More stories

  • in

    Shocked by Trump Meeting, Zelensky and Ukraine Try to Forge a Path Forward

    For months leading into the American elections last fall, the prospect of a second Trump presidency deepened uncertainty among Ukrainians over how enduring American support would prove in a war threatening their national survival.After President Volodymyr Zelensky’s disastrous meeting with President Trump in the White House on Friday, many Ukrainians were moving toward a conclusion that seemed perfectly clear: Mr. Trump has chosen a side, and it is not Ukraine’s.In one jaw-dropping meeting, the once unthinkable fear that Ukraine would be forced to engage in a long war against a stronger opponent without U.S. support appeared to move exponentially closer to reality.“For Ukraine, it is clarifying, though not in a great way,” Phillips O’Brien, an international relations professor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, said in an interview. “Ukraine can now only count on European states for the support it needs to fight.”An immediate result was that Ukrainians, including opposition politicians, were generally supportive of Mr. Zelensky on Saturday for not bending to Mr. Trump despite tremendous pressure.Maryna Schomak, a civilian whose son’s cancer diagnosis has been complicated by the destruction of Ukraine’s largest children’s cancer hospital by a Russian missile strike, said that Mr. Zelensky had conducted himself with dignity.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Several Lawsuits Target the Lack of Transparency in Elon Musk’s DOGE

    The lack of transparency surrounding the so-called Department of Government Efficiency is emerging as a target in the courts.Elon Musk likes to talk about transparency. But a major story my colleagues published today shows how he baked secrecy into his Department of Government Efficiency from the start.When devising a plan to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, Musk and his advisers deliberately designed an organizational structure that they thought would be outside the purview of federal public records laws, my colleagues wrote:The operation would take over the U.S. Digital Service, which had been housed within the Office of Management and Budget, and would become a stand-alone entity in the executive office of the president. Mr. Musk would not be named the DOGE administrator, but rather an adviser to Mr. Trump in the White House.White House advisers, unlike employees at other departments in the executive branch, are covered under executive privilege and typically do not have to disclose their emails or records immediately.Now that secrecy is emerging as a key legal target in the courts.Several lawsuits filed in recent weeks are pushing the administration to be more transparent about Musk’s and his initiative’s activities. They argue that the administration is violating the nation’s public records laws, and in some cases they are essentially asking judges to determine that the department is an agency that’s subject to those laws.“These lawsuits are essentially saying you can’t have an agency that’s this powerful, that’s making these enormous decisions, that’s also entirely secret and cut off from the public,” said Jonathan Shaub, a law professor at the University of Kentucky who advised President Biden on matters of executive privilege.That privilege is vast, and entities like the National Security Council have successfully drawn protections from it by arguing that their officials simply advise the president, who makes the final decisions. Some legal experts think that could be a harder case to make about the Department of Government Efficiency.It could all turn on the question of how much power Musk really has — an issue that came up in a hearing in another lawsuit in Washington today — and what his department really is.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Putin Is Ready to Carve Up the World. Trump Just Handed Him the Knife.

    Washington and Moscow have been repairing relations at breakneck speed, comparable only to the speed at which the Trump administration is breaking things at home. After meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 18, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said the two sides had resolved to “eliminate impediments” to improving bilateral relations, a phrasing that sent chills down the spines of Russian exiles — myself included — who have sought what at the time seemed like safe harbor in the United States.Of course, Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has his sights set on much more than a bunch of political exiles. And his negotiations with President Trump about Ukraine are not just about Ukraine. Putin wants nothing less than to reorganize the world, the way Joseph Stalin did with the accords he reached with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in the Crimean city of Yalta in February 1945. Putin has wanted to carve the globe up for a long time. Now, at last, Trump is handing him the knife.How do I know Putin wants this? Because he has said so. In fact, he, Lavrov and a cadre of Kremlin propagandists and revisionist historians haven’t shut up about Yalta for more than a decade. After illegally annexing Crimea in 2014, Putin addressed a gathering celebrating the 70th anniversary of the accords; it culminated in the unveiling of a monument to the three Allied leaders.His reverence for the Yalta accords goes beyond the glorification of the once-mighty Soviet Union and its leader Stalin; he believes that the agreement those three heads of state struck — with the Soviet Union keeping three Baltic States it had annexed as well as parts of Poland and Romania, and later securing domination over six Eastern and Central European countries and part of Germany — remains the only legitimate framework for European borders and security. In February, as Russia celebrated the accords’ 80th anniversary, and prepared to sit down with the Trump administration, Lavrov and the official Russia historians reiterated this message in article after article.This week, Alexander Dugin, a self-styled philosopher who has consistently supplied Putin with the ideological language to back up his policies, sat down for a long interview with Glenn Greenwald, the formerly leftist American journalist. Dugin affably explained why Russia invaded Ukraine: because it wanted and needed to reclaim its former European holdings but realistically could attempt to occupy only Ukraine. He also laid out potential pathways to ending the war. At the very least, he said, Russia would require a partition, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. He was purposefully using the language the Allies applied to Germany in Yalta.On X, where Dugin has been hyperactive in the last weeks, he is even bolder. In the lead-up to elections last week in Germany, he posted, “Vote AfD or we will occupy Germany once more and divide it between Russia and USA.” (A German journalist friend sent me a screenshot asking if the post was real — German journalists are less accustomed to the unimaginable than Russian ones.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Ukrainians Blindsided by Deal’s Breakdown and by Trump’s Actions

    Some said they felt the U.S. president was disrespectful and that they were proud of their leader for standing up to him.Liudmyla Shestakova has lost a lot to this war — her son, and his wife, who died together on the front lines. But she’s a realist, like many in this mining region in central Ukraine. And ever since President Trump suggested it, she has thought that her country should sign a proposed deal that would give America some profits from mining in Ukraine.Ms. Shestakova, 65, who works with an environmental group called Flora in the city of Kropyvnytskyi, had hoped a deal between the U.S. and Ukraine on critical minerals could bring much-needed investment to the region.But on Friday night, Ms. Shestakova, like many people in Ukraine, was shocked and blindsided at how the deal fell apart and how she felt that President Trump treated Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, almost like a serf who didn’t bow and kiss the ring quite enough.“With a trustworthy partner, this could have been a beneficial deal for everyone,” said Ms. Shestakova, who once ran Flora and now sits on its supervisory board. “But with a partner like Trump, it could actually be dangerous.”Across Ukraine, people said they were upset Friday night. They also said they wouldn’t stop fighting, even if America walked away.“It will be hard, but we will survive,” said Iryna Tsilyk, 42, a poet and film director in the capital, Kyiv, whose husband serves in the army. “Today, I was not ashamed of my president and my country. I am not sure that the Americans can say the same.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Pro-Russia Politicians in Ukraine, Inspired by Trump and Putin, See an Opening

    From prison and from exile, supporters of Moscow have been ramping up social media posts aimed at backing Russia’s call for elections in Ukraine and slamming President Volodymyr Zelensky.Three years ago, support for members of a Ukrainian political party that advocated closer ties with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia plunged to near zero after Russian forces invaded Ukraine, flattening whole cities and killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians.The party, called the Opposition Platform for Life, was banned, some members went to jail on charges of treason, and others fled Ukraine. A few former members banded together in a new faction and still sit in Parliament, but have generally kept quiet since the Russian invasion.Now some of those pro-Russian politicians are attempting an unlikely comeback, inspired by President Trump’s attacks on Ukraine’s current leadership and Russian demands, echoed by Mr. Trump, that the country hold elections.The politicians are posting widely viewed videos on social media in which they have promoted themselves as future candidates; criticized President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government; and praised Mr. Trump.The efforts are unlikely to gain much traction in a country that remains overwhelmingly hostile to Russia and the people who have supported it. But analysts say the videos, which are rife with misinformation, could nonetheless stoke divisions at a time when Ukraine’s unity and its leaders are under threat from a hostile Mr. Trump.Oleksandr Dubinsky, a former member of Parliament, has produced videos promoting what he calls a pro-Trump and pro-peace agenda from prison, where is he serving time for treason. His videos place blame Ukraine’s leaders for the war, saying they are committing genocide against the Ukrainian people, an echo of Russian propaganda.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Anxiety in Gaza and Israel as Cease-Fire Nears End of First Phase

    A series of hostage-for-prisoner swaps agreed under the first phase of the cease-fire is complete, and no one knows how long the uneasy calm will last.Shamekh al-Dibs has not begun rebuilding his home in northern Gaza, which was destroyed last year. He is living in a nearby school turned into a shelter for displaced Gazans, grappling with a deep uncertainty over whether this tense calm will last.The first phase of the cease-fire elapses on Saturday night and there have been few signs of progress in talks on the next steps. This leaves both Israelis and Palestinians in limbo, not knowing how long the truce will hold after the first series of hostage-for-prisoner exchanges was completed early Thursday morning.“Our only hope is that the cease-fire continues,” said Mr. al-Dibs, 36 and currently unemployed.For now, the first six-week phase of the cease-fire is set to conclude without a clear framework to take its place. That does not necessarily mean an immediate return to war: The agreement says the truce can continue as long as negotiators are working on the next steps. But it makes the already fragile pause in the fighting more precarious.Israel was sending a delegation to Cairo on Thursday to see whether it could find a formula with Hamas to extend the cease-fire in exchange for the release of more hostages, government officials said, without providing further details.Extending the deal will entail tackling much thornier issues, such as a permanent end to the war and the reconstruction of Gaza. Under the terms of the phased agreement, Israel would effectively have to declare an end to its war against Hamas in order to secure the release of some two dozen hostages believed to still be alive.For the families of Israeli captives, the prospect of their loved ones’ release is both closer than ever before and agonizingly distant. They are well aware that formidable obstacles remain to securing their freedom given the lack of an agreement on the second phase of the deal.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump’s First Cabinet Meeting Was a Display of Deference to Elon Musk

    President Trump’s first cabinet meeting was a display of deference to Elon Musk.A couple of hours before President Trump convened his cabinet for the first time, he used his social media platform to declare that the group was “EXTREMELY HAPPY WITH ELON.”As the meeting began, it seemed to be the members’ job to prove it.The secretaries sat largely in silence behind their paper name cards, the sort of thing you need when, powerful though you may be, you are not a household name. And they listened politely as the richest man in the world loomed over them, scolding them about the size of the deficit, sheepishly admitting to temporarily canceling an effort to prevent ebola and insisting they were all crucial to his mission.“I’d like to thank everyone for your support,” Elon Musk said.In fact, Musk has not had the support of every cabinet secretary — at least not when he tried to order their employees to account for their time over email or resign. When a reporter asked about the obvious tension, Trump kicked the question to the secretaries themselves.“Is anybody unhappy with Elon?” Trump asked. “If you are, we’ll throw him out of here. Is anybody unhappy?”Nobody was unhappy. Nervous laughter rippled around the table as Howard Lutnick, the secretary of commerce, grinned and led a slow clap, which Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, eventually joined before scratching her nose.Next to her, Kelly Loeffler, the small business administrator, applauded and attended to an itch on her ear. Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered up a single clap and gazed over at Musk, a fixed smile on his face. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, shifted in his seat.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Israel Strikes Syria Hours After Country’s Leader Demands Withdrawal

    The attacks in southern Syria are part of a new policy aimed at protecting what Israel calls its “security zone” in the region. Syria’s new government has condemned that policy.The Israeli military said it had struck sites in southern Syria on Tuesday, just hours after the new Syrian leadership demanded that Israel withdraw from territory it has seized since the fall of the Assad regime.The attacks were aimed at “military targets in southern Syria, including headquarters and sites containing weapons,” the Israeli military said in a statement. It added, “The presence of military assets and forces in the southern part of Syria constitutes a threat” to Israeli citizens.Israel Katz, the Israeli defense minister, said in a statement late on Tuesday that the attacks were part of a “new policy” of ensuring a “demilitarized southern Syria.” He added that “any attempt” by either Syrian forces or militant groups to establish a presence in what Israel has deemed its “security zone” in the region “will be met with fire.”That policy was announced by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on Sunday in a speech demanding “the complete demilitarization” of southern Syria. The speech and Israel’s actions drew the condemnation of Syria’s new government on Tuesday.The country’s interim president, Ahmed al-Shara, presided over a national unity conference on Tuesday that was intended to build consensus around the nation’s political and economic future. It concluded with a statement decrying Israeli incursions in Syria and rejecting “the provocative statements of the Israeli prime minister.”Syria’s new government said Israel was violating Syria’s sovereignty and a longstanding agreement, and called on the international community to pressure Israel “to stop the aggression.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More