Politics
Fresh off meetings with foreign allies, Schiff echoes alarm over Trump-style diplomacy
After days of meetings with European leaders, Israeli officials and other international security experts, Sen. Adam Schiff this week offered a blistering assessment of President Trump’s approach to foreign policy.
In an interview with The Times, the California Democrat accused Trump and other administration officials of abandoning Ukraine and other European allies, bowing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, sidling up to far-right extremists in Germany and framing Gaza in absurdly cruel terms as a future U.S.-owned resort space, purged entirely of Palestinians.
And he said he was echoing those concerns from a host of others he met during a bipartisan congressional trip to both Munich and Israel in recent days, including some of the nation’s most steadfast European allies.
“They’re terrified. They see a president who is betraying a Democratic ally at war, who is suddenly blaming Ukraine for its own invasion by the Kremlin dictator, who is casting doubt on the legitimacy of [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky’s leadership in Ukraine, and who is essentially a mouthpiece for the Kremlin,” Schiff said. “They’re flabbergasted. I think they believe that the president is not just an unreliable partner, but a hostile partner.”
Schiff said Republican members of Congress on the same trip shared some of those views and voiced them in closed-door meetings. He said they told Zelensky the U.S. still has Ukraine’s back, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Trump’s idea for Gaza was “a complete nonstarter,” with no support in the Senate for “investing American boots on the ground or resources into a U.S. occupation of Gaza or U.S. reconstruction of Gaza.”
Schiff’s assessment followed a stunning stretch of U.S. foreign diplomacy in the last two weeks, during which Trump and other top administration officials — including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — have repeatedly shocked the world with their pronouncements about the U.S. role in foreign relations moving forward.
In his first trip to NATO headquarters in Brussels on Feb. 12, Hegseth suggested the U.S. could no longer guarantee the safety of Europe and that Ukraine would have to give up massive concessions — including territory — to end Russia’s war against it.
Days later at the Munich Security Conference, Vance said little about Russia’s war, lectured European allies on what it means to be a democracy and met with leaders of Germany’s far-right party just days before an election there. And Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to begin negotiations without any involvement from Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Trump praised Putin and repeatedly denigrated Zelensky. He blamed Ukraine for Russia’s invasion and called Zelensky a “dictator” who is ripping off the U.S. and who has “no cards to play” in ongoing negotiations with Russia.
He also kept suggesting Gaza could be a U.S.-owned “Riviera of the Middle East,” among other outlandish foreign policy positions — such as that Canada should be turned into the 51st U.S. state.
Several U.S. foreign policy experts said the administration’s actions, if taken at face value, reverse longstanding U.S. policy and break with diplomatic norms in massive and important ways.
Robert English, an expert on Russian and post-Soviet politics and director of Central European Studies at USC, called the administration’s moves on the international stage the “most upsetting rupture” in U.S. transatlantic relations since World War II and the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and a “sharp turn” by the U.S. with still unclear results.
California Sen. Adam Schiff had harsh words for the Trump administration after he attended the Munich Security Conference.
(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images)
But he and others also left open another possibility: The wave of startling pronouncements could represent a negotiating tactic to shock allies and opponents into making more moderate concessions to the U.S.
Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations, said he believes Trump’s “bombastic positions” are indeed a tactic — and one that has worked.
As one example, he pointed to a Friday summit hurriedly called in the Saudi capital of Riyadh among leaders from Egypt, Jordan and other Gulf Arab states to discuss a path forward for Gaza, after Rubio suggested Trump’s remarks about the territory were in part a challenge to Arab nations to come up with their own plan.
However, Trump also has shown a propensity to follow through with outlandish ideas when nobody stands in his way, Radd said, so even his most wild pronouncements can’t be dismissed out of hand.
“It’s trolling until it isn’t,” Radd said. “If you do not get in front of it, he’ll be like, ‘Wait a minute, there’s nobody to actually stop me.’”
Schiff said he views Trump as irresponsible, dangerous and willing to go as far as others — both in the U.S and abroad — will let him. And he said it will be incredibly important for those who understand the important role the U.S. plays in maintaining world order to reestablish some guardrails and block his worst impulses.
Whether that will happen is unclear, he and the experts agreed.
Part of what will determine the administration’s next moves, English said, will be Europe’s ability to maintain a united front, including in its support for Ukraine.
“If he’s able to drive a wedge into European Union solidarity, then their resolve will fall apart,” he said.
Within the U.S., Schiff said, much of the work will fall to Republicans. Those in the Senate “clearly made a decision collectively” that they were not going to stand in the way of Trump’s Cabinet nominations, he said, but whether they will bend completely to his will on foreign affairs remains to be seen.
If they aren’t willing to stand up to Trump, Schiff said, “their own institution will be destroyed” and they “might as well go home, because we won’t be doing our jobs.” If they are willing to make a stand, there is plenty of work to do, he added.
Schiff said he couldn’t “get into the specifics” of the conversation he and other senators had with Zelensky, but that it was “fair to say” that Zelensky “was concerned about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine, to our fellow democracies and allies,” and “that, if not stopped in Ukraine, that Russia had territorial ambitions against our NATO allies.”
Zelensky also “raised concerns about being pressed on things like mineral rights without guarantees of our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, without security guarantees really of any kind,” Schiff said.
Senators had expressed bipartisan support for Ukraine and Zelensky, he said, and now it’s time they prove it. Schiff said senators still have power to isolate Trump in his criticisms of Ukraine, but have to go “beyond rhetorical support” for Ukraine and affirm it through votes ahead.
“I sure as hell hope they stand up to him for the sake of our country and our allies, our standing in the world, the whole international rules-based order we’ve had since World War II,” Schiff said.
Schiff said others in Munich, including NATO leaders, raised concerns with him about “how many people will suffer” and how the U.S. is “abandoning the field to the likes of China” by closing the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump and his billionaire advisor Elon Musk have sought to shutter.
U.S. officials must also push back against that effort, and make it clear to Trump that the agency does important work abroad that serves U.S. interests and must continue.
In Israel, Schiff said he and a bipartisan group of colleagues made clear to Netanyahu that Trump’s proposal for Gaza was unrealistic. They should be making the same clear publicly, he said — to force the administration to take a more responsible position that adheres to international law and protects the rights of Palestinians.
Schiff said he personally told Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders that a two-state solution must still be worked out for the long-term stability of the region and of Israel itself.
“I hope that ultimately it becomes a debate over the attributes of a Palestinian state, rather than whether one will exist,” he said.
The U.S. can remain a leader and a force for good, Schiff said — but it won’t be via Trump’s shock-and-awe approach, either overseas or domestically. And he urged people to step up and play their part in demanding a different path.
“We’re all going to have an important role to play now and over the next four years in the preservation of our democracy,” Schiff said. “It’s going to require those of us in office to be pushing back with every tool we have. It’s going to require the courts to play their historic role. But it’s going to require ordinary citizens also to speak out, to demonstrate — to not let the country go quietly into some kind of one-man rule.”
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Sports2 seconds ago
High school baseball and softball: Regional scores and schedule
-
World8 minutes ago
Europe Today: Costa speaks exclusively to Euronews as EU-Western Balkans summit underway
-
News33 minutes agoTrump, Netanyahu at odds / Elusive Iran deal : Sources & Methods
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
