Ukrainians Cautiously Welcome Trump’s Announcement About Patriot Missile Systems

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-09 09:57:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Shifting Stance on Ukraine: Promises, Praise for Putin, and a New Patriot Pledge

President Trump’s approach to Ukraine has been marked by sharp reversals and unpredictable rhetoric, leaving both allies and adversaries uncertain about his true intentions. This week, expectations were low for Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey—a reflection of Trump’s history of “zigging and zagging” on support for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

During the meeting, Trump made a surprise announcement: the United States would license Ukraine to produce Patriot air-defense systems. “That’s really cool, right?” Trump said. “This way you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough.” The announcement was met with cautious optimism in Kyiv, where skepticism remains high. As one Kyiv resident put it, “Words are not actions. When he will actually give it, I will say, ‘Well done.’”

Trump’s record on Ukraine is fraught with contradictions. He has previously claimed he could end the war in 24 hours, described Zelensky as a “dictator without elections,” called him ungrateful, and berated him in the Oval Office. At the same time, Trump has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, sometimes echoing Putin’s demands. Last month, Trump asserted that the United States had “nothing to do with” the war in Ukraine, despite the country’s ongoing requests for military aid.

Analysts suggest Trump’s apparent shift toward supporting Ukraine may be motivated by recent Ukrainian successes on the battlefield. “If I understand President Trump’s logic, he always wants to be on the winning side,” said Viktor Shlinchak, head of the Institute of World Policy. However, the reality is that manufacturing Patriot systems is a complex, years-long process, and Ukraine’s immediate needs remain unmet.

Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy has forced Ukraine to become more self-reliant, accelerating domestic weapons production and forging new international partnerships. Meanwhile, Zelensky has publicly criticized the United States for slow weapons deliveries and shifting focus to other global conflicts.

The bottom line: Trump’s latest promise to license Patriot production is a significant gesture, but his history of erratic statements and shifting loyalties has left many Ukrainians wary. As the war continues, Ukraine’s leaders and citizens are watching closely to see if Trump’s words will finally translate into meaningful action.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/world/europe/ukraine-patriots-trump-russia.html

Trump tells reporter she'll be killed if Iran strikes Air Force One: 'If I go, you go'

Administration News — 2026-07-09 08:36:00 — thehill.com

Trump Tells Reporter She Would Be Killed If Iran Struck Air Force One Amid Rising Tensions

President Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One after the NATO summit in Turkey, told a reporter that she would also be killed if Iran struck the presidential jet. This comment came as tensions between the United States and Tehran continue to escalate.

During the gaggle, Trump was pressed about security concerns related to Air Force One. In response, he made the stark remark about the potential consequences if Iran were to target the aircraft, directly addressing the reporter’s safety.

This exchange highlights Trump’s often provocative communication style, especially when discussing matters of national security and foreign threats. His comment, delivered in the context of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions, underscores his tendency to make blunt and sometimes alarming statements when challenged by the press.

While the president’s remark may have been intended to emphasize the seriousness of the threat, it also serves as another example of his willingness to make personal and dramatic statements to reporters. Such comments have drawn criticism in the past for their tone and potential to escalate anxieties during already tense geopolitical situations.

In summary, President Trump’s statement to the reporter aboard Air Force One reflects his characteristic approach to addressing security concerns—direct, personal, and unfiltered. As tensions with Iran remain high, the president’s words continue to shape the public discourse around U.S. foreign policy and the safety of those who travel with him.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5960525-donald-trump-air-force-one-iran-strike-threat/

U.S. Begins Second Day of Strikes Against Iran

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-09 06:15:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Declares Iran Cease-Fire ‘Over’ as U.S. Launches Major Strikes, Offers Dubious Claims About Negotiations

For the second consecutive day, the Pentagon reported that U.S. forces struck dozens of military sites in Iran, following President Trump’s assertion that a three-week-old cease-fire between the two countries was “over.” The strikes, which targeted around 90 Iranian military sites along the southeastern coast, were described by U.S. Central Command as retaliation for “recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews.” In total, the U.S. has hit approximately 170 targets in the past two days—far surpassing previous rounds of retaliatory action.

Trump’s Statements and Shifting Tone

Earlier on Wednesday, President Trump told reporters at a NATO summit in Turkey that while the United States would probably hit Iran “hard,” he did not expect a return to all-out war. “I don’t think it’s going to start again,” he said. “I think it’s going to go very quickly.” However, later that day, Trump escalated his rhetoric in a social media post, warning that if Iran attacked ships again, “it will get much worse!”

Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump claimed that Iran was eager to negotiate despite the renewed hostilities. “They called a little while ago. They want to make a deal so badly,” he said, but then cast doubt on Iran’s reliability: “I just don’t know if they’re worthy of making a deal. I don’t know that they’re going to honor the deal.” Notably, Iranian officials have made no public statements about new negotiations, contradicting Trump’s assertion.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s claim that Iran is desperate to make a deal is not supported by any statements from Iranian officials. In fact, the excerpt makes clear that “the Iranians have said nothing about new negotiations.” This is a significant distortion of the diplomatic reality, as talks between the two countries have been paused and Iran has accused the U.S. of violating the June 18 agreement intended to end the war.

Additionally, Trump’s optimistic prediction that renewed conflict “isn’t going to start again” and “will go very quickly” is at odds with the ongoing escalation, as evidenced by the scale and intensity of U.S. military strikes and the absence of a clear diplomatic path forward.

Conclusion

President Trump’s public statements on the Iran conflict continue to feature exaggerations and unsupported claims, particularly regarding Iran’s willingness to negotiate. While the U.S. military campaign intensifies, Trump’s rhetoric alternates between minimizing the risk of war and issuing threats of further escalation. The facts on the ground, including the lack of Iranian engagement in new talks and the ongoing hostilities, contradict the president’s narrative and highlight the gap between his statements and the unfolding reality.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/08/us/politics/us-iran-strikes.html

Fact-checking the first debate between Ed Markey, Seth Moulton in Massachusetts U.S. Senate contest

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-07-08 17:40:00 — www.politifact.com

President Donald Trump has threatened to veto a bipartisan housing bill unless the Senate passes an unrelated voting bill called the SAVE America Act, according to recent fact-checking of statements made during a Massachusetts Senate debate. The housing bill, which aims to expand access to affordable mortgages and limit large corporate purchases of single-family homes, is on track to become law as long as Trump does not follow through on his veto threat.

Trump’s stance on the housing bill demonstrates his willingness to use legislative leverage to advance unrelated priorities. In this case, he tied the fate of a widely supported housing measure to the passage of a separate voting bill, a move that could delay or derail much-needed housing reforms.

The fact-check also clarifies that, despite claims made during the debate, the bill’s progress now depends on Trump’s decision. If he vetoes the housing bill, it would block reforms designed to help low- and middle-income Americans access homeownership and accelerate homebuilding.

This episode highlights how Trump’s approach to legislation can create uncertainty for bipartisan efforts, even when there is broad support in Congress. As the bill awaits the president’s decision, the outcome will directly affect Massachusetts voters and millions of Americans seeking affordable housing options.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jul/08/Ed-Markey-Seth-Moulton-Mass-Senate-debate/

Trump on Platner rape allegations: ‘A lot of people say big falsehoods’

Administration News — 2026-07-08 21:00:00 — thehill.com

Trump Casts Doubt on Sexual Assault Allegations Against Maine Senate Candidate

President Trump questioned the credibility of sexual assault allegations against former Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, telling reporters on Air Force One, “It’s really a question of whether or not you believe the woman. A lot of people say big falsehoods.” His remarks came as he weighed in on the accusations facing the Democratic candidate.

Trump’s comments suggest skepticism toward the woman making the allegations, implying that such claims are often untrue. By stating, “A lot of people say big falsehoods,” Trump appeared to cast general doubt on the veracity of sexual assault allegations, a stance that echoes his previous responses to similar accusations involving public figures.

This pattern of questioning or dismissing the credibility of accusers has been a recurring feature of Trump’s public statements. In this instance, he did not address the specifics of the case against Platner, instead focusing on the broader issue of whether such allegations should be believed.

Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism in the past for undermining the experiences of accusers and for contributing to a climate in which victims may feel discouraged from coming forward. His approach in this case continues that trend, raising questions about the impact of such statements on public perceptions of sexual assault allegations.

In summary, President Trump’s response to the allegations against Graham Platner highlights his ongoing tendency to cast doubt on accusers, rather than engaging with the details of individual cases. This stance has significant implications for public discourse around sexual assault and the treatment of those who come forward with allegations.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5960229-trump-questions-platner-allegations/

Democratic Lawmakers Question If Trump Is Mystery Recipient of Drug

FactCheck.org — 2026-07-08 12:54:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump Denies Use of Unapproved Weight-Loss Drug Amid Speculation

During a January interview with the New York Times, President Trump stated that he has never taken a weight-loss drug but “probably should.” This comment resurfaced as speculation grew over whether Trump was the unnamed 79-year-old man reportedly receiving the unapproved Eli Lilly drug retatrutide through the FDA’s compassionate use program.

The White House has firmly denied that Trump is the recipient of the drug, and there is no evidence that he has received access to it. The speculation was fueled by a STAT report noting that the single patient granted access was a well-connected 79-year-old, and by the fact that Trump turned 80 in June and had gained weight according to his latest physical.

Despite the White House’s denial, some Democratic lawmakers pressed for more transparency, citing Trump’s history of misleading statements. Senator Maggie Hassan’s spokesperson referenced FactCheck.org’s record of cataloguing Trump’s repeated falsehoods and alleged self-dealing, using this as a basis to question whether the president or someone close to him received special access.

In summary, while Trump has publicly denied using weight-loss drugs, and the White House has refuted claims that he received retatrutide, the episode highlights ongoing concerns about transparency and the president’s record of false statements.

Source article

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/07/democratic-lawmakers-question-if-trump-is-mystery-drug-recipient/

White House’s World Cup head defends Trump lobbying Fifa over red card | World Cup

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-08 17:20:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Casts Doubt on World Cup Referee’s Integrity, Drawing International Criticism

Donald Trump’s intervention in the World Cup has sparked controversy after he questioned the integrity of Brazilian referee Raphael Claus, who issued a red card to US player Folarin Balogun during a match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trump claimed Claus was “a little bit suspect, if you check his past,” referencing a 2024 Brazilian senate investigation into referee assignments. However, that investigation did not accuse Claus of any wrongdoing.

Trump’s comments, defended by Andrew Giuliani, head of the White House’s World Cup taskforce, were based on Claus’s involvement as a witness—not a target—in the investigation. Giuliani acknowledged that Claus “was not accused of crimes,” but maintained suspicion due to his testimony in the probe and the use of VAR (video assistant referee) slow-motion, which he argued was misapplied.

FIFA and the Brazilian Football Confederation have both publicly defended Claus, stating there is nothing in his record to question his integrity or suggest any wrongdoing. Critics argue that Trump’s public questioning of the referee’s character not only lacked factual basis but may have motivated the Belgian team, who defeated the US 4-1 and celebrated by parodying Trump’s signature YMCA dance.

Trump’s intervention has been widely criticized for undermining the spirit of fair play and damaging the goodwill the US had built as World Cup host. The episode highlights Trump’s pattern of making disparaging and unsubstantiated claims about individuals, even on the global stage.

As the tournament continues, the fallout from Trump’s remarks serves as a reminder of the far-reaching impact of presidential statements—especially when they cast aspersions without evidence.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/08/trump-fifa-red-card

Why Trump wants Greenland | PBS News

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-07-08 16:09:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Greenland Ambitions: False Claims and Security Justifications Rattle Allies

Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for the United States to take control of Greenland, citing national security as the primary reason. At a NATO summit, Trump declared, “Greenland is very important to the United States, but it’s not important to Denmark. We need it for protection of the world, not just the United States.” He has also argued that U.S. control of the Arctic island is necessary to deter threats from Russia and China.

Despite these assertions, Trump’s claims about the presence of Chinese and Russian military forces near Greenland have been repeatedly identified as false. The excerpt notes that he has “repeatedly made false claims of Chinese and Russian military forces lurking off the island’s coastline.” This rhetoric has unsettled the NATO alliance and caused concern among European allies, who have long relied on the U.S. as a partner in defense.

Trump’s approach to Greenland has included not ruling out the use of military force to secure “right, title and ownership” of the island, though he later stated that military options were off the table. These threats and demands have been firmly rejected by both Denmark, which governs Greenland as a self-governing territory, and Greenland’s own government, which insists that its people will decide their own future.

Experts and officials have challenged Trump’s justification for U.S. control of Greenland. Thomas Crosbie, a military operations professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, stated that the U.S. already enjoys all the security advantages it needs in Greenland as a trusted ally, and that an American takeover would provide no additional benefit.

The U.S. military already operates the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, supporting missile warning and defense operations for both the U.S. and NATO. Denmark has also expanded agreements to allow U.S. military bases on its soil, with provisions to terminate such agreements if the U.S. attempts to annex Greenland.

In summary, Trump’s repeated false claims about foreign military threats and his aggressive posture toward Greenland have not only strained relations with key allies but have also been contradicted by both local governments and security experts. His push for control over Greenland is widely seen as unnecessary for U.S. security, given existing military cooperation and treaties. The episode highlights the risks of basing foreign policy on misinformation and exaggerated threats.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/why-trump-wants-greenland

Trump warns fresh attacks on Iran could come Wednesday night

Donald Trump — 2026-07-08 10:22:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Pledges to Ramp Up Attacks on Iran, Declares Ceasefire “Over”

President Trump has escalated his rhetoric on Iran, pledging to increase attacks after stating that the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran was “over.” This declaration signals a significant shift in the administration’s approach to the ongoing tensions with Iran.

Trump’s Statement on the Ceasefire

According to the report, Trump said earlier that the ceasefire between the United States and Iran was “over.” This assertion marks a departure from previous efforts to de-escalate hostilities and suggests a renewed willingness to engage in military action.

Pledge to Intensify Attacks

Following his comments about the ceasefire, the president pledged to ramp up attacks on Iran. This position indicates a hardening stance and raises concerns about the potential for further conflict in the region.

Fact-Check and Context

The excerpt does not provide additional details about the specific actions or statements that led to Trump’s announcement, nor does it offer evidence to support the claim that a formal ceasefire existed between the two countries. Historically, the U.S. and Iran have experienced periods of heightened tension, but official ceasefires have not been a regular feature of their relationship.

Conclusion

President Trump’s statements—declaring the ceasefire “over” and pledging to increase attacks on Iran—underscore a more aggressive posture toward Tehran. These remarks highlight the administration’s shifting approach and raise questions about the implications for U.S. foreign policy and regional stability. As tensions escalate, close attention will be paid to the administration’s next moves and the potential consequences for both nations.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/08/trump-iran-new-attacks-nato-00990034

Trump returning to US on old Air Force One amid Iran threats

Administration News — 2026-07-08 13:53:00 — thehill.com

Trump Deflects Security Questions on New Air Force One, Cites $400 Billion Price Tag

President Trump confirmed Wednesday that he is taking the old Air Force One back to the United States from Turkey, while sidestepping questions about security concerns related to the new Qatari-donated model. Trump stated that the new $400 billion Air Force One would be sent home through Europe so that soldiers could see it, but also acknowledged unspecified issues.

Trump’s Statements and Exaggerations

Trump’s remarks included a striking claim about the cost of the new Air Force One, putting the figure at $400 billion. This number is vastly higher than any publicly known estimate for Air Force One replacements, which are typically reported in the range of several billion dollars, not hundreds of billions. The assertion represents a significant exaggeration of the aircraft’s cost.

Additionally, Trump deflected when asked about security concerns regarding the Qatari-donated model, choosing instead to focus on the plane’s route and the opportunity for soldiers to view it. This response avoided directly addressing the core question of whether the new model poses any security risks.

Pattern of Deflection and Exaggeration

This episode is consistent with a broader pattern in which Trump has made exaggerated claims about government projects and costs, often inflating figures far beyond documented amounts. His tendency to deflect or downplay direct questions about security or logistical concerns has also been a hallmark of his public statements.

Conclusion

President Trump’s comments on the new Air Force One highlight his ongoing use of inflated numbers and evasive responses when pressed on substantive issues. By claiming a $400 billion price tag and sidestepping security questions, Trump continues a record of exaggeration and deflection that has characterized many of his public statements. Readers should be aware of these patterns when evaluating information about major government expenditures and national security matters.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5959582-trump-air-force-one-turkey/