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.”
The Dictatorship
Warren backs El-Sayed in competitive Michigan Democratic primary
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren is endorsing Michigan Democratic Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed, MS NOW has learned.
“He’s growing a movement of working people all across Michigan,” Warren says of El-Sayed in a video announcing the pick. “Michiganders deserve a senator who will fight for you, not for special interests running millions of dollars in TV ads to buy this seat.”
The announcement makes Warren the latest high-profile progressive leader to pick a side in the El-Sayed versus Rep. Haley Stevens race that is both a marquee primary battle for a must-win seat ahead of November, and one that’s increasingly framed as a test of establishment versus outsider with big implications for the Democratic Party’s future.
The primary has seen millions pour in already — with pro-Stevens groups having a multimillion-dollar advantage on the airwaves.
Warren and El-Sayed are set to make two stops in the Mitten State next weekend — one week before Election Day and one week after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, D-N.Y., barnstormed the state for El-Sayed.
“Eventually, we have to ask ourselves: Is the answer to our problems to turn to the same playbook over and over again?” the New York congresswoman asked a crowd in Detroit over the weekend.
For Warren, it’s a change of heart, after initially backing State Sen. Mallory McMorrow in the primary. McMorrow dropped her bid earlier this month and is not expected to endorse in the primary.
“Senator Warren’s vision for our future — one where corporations can’t buy politicians and people can afford to put food on the table — speaks to Americans everywhere,” El-Sayed told MS of Warren’s endorsement, calling her “a generational voice for Americans who are tired of the status quo.”
The primary is August 4th.
Ali Vitali is MS NOW’s senior congressional correspondent and the host of “Way Too Early.” She is the author of “Electable: Why America Hasn’t Put a Woman in the White House … Yet.”
The Dictatorship
‘It’s a circus’: Republicans have big doubts about their newest reconciliation bill
With just four legislative days until the House breaks for its long August recess, Republicans are racing against the clock to advance their latest reconciliation bill this week. Lawmakers are skeptical they can get it done.
In the House, Republicans are struggling to unite their razor-thin majority on such a tight timeline. In the Senate, the questions about whether the GOP can pass this reconciliation bill are more like doubts.
On both sides of the Capitol, Republicans are naming their price for supporting the package — spending cuts, a stronger version of the SAVE America Act, provisions to defund Planned Parenthood and plenty of parochial asks — making an already difficult effort even harder.

“I do not think it’s likely to get done by next week, but we’ll see,” one House Republican told MS NOW, requesting anonymity to discuss the internal deliberations. “I really don’t think it’s going to happen by next week. I’d be very surprised.”
This lawmaker said Republicans are being pulled in multiple directions.
“Moderates want one thing. The budget hawks want another. And then you have the independent ones that are kind of just everywhere in between,” this GOP lawmaker said. “And it makes it a lot harder with such a slim majority.”
Senate Republicans were even blunter. Asked if there was a good chance the GOP could get the package done with the little time they have left in Washington, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, wasn’t very hopeful.
“Nope,” she said, making it clear she’s “not a fan” of what Republicans are currently considering.
The House kicked off the effort last week, unveiling a $95 billion budget resolution aimed at funding the Iran war, implementing parts of the SAVE America Act and addressing some affordability concerns nationwide.
It’s the party’s latest attempt at passing the GOP voting bill after the measure twice failed to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster and the Senate parliamentarian ruled that its current language isn’t compliant with the strict reconciliation rules.
The next hurdle is getting the budget resolution passed on the House floor, where Republican opposition is already mounting.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who frequently breaks from the GOP, told MS NOW last week he’s “probably a no,” raising concerns that the ultimate package would become “a slush fund for funding the war in Iran.” And Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, who left the GOP to become an Independent earlier this year, told MS NOW that Republicans shouldn’t count on his vote.
“I’m very skeptical of this approach,” he said.
If all Democrats vote against the budget resolution, as expected, Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still adopt the measure, assuming full attendance. With two of those spots likely already accounted for, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will need to keep the rest of his conference on board.

The White House, for its part, is running a full-court press to get the reconciliation package to President Donald Trump’s desk. Vice President JD Vance met with House Republicans last week to discuss the effort, relaying that the president supports the package and urging lawmakers to get as much of the SAVE America Act passed as possible, according to three members at the meeting.
Even if Republicans clear the House, they would still have to pass a Senate budget resolution, draft legislation, survive another review by the Senate parliamentarian and assemble a majority in the chamber before sending the package back to the House for final approval.
With just about 20 legislative days planned for the House and Senate before the midterms, Republicans are fairly pessimistic about their chances of passing the package.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do — it’s a pretty significant lift.” Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., told MS NOW. “We’ve got a lot of convincing to do on our side for a lot of reasons.”
Another House Republican put the odds of this third reconciliation bill passing at 50-50.
“It’s just doing a lot,” the lawmaker said. “The fiscal conservatives are concerned, some people are concerned about the war… So that combination, I think, will prove to be difficult.”
Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he needs the spending in the reconciliation bill to be offset by cuts, which is not part of House GOP leadership’s current plan.
Burlison was less optimistic about the bill’s odds.
“I would say probably it’s a 40% chance,” he told MS NOW.
Even Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has been cautious. When MS NOW asked him how realistic it is to get the bill passed, he said, “If I had to handicap it on a scale of one to 10, I don’t know what to say at this point.”
His members have been even more frank about their gripes with reconciliation 3.0.
After it was reported that House GOP leadership wasn’t planning to include cuts in the bill, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said the package “should be fully paid for,” pointing to the ballooning debt.
“Our national debt is a runaway train,” he wrote on X.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told reporters “there needs to be a ban on funding for Planned Parenthood” in the final product, while also saying he didn’t want to see “any federal taxpayer money go to transgender treatment, surgeries, hormone therapies, etc., for minor children.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., meanwhile, took aim at the proposal potentially including language pertaining to the SAVE America Act. If the package includes any language related to the voting bill, Tillis told reporters he’ll “absolutely” vote against it.
“And I’ll slow other things down, too,” he said. “It’s a waste of time. It’s an exercise in futility, and those are the only positive things I can think of to say about it.”

The inclusion of the SAVE America Act is causing problems for other Republicans — just for a different reason.
After the Senate parliamentarian ruled against including the SAVE America Act in reconciliation, Johnson floated a workaround. He proposed creating a federal fund that states could draw from to implement voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements.
To some Republicans, however, that’s not a suitable option.
“If it’s really gonna be language that just is bribing the states, like with a few million bucks, I don’t think that’s strong enough,” Burlison told reporters.
Another House Republican said the SAVE America Act provisions were “100% snake oil.”
“Nothing in the bill is enforceable when it comes to the SAVE Act,” the lawmaker said. “It’s a complete falsehood. It’s very troubling.”
Beyond the policy, some Republicans have gripes with the process.
Murkowski, who said there’s little chance Republicans get the bill passed, said she’s not in favor of “multiple reconciliations.” (The GOP has passed two other party-line bills in the past year.)
Murkowski also took issue with Republicans seeming to subvert the normal appropriations process through these party-line bills.
“I don’t like to appropriate through reconciliation,” Murkowski said. “That’s the direction that we’re going here.”
Still, there are some Republicans who are optimistic.
Asked by MS NOW last week if he was confident this latest reconciliation bill would pass, Johnson gave a definitive “Yes.”
And other members are backing him up.
“It’s more likely than not,” a House Republican said. “There are plenty of issues to still iron out, but people kind of said we couldn’t get the first reconciliation package done as well. Now, in hindsight, it seems inevitable.”
But the pessimism within the Republican ranks seems to be outweighing the optimism. From the tight legislative timeline and competing policy demands to the razor-thin majorities and difficult Senate rules, the GOP’s luck on reconciliation bills may have finally run out.
Asked about the reconciliation push, one member summed it up this way: “It’s a circus.”
Jack Fitzpatrick and Nora McKee contributed to this report.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
3 U.S. troops killed in Middle East and 1 missing after Iranian attacks, CENTCOM says
Three American service members — two in Jordan and one in Iraq — were killed in action and one remains missing after Iranian attacks over the past few days, U.S. Central Command said.
The U.S. military on Sunday carried out new airstrikes in response to “swiftly punish” Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
The names of the killed service members were being withheld until 24 hours after their families were notified, CENTCOM said. Four others were taken to hospitals and have since been discharged, according to CENTCOM. Others were evaluated for minor injuries and have returned to duty. Another service member was wounded and continues to receive medical treatment for a minor injury.
CENTCOM announced on Sunday that a third U.S. service member in northern Iraq was killed in action July 18 following an attempt to detonate unexploded ordnance from an Iranian drone.
The latest fatalities bring the United States’ combat death toll related to the Iran war to 17. In addition, a soldier died from a noncombat-related incident in Kuwait. Hundreds of other troops have been injured.
In a social media post on Saturday afternoon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote, “Godspeed, heroes,” adding: “Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve.”
The U.S. and Iran have traded strikes for the past week, with Iran hitting neighboring nations where American military bases are located. Iran has again closed the Strait of Hormuz — access to which has been a major factor in the war — and the U.S. restored its blockade on Iranian ports.
At least 50 people have been killed and more than 500 injured in Iran since the U.S. resumed its bombing campaign, according to Iran’s Ministry of Health.
A senior Iranian government official told MS NOW on Saturday that the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran is “no longer valid” after days of fighting. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to be able to discuss sensitive issues, said the U.S. had consistently breached the ceasefire and added that Iran had no plans to negotiate while it’s under attack.
A senior foreign diplomat inside Tehran who is linked to Iran-U.S. negotiations told MS NOW that “there is no hope of peace in the near future.” The diplomat, who did not want to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the topic, said it would “take a miracle” to return to negotiations.
The renewed hostilities threaten to upend the fast-deteriorating agreement that the two countries signed last month. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state TV that Iran is suspending its commitments to the memorandum of understanding with the U.S., The Associated Press reported Saturdayaccusing the U.S. of violating its own commitments under the deal.
It’s unclear where mediation efforts stand at the moment. Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei said in a statement Saturday that the U.S. violation of the MoU proved the “worthlessness and invalidity” of President Donald Trump’s signature and warned of heavy repercussions for the U.S., state broadcaster IRIB reported.
Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.
Inzamam Rashid is a MS NOW contributor and Monocle’s Gulf Correspondent based in Dubai. He has previously reported for Sky News and the BBC
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
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
-
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






