The Dictatorship
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 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.”
In the three weeks since Donald Trump declared that a “deal” between the United States and Iran was “complete,” the president and his team have been dogged by a series of difficult questions. Why does Iran have to make so few concessions under the memorandum of understanding? Why have prominent members of both parties slammed the agreement as inadequate? Why is Trump’s deal so much worse than the Obama-era Iran deal?
Now, however, the world is confronting a qualitatively different kind of question: Does Trump’s deal still exist?
On Tuesday, U.S. Central Command announced a new round of strikes against Iran, following reports of attacks on merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump administration simultaneously said it was reinstating sanctions on Tehran, which had been eased as part of last month’s MOU.
Soon after, Iran’s military said it had fired missiles and drones targeting U.S. military installations in Bahrain and Kuwait in retaliation for the strikes confirmed by CENTCOM hours earlier.
As for the tenuous ceasefire and peace process, it’s increasingly difficult to be optimistic. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday from the NATO summit in Turkey, Trump called Iranians “scum” and “evil people.” He added, “Frankly, we’ve wasted a lot of time with them. I think we should just do our business.”
The Republican didn’t elaborate as to what that “business” entails, but in context, he appeared to be referring to additional military strikes.
And then he kept going.
Asked specifically whether the ceasefire is over and the peace framework is dead, the American president told reporters, “To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum. … They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people. … As far as I’m concerned, it’s over. … As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them. … They’re liars. … There’s something wrong with them. They’re cuckoo.”
Right on cue, oil prices jumped and stock market indexes started falling. There’s no great mystery as to why: If the ceasefire is over and the peace framework is dead, then we’re right back to where we were when the hot war was still underway.
The trouble, however, is that Trump is erratic and easily confused. It’s effectively impossible to know whether he’ll take the opposite position at any given moment, opening the door to new diplomatic talks or making matters vastly worse.
Either way, the truce appears to be unraveling.
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.”
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy isn’t officially over yet, but as the Maine Democrat hemorrhages supporthis campaign has canceled fundraising events and scheduled ad buys. What’s more, Platner’s team acknowledged Tuesday that it had reached out to the Maine Democratic Party to discuss the process for possibly replacing him on the ballot.
That process, should it proceed, will apparently not be smooth: State party Executive Director Devon Murphy-Anderson accused members of Platner’s team late Tuesday of “trying to put their thumb on the scale” of the process to find his replacement, even though the scandal-plagued candidate has yet to withdraw.
The Maine Democratic Party chief added that Platner would have “no role” in the selection process.
In the meantime, as the candidate faces new allegations of sexual misconduct, Platner’s would-be Democratic successors are taking unsubtle steps to make clear they’re interested in getting the nod for the general election race against incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
As for what to expect if Platner exits, Axios reported that Republicans “are preparing to welcome a potential Graham Platner replacement in Maine’s Senate race with $8 million in negative ads, aiming to introduce a new Democratic nominee to voters on their own terms before Democrats can.”
* It’s too late for Maryland to redraw its district map ahead of the midterms, but the Democratic-led legislature is moving forward with plans for a special legislative session next month to overhaul its congressional districts ahead of the 2028 election cycle.
* In Colorado’s Republican gubernatorial primaryVictor Marx, a controversial religious nonprofit leader, is ahead of state Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer by roughly 2,000 votes in the latest tallies, but it might be a while before the race is officially called.
* Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida has faced a great many scandals of late, but last week, one of his primary rivals filed a formal legal complaint alleging that Mills improperly notarized his candidate documents, making him ineligible for the ballot. (Mills did not respond to MS NOW’s request for comment about the allegations.)
* As if Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton didn’t have enough troublesthe Republican Senate candidate is now facing mockery after spending July Fourth in Europe with a woman who is not his estranged wife.
* And a year after congressional Republicans passed their domestic policy megabill to significant partisan fanfare, it’s Democrats who are eager to tell voters about the regressive package ahead of November’s elections.
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
Judge rejects Team Trump’s $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post
It can be challenging to keep up with the many lawsuits Donald Trump and his team have filed against assorted news organizations, but the president’s media company sued The Washington Post over a 2023 articleaccusing the newspaper of a “years-long crusade” and being part of a “conspiracy” to harm the company. As part of its defamation suit, the Trump Media and Technology Group sought $3.8 billion in damages.
That didn’t go well. The Post reported:
A federal judge on Thursday ruled in favor of The Washington Post, throwing out a $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit filed in 2023 by President Donald Trump’s social media company, Trump Media and Technology Group.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber, who is based in Tampa, wrote in a summary docket entry — known as a minute order — that Trump Media “failed to present evidence that would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence” that The Post “published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice.”
Time will tell what becomes of the litigation — an appeal seems likely — though recent history suggests the plaintiffs should keep their expectations low. Indeed, recent history is highly relevant.
The Trump campaign’s 2020 case against BLN failed. Trump’s 2021 case against The New York Times failed. Trump’s 2023 case against journalist Bob Woodward failed. The Trump campaign’s case against the Post failed. Trump’s class-action lawsuit against social media giants also failed.
Last year, Trump filed a $15 billion civil suit against The New York Times, which was thrown out four days later, not because it lacked merit, but because a federal judge found that the president’s lawyers’ court filing was simply too ridiculous.
Two months later, Trump’s media company also lost a defamation suit against The Guardian.
As recently as April, Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit against The Wall Street Journal was also thrown out of courtthough he and his lawyers refiled the case a month later.
Americans have never before had a president who sued independent news organizations, individual journalists or both for publishing reports the White House disapproved of, but we have also never before had a president lose so many cases while in office.
As for the larger context, let’s not miss the related larger lesson related to the importance of pushback. When Trump filed a dubious case against ABC News, the network and its corporate parent agreed to a $16 million settlement. When he filed an even weaker case against CBS News, its owner, Paramount, also struck a $16 million deal.
In the weeks and months that followed, Trump repeatedly pointed to these controversial settlement agreements as evidence of his targets’ guilt, even as those networks denied any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, news organizations that stood up for themselves and resisted the ridiculous attempts at intimidation have prevailed.
Let this be a lesson to the larger political world: Resistance is far more successful than appeasement. It’s true when it comes to law firmsit’s true when it comes to higher education and it’s true in his court fights against news organizations.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
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.”
- How we got here …
- Cheyenne Hunt: Democrats drew a ‘red line’ with Platner
- Collins’ allies think Platner’s exit makes her reelection bid tougher
- GOP rips Platner on the way out
- Top Democratic groups recommit to Maine Senate race after Platner drops out
- Dan Kleban jumps (back) into Maine Senate race
- Troy Jackson makes his Senate run official
- Graham Platner just dropped out. Here’s who could replace him.
- Fetterman: Platner seems ‘entitled’ to be part of talks to pick replacement
- The Supreme Court just embraced an incoherent theory of presidential power
-
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
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
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
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words