Vladimir Putin Just Offered Trump a Huge Gift

Russian President Vladimir Putin just offered to cut Donald Trump in on his invasion of Ukraine by pillaging its seized minerals.

After Ukraine initially refused to offer up its mineral reserves as payback for U.S. military aid, Putin has swooped in to offer the U.S. minerals from … Russian-occupied Ukraine. Putin told state media Monday that Russia was “ready to work with our partners, including the Americans” to access several mineral reserves across the country—and outside of it too, according to Politico.

The autocrat emphasized that Russia had “an order of magnitude more resources of this kind than Ukraine,” but it seems that his bid also included reserves in Ukraine. Putin name-dropped Donbas, a Ukrainian region occupied by Russian forces, and referred to the country’s seized lands as “so-called new historical territories.”

The offer comes as U.S. and Ukraine officials enter the final stages of a contentious mineral agreement.

The deal would funnel half of the Eastern European nation’s rare earth minerals—hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of materials used in tech and electronic products—into the American market but wouldn’t do anything to ensure Ukraine’s security or economic interests in the future.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy publicly balked at a deal proposed by the Trump administration Sunday, which would grant the U.S. preferential access to Ukraine’s critical mineral resources.

“I will not sign what ten generations of Ukrainians will have to pay back,” Zelenskiy said Sunday. Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Olga Stefanishyna wrote in a post on X Monday that U.S. and Ukrainian officials were “in the final stages” of negotiations.

On Monday, Trump held a meeting with the G7 Summit, where he said that he “emphasized the importance” of the proposed “Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal” between the U.S. and Ukraine. The Trump administration has repeatedly pledged to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, but has also openly echoed Moscow’s rhetoric downplaying its role in the yearslong conflict. Last week, Trump claimed that Ukraine had actually invited Russia’s illegal and deadly incursion into its territory, and the U.S. also joined 18 countries that refused to sign a U.N. resolution to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine.

Should Trump accept Putin’s offer to raid Ukraine’s mineral resources, he won’t just be rubber-stamping Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he will be participating in it too!

House Speaker Mike Johnson refused Tuesday to promise not to cut Medicaid. 

At a press conference, Johnson was asked by a reporter if “unequivocally … further down the line, there won’t be any cuts to Medicaid programs.” 

Johnson’s response wasn’t encouraging. 

“Medicaid is hugely problematic because it has a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse. Everybody knows that, we all know it intuitively. No one in here would disagree,” Johnson said, claiming that experts say that the Medicaid program has $50 billion in fraud. 

“Everybody is committed to preserving Medicare benefits for those who desperately need it and deserve it and qualify for it. What we’re talking about is rooting out the fraud, waste, and abuse,” Johnson added. 

Johnson was echoed by Republican Representative Nick LaLota, who told CNN Tuesday morning that Social Security and Medicare were off the table in the House’s budget talks but that Medicaid “was a subject for discussion,” claiming that undocumented immigrants—whom he called “illegals”—needed to be taken off the rolls. LaLota added that work requirements for Medicaid were also needed and that waste, fraud, and abuse within the program needed to be curbed.   

Johnson’s and LaLota’s comments seem to indicate that cuts are coming to a program popular on both sides of the aisle. While House Republicans seem to be trying to downplay any such cuts, claiming that Medicare and Social Security will be largely left intact, the fact that they can’t say the same for Medicaid doesn’t bode well, especially since Donald Trump has already endorsed sweeping cuts to the program. There may soon be a backlash to the GOP’s budget when it gets released. 

Montana women could soon be unable to receive abortion care anywhere.

A new bill sponsored by state Representative Kerri Seekins-Crowe would ban “abortion trafficking” across state lines, effectively criminalizing anyone who receives or helps someone receive the medical procedure, even if they access it outside of Montana.

“A person commits the offense of abortion trafficking if the person purposely or knowingly transports or aids or assists another person in transporting an unborn child that is currently located in this state either to a location within this state or to a location outside of this state with the intent to obtain an abortion that is illegal in this state,” reads the text of Montana House Bill 609. Conviction could come with a sentence of up to five years in prison.

The bill seeks to restrict a woman’s ability to travel—similar to how Republicans have pushed to restrict minors’ ability to leave their state for gender-affirming care. It’s also unclear how local authorities would be able to identify people who had received abortions outside of the state, raising questions of whether state lawmakers would also push for a registry of pregnant Montanans.

“Had a bill like this been law at the time, I wouldn’t just be a grieving mother, I’d be a felon,” Anne Angus, a 35-year-old Montanan who received an abortion at 24 weeks in 2022, after her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, told Jessica Valenti. Under H.B. 609, she would be in prison. “All for fleeing the state to give my son the compassion and dignity he deserved,” Angus said.

Democrats are currently mobilizing against the bill. “Beyond attacking Montana voters who voted decisively to protect abortion rights, state Republicans are once again abusing state legislatures as a testing ground for their most extreme policies,” Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee communications director Lauren Chou told The New Republic. “Voters across the country are watching as Republicans take an ax to their rights, and they won’t forget this when it’s time to head to the ballot box.”

In November, Montanans voted to enshrine abortion protections in their state constitution, but that hasn’t prevented conservative state lawmakers from continuing to chip away at the protection. Earlier this month, Republicans in the state legislature advanced House Bill 316, a fetal personhood bill that would confer constitutional rights to a fetus from the moment of its conception. The bill would also effectively nix in vitro fertilization access in the state and undermine abortion access, according to the Daily Montanan, though it will require the approval of two-thirds of the state legislature before being advanced to the ballot for Montanans to vote on.

But Montana’s recent anti-abortion legislation is just more moves in a multipronged attack on reproductive rights happening nationwide, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not support such restrictions.

In Missouri, a similar effort to track women is underway. Missouri House Bill 807, called the “Save MO Babies Act,” is intended to target people “at risk for seeking abortion services” and to “reduce the number of preventable abortions.” If passed, the registry would start on July 1, 2026, and would be managed by the Maternal and Child Services division of the state’s Department of Social Services, according to the bill text. But the bill does not specify the scope and scale of such a registry, or exactly how “at risk” individuals would be identified.

Lacking access to abortion care has actually made pregnancies drastically less safe. In Texas, where abortion hasn’t been permitted despite the legislature’s medical emergency clause, sepsis rates have skyrocketed by as much as 50 percent for women who lost their pregnancies during the second trimester, according to an investigative analysis published last week by ProPublica.

That’s left women in the state, like Kate Cox, with few other options than to flee Texas for emergency care—a reality that could be stripped from the table for women in Montana.

A group of civil servants caught up in Elon Musk’s chain-saw massacre of the federal government resigned on Monday, choosing to leave their jobs rather than help the tech billionaire gut essential programs.

In a letter obtained by the Associated Press, 21 technologists at the U.S. Digital Service, lamely rebranded by Donald Trump as the U.S. DOGE Service, quit, issuing a warning about the inexperienced ideologues that Musk had brought in to spearhead his efforts to slash government spending.

According to the letter, at the beginning of the Trump administration staffers were subjected to intense questioning by Musk’s guest-badge-wearing minions, who probed them on their political beliefs and technical skills. “Several of these interviewers refused to identify themselves, asked questions about political loyalty, attempted to pit colleagues against each other, and demonstrated limited technical ability,” the letter states. “This process created significant security risks.”

Ironically, the U.S. Digital Service was launched a decade ago to make government programs more efficient. Now, however, Musk’s interlopers are only intent on doing their overlord’s bidding, which means firing staffers and gutting programs.

The departing staffers wrote that they objected to the dismissal of 40 of their colleagues earlier this month. “These highly skilled civil servants were working to modernize Social Security, veterans’ services, tax filing, health care, disaster relief, student aid, and other critical services,” the staffers wrote in the letter. “Their removal endangers millions of Americans who rely on these services every day. The sudden loss of their technology expertise makes critical systems and Americans’ data less safe.”

Of the 65 staffers who were absorbed into the Deparment of Government Efficiency’s efforts after the purge earlier this month, one-third have now left the organization.

“We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services,” the staffers wrote in the letter. “We will not lend our expertise to carry out or legitimize DOGE’s actions.

“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,” they wrote. “However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments.”

DOGE now claims to have slashed government spending by an estimated $65 billion by targeting waste and fraud, but the group has still provided no evidence of actual fraud, just a wonky list of government contracts they’ve decided to end, which doesn’t always add up. Meanwhile, the government-wide layoffs directed by DOGE continued Tuesday, with the Office of Personnel Management eliminating its 40-person team that oversees sensitive employee data. Massive layoffs plus buyouts have amounted to the elimination of about 95,000 jobs, according to Reuters.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt decided to only tell her side of the story while claiming a win over the White House press corps on Monday.

Earlier in the day, federal Judge Trevor McFadden stopped short of immediately forcing the White House to restore the Associated Press’s access to the White House—because in his view, the AP had not provided sufficient evidence of harm to elicit an immediate order. 

The Trump administration immediately began to spin it as a win. 

“The winning continues here at the White House.… Today a federal judge right here in Washington, D.C., denied the Associated Press’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order to restore their privilege of returning to the White House press pool,” Leavitt said Monday on Fox News after McFadden’s decision. “The judge’s denial of the Associated Press’s request reinforces what I said from the podium last week and what President Trump has been saying: Covering the American presidency in the most intimate and limited spaces in this White House … is a privilege, it is not a legal right.” 

Leavitt went on to shout out the right-wing podcasters and influencers who have been invited into the White House press corps. 

But McFadden also warned that if and when this conflict (which stems from the AP refusing to abide by Donald Trump’s executive order to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”) did go to court, the law would not be in the president’s favor. The right to a free and uninhibited press is one of the most basic tenets of the First Amendment.  

“It seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination,” McFadden told government lawyer Brian Hudak.

While Trump doesn’t seem to care much for the gravity of the Constitution, the First Amendment does state that there shall be “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The winning Leavitt bragged about may not last for long.