Trump says US will send more weapons to Ukraine
Donald Trump
said on Monday the United States would send more weapons to
Ukraine
, primarily defensive ones, to help the war-torn country defend itself against intensifying
Russian
advances.
Washington's decision last week to halt some weapons shipments to Kyiv prompted Ukraine to warn the move would restrict its ability to fend off Russia's air strikes and battlefield advances, while drawing criticism from Democrats and some of Mr Trump's fellow Republicans.
'We're going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves,' Mr Trump told reporters at the White House at the start of a dinner with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
'They're getting hit very hard now,' he added. 'We're going to have to send more weapons, defensive weapons, primarily.'
READ MORE
Last week the Pentagon said it was halting the delivery of some weaponry because US stockpiles were low.
In a statement the US defence department later said it would send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine at Mr Trump's direction, to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while efforts continue to secure a lasting peace.
The Pentagon said its initiative to evaluate military shipments around the world stayed in effect.
On Friday, Mr Trump had told reporters Ukraine would need Patriot missiles to defend itself, but he did not mention them again specifically on Monday. The Pentagon statement gave no details on the weapons to be shipped to Ukraine.
After a telephone call with Mr Trump on Friday, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy said he had agreed to work on increasing Kyiv's capability to 'defend the sky' as Russian attacks escalated.
The leaders had discussed joint defence production, purchases and investments, he added.
Ukraine has been asking Washington to sell it more Patriot missiles and systems that it sees as key to defending its cities from intensifying Russian air strikes.
Germany said it was in talks on buying Patriot air defence systems for Ukraine to bridge the gap. – Reuters
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
EU and US on brink of tariff deal to avoid trade war
The European Union and the United States are believed to be on the brink of a deal that would stop the transatlantic dispute over tariffs escalating into a full blown trade war. Negotiations between the two sides are near to concluding an 'agreement in principle', which sources say could be finalised imminently, if approved by US president Donald Trump . The 'agreement in principle', if signed off on by Mr Trump, would buy time for technical negotiations to continue, to iron out the more complex details of the future EU-US trading relationship, without the threat of steeper tariffs hanging over the discussions. The European Commission's trade negotiators, led by Maroš Šefčovič , are understood to be close to an agreement on the broad parameters of a deal on tariffs with US officials. Mr Šefčovič spoke to commerce secretary Howard Lutnick in the last 48 hours and had a further call scheduled with trade negotiator Jamieson Greer on Wednesday evening. READ MORE The high-level contact follows a telephone call on Sunday between Mr Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen , which she said helped 'move things forward'. The outline of a draft agreement negotiated between the EU and US would see the 10 per cent tariff Mr Trump put on nearly all EU imports remain. However, EU officials were hopeful of securing tariff exemptions for the aviation and spirits sectors in the deal, according to briefings given to diplomats in Brussels in recent days. The exact details of the agreement could be subject to change before it is finally signed off. US tariffs charged on imports coming from the EU were due to increase to at least 20 per cent on July 9th, but the deadline was extended to August 1st by Mr Trump earlier this week. Negotiations between US and EU officials had intensified in recent weeks, as the initial deadline loomed. [ EU working 'day and night' for tariff deal, Ursula von der Leyen says Opens in new window ] EU negotiators have been pushing back on a last-minute proposal tabled by the Trump administration, that would have seen tariffs on EU agricultural products set at a higher 17 per cent rate. The text of any deal will likely only run to several pages. It is unclear whether it will include a reference to pharmaceuticals, a sector Mr Trump has promised to hit with huge import duties at a later date. The negotiating teams have been exploring a quota scheme that would allow European car manufacturers to offset some portion of the tariffs they would be charged, based on the size of their manufacturing footprint in the US. The commission had threatened to put counter-tariffs on imports of a range of US products, such as aircraft, medical devices, automobiles, bourbon and agricultural produce, in the event talks collapsed without agreement. Government sources in Dublin said they were on standby for developments, but cautioned it was hard to be sure a deal would be concluded in the coming days, given the unpredictability of the Trump administration. [ China warns countries on agreeing US tariff deal that would come at Beijing's expense Opens in new window ] While much of the substance of the agreement was believed to be very close to being settled, diplomatic sources in Brussels also warned that Mr Trump could decide to reopen large aspects of the negotiations unexpectedly. An agreement that averts the prospect of cripplingly high US tariffs on European trade from the start of next month would be hugely welcomed in Government Buildings. However, there is concern about the possibility Mr Trump could introduce separate tariffs on pharmaceutical products at a later date. Pharmaceuticals make up the bulk of the Republic's exports across the Atlantic, given the large concentration of US pharma firms with manufacturing sites in Ireland.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Super-juniors treated ‘identically' to senior Ministers, ex-cabinet member Shane Ross tells High Court
Super-junior Ministers are treated 'identically' to senior Ministers at Government meetings and can influence decision-making, former cabinet member Shane Ross has told the High Court. Mr Ross, who served as minister for transport, tourism and sport from 2016 to 2020, on Wednesday gave evidence at the hearing of People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy 's High Court action challenging the attendance of super-junior Ministers at Cabinet meetings. Cross-examinating Mr Ross, Attorney General Rossa Fanning suggested Mr Ross breached a constitutional obligation to respect cabinet confidentiality by publishing a book with accounts of discussions at cabinet meetings. Mr Ross denied any illegality, and said the book pertained to political matters of public interest. 'I thought it was justifiable, there was plenty of precedent for it,' he said. READ MORE Mr Murphy's case alleges super-junior Ministers' presence at Cabinet breaches this Cabinet confidentiality provision and several other sections of the Constitution. [ Government accepts 'super junior' Ministers are involved in decision-making at Cabinet with no constitutional basis, court hears Opens in new window ] Mr Murphy wants an injunction restraining super-juniors from going to Government meetings. 'Ministers of State attending Cabinet', or super-junior Ministers, are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate at Government meetings but do not vote. Senior government ministers are appointed by the president of Ireland on the advice of the taoiseach and with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann . Mr Fanning is leading the State's defence. The hearing of Mr Murphy's case immediately followed the conclusion of submissions in a similar case brought by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly . Mr Ross told the court super-junior ministers were treated 'identically' to senior ministers in the context of cabinet meetings during his tenure in government. Giving evidence, he agreed they were never 'curtailed' from participating by virtue of their 'nominally lower status'. On one occasion, Finian McGrath, a super-junior minister between 2016 and 2020, 'changed the government's mind' on a specific cabinet decision after threatening to resign, Mr Ross said. Put to him by Mr Fanning that there is a difference between having political influence and being a member of government, and that many people can exercise political influence, Mr Ross said being present at cabinet is 'not just a matter of political influence'. Super-juniors' presence at meetings gives them a 'special influence' over legislation, Mr Ross said. 'I saw it; they have a much greater influence than other ministers of state.' Taking to the witness box, Mr Murphy said super-junior Ministers are acting as de facto members of Government but are not accountable to or approved by the Dáil. Similar to Mr Daly's case, Mr Murphy's case points to article 28 of the Constitution, which limits the number of Government members to 15, including the Taoiseach, and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority. Mr Murphy's senior counsel, John Rogers, said there is 'no law whatsoever to say that a minister of state is permitted to be in the government'. He said the Taoiseach and the Government have 'usurped a power they don't have' to bring strangers – in a constitutional sense – into the Government room. Mr Rogers submitted that a 'democratic principle' underpins the process by which deputies are nominated to Government by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dáil. Counsel submitted that super-juniors attend participate in Government deliberations and decisions without any process of approval in the Dáil – unlike the 15 members of Government. The case, sitting before three High Court judges, continues.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Q&A: Will survivors of historical abuse in schools be compensated? And who will be liable?
The Government has establishment a commission of investigation into historical sexual abuse in all day and boarding schools. What scale of abuse is thought to have occurred? An initial scoping inquiry was told of some 2,395 allegations of historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools run by religious orders. It was told it involved 884 alleged abusers in 308 schools countrywide between 1927 to 2013. Most of these allegations were reported from the records of some 42 religious orders that run, or previously ran, schools in the State. When did this abuse occur? The abuse was mostly described as having occurred from the early 1960s to the early 1990s, with the highest number of reported incidents occurring in the early to mid-1970s. READ MORE What prompted the inquiry in the first place? In a RTÉ Radio 1 documentary Blackrock Boys , broadcast in November 2022, brothers Mark and David Ryan outlined how they had both been sexually abused at the Spiritan-run Blackrock College in the 1970s, discovering each other's abuse there only in 2002. The broadcast prompted a public outcry and a surge in allegations of abuse, mostly in religious-run day and boarding schools. Are just religious schools the subject of a scoping inquiry? No – it is all schools. The commission will have a remit to examine the handling of sexual abuse in all types of schools, primary and second level. This reflects the views of survivors. A scoping inquiry recommended that the commission's terms of reference include the handling of allegations, suspicions and concerns of historical sexual abuse across all primary and post-primary schools. Will the voices of survivors be included? A 'survivor engagement process' forms part of the commission. This provides a confidential space where they can share the impact of their experiences. It is not a legal process, however. Will survivors be compensated? That is the intention. Minister for Education Helen McEntee says further work is being done to examine the matter of financial redress and how any future scheme could be funded. This is viewed by many survivors as a measure of accountability for those responsible for sexual abuse in schools. Can religious orders be forced to contribute? Given the difficulties in extracting funds from religious orders in the past for abuse-related issues, many will be sceptical about whether this is possible. The Government says a further phase of detailed investigation and data analysis on this issue is essential. Ms McEntee has said 'all potential levers that can be brought to bear to secure funding from those responsible for sexual abuse in schools' will be considered. This is likely to include looking at changes to the statute of limitations on civil claims and changes to the status of unincorporated associations, as well as looking at the assets that religious orders have. The reality, however, is that survivors do not know what they will get, or when, or if they will get redress at all – and there is no clear pathway towards ensuring religious orders pay into a scheme. Will the State be liable? It could be. Some campaigners, such as Louise O'Keeffe, who won a landmark case following abuse in primary school, argue that her case established the principle that the State had an obligation to protect pupils from past ill-treatment at school and should have put safeguarding measures in place to help minimise the risk of sexual abuse. Worries over the extent of the potential redress bill and its impact on the exchequer run deep. In 2023, for example, officials in the Department of Education outlined that a broad scheme would expose the exchequer to 'unquantifiable and potentially enormous costs'. Earlier this year, officials in the Department of Public Expenditure warned that the recommendations from the scoping inquiry have the potential to 'very significantly impact on public finances'. As of now, however, the State cannot confidently measure its liability, nor ignore the risk of footing the bill. How will the commission work? Mr Justice Michael MacGrath – appointed to the High Court in January 2018 and a judge on the Court of Appeal since June 2024 – will chair the commission. It is due to undertake preliminary work over the coming months and will seek initial expressions of interest from people who may wish to provide information to it. As with many other statutory inquiries, what are the chances of this dragging on for years? The commission has been given a time frame to report within five years. Ms McEntee said the terms of reference are set out 'very clearly' to ensure it does not go over time. 'There is a very clear pause within the first two years to make sure that the commission can highlight any problems that arise,' she said. 'But also it works both ways, that the minister can then identify if issues are emerging, how the work is being done, and whether or not that will result in an outcome that is appropriate.' Are there implications for schools today? The report of the initial scoping inquiry found that current child protection systems in schools are 'robust and effective', but there are recommendations for further safeguarding steps. The department said it has already begun to implement these recommendations.
