Latest in National Security News
Get up-to-date national security news from our reporters
Trump nominee faces tough questioning at ambassador nomination hearing
Amer Ghalib’s past statements and social media posts could jeopardize nomination to serve as Ambassador to Kuwait.
read more
‘Judge, jury and executioner’: Legal experts, senators condemn U.S. strikes on alleged ‘narco-terrorist’ boats
The Trump administration has killed at least 37 people in nine confirmed strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in Latin America.
read more
Legislators discuss potential ramp up of Hezbollah drug trafficking in Latin America
The Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control discussed Hezbollah’s drug operations in Latin America and how they might affect the American people.
read more
Defense Secretary Hegseth announces overhaul of military complaint, Inspector General programs at speech to senior military officials
Hegseth signed several memorandums describing major reforms to several complaint and whistleblower programs used by the military, including the replacement of anonymous reporting with confidential reporting and punishments for false complaints.
read more
Lawmakers agree legislation needed to protect DOD data in bipartisan consensus
Senators expressed concern over security loopholes with U.S. military data.
read moreTrump hosts Turkish President Erdoğan for talks on fighter jets, Russia
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the White House on Thursday for the first time since the U.S. imposed sanctions on Turkey in 2020 for purchasing an air defense system from Russia. Now, President Erdoğan is hoping to negotiate a deal with the Trump administration to end the sanctions and purchase F-16 and F-35 fighter jets.
Under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), Trump’s 2020 sanctions on Turkey remain in place, preventing Turkey from purchasing F-35 and F-16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.
Trump said on Thursday that those sanctions against Turkey could be lifted “almost immediately” if the meeting went well.
Separately, after the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack announced a deal that allows Turkish Airlines to purchase up to 300 Boeing aircraft.
Trump reflected on his relationship with Erdoğan at the beginning of the meeting.
“This is a tough man. This is a guy who is highly opinionated,” Trump said. “Usually I don’t like opinionated people, but I always like this one.”
Erdoğan expressed hope that Trump will help bring peace to Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
“Together we will be able to overcome the challenges in the region,” Erdoğan said.
Trump said he thinks Turkey’s role is significant in ending the war in Ukraine. However, the president emphasized “the best thing” Turkey could do is stop purchasing oil and gas from Russia.
“He’s got tremendous influence in the region,” Trump said.
Since the Alaska summit with President Vladimir Putin just over a month ago, Trump appears to have soured on the Russian president, admitting he is “very disappointed in Putin” regarding his continued aggression in Ukraine.
“It’s such a waste of human life,” Trump said. “Putin ought to stop.”
The Israel-Gaza war was also discussed during Thursday’s meeting. On Tuesday, Erdoğan was present during a meeting in New York between Trump and eight leaders of Arab and Muslim-majority countries, where Trump laid out a 21-point postwar plan to end the war.
“I have to meet with Israel. They know what I want,” Trump said on Thursday. “I think we can get that one done.”
Turkey has been firm in its criticism of Israel. In late August, the country announced that it would close its airspace to Israeli planes and end trade between Israel and other countries seeking to use Turkey’s ports.
Despite continued support for Israel from the Trump administration, Trump and Erdoğan appeared friendly towards each other Thursday, signaling continued cooperation between the two leaders.
“I have great respect for this man, and we’ve had a very good relationship for a long time,” Trump said.
Trump administration stifles embassies abroad
WASHINGTON – Since his return to office in January, President Donald Trump has ushered in an era of enormous upheaval in the federal government: from dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development in early February to the recent announcement of extensive tariffs. But amid these sweeping changes, the quiet change in U.S. embassy policies is going largely unnoticed.
Since Trump’s inauguration, embassies have largely avoided drawing undue attention from the Oval Office. Under orders from Washington, they’ve avoided contact with the press and visiting Americans, and in at least one case, canceled a long-planned embassy appointment with visiting American students without explanation.
Ian Kelly, the former U.S. ambassador to Georgia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, called the changes to the Foreign Service a “verticalization of foreign policy,” with all instructions and authority coming from the top down, leaving little discretion for diplomats on the ground.
He described the Trump administration’s approach to the Foreign Service as eerily similar to policies in what he called “less democratic states.”
A former U.S. ambassador with knowledge of the canceled student visit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that ambassadors have been required to request explicit permission from the State Department in Washington for any public engagements.
In the past, ambassadors have typically been afforded a degree of freedom in managing their appointments, determining with whom they met based on availability and scheduling.
“It’s unheard of that an ambassador would have to go back to the State Department and ask for specific permission to meet with any group,” the former ambassador said.
The State Department refused to comment.
An atypical transition
While all ambassadors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they generally fall into two informal categories: so-called “political appointees,” often large donors, who come from outside of the Foreign Service, and career foreign service officers, who are trained and experienced diplomats recruited from within the Service.
Several diplomats explained that when a new president comes to power, political appointees are generally replaced, while career foreign service officers are usually retained.
As a new administration finds its footing, some embassies may not be assigned a new ambassador for months, meaning there’s often little guidance at first.
“You’re in a holding pattern,” said Gordon Duguid, a retired senior diplomat. “You’re not going to do anything different than you have been doing until you receive specific instructions.”
While some uncertainty is normal, the level of chaos that has marked communications since the beginning of Trump’s second term has been unprecedented, even in comparison to his first term, several diplomats said.
Kelly was appointed ambassador during the Obama administration and spent 15 months working under the Trump administration before retiring in 2018. As a foreign service officer specializing in media relations, Kelly recalled that, during Trump’s first term, guidance was hard to come by.
“Under Trump, I didn’t say much at all. I couldn’t,” Kelly said. “I didn’t know what to say, and what I knew I could say, I didn’t agree with.”
Silence at the State Department
In early February, Trump signed an executive order entitled “One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations.” The order called for a “reform” of the Foreign Service and authorized the Secretary of State to revise key documents, including the Foreign Affairs Manual, which governs much of Service policy.
“All officers or employees charged with implementing the foreign policy of the United States must under Article II do so under the direction and authority of the President,” the order reads. “Failure to faithfully implement the President’s policy is grounds for professional discipline, including separation.”
That has put pressure on foreign service officers to avoid saying anything that might put them at odds with the Trump administration.
“Like so much else in this administration, it’s kind of pre-World War II-type diplomacy where you just keep your head down, keep your mouth shut, don’t talk to the press,” Kelly said.
The current level of silence from the State Department is unusual, Kelly added. Typically, State Department employees are granted some degree of discretion to speak with the press. That appears to have changed with the current administration.
Duguid’s impression was similar.
“Nobody is being given permission to speak up,” he said.
Many in the Foreign Service likely haven’t forgotten the first Trump administration’s fury.
Trump’s first impeachment shined a rare spotlight on America’s foreign service officers. In 2019, he ousted then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, just a month before his fateful July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the call, Trump pressured Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of Trump’s political opponent Joe Biden, in return for releasing aid that was already approved by Congress.
During the impeachment proceedings, Yovanovitch and several other top diplomats testified about the smear campaign Trump and his allies orchestrated against her.
“She suffered adverse consequences because her name did reach Donald Trump,” Kelly said.
In retaliation for their testimony in the impeachment proceedings, Trump later fired key witnesses, including Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman—the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council—and Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland.
“That was all because of the vindictiveness of the president of the United States. I mean, you can imagine what a chilling effect that has,” Kelly said. “People learned their lesson: you don’t want the Eye of Sauron on you.”
Budget cuts and a shrinking workforce
Members of the Foreign Service were among those to receive the “fork in the road” and “what did you do last week?” emails from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, although the State Department instructed its employees not to respond.
“It seems like they’re trying to have a reduction in force without having to go through the legal obligations that come with a reduction in force,” Duguid said. In his 31 years at the State Department, he added, a reduction in force was sometimes discussed but never implemented.
If a reduction in force is implemented, he said, “personnel who have fewer labor protections … would be the first to go.”
But much of day-to-day embassy work, like processing visas, is done by those less protected junior officers. Without those workers, Americans living abroad may be left without access to key services.
The turbulence to come
The contradictory combination of little guidance and heavy-handed intervention in a traditionally apolitical workforce has led to chaos and confusion.
“Basically, you have a whole lot of people trying to do the job that they were instructed to do with no new guidance and now no money,” Duguid said.
In his first term, Trump proposed cutting the State Department budget by more than 30%, although Congress ultimately rejected the cuts. But that proposal may offer a glimpse into the new administration’s plans.
The first Trump administration was largely unprepared to take power, leaving diplomats able to continue their work without much interference. This time around, however, it appears that the administration has quickly moved to significantly tighten its control over the Foreign Service.
“People are extremely reticent to do anything in public for fear of getting crosswise with the new administration,” Kelly said. “This is going to be a rollercoaster ride.”
Published in conjunction with 
Veterans fear Trump administration plans to privatize VA health
Over six decades, Mark Foreman has turned to the Department of Veterans Affairs to recover from the consequences of a bullet wound to the hip sustained fighting as a Marine in Vietnam. It took endlessly long, infectious days for him to get out of deep, cavernous mountains after getting shot, three weeks straight of surgeries in Japan, and years of medical care to try to move on from his wound.
Foreman was only 20 when he suffered the injury that would end his military career, and he was discharged after two years of service in 1968. Ever since, the VA has been providing the medical care he needs, as well as helping with the cost of art school that led to a career as a teacher.
“The VA was very supportive of that,” said Foreman, who later taught art for 20 years in Milwaukee’s public schools. “They knew that it would help me psychologically, emotionally.”
But Foreman is worried. A seismic shift is potentially underway in how the VA provides medical care and support, which was accelerated during the first administration of President Donald Trump and is potentially ready to expand over the next four years.
“There were so many psychological and physical emotional wounds, and now they’ve got departments to cover all of it,” Foreman said. “But I feel very confident that that’s all going to be taken away.”
Veterans are increasingly getting care from private medical providers, who are then paid by the VA. It’s an effort to create a parallel privatized care system, known by the phrase “community care,” that is set to expand further as Congress looks to make it easier for veterans to skip VA facilities.
Before 2014, the Veterans Health Administration mostly operated in government facilities. That system was overloaded at times, such as in the wake of the Vietnam War.
“When I first started working at the VA, it was not a first-class health care system,” said Bruce Carruthers, a Vietnam War veteran and a retired VA administrator living in North Carolina. “But later, significant changes started to be made; it became a much more modern health care system.”
Between 1995 to 2005, the VA catapulted from 2.5 million to 5.3 million patients, according to the National Library of Medicine. The VA also transformed into a training ground for thousands of health care providers, Carruthers said.
As its patient load grew, so did the stress on the VA, as more and more veterans from the Global War on Terrorism began funneling into the system. Wait times skyrocketed, and old facilities, like the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, faced scandals tied to dilapidated conditions and patient neglect.
That helped lead to the 2014 Choice Act that started the VA on the path toward offering care outside of its own facilities, and was greatly expanded by the VA Mission Act signed by Trump in 2018 that created the community care network.
Today, the demand for private care is rapidly eating into the VA’s budget. In fiscal 2023, roughly 40% of all veterans’ health care appointments were handled by doctors outside of government facilities, but still funded by taxpayer money, according to VA officials. The agency now serves roughly 9 million patients.
“ In the first Trump presidency, we’ve seen an increasingly larger percentage of our direct care budget spent on outsourced private care,” said Mark Smith, an occupational therapist at a VA hospital in San Francisco.
But Smith said the redirection of funds perpetuated the VA’s shortfalls, when lawmakers should focus the department’s full energy on caring for veterans.
“What happens is the public pays for both,” Smith added. “We pay for the public services that we provide at the VA, and then we also pay for the outside care. … Pretty soon, you don’t have the money to maintain your facilities, to keep your staff, to keep the lights on.”
The contrast between VA capacity and private care could get much starker if Trump administration plans for VA cuts come to pass. A surge in demand after the passage of the PACT Act made more veterans eligible for VA health care was already stressing the system.
Months before Trump took office, the VA requested a $369.3 billion budget for fiscal 2025, a 9.8% increase from the previous year. That included funding for the agency’s health care and benefits branches and the Toxic Exposures Fund, which covers benefits for service members affected by toxic exposures.
But Trump and his top campaign contributor Elon Musk, who has taken on a role seeking to prevent the federal government from spending money approved by Congress and slashing jobs, are looking at shrinking the size of the VA. Most of Musk’s efforts are currently tied up in litigation as judges weigh the legality of ignoring civil service protections and rejecting previously signed law directing spending.
A memo released in March indicated that the Department of Veterans Affairs was planning a reorganization that would include cutting more than 80,000 jobs. VA Secretary Doug Collins promised that the layoffs would not impact veterans’ care or benefits, though outside observers are skeptical of those claims.
“The average person, of course, doesn’t understand it,” said Jeff Roy, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War. “The veterans, when they’re listening, when they’re watching these actions and the consequences, they’re starting to perk up.”
Roy, 76, decided to seek VA care for the first time almost a decade ago in his 60s. After he was discharged from the military, he joined a group calling for the end of the Vietnam War. To him, that also meant boycotting the VA.
He started seeking the VA when he discovered from clinical tests his prostate was showing signs of cancer.
Prostate cancer has been linked to Agent Orange, and the VA presumes that the diagnosis in a veteran is connected to their service and therefore makes them eligible for care.
The VA’s own specialized knowledge and services from working with veterans likely made diagnosing his health issues easier, according to Roy. With the VA covering all his treatment,
a hospital in Minnesota, where Roy lives, then performed a lifesaving prostatectomy on him.
He’s skeptical that privatized care would have led to such a positive outcome.
“They talk about honoring veterans, supporting veterans and caring about veterans. The incredible term for all of that is that it’s a clash of reality,” Roy said.
In January, Republican leaders on the Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs Committees introduced a bill called the Veterans’ Access Act, early drafts of which appeared to make it easier for veterans to access private care without consideration of wait times or VA facility proximity.
A specific section of the bill would direct a three-year pilot program to allow enrolled veterans to access private mental health treatment and substance use services through the community care network. The program would not require a referral or preauthorization from VA doctors, essentially bypassing the VA, experts said.
“It is changing the VA primarily into an insurance carrier,” said Russell Lemle, a senior policy advisor for the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on veterans’ health care and benefits.
A spokesperson from the House Veterans Affairs Committee denied that claim and instead said the provision is intended “to allow veterans to access residential rehabilitation treatment programs closer to their homes when VA is either too far away, or not available at all, to bridge the gap that exists in mental health care and rehab access.”
Project 2025, a conservative think tank’s blueprint for governance that Trump has closely followed since taking office, proposed to completely privatize VA care in the long term, Lemle said.
Carruthers, the former VA administrator, received gallbladder surgery and prostate treatment from the VA because of his years serving in Vietnam. For him, efforts by the Trump administration to cut VA care count as a direct rebuke to veterans.
“To me, ‘Thank you for your service’ is a meaningless trope if they’re not going to support that,” he said.
Published in conjunction with 
DOD leadership firings spark concerns over support for female officers
WASHINGTON — Since President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, his administration cleared the military of most of its top female-ranking officers, disappointing many women veterans and active duty personnel.
Though Trump touted his plans to flush out military leadership during his campaign trail, the latest overhaul seems to have struck a different tone.
Following a series of high-profile departures, the U.S. military was without a single woman in a four-star general or admiral leadership position.
Trump’s actions have since raised serious questions from women veterans and service members about whether his administration’s trademark campaign on abolishing DEI initiatives played a role. And on top of that, some members of the military have begun to express concern about whether the firings could signal a growing vacuum of support for its female officers.
“I wish people would think about their mothers, ‘Are you really saying that this person who bore you is incapable of leading you?’” said Sgt. Maj. Pamela Wilson, an Army veteran who served for nearly 35 years.
String of firings
The departures began when Linda Fagan, the first female to lead the Coast Guard, was fired on Trump’s first day back in office. Officials cited reasons such as failure to address border security and “excessive focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies” for her dismissal, according to CNN.
Fagan’s firing immediately drew outcry from fellow veterans, including Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who worked with her.
From the start, Senators lauded her as a good pick for Coast Guard commandment after giving her unanimous support during her Senate confirmation hearing in 2022.
After she was fired, Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran and Purple Heart recipient, wrote on her X account that Fagan was “more qualified to serve in her role than Pete Hegseth is to be Defense Secretary.” She added that “Trump would rather appear ‘anti-woke’ than keep our military strong.”
During Fagan’s 37-year career, she served on all seven continents, including in high-ranking roles like Pacific Area Commander, District and Sector Commanders and Marine Inspector.
However, at times, Fagan’s tenure was mired by complaints about the agency’s response to problems of sexual assault and harassment.
Despite calling out Fagan over those issues at public hearings, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said in a statement that Fagan’s firing still “raises concerns about how Donald Trump intends to treat professional, dedicated military men and women who have faithfully served our country for decades.”
Weeks later, Lisa Franchetti, the first female Chief of Naval Operations, was next to follow. Before then, Franchetti spent almost 20 years commanding various fleets, including the destroyer U.S.S. Ross, two aircraft carrier strike groups and naval forces in Korea.
Hegseth, who ordered Franchetti’s firing, did not provide a specific reason for the decision.
Hegseth’s decision came after he faced scrutiny during his Senate confirmation hearing in January for his past comments suggesting women should not serve in combat roles in the army.
“Why should women in our military, if you were the secretary of defense, believe that they would have a fair shot and an equal opportunity to rise through the ranks if, on the one hand, you say that women are not competent, they make our military less effective,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D – N.H.) pressed Hegseth during the hearing.
Most recently, Hegeth also dismissed his Senior Military Advisor Jennifer Short. A former C-130E navigator and an A-10 pilot, Short served in the role for less than a year.
Then came Telita Crosland, former head of the military’s Defense Health Agency, who was forced to retire by the Pentagon after a 32-year career.
“We were making progress”
In past transitions, those who served in the same high-ranking positions as Franchetti or Fagan usually lasted under multiple administrations until the end of their posts, experts said.
Many veterans, including Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D – N.J.), called these firings an affront to qualified female officers.
Last month, Sherrill wrote on her X account that Hegseth and others “are relegating women to second class citizens in our military, taking competent and qualified individuals out of important leadership posts in our armed forces.”
Before running for office, Sherrill served on active duty nine years as a helicopter pilot in the Navy, during which she met Franchetti at the Atlantic Fleet Headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia.
At a February town hall meeting in Monmouth County, New Jersey, she told a buzzing crowd that she was “so happy” to find out about Franchetti’s appointment months ago. She commended Franchetti as a top leader and trailblazer in the military.
“It would have been imaginable to me as a midshipman that we would have a woman in that role,” said Sherrill, while donning her Navy bomber jacket. “I was feeling like we were making progress here.”
The firings have also drawn sympathies from other veterans, who fear that the current situation might not be a one-off.
Wilson served 32 years as a religious affairs specialist and active duty in the military starting in 1985, the same year when Fagan also entered the Coast Guard.
“I can only imagine what’s going on in (Fagan’s) head, we’re hurting the wrong people,” Wilson said in an interview. “What is the metric that’s even being used? They haven’t been negligent in their duties.”
During the Iraq War, Wilson served as one of the few top female leaders in the operation.
She helmed a multinational unit of forces, directing them to provide religious support and guidance to the rest of the soldiers. After she retired, Wilson became the first female appointed as Honorary Sergeant Major of the Chaplain Corps in 2019.
She said these recent firings not only were “low blows” from the Trump administration but also fears they draw up a polarizing future for female officers.
Some women service members recalled the time when females serving in the military were a rarity.
Constance Edwards was 22 when she enlisted in the Army Student Nurse Cadet Corp. She was later deployed with the Army for a year during the Vietnam War, when most serving women were nurses then.
During her 33 years in the U.S. Army Reserve Nurse Corps, Edwards was appointed as a Colonel, the highest rank within the military branch’s Nurse Corps.
Edwards called the firings of recent military female leaders as the Trump administration’s “pure ignorance” and that they possibly reaffirm the military’s tradition of being male-dominated.
“They didn’t figure out whether these people were not doing what they were necessary,” Edwards said. We needed females into the military in top administration, because the military was set up for men.”
Lack of female military leaders today
In recent years, female enlistment in the U.S. military has continued to grow. In 2023, women made up 17.5% of active-duty military personnel. Women today serve in all branches of the military, including combat roles.
A recurring problem, however, has been the military’s struggles to recruit and retain women service members.
According to a 2020 Government Accountability Office study, women were 28% more likely to withdraw than men. Studies also found that gender discrimination and sexual harassment have remained prevalent for female officers.
Women did not officially serve until June 1948, when President Harry S. Truman signed the Women’s Armed Service Integration Act allowing women to receive regular permanent status in the armed forces.
Rochelle Crump was among the thousands who served in the Women’s Army Corps, the sole women’s branch of the U.S. Army before it was merged with the male units in 1978. At 17, she joined her unit in 1971 near the height of the Vietnam War.
Crump was never deployed overseas but served tours in military forts across California, Alabama and Georgia. Seeing other young female officers around her at the time, she said, provided her a deeper sense of “can do” in the military.
Today, when women are still in the minority in the Army, they need to see that representation from leadership, Crump said.
“Those women will need that leadership, they need to see that leadership, they need to know they can do those things those officers can do now,” Crump, who serves as the president of the National Women Veterans United in Chicago, Illinois.
Crump added that the Trump administration’s recent dismissal of female military officials has been “a backwards situation that’s been coming a long time.”
“ It was not because of DEI they earned it,” Crump said. “They worked hard for it and they deserve to have been in those positions.”
Published in conjunction with 
Trump’s reversal on Ukraine undermines allies’ trust in U.S., experts say
WASHINGTON — In recent days, President Donald Trump lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House and halted American military aid to the war-torn Ukraine.
Then, on Tuesday morning, Zelenskyy stressed that he would sign a minerals deal with the United States.
“My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts,” he wrote on X. “Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format.”
Under the draft agreement, Ukraine would not receive any legally binding security guarantees against future Russian aggression, which Kyiv had requested for decades.
Igor Lukes, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said this deal amounted to a “brutal shakedown” of Ukraine. He compared Ukraine’s dilemma to “some bad movie where some powerful cartel can blackmail a weaker party into conceding everything.”
Trump’s more combative, transactional approach toward Ukraine upended the existing world order, experts say. The U.S. had allied with European nations since World War II, but Trump moved decidedly toward Russia.
In the Oval Office on Friday, Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelenskyy and accused him of not wanting peace.
“You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III. You’re gambling with World War III, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have,” Trump told Zelenskyy.
In the days before the visit, Trump called Zelenskyy a “dictator” and falsely blamed the war on Ukraine, not Russia. A U.N. resolution that passed 93-18 condemned Russia’s aggression and demanded it withdraw all of its troops from Ukraine. The U.S. joined Russia, Belarus, and North Korea in opposing it.
Scheherazade Rehman, director of the European Union Research Center at George Washington University, said this foreign policy shift undermined America’s credibility as an ally.
“People around the world, leaders in countries around the world, are not going to trust the United States anymore from one election to the next because foreign policy has completely changed,” Rehman said. “American commitment now doesn’t mean much.”
Following Trump’s Friday meeting with Zelenskyy, leaders from various Western nations reaffirmed their support for Ukraine. The United Kingdom on Sunday hosted a summit of European leaders, who rallied behind Ukraine.
“Every nation must contribute to that in the best way that it can, bringing different capabilities and support to the table, but all taking responsibility to act, all stepping up their own share of the burden,” said U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer during the summit.
However, Lukes said European nations remained politically divided: Some countries, like Estonia and Lithuania, viewed a Russian victory as a threat to their survival, while right-wing leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán have supported Putin over Zelenskyy.
If the U.S. were to become less active in NATO, Lukes said its European allies would have to “live up to the challenge” of increasing military spending and overcoming Russian misinformation.
“The democratic politicians will have to come together, establish alliances and hope that the voters will not all fall for the lies that they’re being fed on social media by the manipulations, by the Russian intelligence services,” Lukes said.
Trump’s decision to cut off military aid to Ukraine could hamper the nation’s effort to defeat Russia. Zelenskyy told NBC News in February that continuing the fight without U.S. support would be “very, very, very difficult.” Rehman echoed this concern, emphasizing that Ukraine cannot stand against Russia with only European support.
“Without American security support, Ukraine is done. We all know that. Europeans know that, too,” she said.
Supreme Court considers how strict a judgment’s finality is in ‘extraordinary circumstances’
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday for BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, which focused on how high the bar should be to reopen a case after a ruling had been made.
The case before the court will act as a guidepost for deciding when to consider undoing a final judgment. The high court heard arguments about what would count as extraordinary circumstances and warrant overturning a verdict.
In 2019, Honickman, who represents victims of Hamas terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2003, sued BLOM Bank for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorism by providing financial services to Hamas affiliates. This allegedly would have violated the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. A U.S. District Court dismissed Honickman’s case because Honickman failed to provide sufficient evidence that the bank was “generally aware” of their role in illegal activities.
While the district court offered Honickman the option to revise the complaint, their lawyers declined and appealed the decision instead, stating that the court required an incorrect, unmeetable amount of evidence to prove the bank’s involvement in terrorism. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal that there was insufficient evidence to prove BLOM Bank was aware of the customers’ connections to Hamas. However, the 2nd Circuit said the district court applied an incorrect legal standard for determining aiding and abetting.
Upon return to the district court, Honickman’s attempt to bring forth a revised complaint was denied. The district court stated there were no “extraordinary circumstances” at play that would warrant a new judgment. Honickman appealed the district court’s decision once more. Overturning the lower court’s decision, the appeals court sided with Honickman. The appeals court decided that the district court had been too strict and Honickman should be allowed to amend their complaint when “justice so requires.”
During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Michael McGinly, the lawyer for BLOM Bank, argued that reconsidering the decided verdict on the case “diluted the stringent standard” used when determining whether to overturn a decided judgment. Additionally, McGinly asserted Honickman already had multiple opportunities to rework their claim but decided not to.
“What we’re doing is saying the party doesn’t get an opportunity at a dress rehearsal,” McGinly said.
However, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson expressed concern about the bank’s argument that Honickman had other chances to revise their complaint. She worried this line of reasoning would punish those who appeal the court’s decision instead of first amending their claim to fit within the lower court’s legal standards.
“I think that burdens the right to appeal in a way that is not exactly how these rules should be read,” she said.
Other justices focused on the 2nd Circuit’s assertion that two principles, the strong requirement for overturning final decisions and the allowance of amendments when justice requires it, needed to be considered hand in hand by the district court.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan questioned McGinly about the necessity of the 2nd Circuit’s balancing act. The justices asked whether only considering the preference to uphold final judgments alone would be enough to allow for amendments in necessary situations.
McGinly said “extraordinary circumstances” would permit revisions in certain cases, and this standard alone should dictate which cases get reopened after a final decision.
Michael Radine, the lawyer for Honickman, chose not to strongly advocate in favor of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling about balancing a judgment as final with the need for amendments to guarantee justice. Instead, Radine focused on how this case fell within the “extraordinary circumstances” required for voiding a judgment.
“It’s fundamentally unfair to lay the consequences of confusion (of the applicable legal standards) at the plaintiff’s doorstep,” Radine said.
Justices questioned Radine about his assertion that this case qualified as “extraordinary circumstances.” They asked if the rule that freely allowed amendments could then be ignored.
Radine reaffirmed that Honickman’s right to amend their complaint and reopen the case was justified by “extraordinary circumstances” alone. He asserted that the preference for judgments to remain final already took into account the need for justice to be served.
The high court’s ruling could impact the future of counter-terrorism litigation. Therefore, the court’s decision could determine how much flexibility terrorism victims would have to appeal those standards while preserving their future right to revise their complaints when the correct legal standard was determined.
“After the October 7 attacks, American victims of the Hamas massacres will be returning to courts. Terrorism cases are unique and challenging cases, and the law should enable them to make their cases as best they can, not slam the courtroom door shut before they’ve had that chance,” Radine wrote to Medill News Service prior to the hearing.
The court is expected to release a decision on the case later this year.
Analysis: Macron, Starmer flatter but fail to extract commitments from Trump
WASHINGTON – Blair House, the residence used to accommodate foreign dignitaries, was busy this week as French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer both paid visits to the White House, the first European leaders to do so since President Donald Trump’s January inauguration.
The visits served as a window into Trump’s intentions regarding Europe over the next four years as Macron and Starmer tried to adapt to the new state of transatlantic relations.
Macron’s visit built on an existing history with Trump dating back to the president’s first term. On Monday, Trump repeatedly praised Macron for the speedy restoration of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, which reopened late last year in record time after a catastrophic fire in 2019.
Yet even the smiles and friendly words could not hide the tension between the two leaders as they disagreed over several issues, and the visit did not yield the commitments on Ukraine or trade that Europeans had hoped for from the American president.
Neither did Starmer’s visit. Upon his arrival on Thursday, the British leader presented Trump with a formal invitation from King Charles III, a move evidently calculated to appeal to Trump’s fondness of the monarchy.
“The president has this romantic sense of Britain and he loves the royalty,” said Daniel Hamilton, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, “so he treats the UK in a somewhat different way than the Europeans.”
Starmer sought to make a good impression and avoided most points of contention with Trump.
Ukraine and European Security
The flurry of diplomatic activity came as the Trump administration unexpectedly reopened diplomatic channels with Russia in early February, an action that has left European allies scrambling to adjust, with Macron calling an emergency meeting of European leaders in response.
“The Europeans have not been included in the direct discussions,” Hamilton said, “and so I think they want to hear from Trump himself what’s going on here.”
France and the U.K. have both been very clear that a peace deal in Ukraine cannot be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. Trump, in contrast, has shown a willingness to re-engage Russia without either European or Ukrainian involvement.
The contrast in priorities was on stark display at Monday’s joint press conference.
Speaking in French, Macron repeatedly referenced “la guerre d’agression russe,” “the war of Russian aggression.” Yet just that same morning, the U.S. had joined Russia, North Korea, and other Russia-friendly nations in voting to oppose a U.N. resolution condemning Russia as the aggressor in the war.
Both France and the U.K. have expressed willingness to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine should an agreement be reached, but have indicated they want a U.S. “backstop,” an assurance that the U.S. would provide some kind of support, still unspecified, if necessary. Trump has consistently avoided making such a commitment, repeatedly insisting a deal first be reached before discussing the details of any U.S. role, much to the frustration of European allies.
Divergence on Russia was a symptom of broader disagreements over the role the U.S. should play in European security.
“The new U.S. administration has kind of thrown grenades at the foundations of postwar European security,” said Anand Menon, a professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King’s College London. “European leaders are desperately worried not only that the U.S. is on the point of selling out Ukraine, but that … more broadly, the U.S. has basically decided that it’s up to Europeans to defend themselves.”
The words and actions of both leaders reflected a recognition that the U.S. is no longer a reliable defense partner.
Starmer arrived in Washington with his government’s recent pledge to increase defense spending, announced the day before his visit. And after his Oval Office meeting with Trump, Macron, speaking for the EU, said it must do more for its own security. “Europe is very clear-eyed about this,” he said.
Trade and Tariffs
Trump “doesn’t think the EU is a good deal for America,” Hamilton said, “which contravenes 80 years of U.S. policy.”
During a meeting with his cabinet on Wednesday, between the Macron and Starmer visits, Trump told reporters that “the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States,” and said he will soon be announcing 25% tariffs on the EU.
Trump has frequently claimed that the U.S. is treated unfairly by enemies and allies alike, and the EU, in particular, has long been a target.
“He only focuses on the trade deficit in goods with the European Union,” Hamilton said. “But the U.S. has a trade surplus in services with the EU, which he never mentions.” The mischaracterization is political, he said, and designed to appeal to his base.
With the EU already vowing to respond to new tariffs in kind, the chances of a trade war appear to be increasing.
“The EU could punish the United States very badly if it wanted to,” Hamilton said, adding that as America’s most important trading partner, the EU wields considerable leverage.
Léonie Allard, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, pointed out the irony of Trump’s provocation.
“You cannot engage in a trade war and these measures and tariffs that weaken the European economy if you want them to spend more on defense,” she said.
Trump’s displeasure with the EU means Brexit will likely prove a boon to U.S.-U.K. relations during this administration. Meeting with Trump in the Oval Office on Thursday, Starmer tried to differentiate Britain from continental Europe.
“Our trade, obviously, is fair and balanced,” Starmer said. “And in fact, you’ve got a bit of a surplus. So we’re in a different position there.”
But with the U.S. and the EU ever more at odds, balancing relations with both leaves the U.K. walking a very fine line.
“If we’re seen to be cozying up to the US,” Menon said, “I think some people in the European Union will say, ‘well, if you’re taking the side of the United States, don’t expect any friendly treatment from us.’”
For now, it seems, the visits did little to move the needle, neither on trade nor on Ukraine. But perhaps that was not the intent.
“This visit, I think, was not about deliverables,” Allard said. “It was about delivering a message from the Europeans saying, ‘we’re ready.’”
Supreme Court to decide about supervised release
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices heard arguments Tuesday on which factors courts can consider when revoking supervised release for criminal defendants when not all possible factors are explicitly listed under federal law.
Supervised release is when someone follows strict conditions after they have finished their sentence from federal prison, unlike parole, which releases someone early on good behavior.
The case was brought by Edgardo Esteras, who served 27 months in federal prison for drug trafficking related convictions before starting a six-year supervised release in Ohio in 2020. However, in 2023 a compliance check uncovered a firearm, violating Esteras’ release terms and leading to his arrest.
At his revocation hearing, Judge Benita Pearson described Esteras’s behavior as “dangerous” and “disrespectful” and sentenced Esteras to an additional two years in prison and three more years of supervised release after that.
At the core of Esteras v. United States is whether judges like Pearson can consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense and promoting respect for the law when revoking supervised release, even though those factors aren’t explicitly listed in the law Congress wrote.
Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, federal courts can impose supervised release for those convicted of federal crimes. This means that after serving a prison sentence, individuals remain under court supervision as they transition back into society. During this time, they must follow specific conditions set by a judge, and violations could result in additional prison time.
Comparably, parole, which allows early release from prison for good behavior, lets judges consider factors like the seriousness of the original crime, respect for the law, and just punishment when handling violations. However, while the Sentencing Reform Act requires judges to weigh these factors during initial sentencing, the Act omits them for supervised release violations.
The Supreme Court is weighing whether judges can consider the seriousness of the original crime when deciding if someone should return to prison for violating supervised release since supervised release is not meant to further punish someone but to rehabilitate.
“If you violate your parole, you have done a morally wrong thing…we put some faith in you, we let you out early,” said Jacob Schuman, a law professor at Temple University who wrote an amicus brief in support of Esteras. “But that doesn’t apply to supervised release. Nobody did you any favors by giving you supervised release. You haven’t done anything morally wrong.”
This issue has divided nine of the U.S. Circuit appellate courts. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, in his majority opinion, wrote that the statute does not limit judges to only the enumerated factors, granting discretion in considering broader judicial principles, including deterrence and community safety. Four additional circuits ruled similarly, while four others sided with Esteras.
Masha Hansford, arguing for the government, said judges should have the option—but not the obligation—to consider factors like the seriousness of the offense, respect for the law, and just punishment. She compared it to a college allowing students to take extra courses beyond the required prerequisites for declaring a major.
19,418 people violated the terms of their supervised release in 2021, which is about 30% of all people on supervised release, according to the U.S. Courts.
Brooklyn Law School Professor Cynthia Godsoe said a judge’s job is to interpret and apply laws, not create new rules or expand their powers beyond what the law permits.
“What we argued in the amicus brief is judges overstepping their role to impose these sentences,” Godsoe said. “Even if you’re not incarcerated, you’re still under supervision.”
Godsoe’s bottom line: Congress deliberately omitted factors regarding what judges can and can’t consider regarding supervised release revocation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch approached the issue from a “linguistic perspective,” arguing that the statute’s language did not explicitly prohibit judges from considering additional factors. “I’m not sure it quite goes so far to say you must not consider other factors,” he said, noting the statute’s absence of a clear “must-not” clause.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Esteras, it will standardize the factors judges can consider when revoking supervised release, ensuring they adhere strictly to those explicitly listed in federal law.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the practical implications of restricting judicial considerations during supervised release revocation hearings.
“How is the judge going to consider the nature and circumstances of that offense without considering the severity of the offense?” Alito asked.
Germany’s Likely Next Chancellor Pushes for Independence from the U.S., Signaling Shift in U.S.-German Relations
After winning the German elections, Friedrich Merz, the leader of Germany’s mainstream conservatives and likely the next chancellor, stated Sunday that Germany must “achieve independence from the United States, step by step.”
This marks a significant shift in U.S.-German relations, as the two countries have been strong allies for decades. Experts link this change to President Trump’s statements distancing the United States from Europe and NATO during the first month of his presidency.
Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, said during an Atlantic Council discussion on Tuesday that Germany had an opportunity to embrace Trump’s approach. It could have better relations with Russia, distanced itself from Ukraine, and maintained a strong alliance with the United States. She suggested that Germany could have taken the position, “Well, if Trump is throwing Ukraine under the bus, we better defend our security. Sort of Poland’s eastern border rather than Ukraine’s western border.”
However, after Trump’s latest statements on Europe, Fix said, this is no longer an option because Trump seemed to have connected Ukraine and European security.
“Now it’s very clear that these two issues are linked, that if Ukraine comes under the bus, NATO and European security are also up for grabs,” she said. “That is something which is good for Ukraine because it makes the Europeans and Germans realize that Ukraine’s security is linked to Europe’s security, in Trump’s thinking and in their own thinking.”
Earlier this month, Trump threatened the European Union with tariffs after imposing them on Canada and Mexico. In January, he questioned whether the U.S. should be spending anything on NATO, though he added that it “should certainly be helping them.” Additionally, he strengthened ties with Vladimir Putin, organizing Russia-U.S. peace talks on the war in Ukraine without inviting Ukrainian representatives.
Jörn Fleck, senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, said during Tuesday’s discussion that if Trump continues to question America’s commitment to European security, Germany’s new chancellor will be forced to consider how to “protect its core national interests without reliance on a seemingly unreliable ally in Washington, D.C.”
“I think the downside of those comments is clear. It risks fueling or fanning anti-American sentiments,” Fleck added, referring to Trump’s rhetoric, which he described as equating Washington with Moscow.
Fleck also warned that Trump’s administration might respond to Merz’s remarks dismissively, suggesting they could say: “Go right ahead, knock yourself out.”
Yet, following the election results, Trump congratulated the winning party and emphasized similarities between American and German societies.
“Much like the USA, the people of Germany got tired of the no common sense agenda, especially on energy and immigration, that has prevailed for so many years,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social page.
Immigration is indeed one of the biggest concerns in Germany, much like in the United States. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which opposes immigration, finished second in the elections, nearly doubling its support compared to 2021. Elisabeth Zerofsky, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, said during Tuesday’s discussion that when she asked young AfD supporters what concerns them most, they cited immigration.
“This is an interesting response, coming from a part of Germany that has not had high levels of migration,” Zerofsky said. “There is some migration there, but not a huge amount. But there’s this perception. And it’s, of course, being boosted by the AfD that our country is not ours anymore. It’s been taken away from us.”
Before Germany’s elections, JD Vance and Elon Musk expressed support for the AfD party. Vance met with the party’s leader, Alice Weidel. When Musk virtually joined their rally in the German city of Halle, calling them “the best hope for Germany.”
Power vacuum leaves space for China, threatening national security
WASHINGTON – In a rapidly changing global landscape, the Trump administration’s foreign policy received mixed reviews from lawmakers as policy experts outlined plans to ensure American national security at a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Tuesday.
“Trump, if anything else, is a disruptor who recognizes that it’s time to go from the old to the new,” said Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Affairs, a nonpartisan think tank, and professor of international affairs at Georgetown University.
The Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs met to discuss emerging global threats to American national security, specifically China. Republican lawmakers reiterated their support for President Donald Trump while Democrats on the committee voiced concerns about Trump’s approach with U.S. allies in Europe and Asia in the first month of his presidency.
“Does this administration know who our adversaries really are or who our allies really are?” asked Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.). “Russia is not our friend…China is not our friend…Europe is not our enemy…Mexico is not our enemy…Canada is not our enemy.”
According to the World Economic Forum, China has become sub-Saharan Africa’s largest bilateral trading partner. China is also now the European Union’s largest external import partner.
China’s goal by 2049 encompasses both its military and technological gains. According to a U.S. Department of Defense report to Congress last year, China’s strategy “determinedly pursues political, social, economic, technological, and military development to increase [their] national power and revise the international order to support [their] system of governance and national interests.”
“While the U.S. still leads China in more technologies than vice versa, the playing field is rapidly evolving,” said Michael Brown, Eric Chewning, and Pavneet Singh in a 2020 report published by the Brookings Institute. “China challenges U.S. technology leads in AI, genetic engineering, quantum computing and quantum sensors,” they continued.
“The world in 2025 could not be more different than the one President Trump inherited in 2017,” said Jacob Olidort, the director of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank aimed at promoting President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
Olidort is the former Director of Research at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy. He said that President Trump’s foreign policy strategy is the “exact right” one right now.
Brent Sadler, a retired U.S. Navy Captain and senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, said the U.S. cannot allow China to make gains with its allies.
“If we cannot secure our own supply chains and sustain a wartime economy, we are vulnerable to coercion by a China that effectively controls the terms of trade, be its network of ports and maritime dominance,” he said.
Meaghan Mobbs is a senior fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative non-profit that focuses on policy issues of concern to women. She is leading the forum’s launch of a center for American Safety and Security. “Our adversaries are exploiting the vacuum we created, and have now left behind,” she told the committee.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said the Trump administration’s halting of U.S. foreign aid benefits China’s global influence and harms U.S. national security.
“We have strayed from the enduring purpose of U.S. foreign assistance to defend human rights and basic freedoms abroad in the interest of U.S. national security,” he said.
On the other side of the aisle, lawmakers gave more pause when it came to dispensing foreign aid as a part of a U.S. strategy to use “soft power,” a term Mobbs used to describe non-military partnerships and the spread of American culture and ideals abroad.
“I believe that the United States should be very cautious in extending itself too far,” said Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.).
Mobbs, who disagreed with the Biden administration’s use of “too much” soft power, said that the U.S. should use “smart power” – a combination of soft power and military power – to combat China and other global threats like Russia.
“Soft power is not charity, it is a weapon. One that revealed, can shape the battlefield before its first shot is fired,” Mobbs said. “Beijing understands this. Moscow understands this. The question is do we understand this?”
“Delinquent” and “obsolete:” Trump’s rhetoric threatens transatlantic stability of NATO
WASHINGTON – Leaders representing the United States and Russia met this week to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine as European NATO leaders and the Ukrainians themselves were iced out of the negotiations despite their enormous stake in the issue. But it’s only one snub in a long line of affronts to NATO at the hands of President Donald Trump, dating back to his first term.
“NATO countries must pay MORE, the United States must pay LESS. Very Unfair!” Trump tweeted back in 2018. He accused member countries of not pulling their weight in defense spending, calling them “delinquent” and the alliance “obsolete.”
Since taking office for the second time last month, he has again singled out this issue. In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos just days after his inauguration, Trump demanded the alliance increase the target for defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, more than double the current 2% guideline.
NATO introduced the 2% goal in 2014. At the time, only three of 28 member countries met that target; estimates for 2024 show 23 countries reaching it, out of 32 (four countries joined in the interim). It’s generally agreed that the jump over the last decade is likely due to several factors, including pressure applied by the Trump administration during its first term.
But even though NATO members’ defense spending is on the rise, Trump has made clear he believes it is not enough.
Why 5%?
“For a number of members of the alliance, that 5% number is eye-watering,” said Susan Colbourn, a professor at the University of Toronto whose research specializes in NATO and European security.
For reference: in 2024, the U.S. spent an estimated 3.4% of its GDP on defense – more than the 2% guideline but well short of the 5% Trump envisions.
Yet speaking to reporters after his comments in Davos, Trump declined to commit the U.S. to the 5% mark, setting up a double standard that will likely make the new 5% target a tough sell to allies.
“Nobody’s going to go to 5% if we don’t,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Kaine and his committee colleague Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) both acknowledged that NATO countries do need to spend more on defense, an assessment widely shared by experts.
“Increased defense spending, particularly by the non-U.S. members of the alliance, is absolutely a good investment and necessary,” said Colbourn.
Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, has already indicated that defense spending must increase, and Colbourn expects the issue to be on the agenda at NATO’s June summit at The Hague.
How the additional funds should be spent remains unclear.
“You shouldn’t increase defense spending just to increase defense spending,” said Katherine Dahlstrand, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “You should be doing so with a clear goal in mind as to where you’re going to put that money, what can I spend it on?“
Dahlstrand said that much of that money should be going towards equipment, including air defense and munitions stock. Currently, NATO policy commits members to putting 20% of their defense spending towards new equipment.
The Future of NATO
“The cynical interpretation,” said Colbourn, “is that 5% is calibrated intentionally to be so high that it is impossible for the allies to meet, and then could be used as a pretext for President Trump to in some way revise or overhaul the United States participation in NATO.”
During his first term, Trump reportedly discussed pulling the U.S. out of NATO with aides on multiple occasions. The current Trump administration did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
An exit via executive order, however, is no longer an easy option. A bill passed by Congress in 2023 included a measure, introduced by Sen. Kaine and former senator and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, requiring a two-thirds Senate majority to withdraw from NATO.
But Trump doesn’t need to officially pull the U.S. out of NATO to cause serious damage to the alliance, Colbourn said.
The backbone of NATO is Article V of its charter, the mutual self-defense clause that calls on all members to come to the aid of any one member country that is attacked.
But each time Trump threatens America’s commitment to NATO allies, for example, by questioning America’s Article V pledge or contemplating the seizure of Greenland, a territory belonging to NATO member Denmark, the damage is felt, said Colbourn.
“All of those signals and statements erode the credibility of the alliance itself,” Colbourn said. “It’s ultimately based on things like trust and confidence that the core pledge at the heart of the treaty will work.”
If NATO falls apart, she said, it would put the world in “a period of considerable realignment in the overall patterns of international politics.”
With Russia’s war in Ukraine ongoing and China sizing up Taiwan, she noted parallels to the world order of the 19th century, when great powers carved up the globe into spheres of influence. The delicacy of this moment is not lost on lawmakers.
“At this critical moment, when Vladimir Putin continues to inflict his campaign, his war against democracy, we need that NATO commitment to be stronger than ever,” said Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), the vice ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
“And at the end of the day, this is about our allies,” he added. “A safe Europe means a safe America.”
Published in conjunction with
As Trump Shifts on Ukraine, Europeans Rally In Fear That They Now Face Danger
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Ukrainian flags waved alongside those of the United States, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Belarus, Norway, Finland, and other nations in a display of solidarity with Ukraine at Saturday’s protest in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
As February 24 marked three years of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, people around the world raised concerns over President Trump’s foreign policy and his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ilona Doerfler from Kyiv has been living in the United States for more than 30 years and considers it her second home. She actively spoke out about the danger of Trump getting closer with Russia because in her opinion the U.S. future depends on Ukraine.
“I think our futures are tight now. If we let tyranny be built in Ukraine, it will continue with fighting democracy in the United States. It will not stop in Ukraine. It will propel its evil power into the U.S.,” said Doerfler.
U.S. policy toward Ukraine has shifted significantly since Donald Trump took office, which was one of the key topics addressed at the protest. Within his first month as a president, he arranged peace talks with Russian officials, excluding Ukrainian representatives. Trump has demanded half of Ukrainian natural resources. He also accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of seizing power without elections and called him a dictator with an approval rating of 4%.
It remains unclear where Trump obtained this statistic. According to IBIF Ukraine, a project that researches Ukrainian society, 63% of Ukrainians approve of Zelenskyy’s presidency. Elections in Ukraine were canceled due to martial law, as they are impossible amid active combat, territorial occupation, and the displacement of millions of Ukrainians.
In his press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron Monday, Trump was asked why he trusted Putin. He said, “I believe he wants to make a deal.”
Last week, he inaccurately blamed Ukraine for starting the war and keeping it going.
“I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it’s going very well. But today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you’ve been there for three years,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort. “You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”
Europeans from countries that know first hand what it is like to be Russia’s neighbor, gathered for the demonstration. They expressed alarm and warned Americans that Putin cannot be trusted. People were walking with posters of Putin’s pictures which capture “Donald [Trump], FYI, this is a dictator.”
“There is only one godless, ruthless dictator in this war”—Vladimir Putin,” said Michael Sawkiw, Jr., president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America
“If we stand up to him, all of Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad sunlit uplands,” Sawkiw added. “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister.”
Also present at the protest was Andriy Smolensky, a Ukrainian soldier who lost both his arms and his eyesight on the front line. Speaking about Trump’s negotiations with Putin, he drew a historical parallel to World War II.
“I want to start from the phrase, ‘This deal is going to bring peace to our times.’ That was the phrase that Premier Minister [Neville] Chamberlain said after making a deal with Adolf Hitler,” said Smolensky, referencing a potential peace deal on Trump and Putin’s terms.
Smolensky said that he knows Trump could bring peace to Ukraine, but it must be a just peace, not one that favors Putin.
Due to growing concerns over Trump’s foreign policy, many in Europe fear that a U.S.-Russia peace agreement would signify Putin’s victory, potentially paving the way for further invasions.
European ambassadors to the U.S. also joined the Saturday protest, showing solidarity with Ukraine. Leena-Kaisa Mikkola, Finland’s ambassador to the U.S., expressed concerns for her country’s future, given its 833-mile border with Russia. Finland only joined NATO in 2023, a decision prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
European Ambassadors to the U.S. stand together in front of the Lincoln Memorial with Ukrainian and European Union flags. (Sofia Sorochinskaia/MNS)
“What’s happening in Ukraine is affecting all of us. We want to honor the Ukrainians who are paying for their lives, fighting against an aggression that invaded their country three years ago,” said Mikkola.
Norway’s ambassador to the U.S., Anniken Huitfeldt, also reaffirmed her country’s commitment:
“I talk on behalf of the Norwegian government and we will stand by Ukraine.”
“It’s more important than ever, in our opinion, to stand up for the common boundaries and support Ukraine,” said Huitfeldt.
Toby Davis, a former political analyst at the State Department, walked by the Lincoln Memorial carrying a Georgian flag. She wanted to remind fellow demonstrators that parts of Georgia also remain occupied by Russia.
“I could not possibly not come out and support Ukraine and remind everyone that Georgia too is under attack,” said Davis. “I am hoping that the American government understands that they must be strong in support of Georgia and in support of Ukraine. If they want peace through strength, then they have to show strength.”
The Baltic countries are very concerned about being invaded by Russia if the United States let Putin win. Nevertheless, since they are NATO members, it would be a different situation for Russia, since all NATO countries would have to intervene.
Vesta Matze was among more than a dozen demonstrators waving Lithuanian flags. She was born and raised in a Lithuanian city just 30 miles from the Russian border. Supporting Ukraine now feels more important than ever to her. She said Lithuania could be next.
“Russia very openly speaks about it now, that the next one will be us,” said Matze. “We are maybe seven times smaller than Ukraine. Ukraine did a lot of work for everybody in Europe. They save our peace.”
Medill Today | Wednesday, November 19, 2025