ReportWire

Tag: Secretary of State Marco Rubio

  • Trump officials express optimism after meeting with Ukraine to end Russia’s war

    [ad_1]

    President Trump originally gave Ukraine until Thursday to accept their peace proposal, but overnight Rubio downplayed that deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend, noting he is optimistic with the progress made. It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue. Maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in *** very long time. Rubio did not go into detail there. The peace proposal drafted by the US to end the Russia-Ukraine war has sparked concern for both Democrats and some Republicans and also for Kiev. The original plan gives in to many Russian demands that Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelinsky has rejected on multiple occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory. On Sunday night, the White House. Put out *** statement noting the Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns like security guarantees, long-term economic development, political sovereignty were addressed during the meeting. In *** video statement, Zelinsky said diplomacy has been activated. Rubio called this peace proposal *** living breathing document that could change and made it clear that any final product will have to be presented to Moscow. In Washington, I’m Rachel Herzheimer.

    Trump officials express optimism after meeting with Ukraine to end Russia’s war

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed optimism after meeting with Ukrainian leaders to discuss the Trump administration’s peace plan, despite concerns over the proposal’s concessions to Russia.

    Updated: 4:08 AM PST Nov 24, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Ukrainian leaders in Europe to address concerns in the Trump administration’s peace plan to end the nearly four-year war between Russia and Ukraine, which has drawn criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, as well as Kyiv.President Donald Trump initially set a deadline for Ukraine to accept his peace proposal by Thursday, but Rubio downplayed this deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend.”It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time,” Rubio said.The peace proposal drafted by the U.S. has sparked concern due to its concessions to Russian demands, which Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected multiple times, including the surrender of large pieces of territory. On Sunday night, the White House released a statement that says in part, “The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting.”In a video statement, Zelenskyy said, “Diplomacy has been reinvigorated.”Over the weekend, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators said Rubio told them on Saturday that the plan had originated with Russia and that it was actually a “wish list” for Moscow rather than a serious push for peace.A State Department spokesperson said that was “blatantly false.” Rubio suggested online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source of information.”It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.”We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Rubio described the peace proposal as a “living, breathing document” that would continue to evolve and emphasized that any final agreement would need to be presented to Moscow.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Ukrainian leaders in Europe to address concerns in the Trump administration’s peace plan to end the nearly four-year war between Russia and Ukraine, which has drawn criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, as well as Kyiv.

    President Donald Trump initially set a deadline for Ukraine to accept his peace proposal by Thursday, but Rubio downplayed this deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend.

    “It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time,” Rubio said.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio holds a press conference following closed-door talks on a U.S. plan to end the war in Ukraine at the US Mission in Geneva, on Nov. 23, 2025.

    Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio holds a press conference following closed-door talks on a U.S. plan to end the war in Ukraine at the US Mission in Geneva, on Nov. 23, 2025.

    The peace proposal drafted by the U.S. has sparked concern due to its concessions to Russian demands, which Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected multiple times, including the surrender of large pieces of territory.

    On Sunday night, the White House released a statement that says in part, “The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting.”

    In a video statement, Zelenskyy said, “Diplomacy has been reinvigorated.”

    Over the weekend, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators said Rubio told them on Saturday that the plan had originated with Russia and that it was actually a “wish list” for Moscow rather than a serious push for peace.

    A State Department spokesperson said that was “blatantly false.”

    Rubio suggested online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source of information.

    “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.

    “We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

    Rubio described the peace proposal as a “living, breathing document” that would continue to evolve and emphasized that any final agreement would need to be presented to Moscow.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • President Trump’s Ukraine peace plan faces criticism from senators

    [ad_1]

    President Trump initially said he was giving Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelinsky until Thursday to accept the peace plan, but yesterday President Trump told reporters this is not his final offer. The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened. We’re trying to get it ended one way or the other. We have to get it. The plan gives in to many Russian demands, including that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelinsky has rejected on multiple occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory to Russia. Over the weekend, senators on both sides of the aisle said they spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told them the Peace plan President Trump pushing Kiev to accept is actually *** wish list of the Russians and not the actual proposal offering Washington’s positions. Now Rubio denied this and claims that the plan was authored by the US with input from Ukraine and Russia. Zalinsky said on Friday the pressure on Ukraine is at its most intense, adding he will work quickly and calmly with the US and its partners to end the war at the White House. I’m Rachel Herzheimer.

    President Trump’s Ukraine peace plan faces criticism from senators

    President Donald Trump’s proposal to end the Ukraine-Russia war is under scrutiny from senators, including Republicans, who argue it favors Russia and leaves Ukraine vulnerable.

    Updated: 5:55 AM PST Nov 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump’s plan to end the nearly four-year Ukraine-Russia war is drawing criticism from senators, including some Republicans, who say it strongly favors Russian President Vladimir Putin and puts Ukraine in a vulnerable position. This comes as top U.S., European, and Ukrainian officials meet Sunday in Switzerland to discuss President Trump’s plan to end the war.”It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.”We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina.Trump initially said he was giving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy until Thursday to accept the peace proposal, but later said it was not his final offer.”The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened. We’re trying to get it ended one way or the other. We have to get it ended,” Trump said.The plan reportedly accommodates many Russian demands, including concessions that Zelenskyy has repeatedly rejected, such as ceding large areas of territory to Russia. Over the weekend, senators from both parties said they spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who informed them that the peace plan Trump is urging Kyiv to accept is actually a “wish list” of the Russians and not the actual proposal reflecting Washington’s positions. Rubio denied this, claiming that the plan was authored by the U.S. with input from Ukraine and Russia. Zelenskyy said Sunday that “a positive result is needed for all of us” and that he will continue to work with American and European partners to end the war. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    President Donald Trump’s plan to end the nearly four-year Ukraine-Russia war is drawing criticism from senators, including some Republicans, who say it strongly favors Russian President Vladimir Putin and puts Ukraine in a vulnerable position.

    This comes as top U.S., European, and Ukrainian officials meet Sunday in Switzerland to discuss President Trump’s plan to end the war.

    “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.

    “We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

    Trump initially said he was giving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy until Thursday to accept the peace proposal, but later said it was not his final offer.

    “The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened. We’re trying to get it ended one way or the other. We have to get it ended,” Trump said.

    The plan reportedly accommodates many Russian demands, including concessions that Zelenskyy has repeatedly rejected, such as ceding large areas of territory to Russia.

    Over the weekend, senators from both parties said they spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who informed them that the peace plan Trump is urging Kyiv to accept is actually a “wish list” of the Russians and not the actual proposal reflecting Washington’s positions. Rubio denied this, claiming that the plan was authored by the U.S. with input from Ukraine and Russia.

    Zelenskyy said Sunday that “a positive result is needed for all of us” and that he will continue to work with American and European partners to end the war.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What happens when religious revival gets intertwined with politics?

    [ad_1]

    The outward display of religious devotion at Sunday’s memorial service for Charlie Kirk was remarkable by many measures — perhaps especially due to who was giving voice to it.

    “I have talked more about Jesus Christ in the past two weeks than I have my entire time in public life,” said Vice President JD Vance.

    “We always did need less government,” said Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, “but what Charlie understood and infused into his movement is, we also needed a lot more God.”

    And Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke about Jesus Christ, promising listeners they could be reunited with deceased loved ones again.

    For Christian observers, it’s hard not to be inspired by the more open focus on faith.

    Utah mother Jan Coon says people are “using this moment to bear witness of Christ more openly,” reflecting a unity among believers she hadn’t seen before.

    But when asked about the political overtones, Coon admits that does raise worries.

    “When we have political figures talking about the need for Christianity, that’s wonderful,” agrees Dan Ellsworth, a Virginia-based consultant. “But the question becomes, do they understand the essence of what they’re asking?”

    President Donald Trump himself noted that Kirk “ultimately became convinced that we needed not just a political realignment, but also a spiritual reawakening.” He added, “We have to bring back religion to America, because without borders, law and order and religion, you really don’t have a country anymore.”

    “We want religion brought back to America.”

    These words would probably be ignored by most anyone else sharing them. But shared from this president, they elicit a complex response from many.

    “We want to bring God back into our beautiful USA like never before,” he said. “We want God back.”

    Faith is “not something that you can just talk about,” Ellsworth says, adding that in his view, it’s not clear to him if Trump “personally understands” what it would mean for the nation to draw closer to God. “It’s like he’s able to think about it in the abstract. But it took Erika Kirk to stand up and show what that actually means, right?”

    “My husband, Charlie. He wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life,” Erika Kirk said near the end of her remarks. After then referencing Jesus’ famous expression of love to his killers on the cross, Erika said about her husband’s shooter, “I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did. … The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love.”

    Ellsworth called this moment the “essence of Christianity.” Although “immensely difficult” to sometimes live, he said it’s something Erika Kirk has clearly internalized.

    In a striking juxtaposition, Trump remarked later on how Charlie Kirk “did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them. I am sorry, Erika. … But I can’t stand my opponent.”

    On some level, Trump himself was acknowledging he’s far from a perfect messenger to rally Americans to faith. And many, of course, appeared to be scandalized by the whole event — with The New York Times calling it “an extraordinary fusion of government and Christianity” wherein “the highest levels of U.S. government and evangelical worship were woven as one.”

    The truth is that religious revival and politics have been closely intertwined in U.S. history more often than not — from abolition and civil rights to Cold War patriotism and the War on Terror — though with varying intensity depending on the era. While religious fervor has often fueled reform movements, political leaders have also used religion in times of national crisis to sanctify their cause, bolster their authority and rally followers.

    In so many ways, of course, this religious influence in American history has been enduringly good and lasting. In this case, there are a few reasons to be cautious about over-interpreting the post-assassination outpouring of faith in Pentecostal terms.

    First, for better or worse, this current manifestation of faith revival is tightly bound up in political realities that are deeply divisive in a general sense. And the truth is that many young people turn away from faith when they perceive religion as too bound up with partisan politics. David Campbell, professor of American democracy at the University of Notre Dame, has stated, “The more religion is wrapped up in a political view, the more people who don’t share that political view say, ‘That’s not for me.’ ”

    Secondly, history doesn’t necessarily confirm the sticking power of crisis-induced religious revival. Evangelical statistician Ryan Burge pointed out last week that since modern polling began in the 1950s, “there’s not been a single event that has led to a significant, durable increase in church attendance rates.” Even when short term increases happen (after 9/11), he says “all that faded back to baseline within a few months.”

    This isn’t to say that real changes and shifts cannot be sparked by traumatic or crisis moments.

    Certainly, a moment like this can expand into something lasting for a young family like this. “Here’s to new beginnings,” this mother states.

    “It’s wonderful to pack a stadium full of people and talk about Christ,” Ellsworth affirms. “But what do you do in the day-to-day living of the faith? That’s what determines whether something lasts or it doesn’t last.”

    “What do you do when there isn’t a big, sensational event driving you to go to church? What do you do when it’s quiet — and there are not other people celebrating your faith in public?”

    In the end, Ellsworth joins others wary of the implications of what a greater fusion of faith and politics would mean long-term. “I think politics is the wrong fuel for religious revival. Politics is like a very volatile fuel, and if you put it in the engine of Christianity, it will blow up the engine.”

    In order for a spiritual revival to endure, he maintains, the fuel needs to be steadier and more sustainable — the less dramatic fare of daily discipleship. “That’s why I’m skeptical that politics can actually have any meaningful role in fueling a Christian revival.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Buttigieg, Newsom and Vance top way-too-early 2028 New Hampshire poll

    [ad_1]

    Vice President JD Vance dominates a hypothetical 2028 GOP presidential primary field in New Hampshire, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg are tied atop the Democratic heap, according to a years-early poll of the early primary state.

    Vance leads the list of potential GOP candidates with 56 percent support. No other Republican cracked double digits; the next closest would-be contender, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, had just 8 percent support. He was followed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. Liz Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley (who won 43 percent of the primary vote in the state in 2024), Vivek Ramaswamy, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Sen. Ted Cruz.

    Buttigieg, who finished second in the state’s 2020 presidential primary, is tied with Newsom at 23 percent. They’re followed by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker at 9 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 7 percent. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who narrowly won New Hampshire last year, finished fifth among the Democrats that Saint Anselm polled with just 6 percent support.

    Trailing Harris were Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — who twice won the state’s Democratic primary but is not expected to run again — and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who finished third in the state in 2020. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer rounded out the list. The survey was conducted online Aug. 26-27 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points.

    Nearly all of the top Democrats have visited the state over the past year to headline party fundraisers or campaign for the party’s candidates — trips typical of presidential aspirants to what has historically been the first-in-the-nation primary state. Buttigieg retains a loyal following in New Hampshire from his 2020 bid, and interest in Newsom has soared among Democratic activists as he counterattacks the Trump administration on redistricting.

    Big Republican names have largely stayed away from New Hampshire since the election, though Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) visited the state days before launching her gubernatorial bid.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US military kills 11 in strike on alleged drug boat tied to Venezuelan cartel, Trump says

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — The United States conducted a deadly military strike against an alleged drug boat tied to the cartel Tren de Aragua, President Donald Trump said Tuesday.

    The US president said 11 people were killed in the strike in “international waters.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the “lethal strike” as taking place in the “southern Caribbean” against “a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela.”

    The use of military force against Latin American drug cartels represents a significant escalation by the Trump administration and could have serious implications for the region.

    “Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

    “Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!” he wrote.

    The State Department designated Tren de Aragua, which originated in Venezuela, as a foreign terrorist organization and specially designated global terrorists in February.

    The US has amassed a large number of military assets around the Caribbean and Latin America, drawing the ire of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

    CNN has asked the Venezuelan government for comment.

    In remarks before he departed on a trip to Mexico and Ecuador on Tuesday, Rubio said the “counter-drug mission” would continue.

    “We are going to wage combat against drug cartels that are flooding American streets and killing Americans,” Rubio said. He said the route from Venezuela was a “common” one.

    Asked by CNN about the legal authority for militarily targeting the cartels, Rubio said, “I’m not going to answer for the White House counsel, suffice it to say that all of those steps were taken in advance.”

    “The president has designated these as terrorist organizations, which is what they are,” he said.

    Trump on Tuesday afternoon said the US military “just over the last few minutes, literally shot out a boat, a drug carrying boat.”

    “It just happened moments ago, and our great general, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff … he gave us a little bit of a briefing,” Trump said.

    “There’s more where that came from,” he said, noting that “a lot of drugs” are “pouring into” the US from Venezuela.

    A senior defense official confirmed a “precision strike” against an alleged drug vessel in the southern Caribbean, but did not offer further details about the operation.

    CNN previously reported that the US military was deploying more than 4,000 Marines and sailors to the waters around Latin America and the Caribbean as part of a ramped-up effort to combat drug cartels, according to two US defense officials — a show of force that has given the president a broad range of military options should he want to target drug cartels.

    The Trump administration has taken an aggressive approach to combating Latin American drug cartels, designating many of them as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.

    Tom Karako, a senior fellow of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said while he didn’t know of an instance of such action being taken against a drug cartel in the past, “on the other hand I’m not sure that we would (know).”

    “It would not surprise me in the slightest if there were a dozen instances that we don’t talk about,” he said.

    On Friday, Rubio visited the headquarters of US Southern Command, which has responsibility for the deployed assets. The top US diplomat had previously suggested that military action against the cartels was a possibility.

    The robust military presence in the region has drawn heated remarks from Maduro. The Trump administration has increased the bounty for the Venezuelan president to $50 million for drug trafficking.

    “It is an extravagant threat… absolutely criminal, bloody. They have wanted to move forward with what they call maximum pressure, and in the face of maximum military pressure, we have prepared maximum readiness,” Maduro said Monday, adding that he will not “bow to threats.”

    CNN’s Kylie Atwood, Natasha Bertrand, Haley Britzky, Stefano Pozzebon, Ivonne Valdes Garay, Sol Amaya and Lauren Kent contributed to this report.

    This story and headline have been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Jennifer Hansler and CNN

    Source link