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.”
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.
Healthcare executive Rick Jackson clinched the Republican gubernatorial nomination on Tuesday, pulling off a win over Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and securing a spot in the November election against Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms.
The pair advanced from the Republican primary after neither candidate secured the majority needed to avoid a runoff on May 19.
The contest came as Republicans seek to hold the governor’s mansion in a state that has become one of the country’s premier political battlegrounds. Gov. Brian Kemp is term-limited and cannot seek re-election, creating the first open governor’s race in Georgia since 2018. Kemp threw his weight behind Jones over the weekend.
Jackson, a businessman who entered politics as an outsider candidatesought to position himself as an alternative to career politicians. His campaign focused heavily on economic issues, government spending and opposition to what he describes as establishment politics.
Jackson has argued that Republicans need a nominee who can energize voters frustrated with the political system. He has also attempted to appeal to conservatives who want a candidate outside Georgia’s existing political leadership structure.
The runoff highlights divisions within the Georgia Republican Party over the direction of the state’s conservative movement after Kemp’s tenure. While both candidates embraced many of the same conservative policy positions, they have differed over experience, electability and the future of Republican leadership in the Peach State.
The race also attracted attention because of Georgia’s importance ahead of the midterms. Democrats have made significant gains in the state over the past decade, winning presidential and Senate races while turning Georgia into a key battleground. Republicans, however, have continued to perform strongly in statewide races, including Kemp’s decisive re-election victory in 2022.
Bottoms, who served as Atlanta’s mayor from 2018 to 2022 and later worked in the Biden administration, secured the Democratic nomination and is preparing for a competitive general election campaign. Democrats view the open-seat contest as an opportunity to regain control of the governor’s office for the first time in more than two decades.
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.
- 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
- OMB nominee touts plan to give Trump appointees power to kill grants
- Mike Collins wins Georgia GOP Senate primary runoff to face Ossoff
- GOP senators say they want a vote on an Iran deal — for 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
-
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