Senate majority leader says Republicans ready to move on Russia sanctions bill when Trump gives green light
A bipartisan U.S. sanctions bill co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., would target the Russian economy and countries that help prop up Russian President Vladimir Putin's war machine by buying cheap oil and gas.
"We ought to do whatever we can to help Ukraine succeed and to put pressure on Russia to come to the table," Thune said Wednesday in a wide-ranging interview on "Special Report."
The bill has 85 co-sponsors in the Senate but has been put on hold after Trump announced Monday at the White House that he would sell weapons to NATO countries for distribution to Ukraine.
Trump also threatened to enact 100% secondary tariffs on countries that trade with Russia if a deal isn't made within 50 days.
"The president, I think, has decided to move sort of unilaterally on that front, both on sanctions and with respect to weapons delivery to Ukraine. So, I think he understands what it's going to take to get the Russians to the table," Thune explained. "We want to work with him and be partners on that."
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told the Russian state-owned news agency TASS that ultimatums and demands to Moscow are unacceptable.
"It is necessary to focus on political and diplomatic work. The president of the Russian Federation has repeatedly said that we are ready to negotiate and that the diplomatic path is the one we prefer," Ryabkov said.
He added that the war in Ukraine would continue if his country's war goals weren't addressed through diplomacy. Moscow has maintained its maximalist demands during two rounds of negotiations in Istanbul, which Ukrainian officials say essentially call for Kyiv's capitulation.
Trump has grown frustrated with Putin, who has refused to agree to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire proposed by the United States and its European allies earlier this year.
His two-week deadlines for Russia to advance peace talks with Ukraine have repeatedly expired without significant progress or consequences.
Ukraine's Air Force said Tuesday that Russia launched more than 400 drones at multiple Ukrainian cities, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's hometown of Kryvyi Rih.
"I think what the president wants in all these circumstances — he starts with — from a proposition that he wants peace in these areas of conflict around the world. But at some point, there's got to be leverage on Russia," Thune told Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier.
"And right now, they are continuing to fire into areas where they are killing innocent civilians."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The House is poised to OK Trump's $9 billion cut to public broadcasting and foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House is expected late Thursday to approve President Donald Trump's request to claw back about $9 billion for public broadcasting and foreign aid as Republicans target institutions and programs they view as bloated or out of step with their agenda. The White House had described the package as a test case and said that if Congress went along, more would come. The House's approval would mark the first time in decades that a president has successfully submitted such a rescissions request to Congress, and even then the results were more mixed. Unlike other presidents, Trump is getting nearly all the cuts he requested. Opponents voiced concerns not only about the programs targeted, but about Congress ceding its spending powers to the executive branch as investments approved on a bipartisan basis are being subsequently canceled on party-line votes. No Democrats supported the measure when it passed the Senate, 51-48, in the early morning hours Thursday. Two Republicans also voted no. 'We need to get back to fiscal sanity and this is an important step," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters. The package cancels about $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly $8 billion for a variety of foreign aid programs, many designed to help countries where drought, disease and political unrest endure. The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending comes just weeks after Republicans also muscled through Trump's tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase the U.S. debt by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade. A heavy blow to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting The cancellation of $1.1 billion for the CPR represents the full amount it is due to receive during the next two budget years. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming. Democrats were unsuccessful in restoring in the Senate. Lawmakers with large rural constituencies have voiced particular concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., said Tuesday that the stations are "not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.' Less than a day later, as the Senate debated the bill, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some money administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states. But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save.' Inside the cuts to foreign aid Among the foreign aid cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and family reunification for refugees and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations. Democrats argued that the Republican administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the amount it takes to save a starving child or prevent the transmission of disease is minuscule, even as the investments secure cooperation with the U.S. on other issues. The cuts made to foreign aid programs through Trump's Department of Government Efficiency were having life-and-death consequences around the world, he said. 'People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us,' Schatz said. 'We are causing death.' After objections from several Republicans, GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under Republican President George W. Bush. Looking ahead to future spending fights Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities. Triggered by the official rescissions request from the White House, the legislation only needs a simple majority vote to advance instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster. That meant Republicans could use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines. In the end, two Republican senators, Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, though a few other Republicans also raised concerns about the process. 'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut. Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the imminent successful passage of the rescissions shows 'enthusiasm' for getting the nation's fiscal situation under control. 'We're happy to go to great lengths to get this thing done,' he said during a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. In response to questions about the relatively small size of the cuts -- $9 billion -- Vought said that was because 'I knew it would be hard' to pass in Congress. Vought said another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon.' 'But we're not there yet,' he said. ___ Associated Press writers Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska, and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report. Kevin Freking And Mary Clare Jalonick, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
The House is poised to OK Trump's $9 billion cut to public broadcasting and foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House is expected late Thursday to approve President Donald Trump's request to claw back about $9 billion for public broadcasting and foreign aid as Republicans target institutions and programs they view as bloated or out of step with their agenda. The White House had described the package as a test case and said that if Congress went along, more would come. The House's approval would mark the first time in decades that a president has successfully submitted such a rescissions request to Congress, and even then the results were more mixed. Unlike other presidents, Trump is getting nearly all the cuts he requested. Opponents voiced concerns not only about the programs targeted, but about Congress ceding its spending powers to the executive branch as investments approved on a bipartisan basis are being subsequently canceled on party-line votes. No Democrats supported the measure when it passed the Senate, 51-48, in the early morning hours Thursday. Two Republicans also voted no. 'We need to get back to fiscal sanity and this is an important step,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters. The package cancels about $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly $8 billion for a variety of foreign aid programs, many designed to help countries where drought, disease and political unrest endure. The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending comes just weeks after Republicans also muscled through Trump's tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase the U.S. debt by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade. A heavy blow to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting The cancellation of $1.1 billion for the CPR represents the full amount it is due to receive during the next two budget years. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming. Democrats were unsuccessful in restoring in the Senate. Lawmakers with large rural constituencies have voiced particular concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., said Tuesday that the stations are 'not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.' Less than a day later, as the Senate debated the bill, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some money administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states. But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save.' Inside the cuts to foreign aid Among the foreign aid cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and family reunification for refugees and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations. Democrats argued that the Republican administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the amount it takes to save a starving child or prevent the transmission of disease is minuscule, even as the investments secure cooperation with the U.S. on other issues. The cuts made to foreign aid programs through Trump's Department of Government Efficiency were having life-and-death consequences around the world, he said. 'People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us,' Schatz said. 'We are causing death.' After objections from several Republicans, GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under Republican President George W. Bush. Looking ahead to future spending fights Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities. Triggered by the official rescissions request from the White House, the legislation only needs a simple majority vote to advance instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster. That meant Republicans could use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines. In the end, two Republican senators, Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, though a few other Republicans also raised concerns about the process. 'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut. Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the imminent successful passage of the rescissions shows 'enthusiasm' for getting the nation's fiscal situation under control. 'We're happy to go to great lengths to get this thing done,' he said during a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. In response to questions about the relatively small size of the cuts — $9 billion — Vought said that was because 'I knew it would be hard' to pass in Congress. Vought said another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon.' 'But we're not there yet,' he said.
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why Elon Musk's third party is likely to fail
One of the most unpopular people on the American political scene says he'll launch a new political party to take on the Democrats and Republicans. It will likely fail. That's the only conclusion you can draw from the data about Elon Musk and his new 'America Party.' Take a look at CNN's new poll on Musk and his political aspirations. Just 25% of all adults and 22% of voters favor a Musk-run third party to compete against Democrats and Republicans. The vast majority of both adults (74%) and voters (77%) oppose such an endeavor. The CNN poll isn't alone on the subject. Quinnipiac University also polled about Musk's party this week, and the results were just as devastating. Only 17% of voters would consider joining Musk and his venture to compete with the GOP and Democrats. More than three-quarters (77%) gave a thumbs-down. It really shouldn't be surprising that Americans are against a party named after them. History hasn't been too kind to third parties, independents or write-ins that seek to shake up the political scene. George Washington has been the only independent to ever win a presidential election. Washington did so before political parties were a real thing in this country. And last I checked, Musk did not lead the Continental Army across the Delaware as the top general during our country's revolution. (He is also not eligible to run for president given that he was born in South Africa.) Alabama's George Wallace was the last third-party candidate to win a state in a presidential election. That was so long ago (1968) that we hadn't yet landed on the moon. Musk, smartly, seems to be more interested in taking on Democrats and Republicans in congressional races than trying to run a presidential candidate. The track record there for third parties, independents or write-ins isn't too hot to trot, either. By my count, there have been a bit more than 13,000 congressional elections since 1970. These non-major party candidates have won about 24 of them. That's about 0.2% for those counting at home. Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont account for more than half those winners. Such daunting math might make you wonder why anyone would spend any time pounding the keyboard to discuss Musk's potential third party. The answer is money. Many third parties fail because they can't get their message out. Musk's party wouldn't have that problem given that he is one of the richest men in the world. But money isn't enough. Businessman Ross Perot had a lot of money that helped get him to get nearly 20% of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential election. Perot didn't win a state as an independent. His showing did, however, lead him to start a third party. He started out in a much better place politically than Musk. Even so, his Reform Party saw minimal success. It reached its apex when Jesse Ventura won on its line in the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election. Today, the Reform Party is remembered by few. Back in 1993, 50% of Americans supported a Perot-formed third party in CNN polling. Fewer (37%) opposed. That's quite different from the three-quarters who are against Musk's third party now. And Perot, in 1993, actually sported net positive favorable ratings in poll after poll. The potentially good news for Musk is that the ground is arguably as fertile for a third party now as almost any point in recent history. Our CNN poll showed that 63% favored one to take on the Democrats and Republicans. Musk is just the wrong guy to lead such a journey. He is, as I said at the top, one of the most unpopular political figures in the country. CNN's poll puts his favorable rating at a mere 23%. More than double that (60%) view him unfavorably. That gives Musk a net favorable rating of -37 percentage points. Oof. Other polls aren't nearly as unkind to the electric car builder and rocket ship maker, but they all paint the picture of a man who is far from beloved. The sad thing about this is that Musk was once quite popular. During the 2016 campaign, Musk's net favorable rating clocked in at +29 points in a Bloomberg survey. He had the highest net favorable rating of any person polled. Now, he's routinely the least popular person in any given poll. Musk's drop didn't occur overnight. It's been happening through the years and has accelerated as he entered the political arena. Musk's woes went into hyperdrive during his divorce from President Donald Trump. All in all, the more Americans see of Musk in politics, the less they like him. Musk's unpopularity makes the normally very difficult efforts to start a third party become herculean.
