Politics
Meeting With Biden, British Leader Hints at Ukraine Weapon Decision Soon
President Biden’s deliberations with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain about whether to allow Ukraine to attack Russia with long-range Western weapons were fresh evidence that the president remains deeply fearful of setting off a dangerous, wider conflict.
But the decision now facing Mr. Biden after Friday’s closed-door meeting at the White House — whether to sign off on the use of long-range missiles made by Britain and France — could be far more consequential than previous concessions by the president that delivered largely defensive weapons to Ukraine during the past two and a half years.
In remarks at the start of his meeting with Mr. Starmer, the president underscored his support for helping Ukraine defend itself but did not say whether he was willing to do more to allow for long-range strikes deep into Russia.
“We’re going to discuss that now,” the president told reporters.
For his part, the prime minister noted that “the next few weeks and months could be crucial — very, very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom.”
European officials said earlier in the week that Mr. Biden appeared ready to approve the use of British and French long-range missiles, a move that Mr. Starmer and officials in France have said they want to provide a united front in the conflict with Russia. But Mr. Biden has hesitated to allow Ukraine to use arms provided by the United States in the same way over fears that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia would see it as a major escalation.
On Thursday, Mr. Putin responded to reports that America and its allies were considering such a move by declaring that it would “mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia,” according to a report by the Kremlin.
Mr. Biden and Mr. Starmer offered little insight on Friday into the actions they planned to take. But officials on both sides of the Atlantic said they did not expect any announcement immediately after the White House meeting. In the past, Western countries have begun providing new military equipment to Ukraine without announcing the decision publicly.
“This wasn’t about a particular decision that we’ll obviously pick up again in UNGA in just a few days’ time with a wider group of individuals,” Mr. Starmer told reporters after the meeting, referring to the annual meeting in New York of the United Nations General Assembly at the end of the month.
But he also hinted that he expected a decision about the missiles to come soon.
“I think if you look at both the Ukrainian situation and the Middle East, it is obvious that in the coming weeks and months there are really important potential developments, whatever timetable is going on in other countries,” he said.
John F. Kirby, the national security spokesman at the White House, said Friday that the Biden administration takes Mr. Putin’s threats seriously because he has proved himself capable of “aggression” and “escalation.” But Mr. Kirby added that there had been no change in Mr. Biden’s opposition to letting Ukraine use U.S. missiles to strike deep inside Russia.
“There is no change to our view on the provision of long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside Russia, and I wouldn’t expect any sort of major announcement in that regard coming out of the discussions, certainly not from our side,” he said.
Mr. Kirby’s comments came just hours before the two leaders met for their first lengthy conversation since Mr. Starmer became prime minister in early July.
The question of whether to let Ukraine use the long-range weapons that can travel 150 to 200 miles has been a rare point of disagreement between British and American officials, who have largely been in lock step on strategy over the past 30 months of fighting.
British officials have argued that Ukraine cannot be expected to fight effectively unless it can attack the military sites that Russia is using to shoot missiles or the airplanes that deliver “glide bombs.” And they believe that Mr. Putin, for all his nuclear threats warning that war between Russia and European forces could be coming, is largely bluffing. Mr. Putin, they say, has shown he does not want to bring NATO directly into the fighting.
Mr. Biden’s view has been far more cautious.
He has hesitated at every major decision point, starting with shipping HIMARS artillery, then through debates on whether to send M1 Abrams tanks, F-16 fighters, and short- and long-range ATACMS, a missile system critical to American preparations to defend both Europe and the Korean Peninsula.
But those decisions have primarily helped Ukraine’s military defend its territory and try to repel the Russian invasion. Over time, his aides say, they have discovered that Mr. Putin was less sensitive to the introduction of new weapons into the battlefield than they had thought. So they have gradually approved more capable, longer-range arms for Ukraine.
The questions of how Mr. Putin would react to the use of American weapons by Ukraine to strike deep inside Russian territory, officials say, could lead to a very different outcome.
“When he starts brandishing the nuclear sword, for instance, yeah, we take that seriously, and we constantly monitor that kind of activity,” Mr. Kirby said. “We have our own calculus for what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what not.”
The American concerns are twofold. The first has been rooted in Mr. Biden’s concern that the war not escalate; time and again he has told members of his staff that their No. 1 priority was to “avoid World War III.”
The second American concern is a practical one: Pentagon officials do not believe Ukraine has enough of the ATACMS, the British Storm Shadow and the French SCALP missiles to make a strategic difference on the battlefield. The reach of the missiles, they note, is well known — and Russia has already moved its most valuable aircraft beyond the range the missiles can fly.
Moreover, the U.S. officials say, they simply cannot supply many more to Ukraine. The Pentagon has warned that it must keep a healthy reserve of weapons in case of an outbreak of fighting in either Europe or Asia. And the missiles are so expensive that they contend Ukraine could get more firepower putting that money into drones.
So in the American telling of events, the decisions being debated by Mr. Biden and Mr. Starmer are more symbolic than substantive.
Looming over this is the American election.
In the debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday, former President Donald J. Trump declined several opportunities to say he was committed to Ukraine’s victory. Instead, he talked of striking a deal, one that Ukraine may be coerced to sign.
While Ms. Harris is likely to continue the outlines of the American strategy, providing more arms and aid to Ukraine as long as Congress keeps the spigot open, Mr. Trump has made clear he is uninterested in continuing to spend heavily. And while Europe has stepped up, it does not have enough of an arsenal to make much of a difference.
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.
-
Crypto2 minutes agoPred Opens to Public as $5M Beta Volume Fuels World Cup Sports Trading Push
-
Fitness12 minutes agoIt works up a sweat: At 79, Susan Sarandon swears by this one surprising exercise for toned arms
-
Movie Reviews24 minutes agoBandar Movie Review: Bobby Deol roars in Anurag Kashyap’s unsettling legal thriller that refuses to spoon-feed
-
World32 minutes agoTaormina Film Festival Head Tiziana Rocca Says She Wants to Deliver a ‘Human Festival’ Amidst AI Boom, Asks Stars to Be ‘Generous’ to Local Audiences
-
Politics42 minutes agoVideo: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
-
Lifestyle1 hour ago‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University
-
Technology1 hour agoCyberdecks used to look like little laptops, but now they’re getting more personal
-
World1 hour agoPete Hegseth warns narco-terrorists as U.S. backs Bolivia’s government amid coup warnings
