Politics
News Analysis: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: A much-scrutinized relationship is back in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — They tend to gush over each other in public, but their private dealings are often opaque. Both are brazenly transactional, and cling tenaciously to grudges. Each likes to keep everyone around him guessing.
Of all President-elect Donald Trump’s relationships with world leaders — which are coming into sharper focus as he prepares to take office again in less than two months — that with Russian President Vladimir Putin may be the most consequential, and the most fraught.
Trump says his foreign policy motto will be “America first.” Critics fear that Trump will be steamrolled by the former Soviet intelligence officer on Ukraine, on sanctions aimed at curbing Russian aggression, and on the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Whatever his course, he now has a better grasp of the levers of power in the administration he will soon lead than he did in his first term.
“I think maybe Trump has a better idea now of how to be president,” said Kadri Liik, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, discussing Trump’s past dealings with Putin. “So let’s see.”
Throughout Trump’s first term in office, his ties to Putin offered an odd leitmotif: the episodes of striking public deference to the Russian leader, Trump’s often-stated assertion that a personal bond with Putin benefited the United States rather than undermining it, his unabated fury over the lengthy federal investigation of Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election on Trump’s behalf.
Back in 2018, at a joint news conference by the two leaders in the Finnish capital of Helsinki, Trump’s declaration that he believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies so alarmed a then-advisor, the Russia scholar Fiona Hill, that she later recounted being tempted to feign a health emergency or pull a fire alarm to stop him.
In Trump’s between-terms interregnum, he and Putin seemingly stayed in touch, with at least seven phone conversations that took place outside the purview of U.S. diplomacy, according to journalist and author Bob Woodward.
This time around, Trump inherits the war in Ukraine, a conflict to which the United States is not a party, but which Putin paints as a potentially direct confrontation with any Western military partner of the Kyiv government. He will also face a loose axis of adversarial powers in which Russia is a junior player to China, but bolsters Moscow’s avowal that a U.S.-led world order has ended.
The Trump-Putin relationship over the next four years could help determine how that axis tilts.
After Trump won November’s election, he and Putin enacted what some analysts described as an elaborate set piece that encompassed elements of both conciliation and jockeying for dominance.
The Russian leader offered up his first public congratulations on Trump’s election win somewhat offhandedly, in a question-and-answer session that followed a lengthy speech. But at the same appearance, he volunteered a compliment guaranteed to endear him to the president-elect, praising Trump’s “manly” reaction to a July assassination attempt that left the then-candidate with a minor ear injury.
Then came an odd kerfuffle over who might have called whom: The Trump team let it be known there had been a congratulatory phone call, but the Kremlin then denied news reports of it. Around the same time, a widely watched program on Russian state TV aired decades-old explicit photos of former and soon-to-be First Lady Melania Trump, a onetime model, while its hosts openly smirked.
Almost immediately after the election, there was a much-parsed comment from Nikolai Patrushev, a Putin aide, who gave an enigmatic reply when asked what Trump’s win portended for Russia.
“To achieve success in the election, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations,” Patrushev told the business publication Kommersant, in remarks that were amplified by the official Tass news agency. “As a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”
While ambiguous, the comment was read by some observers as positing that Trump was somehow beholden to Moscow — but was also typical of a sly, suggestive style often employed in Kremlin propaganda.
Trump, for his part, spent the last few weeks unveiling a series of Cabinet picks that included some notable Russia skeptics, at least in their previous incarnations.
But for one particularly crucial post — the director of national intelligence, who oversees 18 U.S. intelligence agencies that gather and safeguard the nation’s most closely held secrets — he picked Tulsi Gabbard, a former congresswoman whose stated pro-Kremlin views have raised concerns even among Trump’s fellow Republicans.
“The appointment to such a sensitive role of someone with so many questions around them, whose nomination has been welcomed on Russian TV, escalates the concern that many observers have,” Ruth Deyermond, a senior lecturer in post-Soviet security at King’s College London, wrote in an email.
The choice of Gabbard, she said, “confirms existing signals that point to a very pro-Russian White House.”
An early test is likely to be Ukraine. There is a broad expectation that Trump will seek to leverage a threatened weapons cutoff into a deal that might force the government in Kyiv to give up Russian-captured territory and renounce aspirations to join NATO.
On Wednesday, Trump unveiled his choice of a special envoy for Russia and Ukraine: Keith Kellogg, a retired three-star general. A staunch conservative and an advisor in the first Trump administration, he has pushed for a plan under which Ukraine would have to cede some territory to end the war.
But Putin might not be positioned to get his way entirely. Liik, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the Russian leader, in seeking to make Ukraine a “vassal state,” could overreach.
“Putin wants more than Trump is ready to offer,” she said. “I’m not sure Trump is ready to go to those lengths, if it makes him look like a loser.”
Still, the president-elect can effect profound changes in the security order even if he does not follow through on every implied threat.
During his first term, Trump routinely denigrated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and suggested as a candidate that he would let Russia do “whatever the hell they want” to European allies he thought were ducking defense-spending obligations.
“I don’t expect Trump to formally withdraw the U.S. from NATO, but his team’s words and actions to date have already weakened it,” said Deyermond.
Some observers, though, say that with regard to actual policymaking, overall Russian expectations for the coming Trump presidency may be relatively low. After Trump’s first win, in 2016, “pro-Kremlin propaganda mouthpieces openly crowed that the victory was really Moscow’s,” said Alexander Baunov, a senior Eurasia fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“This time around, things are very different,” he wrote in the digital publication Carnegie Politika. “The jubilation in Moscow is far more muted.”
This week brought an acerbic assessment of both Trump’s and Putin’s personality traits from none other than former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who wrote in a newly published memoir about her dealings with both of them.
Merkel, who stepped down in 2021, described Trump as “clearly fascinated” by the Russian president, adding that he seemed “captivated by politicians with autocratic and dictatorial traits.”
Putin, on the other hand, was “someone who was always on guard not to be treated badly, and always ready to dish out punishments” — including once bringing a large black Labrador to a meeting with Merkel, knowing she was afraid of dogs.
Describing one of her encounters with Trump, Merkel called him “emotional.” But she counseled that a calm, dispassionate approach worked better with someone like Putin.
“You could find all this childish, reprehensible; you could shake your head at it,” she wrote of Putin’s manipulative style. “But that didn’t make Russia disappear from the map.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., died Saturday evening following a “brief and sudden” illness, according to a statement from his office.
“On the evening of Saturday, July 11, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham passed away from a brief and sudden illness,” his office said.
“Senator Graham’s family appreciates prayers at this time and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period,” it continued.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks with reporters about aid to Ukraine, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, March 10, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
This is a breaking story; check back for updates.
The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act on Friday, paving the way for drilling, mining and other human development across protected wildlife habitats.
The move redefines “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, the landmark conservation law that protects threatened and endangered plants and animals. For years, “harm” meant actions that injure or kill wildlife, as well as actions that destroy protected habitats.
Under the new rule, destroying those habitats is no longer illegal.
The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to slash regulations in the name of economic growth. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department finalized the move, said the prior definition of harm “interfered with private property rights” and “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap.”
Environmental groups called the decision a disaster, saying it puts protected species on a path to extinction.
The move seems especially poised to hit California, the most biodiverse state in the country, where more than 6,700 species are spread across mountains, forests, deserts and oceans. Of the roughly 2,300 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, nearly 300 are found in California.
These species include amphibians such as tiger salamanders and Yosemite toads; birds such as California condors and northern spotted owls; fish such as Little Kern golden trout and Santa Ana suckers; insects such as Franklin’s bumble bees and Mission blue butterflies; mammals such as gray wolves and Santa Catalina Island foxes; and reptiles such as desert tortoises and green sea turtles.
The Endangered Species Act is widely credited with saving the California condor, which almost went extinct in the 1980s due to several factors, including habitat destruction. Thanks to a recovery program under the act, the condor population has since soared to several hundred. But under the new law, the logging and human development that led to their near demise is now allowed.
A handful of California species recoveries have been championed as success stories under the Endangered Species Act, including southern sea otters, peregrine falcons, humpback whales, bald eagles and green sea turtles.
According to a report from the Center for Biological Diversity, the El Segundo blue butterfly lost 90% of its oceanside habitat due to the construction of LAX and beachfront housing developments. The population dwindled to about 1,000 butterflies in the 1970s, when it was named an endangered species. Now, the population has climbed above 120,000.
In California, the rollback could pave the way for more farming, mining, logging and drilling in areas that were once forbidden due to the potential for wildlife habitat destruction. A report from Earthjustice estimates that expanded oil drilling in California could threaten five marine species including humpback whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, marbled murrelets and wild salmon.
Several environmental groups are planning legal challenges to the ruling.
“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Kristen Boyles, attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the decision “an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats.”
“For more than four decades, the definition of ‘harm’ recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction,” Greuel said in a statement.
It’s not the first time Trump has taken aim at California environmental regulation.
Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the governors of Washington and Oregon, submitted a formal opposition to the Trump administration’s plans to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, with Newsom saying it leads to “dead wildlife.” In June, the Trump administration ordered a review of the California Coastal Commission, claiming the state’s “environmental extremism” obstructs spaceport development and offshore oil production.
A day before the Endangered Species Act decision, the Trump administration signed off on a controversial plan to use an old oil pipeline to pump water from the Mojave Desert into cities. Environmental groups said the plan threatens springs and local wildlife, since six pumps would need to be built in desert tortoise habitats.
Politics
Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A sweeping veterans package supporters describe as the largest expansion of veterans’ health care and benefits in more than a decade is expected to return to the House floor when lawmakers come back from the July recess, but backers warn the legislation could once again become collateral damage in the Republican standoff over the SAVE America Act.
The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act rolls roughly 60 veterans bills into a package that would dramatically expand veterans’ health care and benefits. At its core, the legislation would cement veterans’ access to community care outside the VA while increasing benefits for combat-wounded veterans, caregivers and Gold Star families, expanding mental health services and enacting dozens of additional reforms.
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., told Fox News Digital he intends to bring the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act back for a vote as soon as the House reconvenes next week.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – MARCH 17: Eugene Simpson, 29, from Dale City, Virginia goes through physical therapy at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, D.C. with Michael Minor, a kinesiotherapist with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs on March 17, 2006 in Washington, D.C., USA. (Photo by Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images) (Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images)
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN
The legislation was held up last month after a group of House Republicans joined Democrats to defeat a procedural vote, stopping the House from taking up the bill.
“I’m feeling good as long as my members stay with us on the rule,” Bost said. “Right now, there’s some politics being played, not about this bill, but just in general.”
The bill became entangled in a broader House Republican fight over the SAVE America Act, legislation championed by President Donald Trump that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
On June 30, the House voted on H. Res. 1398, the procedural rule governing floor consideration of several bills, including the National Defense Authorization Act and the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. The rule failed after 14 Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, preventing the House from taking up the veterans package and bringing floor business to a standstill. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., claimed to have voted against the rules vote in protest against House leadership’s handling of the SAVE America Act. As a result, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson sent the members home early.
Bost accused the holdouts of effectively putting veterans legislation on hold.
The US Department of Veterans Affairs building is seen in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2019. (Photo by Alastair Pike / AFP) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Images) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Image)
‘IT’S A MESS’: GOP TURNS ON HOUSE CONSERVATIVES AS VOTER ID BLOCKADE STALLS TRUMP’S AGENDA
“They’re holding all bills hostage,” Bost said. “They’re not voting for any rule. Any bill that has to pass a rule before it comes to the floor—which this bill does because of its size—can’t move.”
Although Bost said he supports the SAVE America Act and has voted for it three times, he argued the Senate’s failure to act should not stop the House from advancing unrelated legislation.
“I agree with that bill,” Bost said. “But the Senate still has to do their work. We don’t stop our work because the Senate isn’t doing it.”
With 23 legislative days left in the Congressional session, Concerned Veterans for America Strategic Director John Byrnes, a supporter of the bill, said time is of the essence.
“There are lots and lots of things that have to get done,” Byrnes told Fox News Digital. “There’s also the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a must pass every year, so these things eat up time. There’s requirements to have debate on these, which eat up session time.”
Byrnes argued that every procedural delay pushes other legislation further down the calendar.
“This bill will save lives in 2027,” Byrnes said. “If we lose veterans because they could have had faster, better access to health care, we’re never going to get those veterans back.”
Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill. ( )
TRUMP’S SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE IN THE SENATE DESPITE REPUBLICAN REVOLT
But Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who also voted no on the procedural vote, told Fox News Digital that he has concerns about how the bill is financed.
“I appreciate what the chairman’s trying to do in some respects, but there’s a few issues,” Roy said.
Among them, Roy pointed to provisions offsetting new spending through changes affecting other veterans.
“You’re taxing certain veterans to provide some sort of benefits and changes to other veterans,” Roy said. “There are concerns about some of the pay-fors.”
Veterans of Foreign Wars has also taken issue with Section 108 of the bill, warning that it would codify changes to future disability ratings for tinnitus and sleep apnea to help finance other veterans priorities.
But Bost said this is inaccurate.
“No veteran is going to have their benefits reduced,” Bost said. “If you’re receiving a benefit right now, that’s not going to be reduced at all.”
Roy, who previously served two years on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said he supported a lot of what the bill was seeking to accomplish; but said other pieces of legislation are priorities, too.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“There is a block of us for whom border security, the SAVE Act and demonstrating our leadership on major issues is critical,” Roy said. “Some of these other bills may or may not get hung up based on a desire of many in the conference to see movement on other things.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Luna’s office and the White House for comment.
-
Lifestyle8 minutes agoLove Island and Pre-Teen Punks with Jason Narducy : Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!
-
Technology20 minutes agoOregon’s Attorney General withdraws effort to delay Paramount and Warner Bros. merger
-
World23 minutes agoGunfire shatters Toronto Latin street festival, leaving at least 2 dead and multiple wounded
-
Politics28 minutes agoSen. Lindsey Graham dead at 71 after ‘brief and sudden’ illness, office says
-
Health35 minutes agoLast American to use an iron lung dies at 78 years old after childhood polio diagnosis
-
Sports38 minutes agoConor McGregor’s long-awaited Octagon return cut short by apparent knee injury seconds into UFC 329
-
Technology43 minutes agoRobotaxi pit stops could pop up near you
-
Business50 minutes ago‘Moana’ debuted just 10 years ago. Why Disney is remaking it as a live-action movie
