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.”
Politics
San Diego sues to stop border barrier construction
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The city of San Diego sued the federal government to stop the construction of razor wire fencing on city-owned land near the U.S.-Mexico border, accusing federal agencies of trespassing and causing environmental damage.
The city filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for Southern California on Monday. The complaint named Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth among the defendants.
The city accused the federal government of acting without legal authority when they entered city property in Marron Valley and began installing razor wire fencing.
“The City of San Diego will not allow federal agencies to disregard the law and damage City property,” said City Attorney Heather Ferbert in a news release. She said the lawsuit aims to protect sensitive habitats and ensure environmental commitments are upheld.
NEWSOM SUES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT ORDER TO OREGON
San Diego is suing the federal government to stop the construction of razor wire fencing on city property in Marron Valley. (Justin Hamel/Bloomberg via Getty Images, File)
According to the lawsuit, federal personnel including U.S. Marines accessed the land without the city’s consent, and damaged environmentally sensitive areas protected under long-standing conservation agreements.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth were among the federal officials named in San Diego’s lawsuit. (Reuters/Brian Snyder; AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
San Diego argues the fencing has blocked the city’s ability to manage and assess its own property and could jeopardize compliance with environmental obligations.
An American flag can be seen through the barbed wire surrounding the CoreCivic Otay Mesa Detention Center on October 4, 2025 in San Diego, California. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The lawsuit also accuses the federal government of trespassing and beginning construction without proper authority or environmental review, and unconstitutionally taking the land in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Fox News Digital reached out to DHS and the Pentagon for comment.
Politics
Commentary: Tim Walz isn’t the only governor plagued by fraud. Newsom may be targeted next
Former vice presidential contender and current aw-shucks Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced this week that he won’t run for a third term, dogged by a scandal over child care funds that may or may not be going to fraudsters.
It’s a politically driven mess that not coincidentally focuses on a Black immigrant community, tying the real problem of scammers stealing government funds to the growing MAGA frenzy around an imaginary version of America that thrives on whiteness and Christianity.
Despite the ugliness of current racial politics in America, the fraud remains real, and not just in Minnesota. California has lost billions to cheats in the last few years, leaving our own governor, who also harbors D.C. dreams, vulnerable to the same sort of attack that has taken down Walz.
As we edge closer to the 2028 presidential election, Republicans and Democrats alike will probably come at Gavin Newsom with critiques of the state’s handling of COVID-19 funds, unemployment insurance and community college financial aid to name a few of the honeypots that have been successfully swiped by thieves during his tenure.
In fact, President Trump said as much on his social media barf-fest this week.
“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun,” he wrote.
Right-wing commentator Benny Johnson also said he’s conducting his own “investigation.” And Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is claiming his fraud tip line has turned up “(c)orruption, fraud and abuse on an epic scale.”
Just to bring home that this vulnerability is serious and bipartisan, Rep. Ro Khanna, the Silicon Valley congressman rumored to have his own interest in the Oval Office, is also circling the fraud feast like a vulture eyeing his next meal.
“I want to hear from residents in my district and across the state about waste, mismanagement, inefficiencies, or fraud that we must tackle,” Khanna wrote on social media.
Newsom’s spokesman Izzy Gardon questioned the validity of many fraud claims.
“In the actual world where adults govern,” Gardon said, “Gavin Newsom has been cleaning house. Since taking office, he’s blocked over $125 BILLION in fraud, arrested criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers, and protected taxpayers from the exact kind of scam artists Trump celebrates, excuses, and pardons.”
What exactly are we talking about here? Well, it’s a pick-your-scandal type of thing. Even before the federal government dumped billions in aid into the states during the pandemic, California’s unemployment system was plagued by inefficiencies and yes, scammers. But when the world shut down and folks needed that government cash to survive, malfeasance skyrocketed.
Every thief with a half-baked plan — including CEOs, prisoners behind bars and overseas organized crime rackets — came for California’s cash, and seemingly got it. The sad part is these weren’t criminal geniuses. More often than not, they were low-level swindlers looking at a system full of holes because it was trying to do too much too fast.
In a matter of months, billions had been siphoned away. A state audit in 2021 found that at least $10 billion had been paid out on suspicious unemployment claims — never mind small business loans or other types of aid. An investigation by CalMatters in 2023 suggested the final figure may be up to triple that amount for unemployment. In truth, no one knows exactly how much was stolen — in California, or across the country.
It hasn’t entirely stopped. California is still paying out fraudulent unemployment claims at too high a rate, totaling up to $1.5 billion over the last few years — more than $500 million in 2024 alone, according to the state auditor.
But that’s not all. Enterprising thieves looked elsewhere when COVID-19 money largely dried up. Recently, that has been our community colleges, where millions in federal student aid has been lost to grifters who use bots to sign up for classes, receive government money to help with school, then disappear. Another CalMatters investigation using data obtained from a public records request found that up to 34% of community college applications in 2024 may have been false — though that number represents fraudulent admissions that were flagged and blocked, Gardon points out.
Still, community college fraud will probably be a bigger issue for Newsom because it’s fresher, and can be tied (albeit disingenuously) to immigrants and progressive policies.
California allows undocumented residents to enroll in community colleges, and it made those classes free — two terrific policies that have been exploited by the unscrupulous. For a while, community colleges didn’t do enough to ensure that students were real people, because they didn’t require enough proof of identity. This was in part to accommodate vulnerable students such as foster kids, homeless people and undocumented folks who lacked papers.
With no up-front costs for attempting to enroll, phonies threw thousands of identities at the system’s 116 schools, which were technologically unprepared for the assaults. These “ghost” students were often accepted and given grants and loans.
My former colleague Kaitlyn Huamani reported that in 2024, scammers stole roughly $8.4 million in federal financial aid and more than $2.7 million in state aid from our community colleges. That‘s a pittance compared with the tens of billions that was handed out in state and federal financial aid, but more than enough for a political fiasco.
As Walz would probably explain if nuanced policy conversations were still a thing, it’s both a fair and unfair criticism to blame these robberies on a governor alone — state government should be careful of its cash and aggressive in protecting it, and the buck stops with the governor, but crises and technology have collided to create opportunities for swindlers that frankly few governmental leaders, from the feds on down, have handled with any skill or luck.
The crooks have simply been smarter and faster than the rest of us to capitalize first on the pandemic, then on evolving technology including AI that makes scamming easier and scalable to levels our institutions were unprepared to handle.
Since being so roundly fleeced during the pandemic, multiple state and federal agencies have taken steps in combating fraud — including community colleges using their own AI tools to stop fake students before they get in.
And the state is holding thieves accountable. Newsom hired a former Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, McGregor Scott, to go after scam artists on unemployment. And other county, state and federal prosecutors have also dedicated resources to clawing back some of the lost money.
With the slow pace of our courts (burdened by their own aging technology), many of those cases are still ongoing or just winding up. For example, 24 L.A. County employees were charged in recent months with allegedly stealing more than $740,000 in unemployment benefits, which really is chump change in this whole mess.
Another California man recently pleaded guilty to allegedly cheating his way into $15.9 million in federal loans through the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan programs.
And in one of the most colorful schemes, four Californians with nicknames including “Red boy” and “Scooby” allegedly ran a scam that boosted nearly $250 million in federal tax refunds before three of them attempted to murder the fourth to keep him from ratting them out to the feds.
There are literally hundreds of cases across the country of pandemic fraud. And these schemes are just the tip of the cash-berg. Fraudsters are also targeting fire relief funds, food benefits — really, any pot of public money is fair game to them. And the truth is, the majority of that stolen money is gone for good.
So it’s hard to hear the numbers and not be shocked and angry, especially as the Golden State is faced with a budget shortfall that may be as much as $18 billion.
Whether you blame Newsom personally or not for all this fraud, it’s hard to be forgiving of so much public money being handed to scoundrels when our schools are in need, our healthcare in jeopardy and our bills on an upward trajectory.
The failure is going to stick to somebody, and it doesn’t take a criminal mastermind to figure out who it’s going to be.
Politics
Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution, including the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.
The court, in a 4-1 ruling, sided with the state’s only abortion clinic and others who had sued over the abortion bans passed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which returned the power to make laws on abortion back to the states.
Despite Wyoming being one of the most conservative states, the ruling handed down by justices who were all appointed by Republican governors upheld every previous lower court ruling that the abortion bans violated the state constitution.
Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the abortion access advocacy group Chelsea’s Fund and four women, including two obstetricians, argued that the laws violated a state constitutional amendment affirming that competent adults have the right to make their own health care decisions.
TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2012 in response to the federal Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obamacare.
The justices in Wyoming found that the amendment was not written to apply to abortion but noted that it is not their job to “add words” to the state constitution.
“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote.
Wellspring Health Access President Julie Burkhart said in a statement that the ruling upholds abortion as “essential health care” that should not be met with government interference.
“Our clinic will remain open and ready to provide compassionate reproductive health care, including abortions, and our patients in Wyoming will be able to obtain this care without having to travel out of state,” Burkhart said.
Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction and delayed its opening. A woman is serving a five-year prison sentence after she admitted to breaking in and lighting gasoline that she poured over the clinic floors.
Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction. (AP)
Attorneys representing the state had argued that abortion cannot violate the Wyoming constitution because it is not a form of health care.
Republican Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling and called on state lawmakers meeting later this winter to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion that residents could vote on this fall.
An amendment like that would require a two-thirds vote to be introduced as a nonbudget matter in the monthlong legislative session that will primarily address the state budget, although it would have significant support in the Republican-dominated legislature.
“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself. It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote,” Gordon said in a statement.
APPEALS COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP ON BUDGET PROVISION CUTTING PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDS
Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling. (Getty Images)
One of the laws overturned by the state’s high court attempted to ban abortion, but with exceptions in cases where it is needed to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest. The other law would have made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, although other states have implemented de facto bans on abortion medication by broadly restricting abortion.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Abortion has remained legal in the state since Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens blocked the bans while the lawsuit challenging the restrictions moved forward. Owens struck down the laws as unconstitutional in 2024.
Last year, Wyoming passed additional laws requiring abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers and women to receive ultrasounds before having medication abortions. A judge in a separate lawsuit blocked those laws from taking effect while that case moves forward.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
World1 week agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
News1 week agoFor those who help the poor, 2025 goes down as a year of chaos
-
Science1 week agoWe Asked for Environmental Fixes in Your State. You Sent In Thousands.
-
Business1 week agoA tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy
-
Detroit, MI4 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Politics1 week agoCommentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well
-
Politics1 week agoMarjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump’s meetings with Zelenskyy, Netanyahu: ‘Can we just do America?’
-
Health1 week agoRecord-breaking flu numbers reported in New York state, sparking warnings from officials