Trump Spills on Phone Call With Putin: ‘Not Happy'
The U.S. president spoke with his Russian counterpart for about an hour on Thursday morning, according to The New York Times, and discussed, among other issues, ending the war in Ukraine.
'We had a call, it was a pretty long call. We talked about a lot of things, including Iran,' Trump told reporters. 'And we also talked about, as you know, the war with Ukraine.'
'I'm not happy about that,' he added. 'I didn't make any progress with him today at all.'
It was the sixth known time the leaders have spoken since Trump took office in January.
Trump's efforts to bring about a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire have largely stalled. On the campaign trail last year, he repeatedly pledged to end the conflict within 24 hours of returning to the White House, or 'before I even become president.' After taking office, he claimed he was being sarcastic.
His long-held admiration for the Russian autocrat wavered in May after Moscow launched a major airstrike in Ukraine, marking a humiliation for Trump's ongoing attempts to broker peace between the long-warring nations.
'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time.
A Kremlin spokesperson on Thursday said Trump had broached bringing a quick end to the hostilities, but Moscow 'will not back down' from its objectives in Ukraine.
The conversation was 'frank, businesslike, and specific,' Putin aide Yuri Ushakov said, adding that 'the presidents, naturally, will continue their communication in the near future.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tips And Overtime Deductions In Big Beautiful Bill Create Odd Marriage Incentives
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump (C) shows his signature on the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the ... More White House in Washington, DC, on July 4, 2025. US President Donald Trump signed his flagship tax and spending bill on July 4 in a pomp-laden Independence Day ceremony featuring fireworks and a flypast by the type of stealth bomber that bombed Iran. Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to get his unpopular "One Big Beautiful Bill" through a reluctant Congress in time for him to sign it into law on the US national holiday — and they did so with a day to spare Thursday. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)When President Trump came out for "No tax on tips" during the election campaign, I analyzed two legislative proposals towards that end that were in Congress. So when it came time for me to read the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is where I focused a lot of attention. You can find it on page 247 at the head of Chapter 2 (Delivering On Presidential Priorities To Provide New Middle-Class Tax Relief) - Bill Section 70201 - No Tax On Tips, if you want to follow along. In general, I find the provision very well thought out, except for one very odd thing. There appears to be a marriage penalty for well tipped servers tying the knot with one another and a marriage bonus for well tipped servers marrying industrious blue collar workers. It Is A Deduction The provision adds Section 224 to the Internal Revenue Code which allows a deduction for "qualified tips". The deduction is limited to $25,000. The deduction is phased out starting at $150,000 of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), $300,000 in the case of joint returns. The phase-out rate is $100 per $1,000 of MAGI. The "modifications" that are added are for income excluded because it was earned by working abroad, in US possessions or Puerto Rico. The deduction is not an itemized deduction. You will be able to claim the standard deduction on top of it. If married you have to file a joint return to claim the deduction. Section 225 adds a deduction for qualified overtime compensation. That deduction is $12,500 or $25,000 in the case of a joint return. The phase-out is the same as for the tip deduction. As with the tip deduction married people have to file jointly in order to claim it. Why is the tip deduction limit $25,000 while the overtime deduction limit is either $12,500 or $25,000 depending on whether it is a joint return? I don't know and as a planner I follow Reilly's First Law of Tax Planning - It is what it is. Deal with it. A Get Together There are five high school friends who get together. They are not married but are thinking about it. They each make about $100,000 per year, Robin and Terry are servers in a pricey restaurant. Most of their income is from tips. Blynn and Ashley are electricians who work a lot of overtime, well above the average. Jesse is an enrolled agent. They get together to celebrate the Big Beautiful Bill. Robin and Terry want to know how much no tax on tips is going to save them and Blynn and Ashley are of course interested in the effect of no tax on overtime. It is up to Jesse to explain to them that that is not how it worked out in the Senate. It was converted to a deduction and there is a limitation. Remember they are all single. Jesse makes a big point of that, because Jesse is a bit on the pedantic side. Robin and Terry will each get a $25,000 deduction. Blynn and Ashley will each get a $12,500 deduction. Jesse, of course, gets nothing other than a lot of aggravation. Not that anybody would care about this, but the whole crew will be getting $75,000 in deductions. Since Jesse made such a big deal about them being single, the question of what happens if they get married comes up. And this is where it gets weird. If Robin and Terry get married their deduction drops to $25,000. If Blynn and Ashley marry they get $25,000 on their joint return. So the whole crew now gets $50,000 in deductions - a marriage penalty. But what if Robin marries Blynn and Terry marries Ashley. Now both couples get $50,000 in deductions or $100,000 for the whole crew - a marriage bonus. There Is More A lot of thought seems to have gone into the tips deduction and I think the details of that are worthy of a separate post. For now I will refer you to Reilly's Third Law of Tax Planning - Any clever idea that pops into your probably has (or will have) a corresponding rule that makes it not work. The statute seems to address many of the ways people might try to game the system. The difference in the limit on tips and overtime for single people, but not married people strikes me as possibly unintentional particularly since the phase-our language is identical. The original House bill did not include any limit at all, so that language was dropped in by the Senate. It reminds me a bit of the "grain glitch" in the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017. You probably need to be a real tax nerd or a grain farmer to remember that. That was fixed, but this, if it is not what was intended, may be harder to fix. By the way, there was a reason that I have waited to read the Big Beautiful Bill. Starting in 1984, I deeply studied the proposals which ultimately resulted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That one was really big, which is why we still call it the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. TRA 1986 made my career. There was, however, a downside to all that study. In the years after enactment, I would often have ideas pop into my head based on provisions that were not enacted. So now I don't read them till they are signed.
Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Ultralong JGBs Slip Amid Fiscal Worries
0019 GMT — Ultralong JGBs slip in price terms in the morning Tokyo session amid fiscal worries. Campaigning for Japan's upper-house election on July 20 started late last week, with the political parties proposing various stimulus measures that could require increased debt issuance. 'Fiscal concerns continue to put upward pressure on longer-dated rates in many rates markets and will continue to do so,' ING's rates strategists say in a note. Regarding President Trump's tariffs announcement overnight, 'it seems like the market is choosing not to pre-suppose bad-case outcomes. Instead preferring to wait and see what actually happens,' the strategists add. The 30-year JGB yield rises 3.5bps to 3.000%. (
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Illinois Senate President Don Harmon appeals potential $9.8 million fine for improperly accepting campaign cash
An attorney for Illinois Senate President Don Harmon's political operation says state election authorities reached an 'absurd' conclusion earlier this year in issuing nearly $10 million in penalties against Harmon's campaign fund after determining he violated campaign fundraising limits. In an 11-page appeal filed late last week with the Illinois State Board of Elections, attorney Michael Kasper also laid out what amounted to a legal justification for Harmon's unsuccessful attempt in the closing hours of this spring's legislative session to pass a measure that could have negated the case and the $9.8 million potential penalty. At issue is whether Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park, improperly accepted $4 million more in campaign contributions after the March 2024 primary than permitted under limits established in a state law he co-sponsored. The elections board leveled the charges this spring after a Chicago Tribune inquiry about the fundraising activities of his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign fund. Using a frequently used loophole in a law purportedly designed to help candidates compete with wealthy opponents, Harmon contributed $100,001 to his own campaign in January 2023. It was precisely one dollar over the contribution limit threshold that allowed him or anyone else running for his Senate seat to accept unlimited funds for that race. In campaign paperwork, Harmon indicated he thought the move allowed him to collect unlimited cash through the November 2024 election cycle. But board officials informed him that the loophole would only be open through the March 2024 primary, meaning they viewed the campaign cash Harmon collected above campaign restrictions between the March primary and the end of the year was not allowed. Responding to a June 5 letter in which elections board staff notified Harmon's campaign of the impending fine, his attorney argued that the January 2023 contribution should have lifted the contribution limits at least through the end of 2024, if not through the March 2026 primary, when Harmon's seat will next appear on the ballot. 'The staff's analysis would create an absurd system that unfairly benefits self-funding candidates and also turns campaign finance compliance into simple accounting gimmicks,' Kasper wrote. The state elections board had no comment on Harmon's appeal, spokesperson Matt Dietrich said Monday. Harmon campaign spokespersonTom Bowen said the appeal 'speaks for itself.' The next step is for a hearing officer to hold a hearing with both sides and make a recommendation to be reviewed by the board's general counsel before the board issues a final ruling, possibly as soon as its August meeting. In the filing, Harmon's campaign argued the elections board's interpretation would allow a candidate in his position to accept unlimited contributions during a period well before an election when no opponent has entered the race and then have limits put back in place closer to when voting begins. Conversely, a candidate in Harmon's position could also simply lift the limits again by refunding his own cap-busting contribution the day after a primary and depositing it back into the campaign fund 'on the same day — the same hour — the same minute,' the campaign said in its appeal. 'Does the money even have to move accounts, or can it just be an accounting entry?' Kasper wrote. 'According to the Board's staff, (due to) the fact that Mr. Harmon did not go through this, frankly, silly exercise, he now faces almost $10,000,000 in fines and penalties. 'The General Assembly did not enact the thorough and time-tested campaign finance regime that we have today by requiring candidates to jump through accounting hoops simply for the purpose of jumping through the hoop.' In arguing that the contribution cap should have been off through at least the end of 2024, Harmon's filing also calls attention to how the board's determination treated his situation differently than it would a member of the Illinois House, where each seat is up for election every two years. Senate seats, by contrast, have two four-year terms and one two-year term each decade. This issue was at the heart of Harmon's controversial attempt to add language into elections legislation on the final day of the spring session that would have declared it 'existing law' that senators halfway through a four-year term 'shall be deemed to have been nominated at the next general primary election, regardless of whether the candidate's name appeared on the general primary election ballot.' Defending the move to the Tribune days after backlash to the provision tanked the broader elections bill, Harmon said: 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same. The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' In the recent filing, Harmon's attorney points out that a section on contribution limits in the board's own campaign disclosure guide notes, 'Candidates seeking office in the General Assembly have their election cycle reset every general election regardless of participation.' 'It makes little sense that the Board would treat Senate and House candidates the same for purposes of applying contribution limitations, but differently for removing contribution limitations after a primary election,' Kasper wrote. 'Instead, the General Assembly structured election cycles so that all legislative candidates are treated the same.' Calling the board's penalty — a payment to the state's general fund equal to the more than $4 million it says Harmon raised in excess of the limits, plus a nearly $5.8 million fine calculated based on 150% of that same amount — 'excessive' and 'unconstitutional,' Harmon's campaign asked for the matter to be dismissed.
