An off-Strip casino is proposing a new tip-out policy for table game dealers in an apparent effort to attract more highly skilled employees.
However, some dealers at Rio Las Vegas are skeptical the changes will benefit them, and they wonder why this specific policy is rarely used in the industry.
According to an internal memo shared with the Review-Journal, Rio is implementing a 50/50 toke split for all table game dealers. Under the new policy, dealers will keep 50 percent of the tips, or tokes, earned at their table. The other 50 percent will be pooled and split evenly among all dealers who worked within the given 24-hour period.
Prior to the change in tip-out procedure, Rio dealers pooled all tips within a 24-hour period, and the money was divvied up. Those tips were documented, taxed and included in the employee’s paycheck along with their hourly rate.
The new policy went into effect Friday.
The memo from Rio management said the 50/50 toke split is “better” because it “ensures everyone has a fair and reliable income, encourages teamwork, and helps us all provide a better, more consistent experience for our guests.”
“This approach strengthens our team and keeps us competitive in a changing market,” the memo reads.
The Review-Journal asked to speak with someone from Rio about the changes. In response, an outside public relations firm provided the following statement on behalf of the casino:
“At Rio, we believe in creating an environment where everyone is treated fairly, teamwork is rewarded, and the rewards of hard work are shared equitably. We decided to change our toke distribution policy to ensure greater fairness, transparency, and the continued success of our team members.”
Several Rio table game dealers said they do not understand how these changes will help them. The dealers who spoke to the Review-Journal were given anonymity because they feared their jobs could be in jeopardy for speaking out.
One Rio employee, who has been dealing in Las Vegas casinos since the early ’80s, said bluntly, “I’ve never heard of this, at least not anywhere I’ve ever worked.”
“They seem to feel that they’re going to get better dealers coming in if some people hear that they’re going to be able to keep their money across the table, but nobody’s going to show up for a 50/50 cut,” the veteran dealer said.
Another longtime dealer reported a “mixed” response among Rio dealers.
“Some (people) don’t know better but certain games make more than others. So, the prime games will go to whoever the scheduler assigns,” they said, adding that the system opens up the possibility for dealers to “kick back” money to the scheduler in exchange for better table assignments.
Rio dealers are not represented by a labor union, so some of the employees said they felt like the property’s management is taking advantage of desperate workers who won’t push back because they fear losing their jobs.
“(This) is open to corruption… (and) somebody will abuse their power,” another dealer told the Review-Journal.
Rio is operated by Dreamscape, a New York City-based firm that purchased the property for $516 million in 2019. Under an agreement with the Rio’s former owner/operator, Caesars Entertainment, Dreamscape did not assume full control of the property until October 2023.
Dreamscape is investing nearly $350 million into the property, which has included remodeling close to 1,500 hotel rooms, refreshing the 117,000-square-foot casino floor, and debuting several new dining concepts and a six-outlet food court that took the place of the buffet.
Rio Las Vegas, one of the most popular casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, has recently made a controversial decision to change its dealer tip-out policy. This policy change has left many table game dealers feeling unhappy and frustrated.
Under the new policy, table game dealers at Rio Las Vegas will now be required to tip out a higher percentage of their tips to casino management. This means that dealers will be taking home less of their hard-earned tips, leading to a significant decrease in their overall earnings.
Many dealers at Rio Las Vegas have expressed their disappointment and anger over this new policy, with some even considering looking for employment at other casinos that offer better tip-out policies. They feel that the casino management is being unfair and taking advantage of their hard work.
In response to the backlash, Rio Las Vegas has stated that the change in policy is necessary to help offset operational costs and maintain profitability. However, many dealers argue that they are the ones who are ultimately bearing the brunt of these cost-cutting measures.
It remains to be seen how this new policy will impact the morale and overall satisfaction of table game dealers at Rio Las Vegas. As the situation unfolds, it is clear that there is a growing divide between casino management and their employees, with dealers feeling undervalued and underappreciated.
As global renewable energy adoption reaches record levels — accounting for more than half of all new electricity on the grid last year — and energy costs continue to impact homeowners, 2025 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for residential solar energy. Here’s why acting now to insure you’re getting all available solar incentives is more important than ever:
Federal Tax Credit Uncertainty Currently, homeowners can claim a federal tax credit covering 30 percent of their solar project costs, potentially saving thousands. However, with political changes on the horizon, this incentive faces potential modifications. Industry experts, including Brooklyn SolarWorks, believe these credits will remain secure for installations completed in 2025.
Dwindling State Incentives New York State’s NYSERDA rebate, which currently offers a $0.20 watt reduction in upfront costs for residential projects, is approaching its funding limit. These funds are expected to be depleted within months, making early action crucial for maximizing savings.
Unprecedented Demand Market dynamics show homeowners increasingly turning to solar solutions, driven by concerns over future incentive reductions and potential equipment cost increases. Installation calendars for 2025 are filling rapidly, with projects being scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis.
Do you want to save $50,000 on electricity over the lifetime of your system?
In recent months, we have witnessed a perfect storm of policy changes that have left many communities reeling. From changes to healthcare and immigration policies to shifts in environmental regulations and education funding, the landscape of our society is rapidly evolving.
These policy changes have not only created uncertainty and fear among the most vulnerable populations, but have also sparked heated debates and protests across the country. The impact of these changes is far-reaching, affecting individuals, families, and entire communities.
As we navigate through this perfect storm of policy changes, it is crucial that we stay informed, engaged, and vocal about the issues that matter most to us. Whether it’s advocating for equitable healthcare access, fighting for immigrant rights, or protecting our environment, now is the time to stand up and make our voices heard.
Together, we can weather this storm and emerge stronger and more resilient than ever before. Let’s work towards a future where policy changes are made with compassion, empathy, and the well-being of all in mind.
Announcements by the Trump Administration in its first official week are creating new opportunities for the crypto industry.
Following acting Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mark Uyeda’s launch of a crypto task force on Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order promoting the advancement of cryptocurrencies in the U.S. Now, industry experts are considering what it might mean for the future of a national crypto stockpile.
“We would expect some type of legislation to move forward with the strategic bitcoin reserve,” Calamos head of ETFs Matt Kaufman told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week.
The executive order signed by the president on Thursday called for the establishment of a working group on digital assets, whose tasks include proposing criteria for a crypto reserve.
The working group will also draft a new regulatory framework for the operation of crypto in the U.S., according to the order. Tidal Financial Group Chief Investment Officer Mike Venuto expects policy changes to ultimately be favorable for the industry.
“Regulation has been done through enforcement. That’s a mess,” Venuto said in the same interview. “We do need some sort of government-efficient group that can come in and regulate this and make it make sense.”
Bitcoin prices hit a new record on Monday amid the industry euphoria, crossing $109,350 for the first time. As of Friday afternoon, the token was trading around $105,000.
President Trump’s recent announcements regarding his administration’s policy towards crypto have sparked optimism within the industry. In a recent tweet, Trump expressed his support for the growth and innovation of cryptocurrencies, stating that the United States must lead in this rapidly evolving sector.
This declaration has been met with enthusiasm by many in the crypto community, who see it as a positive step towards mainstream acceptance and adoption of digital currencies. The President’s support could potentially pave the way for more favorable regulations and a clearer legal framework for the industry.
Industry experts believe that Trump’s endorsement of crypto could lead to increased investment, job creation, and overall growth in the sector. This newfound optimism has boosted confidence among investors and stakeholders, who see a bright future ahead for the industry.
While the details of Trump’s crypto policy are yet to be fully revealed, the positive sentiment surrounding his statements has already had a significant impact. As the industry eagerly awaits further developments, many are hopeful that this could be a turning point for crypto in the United States.
LAS VEGAS, Nev. (FOX5) – President Donald Trump is here in Las Vegas after touring wildfire-ravaged Los Angeles.
While he’s here, he’s expected to talk about a different policy. No tax on tips.
That’s according to Nevada GOP Chairman, Michael McDonald, who spoke to FOX5 after he and Governor Joe Lombardo talked to the president when he landed.
“He cares about the no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security. That was something that we brought to the community, and everybody loved it because we’re all hurting,” McDonald said. “I mean price of gas, price of eggs, food overall. I think you have someone who’s listening to the American people.”
Chairman McDonald thinks that policy is resonating with people in Southern Nevada who make up a large chunk of tipped workers compared to the rest of the country.
“He’s worked for the working men and women. A lot of union members are going to show up tomorrow (Saturday) that voted for him, that came out for him, the working industry for the culinary union. They’re going to show up tomorrow,” McDonald said.
But Nevada Congressman Steven Horsford isn’t so sure.
The politician says he sponsors the no tax on tips legislation, but notes the differences between President Trump’s plan, and his bill.
“My bill provides guardrails that ensures that the benefit goes to the hard-working people who should benefit from this tax relief,” Horsford said. “Not to millionaires or to those who would try to benefit from the legislation otherwise.”
The congressman tells us without guardrails, a wealthy family could give away a bunch of money and call it a tip.
That no tax on tips discussion is set to happen at the Circa Resort and Casino on Saturday, January 25th. Doors open at 9:30 a.m., and President Trump is expected to speak at 12:30 p.m.
Around 2,000 people are expected to be there.
Copyright 2025 KVVU. All rights reserved.
Recently, Nevada GOP Chairman, Michael McDonald, sat down to discuss President Trump’s new policy regarding no taxes on tips. This policy has been met with mixed reactions, but McDonald is confident that it will benefit both workers and businesses in the long run.
During the interview, McDonald emphasized the importance of supporting workers in the service industry, who rely heavily on tips for their income. He believes that by eliminating taxes on tips, President Trump is helping to ensure that these hardworking individuals can keep more of their earnings.
McDonald also pointed out that this policy will be a boon for businesses, as it will incentivize customers to tip more generously. By allowing workers to keep all of their tips, restaurants and other service establishments may see an increase in customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Overall, McDonald expressed his support for President Trump’s no tax on tips policy, stating that it is a positive step towards supporting both workers and businesses in Nevada and across the country. Time will tell how this policy will impact the service industry, but for now, it seems to have the backing of the Nevada GOP Chairman.
LGBT campaigners say dem dey worry say one executive order wey US President Donald Trump issue on diversity programmes, transgender and LGBT rights dey “dangerous” and fit threaten dia work for oda kontri.
But conservative groups welcome di move and dem tell BBC say e go help redirect resources.
Di order, wey dem call “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to federal goment” declare say di US officially recognise only two genders: male and female.
E say all goment employees wey dey act in official capacity must use di term “sex” and not “gender” for policies and documents.
Official documents, including passports, go dey based on di sex wey dem bin record wen dem born di pesin, wey dem describe as “individual immutable biological classification” – and again, must be male or female.
President Trump also order make all US goment staff wey dey work on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) schemes apply for immediate paid administrative leave, before dem close di offices and programmes in question.
Dis na reverse of policies wey dem establish under the Biden administration wey support laws wey protect employees from discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.
Joe Biden introduce changes to allow US citizens select X as dia gender marker on dia passport application as alternative to male or female.
Wia dis foto come from, Getty Images
Dis new order from President Trump, dey “dangerous” Julia Ehrt, executive director for ILGA World, one global federation of LGBT+ organisations tok, and add say e fit “snowball into reversing historic advances for global LGBTI equality”.
She fear say e “set precedent wey fit to inspire similar initiatives for oda kontris” and say “dis kian tok from di new US president go make authoritarian leaders across di world to scale up dia game of making minorities scapegoating”.
However, in some ways President Trump executive order echo acts by Argentina president, Javier Milei, wey come office for December 2023.
President Milei close di kontri Women, Gender and Diversity Ministry and di National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI), and im say dis dey necessary to reduce “unnecessary public spending”.
And President Trump order don begin attract public support from some outside US.
“Trump na strong and influential force,” Alma Sanchez, 25-year-old doctor for Honduras, tok. “Biden administration finance gender and diversity programmes for our kontri – Trump executive order mean say financing for dis kain programme for kontris like Honduras go stop, dat na good tin for us.”
Sanchez na part of Generacion Celeste, one conservative lobby group for Honduras for pipo wey dey under 30.
“Our President Xiomara Castro waste resources dey appoint secretary of gender inclusivity and diversity, following lead from Biden administration.”
Sanchez hope say her kontri go now change path and follow President Trump lead instead. “Honduras na Christian kontri, wit traditional values. Resources suppose go to education, and healthcare.”
Dis move also receive support from groups wey dey criticise di concept of gender identity, as well as some religious groups.
Bishop John Praise Daniel, vice-president of Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, tell Voice of America say im welcome executive order wia gender roles dey clarified as binary – male and female – and not fluid.
“We no need dat confusion,” im say. “Bring back righteousness, order and sanity to society.”
Pesin gender identity no always dey di same as di sex wey dem record for dia original birth certificate, wey be either male or female
Gender identity na term wey some dey use to describe how pesin tink of im identity, dis fit be female, male, or exist on a spectrum
According to World Health Organisation, gender identity na social construct, and dey different from society to society and fit change over time
As of November 2024, 21 kontris including Argentina, Pakistan and Nepal, allow gender self-identification without any legal or medical approval
For United States, about 1.6% of adults identify as transgender or non-binary, according to Pew Research Centre. And for one 2023 global survey wey Statistica do, 3% of respondents from 30 kontris identify demsef as transgender or non-binary.
Some global human rights campaigners dey worry say di US executive order fit affect grassroots organisations for kontris wia dem get only small support for trans pipo.
No legal recognition of transgender pipo for some kontirs, like Kenya, and small local organisations rely on US Agency for International Development (USAID) for financial support for LGBT+ pipo.
Groups wey dey support women and gender equality dey also collect funding from USAID – for 2023, President Biden budget bin request for approximately $2.6 billion for foreign assistance programmes wey promote gender equity and equality worldwide, more dan double di amount from 2022.
Wia dis foto come from, Getty Images
Wetin we call dis foto, Some LGBT services for places like India dey currently receive US funding
But “Trump executive order mean say important work wey rely on USAID dey under threat of being defunded”, Patsey Githinji, one transgender activist and influencer for Nairobi tok.
“Funding dey help vulnerable communities for Kenya connect wit oda.
E dey also help provide healthcare and psychosocial support,” she tok.
International gender experts also fear spillover of anti-transgender rhetoric to oda parts of di world.
India officially recognise “Hijra” as third gender, afta Supreme Court order for 2014.
Dem fit mark dis identity on official documents including passports.
However di US executive order dey worry many for South Asia, Rohit K Dasgupta, associate professor of gender and sexuality for London School of Economics and Political Science and co-author of Desi Queers, say.
“I don tok to many queer and trans activists for India wia I dey mainly research and work. Dem dey share concerns say dat kain policies dey hardly remain inside US borders,” im tok. “Dis rollback fit disproportionately impact di most vulnerable, including trans pipo of colour.”
US executive orders dey mostly get limitations and dia implementation fit dey delayed or blocked by legal challenges or opposition from Congress.
And although President Trump act sharply, e go take some time to work out wetin dis mean not just for Americans, but also ppipo for di rest of di world.
Trump on transgender, LGBTQ and sex – What does the ‘two genders’ policy mean for the world?
Recently, former President Donald Trump made headlines once again with his controversial views on transgender individuals, LGBTQ rights, and the concept of gender. In a statement, Trump declared that there are only “two genders” and expressed his support for policies that reflect this belief.
This stance has sparked a heated debate among activists, politicians, and the general public. Many argue that Trump’s insistence on a binary understanding of gender is harmful and exclusionary, particularly for transgender and non-binary individuals who do not fit into traditional definitions of male and female.
Critics also point out that Trump’s policies could have far-reaching consequences for the LGBTQ community, potentially rolling back important protections and rights that have been hard-won over the years. By promoting a rigid and outdated view of gender, Trump’s administration may be setting a dangerous precedent that could lead to increased discrimination and marginalization of LGBTQ individuals.
On the other hand, some supporters of Trump’s stance argue that he is simply upholding traditional values and protecting the sanctity of biological sex. They believe that policies based on a binary understanding of gender are necessary to maintain social order and moral standards.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it is clear that Trump’s views on transgender, LGBTQ, and sex have the potential to shape the future of equality and human rights around the world. As we continue to grapple with these complex and deeply personal issues, it is more important than ever to engage in open and respectful dialogue to ensure that all individuals are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
Tags:
Trump, transgender, LGBTQ, sex, two genders, policy, world, implications, controversy, debate, equality, discrimination, rights, social issues, politics, current events
A leading opponent of traditional Republican foreign policy who advocates for a vastly reduced U.S. presence in the Middle East has been quietly involved in the transition process at the Defense Department, according to four people familiar with the matter, underscoring a distinct ideological shift in the Pentagon as President Donald Trump builds his new administration.
Dan Caldwell, an Iraq War veteran and defense policy advisor with deep ties to the Koch network, has been working behind the scenes to help shape personnel decisions at the Defense Department, sources told Jewish Insider on Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity to address a sensitive topic.
Recent hiring announcements for key positions have reflected Caldwell’s preference for a more restrained foreign policy approach that would have the U.S. scale back its long-standing focus on the Middle East and regional adversaries such as Iran, while expressing a largely skeptical attitude toward Israel, among other views espoused by a growing isolationist wing of the GOP.
Michael DiMino, a former CIA military analyst and a Pentagon official in Trump’s first term, was sworn in this week as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Last year, he dismissed Iran’s second ballistic missile attack on Israel as a “fairly moderate” response and urged against bombing the Houthis in Yemen, instead calling for U.S. pressure on Israel to tamp down regional conflict. He has also cast doubt on the Abraham Accords, Trump’s signature foreign policy triumph, among other comments that could conflict with the administration’s expected approach to the Middle East.
DiMino most recently served as a fellow at Defense Priorities, a dovish Koch-funded think tank, where he overlapped with Caldwell — who has worked for the group as a public policy advisor. During a joint appearance in a podcast interview last summer, the two colleagues questioned Israel’s looming campaign against Hezbollah as misguided, cautioning that it would risk a broader regional war, which did not transpire.
In addition to DiMino, another ally of Caldwell’s, Elbridge Colby, has been tapped as undersecretary of defense for policy — even as his sanguine view of Iran and its nuclear ambitions, which he sees as a less urgent threat to American interests than China, has long been a source of contention in Republican foreign policy circles.
Perhaps most controversially, Colby has opposed direct military action against the Islamic Republic, while arguing that containing a nuclear Iran “is an eminently plausible and practical objective,” among other claims that have recently drawn scrutiny from hawkish conservatives. Two protégés of Colby, who has not yet been confirmed, were also named to top policy roles and sworn in on Tuesday.
“The Koch crowd,” David Wurmser, a pro-Israel foreign policy expert who served as a Middle East advisor to former Vice President Dick Cheney, said in an email to JI, is “either isolationist, anti-American or both and seeks to use American fatigue to cynically weaken our allies and diminish American power.”
The picks have raised alarms among pro-Israel Republicans voicing concerns that their statements and policies are not aligned with Trump, who has indicated that he will actively engage in the Middle East — seeking to build on the Abraham Accords by normalizing ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia and returning to his maximum-pressure campaign against Iran. On Wednesday, he redesignated the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pledging in an executive order to “eliminate” the Iran-backed proxy group’s “capabilities and operations, deprive it of resources and thereby end its attacks.”
Caldwell, whose role in the transition process has not been publicized, has taken an active position in staffing the Pentagon, even as Trump recently issued a directive against hiring those who have worked for the conservative donor Charles Koch or his political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, which has previously clashed with the president. Caldwell, for his part, has been intimately involved with the Koch network, serving as a foreign policy strategist and as a lobbyist for Americans for Prosperity, disclosures show.
David Wurmser, a pro-Israel foreign policy expert who served as a Middle East advisor to former Vice President Dick Cheney, said that Caldwell, “who is driving these appointments, comes at this from his deep affiliation with the Koch” network, which Wurmser has criticized. “The Koch crowd,” he explained in an email to JI, is “either isolationist, anti-American or both and seeks to use American fatigue to cynically weaken our allies and diminish American power.”
Despite such affiliations, Caldwell is a close ally of Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon. The two have previously worked together at another Koch-backed group, Concerned Veterans for America — and Hegseth has relied on his former colleague, among other supporters, while navigating a rocky confirmation process.
A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday evening, and Caldwell declined to comment on his involvement in staffing the Defense Department when reached by JI.
A Trump official involved in Middle East policy confirmed having met with Caldwell earlier this month to discuss personnel recommendations. The official, who was previously unaware of his views on the region, said that Caldwell’s approach “seems at odds with” Hegseth’s testimony during a recent Senate confirmation hearing, where he expressed support for Israel “destroying and killing every last member of Hamas.”
“The question is, why is Hegseth being surrounded by people who don’t share his views and don’t share Trump’s?” a conservative foreign policy analyst told JI. “He’s kind of given it over.”
In his testimony, Hegseth also broadly affirmed some of Caldwell’s positions as he argued that the U.S. military will need to focus on “reorienting away from entanglement in the Middle East” and that the Pentagon will need to shift “toward new priorities, specifically the Indo-Pacific.”
But critics of Caldwell suggested his stances are largely at odds with Hegseth and Trump on key issues. His positions are “the opposite of” Trump’s tough-on-Iran rhetoric, said a conservative foreign policy analyst who is wary of Caldwell’s involvement. “I’m not sure how different Dan Caldwell’s views are from the left flank of the Democratic Party’s views on Middle East issues.”
“The question is, why is Hegseth being surrounded by people who don’t share his views and don’t share Trump’s?” the analyst told JI. “He’s kind of given it over.”
In several interviews and articles, Caldwell has argued in favor of “significantly” pulling back from the Middle East, where he believes that “American interests are less pronounced,” as he argued in an essay co-written for Foreign Affairs that was titled “Trump Must Not Betray ‘America First” and published shortly after the election.
“Balancing against Iran, for instance, can be achieved largely by Israel and by the Gulf Arab nations,” he wrote in the article, arguing that the U.S. “should not have to substantially backstop them or bribe them to pursue their own interests.”
Elsewhere, Caldwell has expressed skepticism of normalizing Saudi relations with Israel and raised doubts about the value of the U.S. relationship with Israel, among other statements running counter to broadly held Republican views. He has also voiced approval of Rob Malley, a lead negotiator of the Iran nuclear deal who is under federal investigation for his handling of classified information as the Biden administration’s Iran envoy.
Speaking on a podcast last year, Caldwell claimed that “we haven’t been able to have” what he called “an honest conversation about” Israel in more than two decades, which he said has “hurt American foreign policy.” He suggested the U.S. is “limited” in how it “can support Israel right now” — claiming that aid to Ukraine, which he opposes, has strained military resources.
“Eventually, just like we have with Ukraine, where we’ve run out of stuff to give them,” Caldwell said on the podcast, “we may find ourselves in that same position with Israel — and it can’t be overcome right away by dumping more money into the military industrial complex.”
“This looks like a typically factional Republican condominium of interests, and it’s not surprising to me that someone of Dan’s background and experience would play some part,” said a GOP foreign policy expert familiar with Caldwell’s role.
Caldwell has also said protecting Ukraine is not a vital American interest, stressed he does not “think you should ever take something like pulling out of NATO off the table,” noted he “would not commit to defending Taiwan” and argued alliances should not “be viewed as holy sacraments.”
As Hegseth continues to seek Senate confirmation, the Defense Department is being led by Robert Salesses, the deputy director of its Washington Headquarters Services, whom Trump named acting secretary on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Caldwell is seeking to assert his foreign policy vision as the new administration takes shape, observers say. “This looks like a typically factional Republican condominium of interests, and it’s not surprising to me that someone of Dan’s background and experience would play some part,” said a GOP foreign policy expert familiar with Caldwell’s role.
Another foreign policy expert described the context as “a battle royale” between Donald Trump Jr. “and the ‘globalists’ he believes are represented by Jared Kushner” and his allies, who had populated Trump’s first administration.
Even as he has not publicly acknowledged his role, Caldwell has indicated he expects to see personnel changes that comport with his foreign policy views in a second term.“I think that there is a good chance that Trump does pursue policies that are closer to what I believe in,” he said in an interview before the election, “particularly in Europe, hopefully in the Middle East.”
“There’s a lot of folks that I think have been flying under the radar that we know of that could staff an administration,” he added. “There’s a lot of talent in different parts of the government and the think tank community that is more aligned and more willing to implement these policies than I think people realize.”
Additional reporting contributed by JI’s senior national correspondent Gabby Deutch and senior congressional correspondent Marc Rod.
In a recent development, it has been revealed that a policy advisor affiliated with the Koch network is playing a key role in the appointment of isolationist officials within the Pentagon.
The individual in question, who has not been named publicly, has been actively involved in pushing for a more isolationist foreign policy agenda within the Department of Defense. This includes advocating for a reduction in U.S. military presence overseas and a focus on domestic issues rather than international conflicts.
The influence of the Koch network in shaping Pentagon appointments has raised concerns among critics who fear that these appointments could weaken America’s global leadership and security alliances. The Koch network, known for its libertarian and anti-interventionist views, has long been a proponent of a more restrained U.S. foreign policy.
As the Biden administration continues to fill key positions within the Pentagon, the role of this Koch-affiliated policy advisor is sure to be closely scrutinized. Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.
Tags:
Koch-affiliated, policy advisor, isolationist, Pentagon appointments, defense department, national security, foreign policy, political influence, conservative agenda, think tank, defense strategy
Most discussions in Washington about the Trump administration’s approach to global affairs relate to Ukraine, China, the Middle East, and most recently Greenland; there is little talk of the Western Balkans. Nonetheless, shifts in U.S. foreign policy in the region could upset the fragile status quo prevailing there. The Western Balkans’ current state of affairs and delicate geopolitical equilibrium have prevented Bosnia and Herzegovina from sliding back into civil war while keeping the Serbia-Kosovo conflict frozen for the past 26 years.
Serb nationalists, in particular, are hopeful about U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. They are optimistic that his administration will align Washington more closely with Belgrade and the Bosnian Serb statelet of Republika Srpska.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik want the United States to counter other western governments and institutions that strongly support Kosovo’s independence and Bosnia and Herzegovina’s centralized structure as established by the 1995 Dayton Agreement, the U.S.-brokered peace deal that rigidly divided the war-torn country into two main entities—the Bosnian-Serb Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which both exist under a central government that has a rotating presidency among the three main communities: Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs.
Under the banner of defending Serb interests and advancing the cause of Serb unification, Dodik has spent years undermining the Dayton Agreement by obstructing Bosnia’s national institutions through various actions deemed dangerous and destabilizing by the United States and other western governments.
In practical terms, this would mean easing U.S. constraints on pro-Russian Serbs who desire Serb unification and oppose sanctions on Moscow. Such constraints and pressures include sanctions on Dodik and ultranationalists, including Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin, who previously headed Serbia’s Security Intelligence Agency and was known for his ties to Moscow and his harassment of anti-Putin voices in Serbia’s Russian émigré community.
Additionally, the previous U.S. administration recently imposed sanctions on NIS, Serbia’s oil and gas company, which is majority owned by Gazprom. It is not difficult to imagine Trump easing pressure on Serbia over its relationship with Russia while keeping quiet about Serbia’s human rights issues.
Serbs who believe in “Greater Serbia” stake claims to land in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere outside modern-day Serbia’s borders. During the 1990s, then-Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic’s pursuit of a Greater Serbia was a major factor in the wars that tore the region apart.
Although Vucic has said his government has no interest in redrawing international borders, many of Serbia’s neighbors suspect that Belgrade patiently sees realization of Greater Serbia as a longer-term objective. A 13-page declaration—adopted by Serbia and Republika Srpska in June 2024—outlines a vision for Serb dominance that would place portions of Kosovo back under Belgrade’s control and violate Bosnian sovereignty.
Shortly after Trump’s electoral victory last November, Vucic had a “very cordial” phone call with him, invited him to Belgrade, and credited him with knowing “many things about Serbia,” and noted that Trump’s approval ratings in Serbia are higher than in any other European country.
Richard Grenell, the special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations between 2019 and 2021, was a central figure in maintaining a friendly Washington-Belgrade relationship during Trump’s first term. Throughout Joe Biden’s presidency, Grenell visited Belgrade multiple times. In 2023, Grenell received order of the Serbian flag, and Vucic praised him for “witnessing the truth about the events in Kosovo and elsewhere in the region.”
Regardless of Grenell’s role in Trump’s second administration, Kosovo is likely nervous about Trump 2.0, and for good reason. The United States has recognized Kosovo’s independence since 2008, and today the majority of United Nations member states—including the vast majority of European countries—do, too. But Serbia, Russia, China, and a long list of mostly non-Western states recognize Kosovo as part of Serbia.
Because of Russia and China’s positions in the U.N. Security Council, it is essentially a given that the U.N. will not formally recognize Kosovo’s independence. Trump has previously threatened to withdraw U.S. military forces from the Kosovo Force (KFOR), a NATO-led peacekeeping team, alarming officials in Pristina.
However, even if Trump makes good on this threat, that would not necessarily prove an existential crisis for Kosovo. KFOR should be capable of continuing its operations in the event of a U.S. pullout, mostly because Pristina has prepared for this possible scenario by strengthening its relationship with Turkey in recent years.
In the aftermath of violence that broke out between KFOR and Serbia in May 2023, Ankara deployed a commando battalion to Kosovo. The Turks have also sold Bayraktar drones to Pristina. In late 2024, the Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation (a Turkish state-owned defense company) and Kosovo inked a deal to build an ammunition manufacturing factory in Kosovo.
In late 2023, Dodik said Trump winning the 2024 U.S. presidential election would make for a “better geopolitical situation for Republika Srpska” and that under such circumstances he would declare the Serb entity’s independence. After Trump won, Dodik declared it was a “victory” for Republika Srpska, too, and wore a MAGA hat outside his presidential palace. Banja Luka maintains good relations with Moscow, which leverages the tense situation in Bosnia to Russia’s advantage, viewing Republika Srpska as a “Balkan Transnistria”—a reference to the Russian-dominated sliver of land in Moldova.
Likewise, a pro-Russian enclave within Bosnia keeps NATO and the European Union nervous about instability in the Western Balkans—a tactic that the Kremlin can always use to distract from Ukraine—and creates an issue that prevents Bosnia from joining NATO.
At the same time, Western sanctions on Dodik have pushed Republika Srpska closer to China. In 2016, Republika Srpska and China entered into a cooperation agreement that formalized ties, and China has invested in construction projects and power plants throughout the Bosnian Serb enclave over the years.
Washington and London have sanctioned Dodik for his corruption and actions that threaten Bosnia’s fragile equilibrium. The United States, under President Barack Obama, first sanctioned the Kremlin-friendly Bosnian Serb leader in January 2017 for defying orders from Bosnia’s Constitutional Court. Dodik hopes that Trump will ease U.S. pressure on him, giving him free rein to obstruct the Dayton Agreement.
Power brokers in Banja Luka are optimistic that Washington could break with most EU and NATO members—which see preservation of the Dayton Agreement as key to stability and security in southeastern Europe—and instead align with Hungary vis-à-vis the Western Balkans. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has close relationships with Vucic, Dodik, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, has made Hungary the EU’s most sympathetic nation when it comes to ending Western pressure on Dodik. Orban, Vucic, and Dodik have established a triangular brotherhood, and some bet that Trump will become the fourth figure in it.
If the Bosnian Serb strongman succeeds in getting Washington to lift sanctions, he will “surely be emboldened to go on with his agenda,” said Vladimir Trapara, a senior research fellow at the Belgrade-based Institute of International Politics and Economics. Although Dodik may talk about separatism to rally his constituents in Republika Srpska, he might not ever make such a bold move given various practical considerations, including risks of a new war in the Balkans.
Trapara drew a distinction between Dodik’s populism-driven agenda and his “real political goals.” The Bosnian Serb leader tends to play the separatist card to whip up support from Serb nationalists when doing so makes for good politics, only to focus more on administrative issues when emotions are less charged.
Known for his transactional approach to foreign policy, Trump will likely seek major diplomatic and business deals in the Western Balkans. The Trump family’s business dealings in Serbia include Affinity Partners (his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s investment firm) securing a 99-year permit to develop a luxury hotel in Belgrade at a site that was bombed by NATO in 1999 and investing roughly $1 billion in luxury hotels and villas on Albania’s coast.
Such business interests may well factor into the Trump administration’s approach to this region, possibly complicating the picture with interests in Albania running counter to an increasingly pro-Belgrade policy. After all, Trump is known for making foreign-policy decisions based on the highest bidder and through personal connections, rather than traditional institutions.
In terms of Bosnia’s territorial integrity, authorities in Banja Luka seem to believe that the Trump administration might deprioritize the Dayton Agreement’s enforcement mechanisms. Trump’s general lack of interest in so-called transatlantic values, combined with his good relations with Orban and Vucic, might lead power brokers in Republika Srpska to have high hopes about Trump 2.0.
“While Belgrade may not openly pursue territorial ambitions, Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy could offer opportunities to push nationalist goals subtly,” said Petar Milutinovic, a research associate from the Belgrade-based Institute of European Studies. “Dodik, in particular, might exploit perceived U.S. disengagement to intensify calls for Republika Srpska’s independence.”
But things could turn out differently—and assumptions about Trump’s transactional foreign-policy approach being inherently positive for Serbia are overly simplistic. Albania and Kosovo spend money on U.S. lobbying efforts to advance their own interests, which include persuading Washington to advocate for Kosovo’s independence, bolster the Albania-U.S. alliance, and maintain pressure on Belgrade.
There could also be a role for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, given Ankara’s close relations with Sarajevo, Tirana, and Pristina. “Good relations between Erdogan and Trump, if used wisely, [have] the potential to improve U.S. relations with Bosniaks and Albanians, which are [currently] pretty dysfunctional,” explained Jahja Muhasilovic, a geopolitical analyst and an associate professor at the International University of Sarajevo.
If Trump succeeds—as promised—in freezing the Russia-Ukraine war, with portions of Ukrainian land remaining under Russian control, the reverberations would be felt across Europe. Such a diplomatic agreement on Ukraine could make the West appear weak, especially if it is accompanied by the lifting of some sanctions against Russia. Pro-Russian Serb nationalists could interpret such a scenario as “a victory for Moscow’s strategy, reinforcing their anti-Western rhetoric and calls for regional reordering, such as aspirations for secession in Republika Srpska or undermining Kosovo’s sovereignty,” Milutinovic said.
Dejan Sajinovic, a Bosnian columnist and editor for Nezavisne Novine, explained how Belgrade is most comfortable when there is an equilibrium of influence in the region, with both NATO members and Russia making concessions to Serbia. “When either side gains more strength, the balance is disturbed, and it usually means some sort of instability in the Balkans,” he said.
Trump’s unpredictability suggests that the optimism of Dodik and other Serbs could be misplaced. Simultaneously, ongoing Russian influence in southeastern Europe will limit Belgrade and Banja Luka’s ability to move closer to Washington. With Trump’s return to the White House, Serb nationalists should therefore think carefully about what they wish for.
In recent years, there has been growing concern over the United States’ policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly in regards to its relationship with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik.
Vucic and Dodik have been accused of undermining Bosnia’s sovereignty and stoking ethnic tensions in the region. Despite these concerns, the U.S. has maintained a relatively neutral stance towards both leaders, opting for a policy of engagement rather than confrontation.
However, with the recent appointment of Richard Grenell as the U.S. Special Envoy for Serbia and Kosovo, there are fears that the U.S. may be shifting towards a more pro-Vucic and Dodik stance. Grenell has been criticized for his close ties to Vucic and Dodik, leading many to question whether he will prioritize their interests over those of Bosnia as a whole.
As the U.S. continues to navigate its relationship with Serbia and Republika Srpska, it will be crucial for policymakers to consider the implications of tilting towards Vucic and Dodik. Will this shift in policy ultimately serve to stabilize the region or further exacerbate existing tensions? Only time will tell.
What are your thoughts on this potential shift in U.S. Bosnia policy? Share your opinions in the comments below.
FIRST ON FOX: A bill to restore the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy, introduced recently in the House, is racking up cosponsors as it becomes the latest immigration bill to pick up bipartisan support in the chamber.
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, a freshman lawmaker, introduced the Remain in Mexico Act this month.
The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols, which were introduced during the first Trump administration and required migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases were heard, part of an effort to end the practice known as “catch and release.” The protocols were scrapped by the Biden administration, which argued they were cruel and ineffective.
Then-President Donald Trump, left, speaks with U.S. Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott as they participate in a ceremony commemorating the 200th mile of border wall at the international border with Mexico in San Luis, Arizona, on June 23, 2020.(SAUL LOEB/AFP )
President Donald Trump has signed an order requiring the protocols to be restored, but codifying the policy in federal law would make it significantly harder for critics to then repeal it under a different administration.
However, with the bill now before Congress, it has already picked up over 100 cosponsors, Fox News Digital is told. That includes two Democrats, Rep. Marie Glusenkamp Perez, D-Wash., and Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine.
“I am overwhelmed with gratitude that over one hundred of my colleagues have shown bipartisan support for my REMAIN in Mexico Act that codifies President Trump’s executive border action into law,” Gill said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
President Donald Trump made southern border security a top priority of his administration.(AP Photo/Evan Vucci | Christian Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“The tides are shifting under President Trump—Congress knows we must strengthen our national security, prevent fraudulent asylum claims, and put our citizens first,” he said.
The bill is one of a number of pieces of immigration legislation that have been introduced, with increasing signs of support from Democrats after a year in which illegal immigration was a top issue for voters and resulted in Republicans controlling the House, Senate and White House.
On Wednesday evening, the House passed the Laken Riley Act, which requires the detention of illegal immigrants accused of theft-related crimes. It had previously passed the Senate. In the House, 46 Democrats voted in favor of it.
The House is expected to be active on illegal immigration, reflecting a flurry of orders coming from the White House. Those orders include declaring a national emergency at the border, sending troops to the border and canceling a slew of Biden-era parole programs.
Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, primarily covering immigration and border security.
In a surprising turn of events, a push to codify key Trump-era policies has garnered support from dozens of cosponsors, including Democrats. The tides are shifting as lawmakers come together to solidify the legacy of the previous administration.
This bipartisan effort to enshrine certain policies into law highlights the continued influence of the Trump administration on Capitol Hill. From immigration to trade, these policies have sparked debate and controversy, yet they have managed to attract support from both sides of the aisle.
While some may view this move as a nod to the past, others see it as a necessary step to provide stability and continuity in our government. As the push to codify these policies gains momentum, it remains to be seen how it will impact future legislation and the direction of our country.
Stay tuned as we continue to follow this developing story and see how the shifting tides of politics may shape the future of America.
The first few days of President Trump’s second administration delivered a fusillade of executive orders about energy and climate policy. At first, what stands out is their many contradictions.
In one order, Mr. Trump says that he wants the United States to become the world’s top producer of lithium, rare earth elements and other minerals that are used in batteries, high-end magnets and some cutting-edge defense tools. Yet elsewhere, he moves to cut off American demand for electric vehicles and wind turbines — even though these industries would buy the rocks coming out of American mines.
In another order, Mr. Trump declares that the country faces an imminent energy emergency because its “inadequate and intermittent energy supply” cannot meet its growing needs. He says therefore the United States must discard a slew of environmental and permitting laws in order to build more pipelines, refineries and power plants. But he does not get rid of any obstacles to building more solar and wind power generation or battery storage — even though these energy sources are expanding faster in this country and around the world than any others because the economics are so good.
These actions, taken together, do not make sense on their own terms. And what becomes clear from looking at Mr. Trump’s energy agenda as a whole is that it’s not supposed to — it is not actually intended to shore up the country’s energy supply. It is also not meant to engineer a boom in new oil and gas supply, something that Mr. Trump’s donors don’t seem to want.
The guiding logic of the policies, instead, is to make the market for fossil fuels as big as possible. Mr. Trump wants to lock in oil and gas demand for the long term. That is why he has weakened energy efficiency rules for household appliances. That is why he has thrown out the government’s fuel economy rules for cars and trucks.
It’s also why, even as Mr. Trump asserted that the United States doesn’t have enough energy, he cleared the way for it to export more natural gas. America is already on track to double its liquefied natural gas exports by 2028, but Mr. Trump’s emergency declaration will pave the way for officials to approve about a half-dozen additional L.N.G. export terminals now sitting on the docket. Today, America generates more electricity with natural gas than any other fuel. By building more export terminals, and sending even more gas abroad, Mr. Trump will risk tying domestic power prices to the global gas market, potentially driving up costs for American consumers.
Now, it’s true that natural gas exports can help America’s allies, much as they did after Russia invaded Ukraine, as Mr. Trump nods to in his executive order. I can envision situations in which exporting natural gas could be quite important to global security. But Mr. Trump cannot seriously claim to be helping Europe while he makes a play to annex Greenland. And few of the other arguments for his peculiar mix of policies hold up, either. In sum, Mr. Trump is saying that America needs more energy and that it should stop building certain kinds of power plants and that it should increase its energy exports.
There is a broader story here, though. China, with its relatively scarce oil and gas resources, is investing in a future where most energy will come from manufactured products such as solar panels. China is the world’s top carbon polluter, and its power grid churns through climate-destroying coal. But over the past decade, it has used regulations and incentives to develop a world-class electric vehicle industry, not to mention a solar and wind equipment manufacturing colossus. Now it is happily exporting these clean energy products.
The United States has not managed its energy markets as strategically. Over the past decade, it has bounced from one energy ideal to another as Mr. Trump has come in and out of office. American leadership in the 20th century was grounded partly in the country’s mammoth fossil fuel reserves. But in this century, the political elite has struggled with how to handle these still considerable resources: Washington has forced consumers to cling to oil, allowed its car companies to build giant, inefficient S.U.V.s and allowed key energy innovations such as the lithium-ion battery to slip away.
Now the Trump administration is trying to keep the party going for oil and gas companies. Instead of focusing on the parts of the economy where oil and gas might be most useful and saving the rest for export, he is bent on expanding fossil fuel demand, everywhere, at any cost. And he may be willing to cut funding for — even deny permits to — any energy technology that irritates him or stands in his way.
Mr. Trump’s administration, or at least his energy policy, is revealing itself as a set of closely managed tensions within his coalition and even, sometimes, within his own psyche. The largest of these is the tension between Mr. Trump’s instinctive hunger for big tariffs and his political need to control inflation. Another is the tension between his hatred for trade and his need to keep the auto-making and oil industries — which depend on the free exchange of car parts and crude oil with Canada and Mexico — afloat.
Still another is between his political loyalty to the fossil fuel industry and his need to find new energy sources to power artificial intelligence. Even his personal enmity for wind power must be weighed against the degree to which Texas, Oklahoma and other Plains States depend on electricity from wind turbines.
The skillful juggling of these tensions — like the continued existence of the oil and gas industry itself, at least in its current state — cannot go on forever. But it can go on for a little while longer. And when the act finally stops, when the dancing baubles crash to the floor, Americans will wake up and find themselves in a world transformed.
As the Trump administration continues to roll back environmental regulations and promote fossil fuel production, it is becoming increasingly clear that their energy policy is riddled with contradictions – and it’s not by accident.
From promoting coal and oil while also touting natural gas as a cleaner alternative, to championing American energy independence while simultaneously pulling out of international climate agreements, the administration’s energy policy seems to be intentionally murky and inconsistent.
One possible explanation for these contradictions is that the administration is simply catering to the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which has long been a major supporter of President Trump. By promoting a variety of energy sources, the administration can keep various sectors of the industry happy and ensure continued support and donations.
Another possible explanation is that the administration is intentionally sowing confusion and discord in order to prevent any cohesive opposition to their energy policies. By promoting conflicting messages and policies, they make it difficult for environmental advocates, policymakers, and the public to come together in opposition, thus allowing the administration to continue their deregulatory agenda unimpeded.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that Trump’s energy policy is full of contradictions – and it’s likely not by accident. As the administration continues to prioritize the interests of the fossil fuel industry over environmental protection and public health, it is essential for the public to remain vigilant and push back against these harmful policies.
Donald Trump has threatened Russia with taxes, tariffs and sanctions if a deal to end the war in Ukraine is not struck soon, as the new US president tries to increase pressure on Moscow to start negotiations with Kyiv.
Writing in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump said Russia’s economy was failing and urged Vladimir Putin to “settle now and stop this ridiculous war”.
Without a deal, Trump said, “I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries.”
The statement marks Trump’s most detailed efforts yet to end the war in Ukraine. During the election campaign, he said he would end the war “in 24 hours” if elected.
“Let’s get this war, which never would have started if I were President, over with! We can do it the easy way, or the hard way – and the easy way is always better,” he said.
Trump pledged during his presidential campaign to end the war before he even took office. Asked on Monday how long it would take to do so, he said: “I have to speak to President Putin. We’re going to have to find out.”
US media reported this week that Trump had instructed his special envoy, Keith Kellogg, to end the war in 100 days.
Top Russian officials have expressed unusual willingness to engage with Trump in recent statements. Putin praised his readiness to “restore direct contacts with Russia” on Monday.
In what appeared to be an appeal to Trump’s well-documented fondness for flattery, Putin has described him as courageous on two occasions, referring to the assassination attempt against him at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on 13 July.
In contrast, Trump’s rhetoric towards Russia has been harsher, marking some of his strongest-ever public criticism of Putin and his leadership.
Asked about the war in Ukraine shortly after his inauguration on Monday, Trump said that his Russian counterpart was destroying Russia by refusing to negotiate a ceasefire.
“He can’t be thrilled, he’s not doing so well,” he told reporters, referring to Putin’s war. “Russia is bigger, they have more soldiers to lose, but that’s no way to run a country.”
‘Sounds likely’ the US will sanction Russia if Putin does not negotiate on Ukraine: Trump – video
Trump nevertheless wrote on Wednesday that he “always had a very good relationship” with Putin and that he “was not looking to hurt Russia”.
Trump’s latest statements highlight the unease many in Moscow’s elite feel about his unpredictability, which has led to a cautious response since his re-election.
Alexander Kots, a high-profile pro-war correspondent for Komsomolskaya Pravda, wrote on Telegram that Trump had issued Putin an ultimatum.
“As I’ve said before, it’s better to prepare for the worst. Soon, we’ll look back on Biden’s term with nostalgia, like a thaw,” he said.
Speaking to state media on earlier on Wednesday, Russia’s deputy foreign minister said Moscow saw a “small window of opportunity” to forge agreements with the new Trump administration.
The Kremlin, however, has signalled that it is in no rush to sign a peace deal.
Russia’s deputy ambassador the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, gave a guarded response to Trump’s comments. “It’s not merely the question of ending the war. It’s first and foremost the question of addressing the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis,” he said.
“So we have to see what does the ‘deal’ mean in President Trump’s understanding.”
Putin has repeatedly staked out a maximalist position for ending the war in recent months, demanding that Ukraine not join Nato, and that it adopt a neutral status and undergo some level of demilitarisation. He has insisted the west lift its sanctions against Russia and said he wanted to retain control of Crimea and the four Ukrainian regions Moscow claimed in 2022.
In a show of strength, Putin held talks in the last few days with two of his key allies in his struggle against the west. He hosted the Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, in Moscow on Friday and spoke via video link to the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, on Tuesday.
Trump’s latest statement on the war in Ukraine notably omits any mention of providing additional weapons to Kyiv, instead signalling a shift towards deploying economic measures against Moscow.
Given the shrinking trade ties between the US and Russia and the raft of sanctions on Russia already, the effectiveness of Trump’s direct threat of tariffs is uncertain. The trade between the two countries in the first 11 months of 2024 was only $3.4bn. The annual trade between the US and Europe by comparison is about $1.5tn.
Trump administration officials have previously indicated that they believe the US could further target Russia’s economy by sanctioning its energy sector.
Tatiana Stanovaya, the founder of the political analysis firm R.Politik, said that despite Trump’s efforts to force Putin to negotiate, the Russian leader appeared convinced that he had the resources to outlast Ukraine.
“A peace deal on Russian terms would save significant resources, but absent such an agreement, Putin is prepared to fight for as long as it takes,” she wrote on X.
She also wrote that Russia’s current economic situation was unlikely to compel Putin to negotiate with Ukraine. “If the Kremlin concludes that no favourable deal with Trump is forthcoming, they will likely focus on prolonging the conflict,” she added.
In a recent development in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, President Donald Trump has issued a stern warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin, threatening to impose taxes, tariffs, and sanctions if Russia does not cease its aggression in the region.
The escalating tensions between the two nations have raised concerns about the potential for a full-scale conflict in Ukraine, which has been embroiled in a civil war since 2014. The United States has been a strong supporter of Ukraine and has imposed sanctions on Russia in the past in response to its actions in the region.
President Trump’s latest statement comes after reports of increased Russian military activity in eastern Ukraine, prompting fears of a possible invasion. In a tweet, Trump declared, “If Russia does not stop its aggression in Ukraine, we will not hesitate to use economic measures to punish them. Taxes, tariffs, and sanctions are all on the table.”
The threat of economic retaliation marks a significant escalation in the US response to the conflict in Ukraine and underscores the administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. It remains to be seen how Russia will respond to Trump’s ultimatum and whether the situation will escalate further in the coming days.
As tensions continue to rise in Ukraine, the international community is closely monitoring the situation and urging both sides to exercise restraint and seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The threat of economic measures by the US adds a new dimension to the crisis and highlights the complex and volatile nature of US foreign policy in the region.
