Trump threatens Russia with sanctions, tariffs until ceasefire, peace deal with Ukraine
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Friday said he would turn up the heat on Russia until it reaches a ceasefire and peace deal with Ukraine.
Trump threatened Russia with sanctions and tariffs in a Truth Social post.
“Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED. To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late. Thank you,” he posted without further details.
The Biden administration previously issued sanctions on Russia after it invaded Ukraine three years ago.
Trump has come under criticism for not being tough on Putin during his negotiations with Russia and Ukraine to end the conflict. He has falsely and repeatedly claimed that Ukraine started the war.
The president’s post came hours after Russia launched a major attack on Ukraine in which it deployed 261 missiles and drones that targeted energy and gas infrastructure in various regions, according to Ukrainian officials.
The Trump administration also paused military aid and intelligence data with Ukraine this week, following last week’s explosive argument between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration must comply with a district court order and pay out nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance funds to nonprofit aid groups for work already completed on the government’s behalf.
The court ruled 5-4 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberal justices.
The court did not elaborate on the decision but said the district court judge should “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”
A lower court judge is currently weighing whether or not to impose a longer-term preliminary injunction against the foreign aid freeze.
Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent that he was “stunned” by the majority’s decision.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) $2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise,” he wrote.
The Trump administration did not immediately comment on the ruling.
The court’s majority did not specify a deadline by which the administration needed to comply.
The administration initially tried to freeze the payments via an executive order before U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali ordered the payments to resume in a temporary restraining order issued three weeks ago.
Last week, Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled the administration violated the terms of a temporary restraining order and ordered the Trump administration to dole out delayed payments by 11:59 p.m. Feb. 26.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice acknowledged that the Trump administration ignored the temporary restraining order, which prohibited them from freezing foreign aid funds since the order was issued. Instead, they argued that they should not be required to pay back the money because of “sovereign immunity.”
During an extended exchange with Ali, a DOJ lawyer struggled to answer basic questions about the Trump administration’s compliance with the temporary restraining order.
Chief Justice Roberts ordered a stay before the deadline as the court heard the case.
Foreign aid groups have been teetering on bankruptcy following Trump’s decision to end aid and have been searching for answers.
During a Feb. 13 meeting with representatives from those organizations, Pete Marocco, the Trump administration official tasked with the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) defended what he called a “total zero-based review,” and arguing that some areas of foreign aid required “radical change,” according to audio from that meeting that was obtained by ABC News.
“As far as payment, one of the reasons that there have been problems with some of the payments is because, despite the president’s executive order, despite the secretary’s guidance, we still had nefarious actors in the agencies that were trying to push out hundreds of illegal payments,” Marocco said. “And so we were able to seize control of that, stop them, take control of some of those people, and make sure that that money was not getting out the door.”
Marocco suggested that payments for organizations with existing contracts would resume the following week, but they remained frozen.
ABC News’ Will Steakin, Lucien Bruggeman and Shannon K. Kingston contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Ahead of expected talks between the United States and Iran over the weekend, the State Department pushed back on the idea that the discussion would be a negotiation over Tehran’s nuclear program.
“This is a meeting that’s happening, right? On Saturday, there’s a meeting. There’s no negotiations,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday.
“This is a dynamic where the president has made very clear and certainly the secretary has made very clear that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,” she said. “It’s touching base, yes. Again, it’s not a negotiation. It’s a meeting.”
However, Bruce and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt both emphasized that President Donald Trump is seeking to cut a deal with Tehran.
“When it comes to Iran, the president has reimposed crippling sanctions on the Iranian regime, and he’s made it very clear to Iran they have a choice to make: You can strike a deal with the president, you can negotiate, or there will be hell to pay,” Leavitt said.
Bruce confirmed that Steve Witkoff, the special envoy to the Middle East, will represent the Trump administration during the session. But beyond that, both the White House and the State Department have been tight-lipped concerning details about the planned talks, which Trump announced during an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday.
Trump also asserted that the U.S. was already conducting direct diplomacy with Iran for the first time since 2018, when he exited an Obama-era nuclear deal with the country.
“We’re having direct talks with Iran, and they’ve started. It’ll go on Saturday. We have a very big meeting, and we’ll see what can happen,” Trump said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later posted on X that the meeting Trump referenced would take place in Oman and that talks would be “indirect high-level talks.”
“It is as much an opportunity as it is a test,” Araghchi said.
On Tuesday, the White House and the State Department stood by the president’s initial description of the forthcoming conversations and rejected Iran’s characterization of the talks as indirect.
“That’s nice for the Iranians,” Bruce said of Araghchi’s comments. “I would refer back to the president of the United States, President Donald John Trump.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court for emergency intervention in the case of a Maryland man the government — by its own admission — removed to El Salvador by mistake and now must return by 11:59 p.m. on Monday under a lower court’s order.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the filing that a federal court cannot order a president to engage in foreign diplomacy, which he says is implicitly involved in any potential return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who the Trump administration alleges is a gang member.
“The Constitution charges the President, not federal district courts, with the conduct of foreign diplomacy and protecting the Nation against foreign terrorists, including by effectuating their removal,” Sauer writes. “And this order sets the United States up for failure. The United States cannot guarantee success in sensitive international negotiations in advance, least of all when a court imposes an absurdly compressed, mandatory deadline that vastly complicates the give-and-take of foreign-relations negotiations.”
The appeal to the Supreme Court came Monday morning, just before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that Garcia must be returned by 11:59 p.m. on Monday
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s emergency motion to block the order to return Garcia to the U.S. after he was sent to a prison in El Salvador despite having protected legal status.
In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed Xinis’ order requiring the government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.
“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the judges said. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”
Xinis had ruled on Friday that Garcia must be returned to the U.S.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
