Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Did Putin Play Trump?

News

Did Putin Play Trump?

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during the New Ideas For New Times Forum at the Russia National Center, July 3, 2025, in Moscow, Russia.

(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump issued a warning to Russia this week. He demanded that Russian leader Vladimir Putin end the Ukraine war in 50 days, or else. But does anyone care?

“Putin played Trump” has resurfaced with renewed intensity as political analysts, former aides, and media commentators dissect the evolving dynamic between the two leaders. What was once a murmur has become a chorus, with even conservative voices acknowledging that Trump may have misjudged the Russian president’s intentions.


A deflated Trump made his favorite threat, economic sanctions—an about-face policy shift after months of failed diplomacy. For years, Trump touted that he alone could end the devastating war, but now he says, “We get a lot of bulls--- thrown at us by Putin. He’s very nice to us all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless," he told reporters at Monday's White House meeting.

Trump also warned of secondary tariffs on Russian trading partners China and India, and more weapons for Kyiv if Moscow didn't comply.

Putin has yet to respond publicly, but Russian leaders did in a similar way to Trump's request to halt missile strikes. “Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences,” Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, flippantly wrote in a post on the social platform X.

Investors have largely brushed off the ultimatum, according to reports from The Hill. The Moscow Stock Exchange grew by 2.7 percent as of Tuesday morning, signaling a lack of concern that Trump will follow through on his threat.

Trump Tries To Rewrite History

Trump is also backpedaling on his bromance with Putin, saying, “He’s fooled a lot of people. He fooled Bush. He fooled a lot of people. He fooled Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden. He didn’t fool me,” Trump said.

However, just five months ago, Trump said he did trust Putin on the most central of issues – whether he wanted peace in Ukraine, reports CNN. “I believe he wants peace,” Trump said February 14, adding: “I mean, I know him very well. Yeah, I think he wants peace. I think he would tell me if he didn’t. … I trust him on this subject.”

Three years ago, Trump described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising a move that spurred universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies. “I went in yesterday, and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.”

Lukewarm Reaction to Trump’s Threat

CNN reports that officials, including European Union Foreign Affairs Chief Kaja Kallas, praised the tougher stance but cast the timeframe as a very long one.

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has often allied with Trump, praised him for “turning up the heat on Putin.”

“But why wait? Putin is butchering innocent people every day. Let’s get this thing over,” Johnson posted on X.

Fox News’ chief political analyst Brit Hume recently stated that Trump “got played by Putin,” citing the president’s initial reluctance to escalate the conflict in Ukraine and his belief that Putin was ready to negotiate peace. Hume noted that Trump was “jollied along” under the impression that Putin wanted to end the war, only to realize that the Russian leader had broader ambitions.

Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, offered a behind-the-scenes look at Trump’s interactions with Putin. She claimed that Putin often mocked Trump during their calls, using subtle language and tone that was lost in translation. Hill described the exchanges as “amateur hour,” suggesting that Trump was more focused on personal rapport than strategic diplomacy.

"Trump put Putin above U.S. national interests, and Putin hasn’t returned the favor," argues Nicholas Grossman, political science professor at the University of Illinois. "Instead of prioritizing Trump’s image-crafting, Putin keeps prioritizing Russia’s national power. Putin wouldn’t even need to do much — he could just say this was all Joe Biden’s fault and give Trump something flimsy he can call a deal — but Putin won’t do even that. If anything, Putin seems to enjoy these displays of dominance, toying with Trump rather than giving him a fig leaf," he writes in an opinion editorial.

Whether Trump is a victim of geopolitical gamesmanship or a willing participant in a flawed strategy, the consensus is shifting. The narrative that Putin outmaneuvered Trump is no longer confined to partisan corners—it’s being echoed across the political spectrum.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.





Read More

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

Keep ReadingShow less