Connect with us

Politics

Is Russia an Adversary or a Future Partner? Trump’s Aides May Have to Decide.

Published

on

Is Russia an Adversary or a Future Partner? Trump’s Aides May Have to Decide.

When the nation’s intelligence chiefs go before Congress on Tuesday to provide their first public “Worldwide Threat Assessment” of President Trump’s second term, they’ll face an extraordinary choice.

Do they stick with their long-running conclusion about President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, that his goal is to crush the Ukrainian government and “undermine the United States and the West?”

Or do they cast Mr. Putin in the terms Mr. Trump and his top negotiator with Russia are describing him with these days: as a trustworthy future business partner who simply wants to end a nasty war, get control of parts of Ukraine that are rightly his and resume a regular relationship with the United States?

The vexing choice has become all the more stark in recent days since Steve Witkoff, one of Mr. Trump’s oldest friends from the real estate world and his chosen envoy to the Mideast and Russia, has begun picking up many of Mr. Putin’s favorite talking points.

Mr. Witkoff wrote off European fears that Russia could violate whatever cease-fire is agreed upon and a peacekeeping force must be assembled to deter Moscow. In an interview with Tucker Carlson, the pro-MAGA podcaster, Mr. Witkoff said the peacekeeping idea was “a combination of a posture and a pose” by America’s closest NATO allies.

Advertisement

It is a view, he said, that was born of a “sort of notion of we’ve all got to be like Winston Churchill, the Russians are going to march across Europe.” He continued: “I think that’s preposterous.”

Just over three years after Russian troops poured into Kyiv and tried to take out the government, Mr. Witkoff argued that Mr. Putin doesn’t really want to take over all of Ukraine.

“Why would they want to absorb Ukraine?” he asked Mr. Carlson. “For what purpose, exactly? They don’t need to absorb Ukraine.” All Russia seeks, he argues, is “stability there.”

“I thought he was straight up with me,” Mr. Witkoff said of Mr. Putin, a striking characterization of a longtime U.S. adversary, and master of deception, who repeatedly told the world he had no intention of invading Ukraine.

Of all the head-spinning reversals in Washington these days, perhaps it is the Trump administration’s view of Russia and its seeming willingness to believe Mr. Putin that leave allies, intelligence officials and diplomats most disoriented.

Advertisement

Until Mr. Trump took office, it was the consensus view of the United States and its allies that they had been hopelessly naïve about Russia’s true ambitions for far too long — that they had failed to listen carefully to Mr. Putin when he first argued, in 2007, that there were parts of Russia that needed to be restored to the motherland. Then he invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea and sent the military — out of uniform — to conduct a guerrilla war in the Donbas.

Still, sanctions were slow to be applied, and Europe was far too slow to rearm — a point Mr. Trump himself makes when he presses the Europeans for more funds to defend themselves.

Now, Mr. Trump refuses to acknowledge the obvious, that Russia invaded Ukraine. He has been openly contradicted by several European leaders, who say that even if the United States plans to seek a normalization of relations with Russia, they do not. “I don’t trust Putin,” the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, told The New York Times last week. “I’m sure Putin would try to insist that Ukraine should be defenseless after a deal because that gives him what he wants, which is the opportunity to go in again.”

But for the American intelligence agencies, whose views are supposed to be rooted in a rigorous analysis of covertly collected and open-source analysis, there is no indication so far that any of their views about Mr. Putin and his ambitions have changed. So it will be up to the new director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the new C.I.A. director, John Ratcliffe, to walk the fine line of describing Russia as a current adversary and future partner.

Mr. Witkoff headed down that road in his conversation with Mr. Carlson. “Share sea lanes, maybe send LNG gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on A.I. together,” he said, after imagining a negotiated cease-fire in which Russia gets to hold the lands it now occupies and gets assurances that Ukraine will never join NATO. “Who doesn’t want to see a world like that?”

Advertisement

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the chamber’s Intelligence Committee, said comments by Mr. Witkoff and others in the Trump administration are deeply disorienting to American spies.

“If you grew up in the intelligence community knowing all the awful things Vladimir Putin had done and all of a sudden you have a change in posture where you completely take Russia’s side, how do you make sense of that?” Mr. Warner said.

Mr. Warner said the document that the intelligence community will unveil on Tuesday, its annual threat assessment, is very traditional and in keeping with previous versions of it. But what Mr. Trump’s intelligence leaders will say in testimony is not as clear. So far, Mr. Warner said, the administration’s comments on Ukraine have reflected anything but the traditional view of the threat from Russia.

The shifting American policy on Russia, Mr. Warner said, threatens intelligence partnerships. While America collects far more intelligence than other countries, he said, the combined contributions of key allies are substantial. And if their concerns about American policy and its faithful analysis of intelligence grow, they will share less.

Officials of several allies, while declining to speak on the record, pointed to several of Mr. Witkoff’s statements with alarm, saying they closely reflected Russian talking points. He endorsed Russian “referendums” in four key Ukrainian provinces that were widely viewed as rigged, with voters threatened with torture and deportation if they cast their ballot the wrong way. But Mr. Witkoff spoke as if they were legitimate elections.

Advertisement

“There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule,” he said. Shortly afterward, Oleksandr Merezhko, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Ukrainian Parliament, said on Monday that Mr. Witkoff should be removed from his position.

“These are simply disgraceful, shocking statements,” Mr. Merezhko told Ukrainian media. “He is relaying Russian propaganda. And I have a question: Who is he? Is he Trump’s envoy, or maybe he’s Putin’s envoy?”

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was more circumspect in an interview with Time magazine released on Monday. He said he believed “Russia has managed to influence some people on the White House team through information.” Earlier, he had talked about the “web of disinformation” surrounding Mr. Trump, saying it contributed to their famously poor relationship.

He noted that Mr. Trump had repeated Mr. Putin’s claim that retreating Ukrainian forces in western Russia had been encircled.

“That was a lie,” Mr. Zelensky said.

Advertisement

Constant Méheut contributed reporting from Kyiv.

Politics

Carney casts himself as NATO defender amid Trump beef, despite Canada missing key benchmark for decades

Published

on

Carney casts himself as NATO defender amid Trump beef, despite Canada missing key benchmark for decades

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney defended his country’s NATO commitments after being pressed over alliance spending by President Donald Trump, insisting Ottawa meets the benchmark – even though Canada only reached the 2% defense target in 2025.

Speaking recently at a press conference in Monteregie, Quebec, Carney said Iran remains a “grave threat” to the Middle East and beyond and argued Canada is meeting its obligations to the alliance.

But Canada only reached NATO’s 2% defense spending benchmark in 2025, after spending years well below the target. Carney acknowledged Ottawa had not hit that mark since the Cold War, underscoring the vulnerability in his pushback to Trump.

“I’ll underscore that just a few weeks ago that we’ve met for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall our NATO commitments in terms of 2% defense spending,” Carney added. 

Advertisement

ECONOMIST EDITOR SAYS EUROPEAN LEADERS NOW FEAR A TRUE NATO ‘DIVORCE’ AFTER TRUMP PULLOUT THREAT

Trump has blasted some NATO allies over what he sees as weak support during the Iran conflict, warning on Truth Social that the alliance “wasn’t there when we needed them and they won’t be there if we need them again.”

When a reporter pressed that Trump threatened to punish NATO, including conflict-averse members Germany and Spain, Carney boasted that Canada “meet[s] its NATO commitments.”

NATO’s 2014-2025 defense expenditure report estimated Canada’s defense spending at 1.01% of GDP in 2014, and below 1.5% through 2024 before reaching 2.01% in 2025.

NATO CHIEF SAYS WORLD IS ‘ABSOLUTELY’ SAFER UNDER TRUMP

Advertisement

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has praised Trump for pushing allies to meet the 2% benchmark, as several Eastern Bloc nations have noticeably increased their tithes.

Over the past decade, U.S. defense spending has averaged roughly 3.3% of GDP, compared with about 1.3% for Canada. The U.S. GDP is also a higher gross figure than all other NATO members in dollars.

MORE KEY US ALLIES BLOCK MILITARY FLIGHTS AS IRAN WAR RIFT WIDENS WITH TRUMP 

Tensions between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump flared after the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Renaud Philippe/Bloomberg; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Greece and the U.K. have been the top two countries consistently contributing to NATO’s funding, while Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Hungary all sit in the lower tier on average. The only outlier below them is Luxembourg, which contributes an average 0.6% of GDP to NATO, according to calculations made from the report’s figures.

Advertisement

TRUMP LASHES OUT AT ‘SICK’ IRANIAN LEADERS, CONFIRMS ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR ENDING WAR

Rutte previously made waves for appearing to refer to Trump as “daddy,” but said this week the Dutch-to-English translation was flawed and that he meant to refer to the president as a strong disciplinarian-like figure at a time when Trump was angry at both Israel and Iran.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“In Dutch, you would say the translation of your father is ‘daddy’ and I would say hey, yeah, some time, Daddy has to be angry, so I wasn’t going to say [he’s my] daddy,” he said of a meeting between the two men in The Hague last June.

Rutte issued the response after being pressed on whether he still viewed Trump as “Daddy” or an ally amid the president’s issues with some member-nations.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport until a California judge stepped in

Published

on

DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport until a California judge stepped in

Last September, the Department of Homeland Security started advising unaccompanied immigrant children that they could either self-deport or expect to face long-term detention.

But a federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday ordered the government to stop using such “blatantly coercive” language, ruling that the new advisals, as they are known, violated a 40-year-old court order that bans immigration agents from pressuring unaccompanied children to give up asylum claims and leave the U.S.

According to court documents, the legal advisal was given to recently detained immigrant children. Unaccompanied children are those in the country without a parent or legal guardian.

The minors were told they had the option to return to their country, that doing so would result in no administrative consequences and that they still could apply for a visa in the future.

But the children also were told that if they chose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicated that they were afraid to leave the U.S., they could expect to be held at a detention facility “for a prolonged period of time.”

Advertisement

Those who turned 18 while in custody would be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation, they were told. The advisal, though generally passed on verbally, was written out in court documents by lawyers representing the immigrant children, which the government did not dispute.

“If your sponsor in the United States does not have legal immigration status, they will be subject to arrest and removal,” the advisals continued. “The sponsor may be subject to criminal prosecution for aiding your illegal entry.”

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald said that “such a threat disturbingly mirrors” the testimony of Jose Antonio Perez-Funez, a plaintiff in a 1980s class-action lawsuit challenging the tactics of immigration officers.

Perez-Funez, who was 16 when he was arrested near the Mexican border, testified in 1985 in Los Angeles federal court that he agreed to self-deport because federal officers said he would face lengthy detention if he didn’t return to El Salvador.

Perez-Funez’s case originally led the court to establish due process safeguards for immigrant children, giving them the right to speak with a relative or attorney before signing forms that waive their pursuit of legal protection.

Advertisement

“The Government was thus already on notice that such a statement delivered in this environment is precisely the kind of inappropriate persuasion the Injunction sought to prevent,” Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald, a judge in the Central District of California, also denied a request by the federal government to end the permanent court-mandated safeguards for immigrant children altogether.

In response to a request for comment, U.S. Customs and Border Protection provided a statement, attributed to a spokesperson who wasn’t named, that the agency is following the law and protecting children. The agency said the advisal document explains to unaccompanied children their options available under federal law.

“Many unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by smugglers and face real risks of exploitation, which is why providing a clear, lawful advisal is essential,” the statement said. “It ensures they understand their rights and options — and for many who were trafficked or coerced, returning home to their family is the safest path.”

Unaccompanied children are first held by Homeland Security before being turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is within the Department of Health and Human Services, for long-term housing. Federal law requires ORR to provide them with a legal consultation within 10 days.

Advertisement

“It is difficult to imagine a scenario more coercive than the one faced by [unaccompanied immigrant children] in the 72 hours before they are transferred into ORR custody, particularly for noncitizen children who likely do not know whether they possess any rights at all,” Fitzgerald wrote in his order.

In declarations to the court, children wrote that they felt threatened by the government’s advisals. One minor, identified as D.A.T.M., said the threats to prosecute their parents and of long-term detention caused them to sign voluntary departure papers.

Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney at the pro bono law firm Public Counsel, helped secure the 1986 court order. He said his legal team discovered Homeland Security had changed the advisals only after a government attorney notified him in November that the agency was going to seek to end the court-mandated safeguards.

“I consider this a war on children — the most vulnerable population,” he said.

The government has until Thursday to decide whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling. Regardless, Rosenbaum said, his goal is to establish more aggressive monitoring of unaccompanied children’s cases to ensure their rights aren’t violated again.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump blasts Spanberger ahead of Virginia meetings, says state faces tax base exodus like New York, California

Published

on

Trump blasts Spanberger ahead of Virginia meetings, says state faces tax base exodus like New York, California

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump slammed Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger ahead of meetings in the state Saturday, warning her policies are triggering a tax base exodus similar to New York and California.

Trump, in an early morning Truth Social post, said the Democratic governor had imposed a wave of taxes he argued were draining the state’s economic strength.

“She is adding so many Taxes, a Food and Beverage Tax, Digital Services Tax, Utilities Tax, and more,” Trump wrote. “It has lost its Energy, Vitality, and Strength. People are leaving that would never have even thought of doing so!”

Trump’s comments come as Republicans have criticized Democrats in the state legislature over a slate of tax and revenue proposals, warning the measures could hurt Virginia’s business climate, though the governor has not publicly supported or signed the measures referenced by Trump.

Advertisement

GLENN YOUNGKIN ACCUSES GOV SPANBERGER OF ‘ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL’ GERRYMANDERING IN VIRGINIA MAP FIGHT

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and President Donald Trump  (Marvin Joseph/Getty Images; Brendan Smilowski/AFP)

“New companies that signed to come into the Commonwealth under Governor Youngkin are now looking for ways to get out — Break their Deal,” he said.

The president, who said he was heading to Virginia for meetings at Trump National Golf Club, drew comparisons to high-tax states like New York and California, which he has frequently criticized.

“We have a similar situation in New York and, most of all, in California, where Rich, Job Producing people and companies are being forced to FLEE at levels never seen before,” Trump wrote.

Advertisement

He added that California’s tax base was “literally disappearing” as wealthy individuals and corporations relocate, warning Virginia could face a similar trajectory.

VA DEM REJECTS ‘POWER GRAB’ CLAIMS ON SPANBERGER REDISTRICTING AS GOP WARNS 10–1 MAP WOULD SPLIT RURAL VOTE

The Virginia State Capitol during the inauguration ceremony of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger in Richmond Jan. 17, 2026. (Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Getty Images)

“Remember, once people and companies leave, they are never coming back!” Trump said.

Spanberger pushed back on the criticism in a post on X, arguing Trump and his allies were mischaracterizing her policies.

Advertisement

“The president and his allies are talking about taxes that our state legislature never even voted on and I certainly didn’t sign,” she wrote. “Why? Because if they don’t flood the zone with fake news about fake taxes, people might hear about the bills I am signing to lower energy costs, strengthen our schools, make housing more affordable, and bring billions of dollars of business investment to Virginia.”

Spanberger has supported a broader set of revenue measures since taking office, including proposals targeting digital services and business activity, as part of an effort to fund priorities such as education and health care.

A spokesperson for Spanberger’s office also issued a statement criticizing Trump’s claims.

“Virginians are tired of Donald Trump’s lies,” the spokesperson told Fox News Digital. “Governor Spanberger has signed dozens of bipartisan bills to contend with high housing, healthcare and energy costs for Virginians — and not any of the taxes President Trump and his allies are lying about.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The spokesperson added that businesses have announced “more than $500 million in new investment in the commonwealth since Governor Spanberger took office in January,” while accusing Trump of focusing on politics instead of economic stability.

On Saturday, House Speaker Mike Johnson and former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin also took aim at Spanberger as a state vote on redistricting approaches during a rally in Rockingham County opposing Democrats’ proposed 10-1 gerrymander ahead of the April 21 referendum election.

“She talks like a moderate, and she governs like a Marxist,” Johnson said. “I mean, this is serious stuff.”

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Feb. 24, 2026, in Williamsburg, Va. (Mike Kropf/Getty Images)

Johnson also warned that the outcome in Virginia could have national implications, citing the GOP’s narrow House majority.

Advertisement

Youngkin, meanwhile, accused Spanberger of weakening public safety policies in the state.

“She says she’s going to stand for public safety, and she makes Virginia a sanctuary state after one of the most successful federal-state collaborations in the entire country,” Youngkin said. “We arrested thousands of violent criminals who are here illegally, and she put a stop to it.”

Spanberger defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears in the 2025 gubernatorial race, securing a Democratic win. Youngkin was not eligible for re-election under state law.

Spanberger campaigned on issues including health care and abortion rights, while positioning herself as a more moderate alternative despite GOP criticism of her voting record.

Fox News Digital’s Preston Mizell contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending