Trump says he will 'get the conflict solved with North Korea', World News
US President Donald Trump on Friday (June 27) said he will "get the conflict solved with North Korea."
At an Oval Office event where he highlighted his efforts to resolve global conflicts, Trump was asked whether he had written a letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as was reported this month.
Trump did not directly answer the question, but said: "I've had a good relationship with Kim Jong Un and get along with him, really great. So we'll see what happens.
"Somebody's saying there's a potential conflict, I think we'll work it out," Trump said. "If there is, it wouldn't involve us."
Seoul-based NK News, a website that monitors North Korea, reported this month that North Korea's delegation at the United Nations in New York had repeatedly refused to accept a letter from Trump to Kim.
Trump and Kim held three summits during Trump's 2017-2021 first term and exchanged a number of letters that Trump called "beautiful," before the unprecedented diplomatic effort broke down over US demands that Kim give up his nuclear weapons.
In his second term Trump has acknowledged that North Korea is a "nuclear power." The White House said on June 11 that Trump would welcome communications again with Kim, while not confirming that any letter was sent.
North Korea has shown no interest in returning to talks since the breakdown of Trump's diplomacy in 2019.
[[nid:666918]]
It has, instead, significantly expanded its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, and developed close ties with Russia through direct support for Moscow's war in Ukraine, to which Pyongyang has provided both troops and weaponry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
30 minutes ago
- Straits Times
US immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on June 27 granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Ms Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on June 27 morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Ms Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Mr Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed US agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate US district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Mr Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On June 27 afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Ms Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Mr Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on June 27. Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Ms Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on June 27 from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Mr Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the US annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Ms Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organisation United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Mr Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Ms Betsy, a US citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the US from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Ms Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on June 27 from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?' REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
US Senate unveils new Trump tax draft with plans to vote soon
This is as the US moves closer to a vote on the tax cut package with a July 4 deadline set by President Donald Trump. PHOTO: REUTERS US Senate unveils new Trump tax draft with plans to vote soon WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans unveiled a new version of their US$4.2 trillion (S$5.1 trillion) tax cut package, moving closer to a vote as they near a July 4 deadline set by President Donald Trump. The new draft reflects compromises among warring factions of the Senate GOP which has been divided over how much to cut safety-net programs such as Medicaid and how rapidly to phase out of renewable energy tax credits enacted under the Biden administration. A tentative deal with House Republicans to increase the state and local tax deduction is included. The bill would raise the SALT deduction cap from US$10,000 to US$40,000 for five years before snapping back to the US$10,000 level. The new cap applies to 2025 and rises 1 per cent in subsequent years. Republicans plan to start voting on the tax bill on June 28 with final votes coming as soon as early on June 29. Party leaders plan to bring House members back to Washington early next week for what they hope will be final approval of the measure in time for Trump's Independence Day deadline. It is not yet clear if the 50 Senate Republicans needed to pass the bill are all on board. The bill can be further altered on the Senate floor to secure the votes if needed. The House could make more changes if Speaker Mike Johnson has trouble corralling votes for the measure. To win over moderate Republicans, the bill would create a new US$25 billion rural hospital fund aimed at helping some Medicaid providers avoid cuts. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, however, had demanded a US$100 billion fund. Moderate Republicans also won a delay from 2031 to 2032 for when a new 3.5 per cent cap on state Medicaid provider taxes takes effect. The provider tax is a gimmick by which states boost their federal Medicaid reimbursement rates and many states have come to rely on the practice. Another change in the measure is that a tax credit for hydrogen production wouldn't be phased out until 2028 for projects that begin construction before then. Previous version ended the credit after 2025. The measure would avert a US payment default as soon as August by raising the debt ceiling by US$5 trillion. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., May 20, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo FILE PHOTO: A ball lies stuck on the fencing at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility, where Venezuelans at the center of a Supreme Court ruling on deportation are held, in Anson, Texas, U.S. April 22, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
