the world’s two largest nuclear weapons powers, don’t stupidly find themselves in a scenario where direct conflict is plausible. Biden recognized this, to the frustration of the Ukrainians; Trump, however, wears it like a badge of honor.
Look at how Trump has conducted himself over the last week. Yelling at another head of state in the Oval Office, particularly when it’s in front of TV cameras and the man on the receiving end is in the middle of an existential conflict, is bad optics. But if the U.S. objective is to settle the war immediately, then using the power at your disposal to move in that direction is a logical extension of the policy. And love them or hate them, the tactics may be effective: Zelenskyy is more amenable to a negotiation today than he was even a few days earlier, and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff said the U.S. was planning a sit-down with Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia next week.
Whether all of this results in a peace deal is a separate question.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday accelerated its dismantling of the Education Departmentdelegating much of its work to protect the nation’s at-risk students.
The Department of Justice will take on enforcement of civil rights in education, while the Department of Health and Human Services will oversee special education, administration officials announced. With those moves, the Education Department has now carved away the vast majority of its functions for other agencies to handle.
The two Education Department offices involved — the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Office for Civil Rights — defend the rights of children with disabilities and those who experience discrimination based on race, sex or religion. Advocates worry the change could mean lapses in communication for families and school officials who need help.
Trump, a Republican, campaigned on shutting down the Education Department, saying he would “move education back to the states where it belongs.” While only Congress can close the department, Trump’s education secretaryLinda McMahon, a billionaire and former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has formed agreements with other federal agencies to handle much of her department’s work.
McMahon said the agreements align federal responsibilities with the agencies best positioned to support them.
“The Trump Administration has been clear: as we scale back federal micromanagement when it hinders success, we are equally committed to bolstering the efficacy of federal oversight where it is essential,” McMahon said in a written statement.
Critics warn of impacts to student services
Advocates said the changes would create uncertainty around services relied upon by millions of students and families.
“As is too often the case, traditionally underserved students — including students with disabilities, Black and Latino students, multilingual learners, students from low-income backgrounds, and students in rural communities — will bear the greatest burden created by this reckless decision, to which the disability and civil rights communities have already been vehemently opposed,” said a written statement from EdTrust, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that advocates for educational equity.
The Education Department already has offloaded some of its programs through 10 earlier internal agreementsbut the offices affected by Tuesday’s announcement were among the most closely watched.
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services manages billions of dollars in grants and oversees state compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Office for Civil Rights, which has been thinned by mass layoffsinvestigates complaints of discrimination at the nation’s schools and universities.
The Department of Justice also will take over work protecting student privacy and will provide some training and advisory help to schools.
While Justice and Health and Human Services will handle over most day-to-day duties of the assigned offices, the Education Department will continue to perform some tasks, such as responding to audits and issuing final determinations in civil rights cases, which it is explicitly required to do by law.
Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the announcement Tuesday was a political one intended to fulfill the president’s campaign promise. The changes, he said, will likely widen inequities for students of color and students with disabilities.
The agreements are scattering education programs to agencies that do not have the expertise to manage them, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
“Instead of helping kids get a great education, this administration is spending its time, energy, and taxpayer resources fixated on where employees sit and illegally trying to shutter the Department of Education,” Murray said in a written statement.
Rachel Gittleman, president of the union that represents department employees, said the moves will create chaos for families, students and schools.
“This will leave our most vulnerable students and families who have been shut out of our education system without the services they need and without protection when they face discrimination,” Gittleman said in a written statement.
Families of students with disabilities opposed the decision
The transfer of special education to Health and Human Services most alarmed disability advocates, who say oversight of whether schools are adequately serving children with disabilities is best handled by education experts — not medical experts.
“The IDEA is intended to equip students as they learn alongside their peers, not cure them — the HHS is not prepared to oversee and administer the IDEA program effectively. Health and education systems speak in entirely different languages, including variations in terminology, training and disciplines,” said Jennifer Coco, interim executive director of the Center for Learner Equity.
The Education Department said McMahon spent over six months in listening sessions with families, advocates and educators to better understand concerns around how the department’s dismantling could affect special education. Many families raised concerns about obstacles to obtaining proper services for their children, but Coco said participants in those sessions were united in their opposition to moving special education oversight out of the Education Department.
“I think we agree on the problem,” Coco said. “We have stark disagreement on the solution and these transfers today don’t feel like a solution to that problem.”
___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Rep. Mike Collins won Georgia’s Republican Senate primary runoff Tuesday, defeating former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley.
Now, he will have the far larger task of knocking off Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in one of the most competitive Senate race this election cycle.
The runoff was triggered after Collins and Dooley each failed to win a majority in the May 19 primary, forcing a second round in a contest that Republicans view as one of their best opportunities to flip a Democratic-held Senate seat in 2026. President Donald Trump endorsed Collins over the weekend, boosting his chances in the runoff.
Collins, a congressman representing Georgia’s 10th District, finished first in the primary. The trucking company owner and staunch ally of Trump built his campaign around support for the president’s agenda, border security, immigration enforcement and conservative cultural issues. Collins sought to portray himself as a proven conservative fighter with experience in Washington and strong ties to the Republican base.
Dooley, meanwhile, leaned on his name recognition as a former college football coach and member of one of Georgia’s most prominent political families. His father, Vince Dooley, was the legendary University of Georgia football coach and athletic director. Although Dooley has never held elected office, he has campaigned as a political outsider capable of attracting independent and swing voters in a general election.
Collins argued that Republicans need a candidate with a proven conservative record and close ties to Trump. Dooley has countered that his outsider status and broader appeal would make him a stronger challenger in November.
But some Republicans are worried about Collins, including his hardline stance on abortion rights and an Office of Congressional Conduct probe into his office’spotential misuse of resources that the Republican lawmaker has referred to as a “nothing burger.”
His social media tonewhich includes severely downplayingthe U.S. Capitol attack where some pro-Trump rioters injured members of law enforcement, gives credence to the president’s view of him as a “a true Friend, Fighter, and WARRIOR,” as Trump wrote in his post endorsing Collins.
But those sentiments also spotligh a few of the vulnerabilities for a statewide candidate coming from a reliably red congressional district.
Collins will now face Ossoff, who is seeking a second term after winning a pair of runoff elections in 2021 that helped Democrats gain control of the Senate. Since taking office, Ossoff has built a national fundraising network. His re-election campaign has emphasized lowering costs for families, protecting access to healthcare, supporting economic development and promoting government accountability.
In a statement published shortly after Collins’ win, Ossoff called the congressman a “notorious bigot” who was under federal investigation.
“Donald Trump’s handpicked candidate Mike Collins is a notorious bigot, antisemite, and extremist currently under federal investigation for the illegal misuse of tax dollars,” Ossoff said. “Collins, who is only a congressman because his daddy was a congressman, voted to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians, for the Iran War, and for the Trump tariffs.”
The House Ethics Committee is investigating allegations that Collins used government funds to benefit an aide.
Georgia remains a key battleground state heading into the midterm elections. Once considered a reliably Republican stronghold, the state has become increasingly competitive over the past decade.
Republicans see Georgia as one of their strongest pickup opportunities in a midterm cycle where control of the Senate could once again hinge on a handful of closely contested races. Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to invest heavily to protect Ossoff’s seat, viewing him as a key part of the party’s future.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
Senate Republicans are still waiting for details of the preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement. But they’re already making one thing clear: Congress should have a vote on any final deal.
President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday, formally giving the two countries 60 days to negotiate an agreement.
While there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the deal and whether it will actually materialize, Republicans want a say on the eventual agreement.
“If there is a final deal, and I hope there is, it should come to the Senate for approval,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters on Tuesday.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said if the final agreement is a treaty — and it “sounds like a treaty,” he said — then it “certainly seems like” the deal should be subject to a vote by Congress.
And Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed his colleagues.
For now, it appears Trump agrees with Senate Republicans.
During a bilateral meeting at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in France on Tuesday, Trump suggested he would be open to sending the eventual deal to Congress. “I wouldn’t mind,” he said.
“I never thought about sending. Never even thought about it,” Trump added. “But I will — I will send it to Congress. I like the idea.”
Trump’s comments quickly made their way to Washington, where Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and Roger Marshall repeatedly pointed out that Trump said he would give Congress a vote.
“I hope he does,” Marshall said.
Despite the GOP desire for a vote, it’s far from clear Congress will ever hold one. For starters, the talks could fall apart before a final agreement is reached. And if the deal ultimately resembles elements of the Obama-era accord that Republicans long opposed, GOP leaders may be reluctant to force lawmakers into a politically fraught vote — particularly if Democrats line up against it.
The dynamic highlights a familiar tension on Capitol Hill.
For years — decades, even — lawmakers have talked about replacing the sweeping 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force with a more targeted authorization. The law has been used to justify dozens of military operations in more than 22 countries. But when it comes time to take ownership of a new war authorization, many in Congress seem content to defer to the president and the nearly 25-year-old law.
To be sure, there were some GOP voices on Tuesday who suggested a vote on Trump’s emerging Iran deal isn’t needed.
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., argued that a law signed amid the debate over the Obama-era deal never explicitly required a vote — just congressional review.
“You might decide your opinion is we should vote on it, but there is no requirement that we do,” Schmitt said.
And some other Republican senators kept their cards close to their vest, insisting they need more information on the deal before asserting that a vote is necessary.
“Everybody’s got to see what it is first,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said. “None of us have seen it.”
Pressed on whether he wants a vote, regardless of the terms of the deal, the Oklahoma Republican offered a congressional truth: “It depends on what the deal is.”
Part of the insistence on a vote, Republicans say, is because the Iran nuclear deal brokered under President Barack Obama — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA — wasn’t affirmed by Congress. That allowed Trump to singlehandedly dismantle it during his first administration.
This time, lawmakers say they want a deal to outlast the Trump presidency.
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, said Congress should “absolutely” vote on the final agreement, if negotiators reach one.
“That was one of the problems with President Obama’s deal,” Curtis said.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he thought it “makes more sense” to have Congress give any agreement its stamp of approval, pointing to Obama’s now defunct deal.
“Obama made a mistake when he didn’t do the work to have it rise to a level of a treaty, and I believe that we should here, otherwise it’s only good for two and a half years,” Tillis said.
“Why don’t we do the hard work of making sure that it has staying power?” he added.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — particularly Republicans — would be happy to approve an Iran peace agreement that advances U.S. interests. Republicans are inclined to support Trump, and few lawmakers seem eager to prolong the Iran “excursion,” as the president has put it.
But approving a deal that’s less-than-stellar for the United States isn’t such a popular prospect. And congressional leaders might hesitate to put the agreement up for a vote out of fear that lawmakers may shoot it down.
A failed vote would put Trump and the United States in a difficult position.
Just having to vote on the deal could put lawmakers in a tough political spot of their own — and right before the midterm elections.
If the final agreement ends up resembling the Obama-era JCPOA, Republicans could be forced to either support a deal they’ve long criticized or risk drawing Trump’s ire. Neither choice is ideal.
Meanwhile, if Democrats vote against a final deal, they could face accusations that they don’t want the war to end. Some Republicans see political value in forcing Democrats to take a position.
“When there’s a deal, of course, put the Democrats on record,” Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told MS NOW.
But if the final deal is one Republicans don’t love, don’t expect the agreement to come before Congress.
Already on Monday, several Republicans expressed nervousness about the early contours of a deal, as described in press reports about a yet-to-be released memorandum of understanding. And on Tuesday, the top Senate Republican — John Thune of South Dakota — said he had still not been briefed on the contents of the memorandum.
A handful of Republicans revealed to reporters that they had been in touch with senior U.S. officials to get some of their questions answered.
Moreno, for instance, said he was given some details about the agreement on Monday from Vice President JD Vance and White House peace envoy — and Trump son-in-law — Jared Kushner.
Asked about the delay in revealing the preliminary memorandum, Moreno insisted the Trump administration was just being “methodical,” in part so as not to upend the internal politics in Iran.
“It’s not going to kill everybody to just take a breath and wait until Friday,” Moreno said.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
- Gottheimer readies AI bill to vet powerful AI models for risk
- Trump escalates his war on Senate Republicans — and senators are striking back
- Trump moves special education out of Education Department
- FTC sues transgender care group, arguing it deceived parents and patients
- Michigan pollster accuses McMorrow campaign of killing unfavorable Senate poll
- Pence-backed think tank joins push to keep kids’ safety bills out of AI package
- ‘Un-American’: Democrats attack Trump’s uneven disaster response
- Senate Republicans want assurances from Todd Blanche. So far it’s working.
- Senate thwarts move to limit Iran war as Trump pushes peace deal
- Senate, House reach deal on housing bill, Senate to start votes Tuesday
-
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
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words