"Deal" was predictable....

An ugly Ukraine deal was predictable — but this will merely pause Russia’s revanchism

Without U.S. security guarantees and a firm “porcupine strategy” to make sure Kyiv is heavily armed, this deal will just be a way station in Putin’s bid to subjugate the country.

By Jamie Dettmer

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.

Donald Trump will complete his first 100 days in office this week. But despite the U.S. president’s campaign boast about how easily he could settle the Ukraine war in just one day, he still hasn’t managed to broker a ceasefire — let alone a deal to permanently end the conflict.

His administration seems hopeful that will change this week. But if the U.S. does manage to engineer a ceasefire, there should be grave doubts it will be the final word on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s revanchism.

 “We’re close, but we’re not close enough,” said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio this weekend, emphasizing the Trump administration is ready to “walk away” if there’s no breakthrough — a threat his boss has also made.

Yet, Washington’s tone remains upbeat in the wake of Trump’s 15-minute discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral. It was the first time they’d met since their nasty Oval Office spat in February.

Both leaders said the encounter was productive, and Zelenskyy hailed it as potentially “historic.” Meanwhile, Washington also described last week’s meeting between Putin and Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff as productive.

But the U.S. president’s frustration has been building.

Since taking office, he’s been bullying Zelenskyy, blaming him for the war, while playing much nicer with the much less vulnerable Russian leader who actually started the conflict. Witkoff, for his part, has been happily repeating Kremlin talking points, and waxed lyrical about Putin praying for Trump upon learning of the assassination attempt on his life last July.

Last week, however, Trump offered a rare public rebuke of Putin, after the deadliest Russian attack on Ukraine’s capital since last summer. “Vladimir, STOP!” the U.S. president posted on Truth Social, saying he was “not happy” with the assault. He then threatened Russia with sanctions after his meeting with Zelenskyy in St Peter’s Basilica.

So, is this rare reproach and economic threat responsible for some sort of shift in Moscow? Is that the reason Trump and his aides believe they’re nearer a deal? Or is Zelenskyy the one caving?

No matter what, a healthy dose of skepticism remains in order. Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov appeared to harden Moscow’s position on annexed territories in eastern Ukraine in an interview this weekend. And we’ve heard optimistic noises from the Trump administration about the proximity of a deal before. Further caution is also advisable, as the deal’s broad contours have not actually shifted much: It still includes Ukraine never joining NATO, effectively ceding much of the territory Russia has occupied, U.S. recognition of the Crimean peninsula, and lifting sanctions on Russia.

The U.S. position is that in return, Ukraine will be given a “robust security guarantee” by European countries and other friendly states acting as guarantors, but the details on that are murky. And in addition to deeper energy and economic cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, Kyiv will have to sign a minerals deal giving the U.S. half of the revenue from its natural resources, while the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant — controlled by Kyiv but operated by the U.S. — will have to supply both Ukraine and Russia with electricity.

There is no doubt this is a terrible deal for Ukraine. The bloodletting may halt, but not only will Kyiv emerge from this brutal war dismembered, it will also have no credible security guarantee, as Washington is declining to backstop the Europeans. There will be no accountability for documented Russian war crimes, nor will there be any clear compensation from Moscow, as far as we know, for the damage it inflicted. (While the latter is included in the text, there’s no explanation of where the money will come from — or how much.)

This is hardly the “peace through strength” strategy that Trump’s increasingly sidelined Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg had outlined: “We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up.’ And you tell Putin, ‘He’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field,’” Kellogg had said.

But only half of that equation was put into effect. Ukraine is the only party making concessions. Furthermore, this will mark the first time in postwar history that European borders will be redrawn by force of arms — a bad precedent in itself.

Trump aides do have a point, however, when they argue it’s been clear Ukraine would have to cede some territory. This column has argued the war was unwinnable for Ukraine for the past two years, and has been critical of the West’s promises to stick with Ukraine until its 1991 borders are restored.

There was, of course, a moment when this might not have been the case — if the West hadn’t dithered at the start of the war. “Russian troops could have been defeated and expelled from Ukraine back in 2022, if the West had initially taken a tough stance toward Russia, and Ukraine had received the necessary amount of weapons,” explained former Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev. 

But once the West chose to be afraid, the “as long as it takes” mantra was always suspect, as was the frequent assertion that no one should push Ukraine into talks because whoever pays the piper calls the tune. The promise of NATO membership was also a folly, as it was clear Moscow would never allow that to happen.

Far too much hope was placed in economic sanctions, which were never likely to bring Russia to heel. Plus, attritional war always favored Russia, especially as there was no chance Western allies would enter the war as combatants.

In short, an ugly deal was predictable. If you run down your military forces and arms production for decades, fail to draw enforceable red lines and don’t ask hard questions before making promises, this is what happens.

This means Putin’s thuggishness will be rewarded, and there will be no accountability for his army’s atrocious behavior or the unlawful, detestable deportations to Russia from occupied parts of Ukraine. Additionally, the axis of autocrats will be emboldened in their determination to smash the old global order.

More devastatingly, it also means Ukraine will be the punished party — not Russia. And without a U.S.-backed security guarantee, the ceasefire deal will be as worthless as the notorious 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which fixed Ukraine’s borders and underwrote its sovereignty in exchange for the country relinquishing its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal. Putin didn’t observe Russia’s 1994 commitments, and it is unlikely he’ll abide by the proposed deal now.

As Ukraine’s former Minister of Defense Oleksii Reznikov noted to POLITICO last year: “They may sign documents, but whether they keep to agreements is another matter. Remember the Budapest Memorandum. French President Mitterrand refused to add his signature … and warned our president [Leonid Kuchma], ‘Young man, they will trick you.’ Kuchma told me this story. After 30 years, the Russians did just that — they tricked us.”

And without security guarantees and a firm “porcupine strategy” to make sure Ukraine will be heavily armed and even more dangerous to mess with, there’s a trick here too. The deal will likely spell the end of Zelenskyy’s presidency and throw Ukraine into political turmoil over the deal, as ceding territory will likely require a constitutional amendment and referendum.

Putin will then have plenty of opportunity to exploit these political divisions, making the deal just a way station in his revanchist bid to subjugate the country.

Consumed by image

‘Tale of 2 Petes’: Fired adviser describes Pentagon chief consumed by image

Colin Carroll said the Defense secretary was focused on identifying leakers and proving his competence.

By Paul McLeary and Jack Detsch

A former top adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described a head office gripped by paranoia and more focused on photo ops than leadership, the latest in a series of brutal accusations about the inner workings of the Pentagon.

Colin Carroll, who was fired this month from his post as chief of staff to the deputy Defense secretary, told the Megyn Kelly podcast that Hegseth was obsessed with the spread of leaks and spent half his time investigating them at the detriment of defense priorities.

“He was very focused on the leaks, and I think it kind of consumed the team a little bit,” said Carroll, who was terminated amid a leak probe. “If you look at a pie chart of the secretary’s day, at this point, 50 percent of it is probably a leak investigation.”

His ouster came after a vicious brawl among Hegseth’s top advisers, including Joe Kasper, his former chief of staff. Hegseth’s senior adviser, Dan Caldwell, and deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick were also fired during the leak investigation. Kasper left the department last week.

Carroll portrayed a secretary intent on maintaining a public image of competence and control. Hegseth’s staff often films his early morning workouts with troops, which Carroll said was partly an attempt to push back against the idea of Hegseth as undisciplined and a heavy drinker — allegations that trailed him during his confirmation hearing and which he denied.

“In order to combat that image, it’s ‘hey, I’m gonna go work out with the troops,’” Carroll said. ”While that is important — and it’s a thing to do to get out there and helps recruiting and helps morale — if you’re taking a half day trip to the Naval Academy at the same time the budget is due, and we really need some support here … come on, you gotta weigh priorities.”

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell pointed to the increased number of troops on the southern border, the bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, and contracts canceled by DOGE as signs of progress. “Secretary Hegseth has delivered more change to the DOD in 100 days than most secretaries have in four years,” he said. While the media “focuses on gossip, we’re focused on results.”

The ousted adviser described a “tale of two Pete’s” in Hegseth’s behavior, a straight-talking leader able to convince skeptical Republicans to boost higher defense spending, and a Pentagon chief fixed on “weird details” who could get “very agitated” in internal meetings.

Carroll said that Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg assured Carroll he would not be ousted, even after the others were suspended. Carroll said he “very much” wants to return to DOD to work with Feinberg.

Hegseth, after losing his office’s most senior advisers, has relied on a smaller group that includes his wife, his personal lawyer and a former junior military aide.

The Defense Department on Thursday announced three new Hegseth advisers: the former military aide, Col. Ricky Buria; Justin Fulcher, a tech entrepreneur and DOGE adviser; and Patrick Weaver, who worked on Capitol Hill and the Department of Homeland Security in President Donald Trump’s first term but has no Pentagon experience.

Trump, in an interview with The Atlantic published Monday, indicated that he’s closely following the issues with Hegseth’s team.

“He’s gonna get it together,” Trump said. “I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.”

Most Consequential, Damaging, Head-Scratching Things

The Most Consequential, Damaging, Head-Scratching Things Trump Did in His First 100 Days

POLITICO’s newsroom experts make sense of the whirlwind we’re all still trying to process.

By Bill Duryea

Let’s face it. No one in politics today has lived through a first 100 days like the one Donald Trump just dropped on the country.

You have to go back to the Truman administration to find a president who signed more than 100 executive orders in a year; Trump blew by that mark in just over three months. And even that doesn’t quite capture the senses-numbing effect of a president bent on upending every facet of American government as it has been practiced over the past half century or more.

Unraveling security alliances and ripping up trade agreements, disregarding congressional prerogatives and dismissing judicial oversight, renaming large bodies of water that don’t entirely belong to us and mountains that do, not to mention an unapologetic deportation program that has detained and dispatched hundreds of people (some of them U.S. citizens), including to prisons here and abroad — Trump has made keeping up with the news hard and keeping things in perspective even harder.

To help put all this unprecedentedness into context, we brought together a roundtable of POLITICO’s newsroom experts. The discussion featured Megan Messerly, White House reporter; Tessa Berenson Rogers, senior news editor; Ankush Khardori, senior writer and author of the “Rules of Law” column; Camille Gijs, a trade reporter in POLITICO’s Brussels bureau; and Zack Stanton, deputy editor of POLITICO Playbook.

We discussed some of the biggest surprises of Trump’s new term, the actions that will truly have long-term impact, some things that his opponents secretly agree with and the big things that might be coming in the next 100 days.

The conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

Our panelists

Bill Duryea

Deputy editor of news features, POLITICO Magazine

Camille Gijs

Trade reporter, POLITICO Europe

Ankush Khardori

Senior writer, POLITICO Magazine

Megan Messerly

White House reporter, POLITICO

Tessa Rogers

Senior news editor, POLITICO

Zack Stanton

Deputy editor, POLITICO Playbook

This question might be the hardest of the bunch: What is the single most consequential action Trump has taken?

Ankush Khardori: The tariffs.

Megan Messerly: I have two answers here — I’d say either establishing DOGE, and the massive dismantling and overhaul of the federal government, or the massive reshaping of the global trade order that we’re seeing right now with the imposition of these reciprocal tariffs. Even though he’s paused some of those tariffs for 90 days, I think we’re still going to see a dramatic restructuring of U.S. trading relationships. And that speaks broadly to how the president is repositioning the U.S. with regard to its European allies and reshaping the global world order.

Camille Gijs: Tariffs, for sure. It’s sending shockwaves across the world and is triggering the European Union amongst others to look for new partnerships. It’s also pushing those economies to retaliate and to move toward bloc-based trading spheres. Overall, this is rebuilding the global trade order: Economic institutions and countries are still trying to see what order can be brought into the current disorder.

Khardori: I think it encapsulates many of the most important features of Trump 2.0’s approach to the law. They found an obscure law to support their policy, devised supposed “emergencies” to invoke it, and then implemented (or attempted to implement) a global tariff regime that may be illegal (there are strong arguments on this), and that has roiled the global economy, angered the public and undermined the country’s international standing.

Tessa Berenson Rogers: I echo the answer about tariffs. He’s changed economic policy in the most drastic way this country has seen in a century. And I would say overlaying any specific action, the fact that he’s surrounded himself this term with staff in the White House and Cabinet officials who won’t challenge his agenda. He’s been wiser in his second term about how to remove the constraints that to whatever extent kept him hemmed in during the first term.

Zack, you have another contender?

Zack Stanton: I think there’s a good case to be made for the tariffs. But in sheer number of lives, I’d argue the effective shuttering of USAID and much humanitarian aid is the most consequential. The Center for Global Development has estimated the number of lives saved by U.S. aid per year as being in the millions. I think there’s some overlap in terms of tariffs and the aid cuts in their effect, though: Both speak to a major change in America’s role in the world and a rebalancing of the global order.

What will be the hardest thing for any subsequent administration to unwind? Tessa, you want to take the first crack at this?

Rogers: Sure thing. Trump has long oriented his political identity around illegal immigration so I think it’s useful to start there. Our colleague Myah Ward has a new story out that I think gets to the heart of this question. The Biden administration spent four years trying to unwind much of what Trump did in his first term on the issue, so this time Trump is figuring out how to make more permanent changes to the system. He and Stephen Miller have been looking at how to chip away at immigrant due process rights. A senior White House official told Myah “most Americans” would be “shocked” and “appalled at just how much due process an alien can receive.” Depending on how the courts weigh in on some key questions, this Trump presidency could change the fabric of immigration due process in this country.

Stanton: Some of the cuts that DOGE has made will be exceptionally difficult to unwind. By that, I’m not so much talking about funding itself — which is easy to ramp up — but instead, the vast architecture of projects that have been disassembled (both inside government and outside but reliant on federal funding) and jobs that have been lost. Restaffing the so-called “administrative state” would be a gargantuan undertaking.

Ankush, what action has Trump taken that most surprised you?

Khardori: The most surprising thing to me has been Trump’s targeting of large law firms with executive orders, which then led to a bunch of firms brokering deals (which may be illegal) and ongoing court fights with a handful of firms that objected. I don’t think it’s nearly as consequential as some of the other things that have been going on, but I did not see it coming

Rogers: I totally agree. Frankly, some of the firms’ responses and decisions to cut deals with him – not to mention the slow and relatively lackluster collective pushback from others – have been surprising as well. Our editor-in-chief John Harris dubbed it “the great grovel.”

Zack, what was the least surprising thing Trump did in your estimation?

Stanton: Most of what he did has been unsurprising to anyone who paid attention to the 2024 campaign (a lot of this was litigated in the whole “Project 2025” saga), but probably pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters — which he telegraphed from the beginning of the campaign and did at pretty much his earliest convenience once in office. What I have been surprised by is how durable his partnership with Elon Musk has been — if we can say that at a 100-day mark. I think some of it is, frankly, Trump loving the idea of the world’s richest man working for him.

Messerly: It’s absolutely true. He also loves having a Kennedy working for him.

Megan or Tessa, do you have another “least surprising” thing?

Messerly: Dismantling the Department of Education, for sure. Republicans have wanted to do this forever. So even though this is being billed as part of this DOGE-ification of the federal government — this one really is a longstanding conservative priority.

Rogers: Using the office to try to enrich himself and his allies. From the various memecoins and cryptocurrencies members of his family have launched to promoting Tesla at the White House to Amazon reportedly paying tens of millions of dollars for a documentary on Melania Trump – and other reporting that there has been a push for something similar for Don Jr. – it remains amazing how much he has normalized this kind of behavior, but it should no longer be surprising.

This is a lightning round question. Everyone jump in, please. What action was the most over-hyped by the media?

Rogers: His musings about seeking a third term in office. (Most recently, cheekily selling “Trump 2028” hats.) I don’t buy it. But I say this with all awareness that I could be very, very wrong.

Stanton: “Gulf of America.”

Khardori: I had a different answer in my head, but I think Tessa is right (on both counts)!

Messerly: Seconding Zack — renaming the Gulf of Mexico. It took up so much oxygen and had no actual policy impact — other than getting the AP kicked out of the pool. (Which obviously was very important and consequential for a whole separate host of reasons.)

Stanton: Cosign.

Camille, does anyone in Europe care about what we call that body of water west of Florida?

Gijs: Haha! Absolutely, it’s the most immediate thing that jumps to my mind as well.

Camille, this next question is for you. What has Trump done that will be most dangerous for him politically?

Gijs: Seen from Europe, I’d say it’s picking a new fight with the European Union just as he also escalates trade and political tensions with China. Domestically, it’s also fueling the risk of creating price inflation for U.S. consumers. On the foreign policy front, it’s also pushing the EU and China closer together, and it might risk isolating Washington further. This is going to lead the EU to seek to deepen their ties with Beijing in some sectors to counterbalance Trump’s unpredictable trade policies. We have seen movements in that direction already, with a summit between China and the EU set to take place in July.

Stanton: The most politically dangerous thing for him is the inflationary effects of tariffs, which are incredibly regressive. To me, there’s a real risk of misreading his mandate: He won huge swaths of support from working-class voters because they were upset about the high cost of living. Unless he gets that under control, it’ll block out the sun, as it did for Joe Biden.

What action of Trump’s do Democrats secretly like the most? Either because it’s a policy they actually favor or because it’s a winner for them politically. Megan?

Messerly: Theoretically, Democrats should be supportive of the president’s moves on reshoring. If it happens now over a slower timeframe, and is more methodical, there’s technically no good reason Democrats shouldn’t get behind it, given that it will help their working-class voters in the long term. (If they are still their working-class voters, that is…) How Democrats respond to these tariff moves in the long term, I think, says a lot about the direction the party is headed in.

Stanton: I think that’s right, Megan. I was struck by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer even explicitly saying recently that she agrees with the president on reshoring jobs. I admittedly come at this from the perspective of a Macomb County native, so that issue, combined with tariffs on China, I think has a lot of industrial Midwestern Dems quietly, or not so quietly, in agreement. On the other end of the Democratic coalition, steering from the working class to highly educated liberals in the Elizabeth Warren mold, I think there is surprised cheer about some of the continuing antitrust enforcement.

Rogers: On the political win side, making Elon Musk such a visible governing partner at the start of his term. Even if voters broadly agree with DOGE’s goals, we’ve seen in Wisconsin and some polling so far Elon himself is a liability and a political gift to Democrats.

Another lightning round. What’s the most memorable thing Trump has said? Jump in here, everyone.

Stanton: So many contenders — “Liberation Day” … “Riviera of the Middle East” — but I’m going to have to go with “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

Rogers: I love his fixation on the word “groceries.” If you haven’t seen the clips of him saying it’s an “old-fashioned word” that means “a bag with different things in it,” I recommend a watch.

Gijs: For the EU, it’s without a doubt when he said in February that Europe was created to “screw” the United States — because it goes against history, it’s factually wrong. Just look at the Marshall Plan after the Second World War: One of the conditions to access aid was actually to accelerate European integration and lower trade barriers between European markets. Although it didn’t come as a huge surprise, I do feel it triggered alarm bells here on his perception of the bloc.

Messerly: This just feels so apt, not only on tariffs, which he was referring to here, but pretty much everything when it comes to Trump: “A lot of times, it’s not a negotiation until it is.”

Khardori: For me, it was Trump’s comments blaming the DCA helicopter crash on DEI. This should have been his “very fine people on both sides” moment, but the press largely moved on after a day of coverage. In fact, this presaged much of Trump’s governing program and tone — using DEI and other cultural issues to prop up unpopular policies and indefensible results.

What will have the biggest unintended consequence? Tessa, do you see a huge risk ahead?

Rogers: I don’t think we yet know all of the consequences that could come in the science and medical realms from the DOGE firings at Health and Human Services and other agencies (for example, firing HHS staff in charge of bird flu response) and stripping university research funding.

Ankush, do you see any unintended consequences from the administration’s aggression toward judges — in court and out?

Khardori: Yes, I think it’s pretty clear that Trump risks antagonizing — and maybe even already has antagonized — conservative justices on the Supreme Court who he will need. The administration’s contempt for the lower court judges is not something that other judges will ignore.

Stanton: In terms of the biggest unintended consequence, I’d just echo what Camille said earlier about the EU and how the tariffs are leading to it deepening its ties to China. This is an arena where I feel there’s a real potential for Trump to have miscalculated: He obviously wants to beat China in this brewing Cold War we have, but between the tariffs and the withering of foreign aid, he is, I’m afraid, going to push much of the world to develop closer ties to China.

Gijs: Yes, and then there’s also a silver lining for the EU: In a way, Trump’s first 100 days have been pushing the EU to get its act together on both trade and defense policy. It can’t quite rely on Washington anymore to stand with Ukraine, and it’s been boosting its own capabilities and investments in defense to reach NATO’s 2 percent of GDP target. “Never waste a good crisis” is something EU officials here in Brussels have told me countless times.

Camille, to stay on that idea for a moment, how does it feel in Europe to watch an 80-year security alliance begin to unravel?

Gijs: It’s definitely unsettling. Watching signs of it weaken creates a real sense of uncertainty — because it’s not just about defense, but about broader cooperation on global stability, trade, cyber security, etc. In a way, the EU now feels a bit stuck between trying to stick with Ukraine and the values it stands for in its fight against Russia, while at the same time not alienating the U.S. too much. There’s this growing realization in Europe that it has to take more responsibility for its own security in ways it hasn’t fully done before.

OK, everyone, give me one of Trump’s biggest successes.

Khardori: The law firm deals.

Stanton: From his perspective, the tariffs. Bringing the entire world to heel by forcing them to make deals with him.

Gijs: Yes, to Zack’s point, I don’t think the EU would label those tariffs as a “success.”

Who’s going to mention the drop in border crossings? I’m getting a thumbs up from Zack.

Messerly: You hear this one a lot in Trump world: picking Susie Wiles as chief of staff. She really has kept the White House chaos at a minimum. Even with Signalgate and everything going on at the Pentagon, the fact that no heads have rolled among the Cabinet or top staff at the White House is a testament to the tight ship she’s been running over there. And so different from Trump 1.0.

Rogers: Going back to what I mentioned at the start of this discussion, running across all of these smart examples is Trump’s success of putting the loyal people he wanted in place around government so that he can execute on a lot of his bigger, bolder, more risky plans.

What has been his biggest blunder? I suspect there’s a lot of agreement on tariffs here. Anyone want to take a contrarian view? Tessa?

Rogers: Tariffs aside, as Megan just mentioned, Signalgate and the continued fallout from that has been a dominant storyline in recent weeks. So we may need to mention nominating Pete Hegseth as Defense secretary and using a lot of political capital to get him confirmed. Hegseth is still in place but what has become clear are real problems with his lack of experience and management style at a massive agency with an enormously important and sensitive mandate.

Ankush, what has been the most under-reported thing he has done?

Khardori: From a legal perspective, I’d point to the many steps that the administration has already taken to curtail white-collar criminal enforcement. This is not surprising given what we saw during the first term, but it’s not good for Americans and will have very negative repercussions. Just last week, the FBI issued an annual report showing — yet again — that internet crime/fraud is rising at a disturbing rate: 33 percent increase in reported losses. This has been a steady trend for nearly 25 years, and it’s only going to get worse.

Anyone else see a gap in the media’s coverage? Perhaps Trump family memecoin ventures promoted from the White House?

Stanton: Yeah, that’s a fair one. I think one of his successes — again, from his perspective — is how much he’s moved the Overton Window in what gets coverage or even gets people riled up. There’s an Onion article I think of from time to time that’s a fake op-ed from President Jimmy Carter back in the first Trump administration: “You People Made Me Sell My Peanut Farm.”

Last question! Everyone grab your torpedo bats and swing for the fences: What’s the biggest thing coming in the NEXT 100 days?

Messerly: Reconciliation. It’s been on the back burner the last few weeks as tariffs have taken center stage. But Trump needs to get an extension of his tax cuts passed, or it’s going to be a huge political problem for Republicans. I hear this constantly talking to folks in Trump world. There’s a lot of anxiety about getting this done.

Khardori: I have to imagine we are headed toward some sort of major Supreme Court decision dealing with Trump’s executive power, but exactly when and on what topic remains unclear. There are a bunch of important cases working their way through the courts, and the administration has been aggressively trying to get them to the court as quickly as possible.

Rogers: I second Megan! After a flurry of executive orders, a huge legislative challenge ahead.

Gijs: More counter-tariffs to the existing tariffs? The EU is still working on its next batch of retaliation — if the talks don’t yield any concrete outcome during the 90-day pause. What’s not helping is the poor to non-existent relationship between Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and Trump. He also doesn’t believe in the EU as an institution and prefers to deal with countries bilaterally, as we have seen with the recent visits of the French, Irish or Italian leaders, and this is not conducive to any prospect of a deal with Washington and Brussels.

Stanton: So, that’s the big question. In his first administration, he fired James Comey in the second hundred days and then had the Charlottesville “very fine people” debacle just after Day 200. Who knows what’s in store this time around?

Hostile and political act

‘This is a hostile and political act’: White House slams Amazon amid tariff standoff

Amazon is reportedly considering listing how much tariffs are adding to the price of items.

By Ben Johansen

The White House is taking aim at Amazon, calling the e-commerce giant’s reported plans to soon display how much tariffs are increasing prices next to products a “hostile and political” move.

“I just got off the phone with the president about this, about Amazon’s announcement. This is a hostile and political act by Amazon,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing Tuesday. Punchbowl News reported Tuesday that Amazon is planning to soon display how much President Donald Trump’s tariffs are adding to each of its products’ prices.

Leavitt cited a 2021 report from Reuters on Amazon’s relationship with a “Chinese propaganda arm,” holding up a copy of the story with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ face front and center. She called it “another reason why Americans should buy American.”

When asked by a reporter what the status of Trump’s relationship is with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Leavitt largely dodged the question. “I will not speak to the president’s relationships with Jeff Bezos,” she said. “But I will tell you, this is certainly a hostile and political act by Amazon.”

Bezos declined to endorse either Trump or former Vice President Kamala Harris during the presidential election. Weeks before the election, Bezos also blocked The Washington Post — which he owns — from endorsing either candidate, prompting sharp criticism and hundreds of thousands of readers to cancel their subscriptions with the paper. The Post’s editorial board was preparing to endorse Harris.

But he was among several billionaire tech CEOs who directed donations to Trump’s inauguration fund earlier this year, with Amazon contributing $1 million, and has since met with the president at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. POLITICO has not independently confirmed Amazon’s reported plans to display tariff costs.

In an interview with The Atlantic last week, Trump seemed pleased with the tech titan. “He’s 100 percent,” Trump said of Bezos. “He’s been great.”

As Trump hits his 100th day in office, his administration’s tariff war on many allied countries, who he argues are not paying their fair share, has sent shockwaves through global markets. Trump has imposed and paused blanket 25 percent tariffs on America’s two bordering allies, Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10 percent on virtually every other country importing into the U.S., with higher — and since-paused — tariffs on countries his administration has argued are bad actors.

Trump has also implemented dramatically high tariffs on China, in a tit-for-tat escalation with the country.

The White House has argued that Trump is close to deals with many countries to ease tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said at Tuesday’s briefing that he thinks the administration is “very close” to a deal with India, as well as South Korea and Japan.

But the fallout is still being felt by consumers and markets. And in Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney led the country’s Liberal Party to a historic win Monday after running a campaign largely focused on the effect of Trump’s provocations of the Northern ally.

Democrats soon latched on to Leavitt’s comments. “To fuck around is human, to find out is divine,” the Ways and Means Democrats’ X account wrote.

Majorities oppose

Majorities oppose top Trump priorities on Greenland, Canada and a third term, poll finds

Eighty-six percent of those surveyed oppose the U.S. having control over Canada.

By Amanda Friedman

Eight out of 10 Americans surveyed in a fresh ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose President Donald Trump serving a constitutionally barred third term in office, one of several high-profile Trump goals that a majority of respondents rejected.

Released on Tuesday, the poll found that 86 percent of Americans oppose the United States trying to take control of Canada, 80 percent oppose Trump serving a third term, 76 percent oppose trying to take control of Greenland and 66 percent oppose sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons.

The emphatic opposition from those polled to some of the president’s pet projects could signal a growing skepticism of Trump’s policies. These findings follow a string of negative polling for the Trump administration in recent weeks, including the president’s slipping approval rating.

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the polling.

Though respondents were cool on some of Trump’s top priorities, they showed little doubt that the president is serious about pursuing them.

Seventy-one percent of respondents think Trump is serious when he discusses sending American citizens who are convicted of violent crimes to foreign prisons, and 68 percent believe his vow to try to take control of Greenland, according to the poll.

Fewer of those polled — but still a 62 percent majority — believe Trump is keen on serving a third term, despite the constitutional barriers preventing him from running again. Fifty-three percent think Trump is also serious when he talks about the U.S. trying to take control of Canada.

While respondents were mostly opposed to many of the president’s agenda items, the 39 percent of those polled who approve of the way Trump is handling his presidency also largely approved of his most polarizing goals. The most popular of the proposals is the sending of U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes to foreign prisons, which is supported by 59 percent of those who gave the president positive job approval ratings.

Support dwindled for some of the other initiatives. Forty-nine percent of those who approve of Trump’s handling of the presidency said they approve of the U.S. trying to take control of Greenland, while 43 percent of that cohort like the idea of his serving a third term. Only 29 percent of the president’s backers support the U.S. having control over Canada.

Only 35 percent of Republicans who agreed to be surveyed said they think Trump is serious about taking over Canada, as opposed to 75 percent of Democratic respondents. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans polled think he’s serious about a third term, compared with 88 percent of Democrats surveyed.

The poll surveyed 2,464 adults from April 18 to 22 with a margin of error of plus-or-minus two percentage points, including the design effect, with larger error margins for subgroups.

Turns the political tide

Financial anxiety turns the political tide against Trump

After campaigning on lower prices, Donald Trump spent his first 100 days focused on tariffs that threaten to raise the cost of living.

By Adam Cancryn

On his first day back in power, President Donald Trump promised Americans that he’d soon deliver on their central demand: Lower prices and greater economic stability.

Ninety-nine days later, the voters are still waiting — and starting to flash their anger.

Trump’s chaotic first months have tipped the U.S. into turmoil, shaking the foundations of its financial system and feeding fears that the man who pledged to pilot the nation into a prosperous “golden age” is instead driving it toward an economic ditch.

Americans’ faith in Trump’s stewardship of the economy is faltering, with most now saying his changes to the country’s political and economic systems have gone “too far.” The president’s trade war is testing the resilience of global markets and businesses. And among his allies, there is growing concern that Trump is squandering his political mandate by pursuing policies almost certain to push prices even higher.

“He’s all in on the tariffs, and that’s a really big bet for him,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative think tank American Action Forum and a former White House economic adviser under George H.W. Bush. “I’m going to be honest: I don’t think it’s a good bet.”

The economic shock spurred by Trump’s broad-brush tariff regime has erased billions of dollars from retirement savings over the last month and turned consumer sentiment sharply negative, marking an end to the White House’s short-lived honeymoon.

Trump is under water with voters on his handling of the economy, according to fresh polling ahead of his 100-day mark — including one Pew Research Center survey showing faith in his economic decision-making at the lowest point of his political career. Consumer confidence measures have plunged since January, as voters brace for higher inflation and fewer available jobs.

The financial anxiety appears to be turning the political tide against Trump and the GOP too; in a recent Economist/YouGov poll, 50 percent of the respondents said the economy had gotten worse since Trump was sworn in. More than 4 in 10 gave the first 100 days of his presidency an “F” grade.

“Is it concerning? Sure it is,” said Stephen Moore, an outside economic adviser to Trump. “As a Republican that wants Trump to succeed, you need the political capital to move ahead your agenda.”

In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai cast Trump’s first 100 days as an economic success, pointing to commitments from some major corporations to invest in U.S. manufacturing and a slight drop in the March inflation rate driven by falling fuel prices that nevertheless marked the first monthly decrease in years.

“President Trump’s America First policies are delivering much-needed economic relief for everyday Americans while laying the groundwork for a long-term restoration of American Greatness,” Desai said, asserting that Trump “delivered a historic economy in his first term, and he’s running back the success in his second term.”

Yet that optimistic outlook is running into a disconnect with an electorate fixated mainly on the fallout from Trump’s tariffs. Their declining support for the president’s economic agenda represents a stunning shift from the campaign trail just months ago, when Americans’ worries over the rising cost of living and their nostalgia for the pre-pandemic economy of his first term fueled Trump’s unlikely political comeback.

As a candidate, Trump stretched his advantage on the economy by vowing to quickly slash energy prices, make housing more affordable and lower the cost of groceries. After defeating then-Vice President Kamala Harris in large part due to Americans’ lingering frustration with rising prices, Trump during his inauguration said he planned to “direct all members of my Cabinet to marshal the vast powers at their disposal to defeat what was record inflation and rapidly bring down costs and prices.”

Yet despite that mandate, Trump has instead spent his opening months consumed by waging an unprecedented trade war, concerned less with addressing ground-level voter challenges than with overhauling the entire global economic order.

“The No. 1 issue for a lot of voters was inflation and cost of living, and tariffs increase the cost of living,” said Avik Roy, chairman of the think tank Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a longtime GOP policy wonk. “Whatever he’s doing that might be constructive, for example, in terms of regulatory reform that could unlock economic activity, it’s all being overwhelmed.”

White House aides readily acknowledge that their tariff agenda is forcing Americans to bear the “pain” of upending trade alliances and rewiring supply chains, which economists project will spike prices and raise the risk of shortages for everything from cars to electronics to clothes.

But they contend that the hardship will be brief, and that the nation will ultimately emerge stronger as companies move their manufacturing back to the U.S. and foreign countries rush to renegotiate terms. The administration in the meantime is pursuing parallel efforts to slash regulations, limit federal spending, bolster oil drilling and crack down on immigration — all of which officials say is keeping a lid on inflation as Trump tries to strike a succession of trade deals.

“From our point of view, a lot of great foundational progress has been laid,” one White House official, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said of the administration’s lesser-known efforts to lower prices. “This isn’t a thing that’s going to be resolved within 100 days.”

Inside the West Wing, officials have found comfort in economic data that remains stable even as consumer confidence dives, such as continued strong labor market metrics, steady inflation readings and retail sales figures that indicate people aren’t yet backing off on big purchases.

And while Trump aides and advisers have kept a close eye on the raft of fresh polling, they’ve largely dismissed Trump’s declining approval ratings as premature and overblown, holding fast to the belief that Trump will be vindicated much the same as they say he has been before.

“President Trump’s base is solid,” said John McLaughlin, a Trump pollster. “There may be some changes at the margins on some swing voters, but they’ll come back because there’s time to get the tax cuts passed.”

Yet that calm is not shared by a wider Republican universe, including members of Congress who, unlike Trump, will answer to the electorate next year in midterms that could shift the balance of power in Washington.

On Capitol Hill, GOP lawmakers have increasingly voiced their nervousness about the White House’s tariff crusade — though they remain unwilling to formally rein Trump in on the issue. In Republican economic circles, as Holtz-Eakin put it, everyone is now “staring pretty hard at the data” for fresh signs that the job market is stalling out.

“There are some bad data points out there to be worried about,” Holtz-Eakin said. “But nothing focuses the mind like a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate.”

The uncertainty has further elevated the stakes surrounding congressional Republicans’ tax bill, which Trump allies now see as perhaps the only opportunity big enough to shift attention from the tariffs — and potentially cancel out some of their negative effects on voters’ psyche.

The legislation continuing the tax cuts that Trump enacted in 2017 is crucial to averting a drastic tax hike on top of the additional costs imposed by the president’s tariffs. Trump has also floated passing a range of new tax exemptions designed to benefit slices of the working class. But Republican lawmakers are still struggling to assemble the package, including finding hundreds of billions of dollars in spending offsets that could prove unpopular on their own.

“Failure is not an option here,” said Moore, who is hopeful that passing the bill could reset Trump’s economic standing with voters. “If they can’t get this done, then all the taxes go up … and then there’s no way Republicans can keep control of the House and Senate.”

Despite the deepening concern, Trump has shown no willingness to back off his trade war, convinced the gambit will eventually pay off. But with no clear endgame in sight, pollsters warned that the Biden-era economic struggles that abetted Trump’s rise should also serve as a cautionary tale for how quickly voter unhappiness could now snowball against him.

“The first 100 days are typically when the president gets an immense amount of grace from the voters,” said Lakshya Jain, co-founder of Split Ticket, an election data analysis firm. “If they already don’t like it, well, historically these things don’t get any better over time.”

Donaldjohanson

Main belt asteroid 52246 Donaldjohanson is about 8 kilometers long and 3.5 kilometers across. On April 20, this sharp close-up of the asteroid was captured at a distance of about 1100 kilometers by the Lucy spacecraft's long range camera during its second asteroid encounter. Named after American paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson, discoverer of the Lucy hominid fossil, the elongated asteroid was likely formed about 150 million years ago from a gentle collision of two smaller bodies creating its characteristic contact binary shape. Launched in October of 2021, the Lucy spacecraft will continue its travels through the main asteroid belt in 2025, but is on its way to explore Jupiter's swarm of Trojan asteroids. Lucy is expected to encounter its first Trojan asteroid target, 3548 Eurybates, in August 2027.

NGC 5335

This stunning portrait of NGC 5335 was captured by the Hubble Space Telescope. Some 170,000 light-years across and over 200 million light-years away toward the constellation Virgo, the magnificent spiral galaxy is seen face-on in Hubble's view. Within the galactic disk, loose streamers of star forming regions lie along the galaxy's flocculent spiral arms. But the most striking feature of NGC 5335 is its prominent central bar. Seen in about 30 percent of galaxies, including our Milky Way, bar structures are understood to channel material inward toward the galactic center, fueling star formation. Of course, distant background galaxies are easy to spot, scattered around the sharp Hubble image. Launched in 1990, Hubble is now celebrating its 35th year exploring the cosmos from orbit around planet Earth.

IC 418

What is creating the strange texture of IC 418? Dubbed the Spirograph Nebula for its resemblance to drawings from a cyclical drawing tool, planetary nebula IC 418 shows patterns that are not well understood. Perhaps they are related to chaotic winds from the variable central star, which changes brightness unpredictably in just a few hours. By contrast, evidence indicates that only a few million years ago, IC 418 was probably a well-understood star similar to our Sun. Only a few thousand years ago, IC 418 was probably a common red giant star. Since running out of nuclear fuel, though, the outer envelope has begun expanding outward leaving a hot remnant core destined to become a white-dwarf star, visible in the image center. The light from the central core excites surrounding atoms in the nebula causing them to glow. IC 418 lies about 2000 light-years away and spans 0.3 light-years across. This false-color image taken from the Hubble Space Telescope reveals the unusual details.

NGC 3572

This cosmic skyscape features glowing gas and dark dust clouds alongside the young stars of NGC 3572. A beautiful emission nebula and star cluster, it sails far southern skies within the nautical constellation Carina. Stars from NGC 3572 are toward top center in the telescopic frame that would measure about 100 light-years across at the cluster's estimated distance of 9,000 light-years. The visible interstellar gas and dust, shown in colors of the Hubble palette, is part of the star cluster's natal molecular cloud, itself cataloged as Gum 37. Dense streamers of material within the nebula, eroded by stellar winds and radiation, clearly trail away from the energetic young stars. They are likely sites of ongoing star formation with shapes reminiscent of the Tadpoles of IC 410 -- better known to northern skygazers. In the coming tens to hundreds of millions of years, gas and stars in the cluster will be dispersed though, by gravitational tides and by violent supernova explosions that end the short lives of the massive cluster stars.