The Dictatorship

Ukraine balks at White House’s call to give up its rare earth minerals

Published

1 year ago

February 18, 2025

Ukraine balks at White House’s call to give up its rare earth minerals

Over the course of the last decade, Donald Trump’s line on the 2003 invasion of Iraq has evolved more than once, but there’s one claim he’s repeated ad nauseum: The United States, the Republican has long argued, should’ve kept Iraq’s oil as part of the war. After the president deployed U.S. troops to Syria, Trump insisted that his administration actually did take and keep Syrian oil.

He was, of course, brazenly lyingbut the false claims reflected a sentiment he appeared to take quite seriously: Foreign policy interventions, from Trump’s perspective, should be inherently transactional. If the United States deploys military resources abroad, the argument goes, then it stands to reason that American officials are entitled to other countries’ natural resources.

That’s not at all how U.S. foreign policy has ever worked in this country, and just an approach isn’t altogether legal under international law. By all appearances, Trump has never cared.

With this in mind, it probably shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Republican White House believes Ukraine should also turn over some of its natural resources to the United Statesin exchange for the security aid we’ve provided to our ally.

At least for now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t appear especially receptive to the idea. NBC News reported:

The Trump administration has suggested to Ukraine that the United States be granted 50% ownership of the country’s rare earth minerals, and signaled an openness to deploying American troops there to guard them if there’s a deal with Russia to end the war, according to four U.S. officials. Rather than pay for the minerals, the ownership agreement would be a way for Ukraine to reimburse the U.S. for the billions of dollars in weapons and support it’s provided to Kyiv since the war began in February 2022, two of the officials said.

When presented with proposed deal, Zelenskyy declined to sign it. The Ukrainian president did, however, say that he would examine the offer in more detail.

Of course, the fact that the Trump administration even put such a proposal on the table is quite extraordinary. The United States didn’t defend our ally against a deadly invasion because we expected Ukrainians to give up its natural resources; we defended our ally because it was in our geopolitical interests to do so.

There was no need for a transaction — at least until Trump returned to power.

Time will tell what, if anything comes of this, but in the meantime, the Republican president and his administration are moving forward with plans for peace talks, beginning with negotiations in Saudi Arabia. There’s some uncertainty about the degree to which Ukrainian officials will be involved in the process, but Zelenskyy declared at a security conference in Germany over the weekend, “Ukraine will never accept deals made behind our backs.”

For his part, Trump said a day later that Zelenskyy “will be involved” in the negotiations — he didn’t say when, how, or to what degree — and went on to talk about how impressed he is with Russian military might.

“They have a big, powerful machine, you understand that?” the American president saidreferring to Putin’s military. “And they defeated Hitler and they defeated Napoleon.”

It was the latest in a series of pro-Russia comments that Trump has made in recent days.

Steve legs

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

‘Americans aren’t against the war’: Trump pitches alternate reality on public attitudes

Published

2 hours ago

July 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘Americans aren’t against the war’: Trump pitches alternate reality on public attitudes

During a brief Q&A with reporters on Wednesday morning, Donald Trump was reminded that most Americans oppose the war in Iran. The president immediately pushed back against the assertion.

“Well, Americans aren’t against the war,” he said. “A poll just came out: Americans don’t want high gasoline prices, but they’re not against the war. That just came out, loud and clear, in a poll.”

Trump has spent much of his political career referring to survey data that exists only in his imagination — up to and including making up approval ratings for himselfciting data that he thinks ought to exist. So when the president told reporters about a poll that “just came out,” he didn’t elaborate, probably because he was making stuff up again.

To the extent that reality matters, plenty of polls show just how wrong the Republican is about public attitudes toward the ongoing military operations.

Last week, for example, the latest Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that 68% of Americans believe the war was not worth fighting. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were also unpopular, but according to previous Washington Post polls, public opposition to the current war with Iran is even worse than attitudes toward those other recent conflicts.

Similarly, the latest Fox News poll found 66% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of U.S. policy toward Iran.

It’s possible the president discards such data because the surveys include a broad range of Americans, including those who oppose him politically, and Trump has a track record of arguing that people who disagree with him literally don’t count. The trouble is, many of the Republican’s most loyal followers are also turning against the conflict.

“Half of President Donald Trump’s MAGA base thought the Iran war was worth its economic costs in May. Now, just a little more than a third do,” Politico reported. “That precipitous, 13-point drop in just two months, according to a new Blue Light News Poll, reveals how the president’s most die-hard supporters are starting to agree with the majority of Americans who have long opposed the U.S.’ involvement in the war.”

Trump doesn’t have to like this data. He can even try to argue that the American mainstream is wrong. But to pretend that Americans “aren’t against the war” is to take a life-and-death issue and turn public attitudes on their head.

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

House adopts another war powers resolution to curb Trump’s Iran war

Published

2 hours ago

July 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Christmas. 23, 2026, 10:30 AM EDT

For the second time in as many months, the House voted to curb President Donald Trump’s authority in Iran.

Politically, Democrats think it means lawmakers may finally be ready to stand up to Trump on the war. Practically, it means very little.

On Thursday, the House adopted a war powers resolution directing the U.S. to cease hostilities with Iran, as Washington’s war with Tehran reaches the 145-day mark. The measure cleared 214-208, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in support.

Reps. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Tom Barrett, R-Mich., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., supported the resolution.

Even though it was another political rebuke of the president, the vote won’t actually change much. The legislation is a concurrent resolution, so even if the Senate approves the same version, the measure won’t go to Trump’s desk for signature. The resolution, therefore, won’t carry the force of law. The same scenario played out last month, and the measure proved powerless against Trump’s whims.

Still, the vote sends another clear message from Congress to the White House: Lawmakers are growing tired of the war in Iran — as are Americans, according to recent polls — and members want to know when it’s going to end.

“This is a vote of conscience,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who introduced the latest resolution in the House. “This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people and to send the clearest, even stronger, message to this president of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war. This war must end.”

This was the lower chamber’s fifth time voting on a measure to rein in the Trump administration’s military actions in Iran, but only the second time to successfully adopt the resolution.

The first time it was adopted, in early June, the resolution advanced with the backing of four House Republicans. This time, it was the same thing.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he’s exploring “all legal avenues” after both chambers adopted his resolution in late June.

“Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress,” said Meeks. “Congress never authorized this failed war, and the president certainly has no authority to continue it indefinitely without our consent as the Constitution demands.”

The vote came to fruition nearly five months to the day since the U.S. first struck Iran, prompting exchanged fire between the two countries, the start — and swift stop — of negotiations between the nations, and elevated gas prices as Tehran cuts off activity in the Strait of Hormuz.

The war, however, reached a new phase this week, when four U.S. service members involved in the Iran war were killed, bringing the total number of American casualties to 18. Three Army soldiers were killed by Iranian missile and drone attacks in Jordan and one Army soldier died after an Iranian drone detonated after being downed in Iraq.

Trump escalated his rhetoric on Wednesday, warning on Truth Social that if Iran shootings at any ships in the Strait of Hormuz — be it by missile, rocket, drone or any other weapon — the U.S. “will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran.”

Already in the past two weeks, Democrats have begun to turn to other options to try to bring an end to the conflict — including derailing the annual, typically bipartisan defense policy bill in the U.S. Senate, where Democrats are demanding the legislation include guardrails on the conflict.

On Wednesday, all but six House Democrats voted against their chamber’s version of the defense bill — a total which, if those Democrats had went with the rest of their party, the normally bipartisan measure would have failed.

Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Syedah Asghar

Syedah Asghar covers Congress for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

BBC to access Trump’s financial records as his dubious lawsuit starts to backfire

Published

2 hours ago

July 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

BBC to access Trump’s financial records as his dubious lawsuit starts to backfire

Donald Trump has earned a reputation as a president who loves to file outlandish lawsuits against major news organizations, but his gambit late last year against the BBC was bizarre even for him.

The week before Christmas, the Republican sued the British broadcaster for $10 billion over a news program that focused on the Jan. 6 attack. Defending the litigation, Trump told reporters that the network “literally put words in my mouth,” adding, “I guess they used AI. … They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say.”

That wasn’t quite right. For one thing, the BBC didn’t use artificial intelligence. For another, the network did air a program that edited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech, connecting two clips that were delivered roughly 50 minutes apart, but the news outlet didn’t manufacture words or phrases out of whole cloth.

Nevertheless, the editing sparked a controversy that led to an internal investigationand the BBC ultimately fired some senior officials and issued a written apology.

Trump, however, apparently doesn’t want an apology. He wants $10 billion.

Time will tell whether the case bears fruit, but in the meantime, there’s fresh evidence that the civil suit might backfire on the plaintiff. Politico reported:

A federal magistrate judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump must turn over detailed financial information in connection with his defamation lawsuit against the BBC.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett concluded that Trump’s sweeping complaint put injury to his businesses at the forefront and made their vitality a fair subject for the BBC to demand information about.

In other words, Trump’s lawyers said the president is entitled to a massive payout because the BBC’s program hurt his business interests. With this in mind, the BBC’s lawyers said they needed detailed access to Trump’s financial records to assess the validity of the underlying claims.

The president’s legal team pushed back, but at least for now, they’re losing.

“All of President Trump’s brand, properties and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned. Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case,” Lett said at the conclusion of a three-hour hearing.

The Blue Light News report added that her decision “opened the door for the BBC to explore the finances of more than 400 companies owned by a Trump family trust.”

What’s more, a report in The Guardian added, “Lett is also allowing the BBC to subpoena dozens of members of Trump’s inner circle, according to Bloomberg News, in an effort to find evidence of the president’s thoughts and intentions on January 6. Those subpoenas will target Trump family members and key advisers, including Donald Trump Jr, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.”

In case that weren’t quite enough, since Trump’s Jan. 6 rhetoric is directly relevant to the case, the BBC is also moving forward with demands for records from special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, which the news organization insists are necessary as part of its defense.

To be sure, the president and his team can appeal the latest setbacks. But given Trump’s ugly track record on cases against media outlets, he might want at least to consider abandoning this dubious case before things get worse.