Trump Adviser Fumbles Key Question in Bad Sign for Ukraine Peace Talks

Russia will get practically everything it wants so long as the Trump administration is overseeing the peace talks over the Ukraine war.

Over the past several weeks, Trump’s officials have negotiationally ceded land and military protection for Ukraine—but words fail them when pressed about what exactly Russia will have to give up in order to end the war.

Real estate developer turned U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff spoke with Russian officials last week regarding a potential peace deal. While speaking about the meeting with CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Donald Trump’s longtime friend couldn’t detail one thing that Russia would actually have to compromise on in the arrangement.

“What concessions will Russia have to make?” prompted CNN host Jake Tapper.

“Well, I think, in any peace deal, each side is going to make concessions, whether it’s territorial concessions, whether it’s economic concessions. I think there’s a whole array of things that happen in a deal,” Witkoff said.

“And you’ll see concessions from both sides,” Witkoff continued, not naming a single item that Russia will have to concede. “And that’s the president’s—that’s what he does best. He brings people together. He gets them to understand that the pathway to peace is concessions and consensus-building. And I think you’re going to see a very successful result here.”

Russian forces crossed the Ukrainian border on February 24, 2022, which Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to justify by falsely claiming that he needed to protect civilians in eastern Ukraine. But in a jarring attempt to rewrite history, Witkoff also denied those facts.

“The war didn’t need to happen. It was provoked. It doesn’t necessarily mean it was provoked by the Russians,” Witkoff told CNN. “There were all kinds of conversations back then about Ukraine joining NATO. The president has spoken about this. That didn’t need to happen. It basically became a threat to the Russians.”

While speaking at a NATO summit earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explicitly outlined that the Trump administration’s peace talks with Russia had taken several bargaining chips “off the table.”

That included Ukraine’s possible NATO membership (something the military alliance had promised in 2008), the possibility of a U.S. military presence in Ukraine to enforce postwar security guarantees, and the end of NATO missions to Ukraine. He also added that it would be “unrealistic” for Ukraine to return to its prewar borders, effectively ceding land to Moscow.

The announcement came as a complete 180 on American and NATO policy regarding the Eastern European country, and left U.S. allies and defense experts reeling. The deal, per Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, amounted to Russian propaganda and was practically “written in the Kremlin.”

On Friday, Politico noted that Trump had caved to Russian talking points several dozen times, closely aligning the U.S. president with the foreign dictator.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth admitted Sunday that he’d fired top military lawyers so that Donald Trump’s administration can get away with whatever it wants.

During an appearance on Fox News, host Shannon Bream asked Hegseth to respond to a post on X from Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks criticizing his decision to fire three judge advocates general, or JAGs, Friday. 

“Trump also firing the Army, Navy and Air Force JAGs. In some ways that’s even more chilling than firing the four stars,” Brooks wrote Friday. “It’s what you do when you’re planning to break the law: you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down.”

Hegseth responded dismissively and tried to offer a different explanation, but ended up just saying the same thing.  

“Yeah, I don’t know who Rosa is, and what her hyperbole is all about,” Hegseth said. “Ultimately, we want lawyers who give sound constitutional advice and don’t exist to attempt to be roadblocks to anything.”

Hegseth continued, describing his problem with experts elevating other experts in the field of defense: “Traditionally they’ve been elected by each other, or chosen by each other, which is exactly how it works often with the chairman as well. Small group of insulated officers who perpetuate the status quo. Well guess what? Status quo hasn’t worked very well at the Pentagon.”

Hegseth never made contact with any of the three lawyers he claimed had upheld the status quo, Lieutenant General Joseph B. Berger III, Air Force Lieutenant General Charles Plummer, and Rear Admiral Lia M. Reynolds, according to The New York Times.

And while the Department of Defense is rife with corruption, and likely the most ripe target for massive spending cuts in the U.S. government, it’s clear from Hegseth’s own limp denial that he fired the three JAGs for the purpose of replacing them with MAGA loyalists who won’t stop the Trump administration from doing whatever it wants.

On Friday, Trump fired Joint Chiefs Chairman General Charles Q. Brown, to be replaced by Air Force Lieutenant General John Dan “Razin” Caine, who is not only retired but also not a four-star general. 

Trump also dismissed Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti and General James Slife, the vice chief of the Air Force. The dismissal of the lawyers was not included in the Pentagon’s official announcement. 

In another post on X, Brooks made a fitting reference to Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV: “‘First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’ If you plan to commit crimes, best to get rid of any lawyers who might try to stop you,” Brooks wrote. 

Donald Trump’s war on the media rages on. This time, it’s MSNBC drawing his ire.

The president posted a lengthy, angry message at 11:18 p.m. Sunday night, in which he used the news of anchor Joy Reid’s show getting canceled to excoriate the network for essentially not being as nice to him as he’d like them to be.

“Lowlife Chairman of ‘Concast,’ Brian Roberts, the owner of Ratings Challenged NBC and MSDNC, has finally gotten the nerve up to fire one of the least talented people in television, the mentally obnoxious racist, Joy Reid. Based on her ratings, which were virtually nonexistent, she should have been ‘canned’ long ago, along with everyone else who works there,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

He went on to attack the ratings and intelligence of Rachel Maddow and “low IQ con man” Al Sharpton, before pivoting to what the network owed him. “This whole corrupt operation is nothing more than an illegal arm of the Democrat Party. They should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our Country. Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN!”

Reid’s firing was announced on Sunday, to the surprise of many casual MSNBC watchers. Her 7 p.m. show, The ReidOut, will be replaced with a panel that includes former senior Biden adviser Symone Sanders, never-Trump Republican Michael Steele, and author Alicia Menendez, the daughter of the corrupt (and currently incarcerated) former Senator Bob Menendez.

Trump’s angry rant comes as he banned the Associated Press—an international news organization—from the White House Press Corps over its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” as Trump named it in an executive order. He is also in the midst of suing CBS for very basic editing of a Kamala Harris interview on 60 Minutes. It’s clear that Trump is very sensitive to any negative coverage on the airwaves, regardless of how accurate it is.

At least one Republican lawmaker is openly admitting that he’s interested to see how Donald Trump’s unconstitutional challenges to the federal government will “play out.”

During an interview on CBS’s Face The Nation Sunday, Utah Senator John Curtis appeared to encourage a constitutional crisis by suggesting that the president’s decision to freeze congressionally appropriated funds to agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development should be welcomed as a test to the Constitution.

“Do you believe the president has the unilateral authority to cancel funds appropriated by Congress?” asked CBS’s Margaret Brennan.

“Well what we’re seeing play out is this wrestle between the three branches of government,” Curtis said. “We’ll find out.”

“You don’t have a point of view?” pressed Brennan.

“Well, listen, I believe in the Constitution, right? I believe this is how we test the Constitution,” Curtis continued. “And people have said, ‘Oh this is a constitutional crisis.’ And I say exactly the opposite. It’s proving to work. We have the courts play in, we have Congress who will play in.

“Let’s let this play out by the Constitution, and then Congress—let’s step up. Right? I’ll be the first to say it, this is a problem that Congress has, in many cases, given the American people,” Curtis added.

The Trump administration’s prerogative, however, seems less inclined to follow the law on this particular issue.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 grants Congress the authority to reexamine executive branch withholdings from the budget. In a 1985 memorandum, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the executive branch has no authority to block such spending and that “impoundment is not a promising avenue for resolving budget disputes with Congress on any significant scale.” He also urged that the power could not be wielded under “normal” circumstances.

“Our institutional vigilance with respect to the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency requires appropriate deference to the constitutional prerogatives of the other branches, and no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse,” Roberts wrote at the time.

But when asked during his confirmation hearings if he would obey the Impoundment Control Act, Trump’s then-nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget (and Project 2025 architect), Russell Vought, claimed that the law itself was unconstitutional and that he would defer to the Trump administration as to whether his office would act in accordance with the law.

Former lawmakers haven’t been shy about criticizing the current state of the Republican Party for failing to stand up to Trump’s overbearing administration.

Speaking with MSNBC earlier this month, former Florida Representative David Jolly argued that the country is in a “constitutional crisis,” and his party has been “facilitating it.”

“The constitutional crisis is because the Republican Congress has collapsed,” the Republican told the network.

“It is listless and meaningless, it is not providing the check that the Constitution suggests it should in this environment,” he said, arguing that the only existing check that remains on the “lawlessness and corruption” of Trump and Elon Musk’s power is in the courts, which “takes time.”

“But the immediate ability to rush to the fire is the Congress, and they’ve just laid down and said, ‘Hey, Donald Trump is running this place, and Elon Musk is as well, and we’re giving up any authority,’” Jolly said.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency effort experienced a setback in court Monday when a federal judge blocked the Office of Personnel Management and Department of Education from sharing sensitive information with the pseudo-agency.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman noted that DOGE has been granted access to information including “Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home address, income and assets, citizenship status, and disability status—and their access to this trove of personal information is ongoing. There is no reason to believe their access to this information will end anytime soon because the government believes their access is appropriate.”

Boardman denied the plaintiffs’ motion to block the Treasury Department from sharing information with DOGE, noting that another judge had already done so.

DOGE has already sought access to taxpayers’ personal information right in the midst of tax season—and it hasn’t exactly been careful with sensitive data in the past. Its own website was hacked because its developers made coding errors, left open too many vulnerabilities, and hosted the page outside of government servers.

Musk has attempted to gain access to other sensitive government agencies as well, such as the Social Security Administration, leading some top officials to resign rather than hand over data. What the tech mogul plans to do with his new trove of sensitive information is unclear, although some Democrats think he’s trying to train his AI model Grok 3. There are also numerous benefits from that data for his business ventures, including ending government investigations into his activities.

This story has been updated.