bipartisan

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s latest embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin is deepening alarm in Washington and among America’s allies that the White House pressure campaign could leave Ukraine vulnerable as Moscow advances.

Trump’s push to end the war, which has raged since 2022, comes on the cusp of a midterm election that could give Democrats partial or full control of Congress, expanding their oversight powers, and as polls show more than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of foreign policy and support Kyiv’s fight against Russian aggression.

On Monday, Trump dismissed Russia’s ongoing assault on its neighbor, telling reporters that “they haven’t been doing much,” even as Russian forces bombed a park in Kharkiv that day, killing a mother and her 14-month-old child in her stroller.

Two days later, in St. Petersburg, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, described Putin as a “humanitarian,” despite his invasion unleashing Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II.

“You talk so much about my president, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, sir,” Witkoff said after securing the release of a detained U.S. citizen from the Kremlin. At least two other Americans, both from Los Angeles, remain wrongfully detained by Russia. “I salute you, and I commend you,” he added.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) described Witkoff’s remarks as “another embarrassment” after a steady stream of entreaties to Moscow from the Trump administration.

The diplomatic push follows Trump’s decision two weeks ago to import Russian diesel, a move that could bolster Moscow’s war effort and violate U.S. law. Days later, after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly condemned the move, Trump ally Elon Musk reportedly throttled the speed of Starshield, a military-grade satellite internet service from Starlink that Kyiv relies on to defend itself against Russian attacks.

The Trump administration failed to provide Kyiv with intelligence warnings of incoming ballistic missile strikes, blaming the weather. The president waived sanctions on Russia that were passed just months earlier with overwhelming bipartisan support in the aftermath of the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally and Ukraine supporter. And Trump declined to approve the transfer of interceptor missiles to Ukraine — more defensive weaponry used to protect the country from Russian strikes that have increasingly targeted civilian areas.

The developments have raised fresh questions over whether Trump has exceeded his legal authority in reshaping U.S. policy on Ukraine.

Russian diesel imports could violate a 2022 federal ban, the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act, and throttling Starshield, withholding intelligence and delaying missile transfers could breach contractual or statutory obligations set forth by Congress — all potential subjects of investigation for a willing Congress.

And Trump’s push comes at a moment of political peril, as he faces the prospect of a Democratic-led legislature and a Republican Party ready to move beyond his lame-duck presidency.

But freedom from political obligation could also allow Trump to pursue his agenda without the needs for coalitions or popular support.

The prospect of an unchecked Trump has stoked fears on Capitol Hill that the White House could abandon Kyiv altogether.

Nine senators from both parties have asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate the Starlink episode, while lawmakers across the aisle have condemned the speed restrictions. And should they take power after the midterms, Democrats are also weighing whether to make Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s resignation a condition of further defense funding, citing his criticism of Ukraine, according to a report in the newspaper the Hill.

“Congress will unequivocally reaffirm that Ukraine is an indispensable ally to the United States, that Russia is a self-declared enemy of the United States, and that the United States will 100% support and defend the people of Ukraine in their fight for their own freedom against this brutal, illegal, and unprovoked Russian invasion,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

“The United States must provide any and all defensive equipment that Ukraine needs to defend itself,” Fitzpatrick added. “Anyone who attempts to limit the use of Starshield for Ukraine will be fully investigated and will be held fully accountable, to include public congressional oversight hearings.”

Marco Rubio, the president’s secretary of State and national security advisor, was initially silent on Trump’s moves. But he ultimately defended them when confronted by reporters on a recent visit to Central Asia.

“We’re no longer going to be defensive about this topic,” Rubio said. “If it were not for the assistance of the United States, including under the Trump administration, there would be no Ukraine right now. Ukraine, as a sovereign state, would not exist.”

Still, Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), a former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that Rubio’s explanation of Ukraine’s loss of Starlink access was “absolutely not” sufficient.

“This is something where there needs to be an investigation, there needs to be a congressional investigation,” Turner told CBS. “Lives are at risk, and lives are lost over these things.”

Trump has told reporters in recent days that his goal remains to secure a peace deal that ends the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II. But Mitt Romney, a former GOP senator from Utah and the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, dismissed Trump’s arguments as a break from U.S. values.

“Churchill could have shortened WW2 by years if he had just ‘done a deal’ with Hitler,” Romney wrote on social media. “George Washington could have done a deal to end the American Revolution.”

Zelensky “is in good company,” he added.

Europe, too, is preparing for a new confrontation with the Trump administration over the defense of Ukraine.

Germany’s chancellor rejected Trump’s approach, saying of Europe, “We are the firewall.” And the European diplomatic service responded with derision to Trump’s waiver of sanctions.

“When Russia escalates aggression against Ukraine,” the European Union’s diplomatic service said in a statement, “Europe responds with more pressure on the aggressor.”

Trump has floated a trilateral summit with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Shenzhen, China, next month, fueling European fears that he could strike a deal on Ukraine without Kyiv at the table.

The Russians and Ukrainians agreed this week in principle to begin peace talks at a technical level moderated by the United States. No timeline or framework has been set for the talks.

In an interview on Fox News, Zelensky said that he was prepared to agree to a peace deal that froze the existing battle lines, ceding nearly a quarter of Ukrainian land to Russian control. Over the last year, Russia has demanded that Kyiv also relinquish land in the Donbas region that it has failed to conquer through military means.

“Right now, we have to freeze. And I think this is a real way to end this war. We call this ceasefire,” Zelensky said. “This is minimum what we need from Russia today.”

“The most important is peace, and secure peace,” he added, “not to be afraid that occupation will come back, aggression will come back, killing will come back.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that the Pentagon will not livestream the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, after the announcement faced bipartisan criticism and Vice President JD Vance said he wouldn’t watch it.

Trump said on social media that publicly airing the execution “might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan.”

But, he continued, “any very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device.”

The Pentagon has said Hasan’s execution is scheduled for Dec. 3. Trump said the execution can be viewed in person by immediate families of the victims, “if they so choose.”

The announcement earlier this month from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that Hasan’s execution would be public — and subsequent confirmation from the Pentagon that it would be livestreamed — prompted significant blowback from both Republicans and Democrats, with many pointing out that the images could be used to fuel radicalization.

When asked how the public execution comported with his Christian faith earlier this month, Vance said “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen.”

“So whatever the controversy is about the method of the execution, I hope that people don’t forget that this is a guy who brutally murdered a lot of innocent people,” Vance said.

But he continued: “Now, that said, I mean, look, if it’s ultimately livestreamed, I’m not going to be watching it.”

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who held the rank of major, walked into a medical building on Nov. 5, 2009, where soldiers were waiting in long lines to receive immunizations and medical clearance for deployment. He shouted “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great!” — and opened fire with a laser-sighted handgun. He also shot at the backs of soldiers fleeing toward the parking lot.

Hasan said it was an effort to stop them from going to Afghanistan and killing his fellow Muslims. A military judge barred him from presenting that as a defense during his 2013 trial. Hasan was left paralyzed from the waist down after being shot in the back by law enforcement, and he now uses a wheelchair.

Hasan could seek a lengthy delay of his execution, though given his behavior at trial, he may not want to.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, celebrated the 20-year anniversary of landmark climate legislation he signed while in office alongside Democrats including Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday.

“California is the perfect example of what can be done when people work together and when we don’t look at this as a Republican or as a Democratic issue,” Schwarzenegger said at an economic conference in Long Beach, noting that Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act had significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions while creating more than a half a million clean-energy jobs.

“This is the message that is so important for the world,” he said, because the state’s policies have become a model for other states and nations.

Newsom noted that the state had met “audacious” goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, touting 39,000 megawatts of clean energy that have been installed in the last seven years, 23,000 megawatts of battery storage created, and that no flex alert has been issued in the state in four years.

“So we’re not in the goal-setting business; we’re in the how business,” he said.

He added that the clean energy transition is “the most critical national security issue in the United States of America,” with economic and supply chain leadership at stake as China surpasses the U.S. in electric vehicles, clean-energy manufacturing and the deployment of renewables.

The state already met the climate change legislation’s ambitious target — returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — four years ahead of schedule. However, recent analyses indicate California is not on track to meet its future targets of cutting emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2045.

The legislation paved the way for the creation of California’s nation-leading carbon market, cap-and-invest, which launched in 2013. The Legislature extended cap-and-invest’s life to 2045 last year, and the state is now initiating the process of linking its market with Washington state.

The event as well as a luncheon the prior day in Santa Monica were rare displays of bipartisan unity at a time of heightened political polarization in the United States. Schwarzenegger and Newsom piled praise upon each other during the Wednesday afternoon discussion, hugging at the end.

At the luncheon, former Gov. Gray Davis, whom Schwarzenegger ousted from office in the 2003 recall election, as well as billionaire hedge-fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, who unsuccessfully ran for governor this year, were among the Democrats in attendance, as well as former state Assembly Speaker Fabien Nunez and former state Sen. Fran Pavley, who were both pivotal in the passage of the climate-change legislation.

In addition to remarks highlighting the foundation of some of the nation’s bedrock environmental policies, such as former GOP President Richard Nixon creating the Environmental Protection Agency and signing the Endangered Species Act, there were moments of levity.

Schwarzenegger said he told fellow Republicans “f— you” when they balked at him naming Susan Kennedy, a Democrat, as his chief of staff, he said Tuesday.

During a breakout session at the Wednesday conference, he referenced his former wife, Maria Shriver, a scion of the Kennedy family, as he described his desire to hear from people on both sides of the aisle.

“So I had Democrats in my administration, and of course the Republican Party went nuts,” he said. “I didn’t care because, to me, I thought I wanted to hear what the Democrats were thinking. Plus, I was sleeping with one every night anyway.”

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of six senators — four of them Republicans — called Sunday for the Trump administration to “immediately reverse course” on a plan to purchase diesel from Russia as part of an effort to lower high fuel prices.

President Trump shocked lawmakers when he announced on social media Friday that he had struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call. He said Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to the American and global market, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.” Russia will deliver an additional 3 million tons “within a short period of time” after that, he wrote.

Four Republican senators and two Democratic senators signed onto the statement released Sunday protesting the deal. They said the administration failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation to justify its decision as required by statute.

“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians. The Administration must immediately reverse course,” they wrote.

The Republican senators who signed onto the statement are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Curtis of Utah. The Democratic senators are Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Tillis, in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there’s a legitimate case for saying the president is not following the law if the administration goes through with its diesel purchase plan.

“We were very clear that Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the one who can end this war by backing out of territory that they occupied,” Tillis said.

Trump’s announcement came just a few weeks after Congress passed legislation that directed Trump to impose substantial tariffs on the top importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia’s natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

The congressional effort was aimed at cutting the flow of money Russia receives from oil and gas sales to finance its war against Ukraine.

The lawmakers also noted that Congress explicitly banned Russia energy imports in 2022 — after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — to prevent the United States from financing the war.

“Congress was clear: the U.S. should not import oil from Russia until it ends its aggression against Ukraine and ceases threats against our NATO Allies,” the six lawmakers wrote in their statement. “President Trump’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports to the U.S. runs directly counter to that law.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), when asked whether the president’s action would be in violation of U.S. law, said Trump is focused on reducing the cost of energy.

“The president is balancing and has to make tough decisions,” Barrasso said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

He also encouraged Trump to enforce the sanctions law that Congress passed last month.

“This is just another point of leverage for the president to use against Putin in an effort to get a long-term solution in that part of the world,” Barrasso said.

Trump has recently sought to blame record U.S. diesel prices on Ukraine rather than the U.S.-led war in Iran, which has elevated world energy prices.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

In confirming his plans to live-stream Fort Hood mass shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s military execution by firing squad on Dec. 3, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called it a “no brainer” punishment for a “radical Islamist terror attack” on U.S. service members.

“We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand [that] there are serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said in an interview with the Real America’s Voice network.

Others across the country and around the world — Democrats and Republicans, human rights experts, legal scholars and military and religious leaders — condemned it as a barbaric throwback to an era when executions were cast as entertainment, and as the world’s leading democracy adopting a form of punishment carried out in modern times only by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations.

Nidal Malik Hasan is shown in a courtroom sketch in 2013.

(Brigitte Woosley / Associated Press)

“Hasan should face the death penalty, but making his execution public and streaming it? Beyond disgusting,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) wrote on X. “Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do. It should not be happening in America.”

“I absolutely support the sentence of death, but live-streaming executions is what jihadists do. America is better than that,” Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) wrote.

The United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights said that “the livestreaming of an execution is tantamount to a public execution and would breach the absolute prohibition of torture.” The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it would “further undermine the moral fabric of our nation and be a blight on the conscience of its people.”

Matthew Robinson, a criminal justice professor at Appalachian State University and author of a book on U.S. capital punishment titled “Death Nation,” said he was “appalled” by the plans. “It strikes me as meant to be entertaining.” He said the last military execution was in 1961, and the last by firing squad was in 1945.

Soldiers hold a candlelight vigil at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, one day after Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people.

(LM Otero / Associated Press)

Hasan was an Army psychiatrist and major who in 2009 entered a medical building on the Texas military base with a laser-sighted handgun, shouted “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great!” — and opened fire, killing 13 people and injuring 32 others. He has since spoken of being a “martyr” if executed.

President Trump, an outspoken proponent of the death penalty for years but also a past critic of public executions in places like Iran, has signed off on Hasan’s execution but not addressed Hegseth’s plans. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, said Friday that people should remember that Hasan “brutally murdered a lot of innocent people.” But he also said he would not watch a live-stream of the execution, and expressed doubt that is “actually going to happen.”

On his first day in office this term, Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to restore the death penalty to prominence. In April, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it had taken steps to do so, including by “expanding the protocol” to include firing squads.

Five states currently allow firing squads to carry out executions: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly turned down appeals contending such executions amount to “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is barred under U.S. law. South Carolina executed three men by firing squad last year.

When the Supreme Court last year rejected an Alabama inmate’s request to be killed by firing squad rather than with nitrogen hypoxia, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, writing, “Boyd asks for the barest form of mercy: to die by firing squad, which would kill him in seconds, rather than by a torturous suffocation lasting up to four minutes. The Constitution would grant him that grace.”

Kathleen Walter prays outside the Nashville, Tenn., prison where Christa Pike was set to be executed.

(George Walker IV / Associated Press)

Last week, a Tennessee inmate named Christa Pike survived what was meant to be a lethal injection of the barbiturate pentobarbital. Other states have also struggled with executions by lethal injection in recent years.

Much of the criticism of Hegseth’s plan for Hasan has centered not on the method of killing, but on the live-streaming of it.

Robin M. Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the center has “no record of any execution being live streamed,” and is “not aware of any regulation or precedent for a military execution to be live streamed on the internet or otherwise made widely available to the public.”

Fox News commentator Howard Kurtz wrote: “I’m sensing revulsion on the left and right, not so much for killing a death row prisoner — although firing squad seems extreme in the modern age — but for the Pentagon to live-stream it, turning this into a horrifying TV show to entertain the masses. Is this America?”

Daniel LaChance, an associate history professor at Emory University and author of the book “Executing Freedom: The Cultural Life of Capital Punishment in the United States,” said the last public execution in the U.S. occurred in 1936, when a Black man convicted of rape was hanged in Kentucky — which still allowed public executions after most states had abandoned the practice.

That execution was “by all accounts a grotesque carnival” and “sort of like a gladiatorial contest brought to life in the 20th Century, where the crowd was surly, shouting,” LaChance said. “It was a debacle.”

That the Trump administration is seeking to turn capital punishment into a public spectacle once more, LaChance said, is out of line with decades of thinking on the issue, but in line with Trump’s own ethos about crime and punishment.

“His whole brand is this kind of populist, anti-elitism. And when executions moved into the bowels of prisons in the early 20th century, they were really becoming bureaucratic affairs, run by experts, carried out in front of a small group of professionals and clergy,” LaChance said. “It was a denial of the public’s right to see a punishment that was carried out in their name, in part because there were elites who thought that the public couldn’t handle this kind of spectacle, that they were misbehaving, that it would generate more disorder when an execution is designed to do the exact opposite: to generate order.”

President Trump points to fans to as he walks to the stage at a political rally Wednesday in San Antonio.

(San Antonio Express-News via Getty Images)

Trump clearly thinks he is pushing back against elitism and expertise and giving people what they want, LaChance said, though the question many scholars have is whether doing so will “increase people’s bloodthirst” or force them to recoil — and ultimate decrease support for such punishments.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said Trump has publicly mused about killing people by firing squad for years, so Hegseth’s plans to use a firing squad should not be surprising. However, the decision to live-stream the killing is clearly a source of “dismay” for many. “Even people who are resigned to the death penalty, who don’t have religious or other scruples about the death penalty, have real heartburn over this,” he said.

Fidell said “brutality” has become an “operating principle” for the Trump administration broadly, from its decision to host an Ultimate Fighting tournament at the White House to its immigration tactics across the country to, now, it’s plans to live-stream an execution — which Fidell said has “nothing to do” with deterring future crime.

“There’s a pathology going on here that is so out of keeping with the dignity that ought to characterize the taking of a life as a result of a legal process,” he said.

Robinson, of Appalachian State, said a student of his Friday morning asked what would happen when children tune in to watch the execution, which Robinson said he believes they will do, as if it’s a video game. He said the idea was appalling — and not just to him.

“I imagine the rest of the world, the civilized world, will see this and have the same response that I did,” he said. “They’ll respond with shock.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.