SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A child holding bread walks early in the morning in Kandahar, Afghanistan on February 5, 2022. (Photo: Javed Tanveer/AFP via Getty Images)
Following the Biden administration's unilateral decision last week to seize $7 billion worth of assets from Afghanistan amid a mounting humanitarian crisis that threatens to kill more civilians than two decades of war, foreign leaders and critics worldwide continue to express disgust, with China on Tuesday condemning the U.S. for dispossessing Afghans of their own money.
"Without the consent of the Afghan people, the U.S. willfully disposes of assets that belong to the Afghan people, even keeping them as its own. This is no different from the conduct of bandits," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said Tuesday during a press conference in Beijing.
China's response came after U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday signed an executive order to confiscate more than $7 billion that the Afghan Central Bank has on deposit in the Federal Reserve. Biden froze those funds last August when the Taliban regained control of Kabul as U.S. military and NATO forces withdrew, and now he plans to divide them between the families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and humanitarian aid for Afghanistan.
According to Wang, "This latest example has once again laid bare that the rules-based order the U.S. claims to champion is not the kind of rules and order to defend the weak and uphold justice, but to maintain its own hegemony."
He added that the U.S. "should unfreeze [Afghan] assets, lift unilateral sanctions on Afghanistan as soon as possible, and assume its due responsibility to ease the humanitarian crisis in the country."
Amid U.S. sanctions and worsening winter conditions, suffering in Afghanistan has reached catastrophic levels. According to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), 97% of Afghans are projected to fall into poverty by the second half of 2022. Moreover, nearly 23 million Afghans--over half of the country's population of roughly 40 million--are facing acute food insecurity, with one million children at risk of the most severe form of malnutrition.
If the Biden administration refuses to change course, more Afghans could starve to death in the coming months than were killed during two decades of U.S.-led war, prompting critics to describe the White House's decision to snatch the war-torn and poverty-stricken country's assets as "tantamount to mass murder" and reflective of a brutal willingness to facilitate "mass civilian death."
Related Content
In a Tuesday interview with France24, former Afghan President Hamid Karzai urged Biden to reverse his decision to allocate $3.5 billion to families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, stressing that all $7 billion belongs to Afghanistan and that it is "wrong" for the U.S. to expropriate another country's money for its own purposes.
"The people of Afghanistan share the pain of the American people, share the pain of the families and loved ones of those who died, who lost their lives in the tragedy of September 11," Karzai said earlier this week.
"We commiserate with them [but] Afghan people are as much victims as those families who lost their lives. Withholding money or seizing money from the people of Afghanistan in their name is unjust and unfair and an atrocity against Afghan people," he added, asking U.S. courts to return the funds.
Phyllis Rodriguez, the mother of a victim of the 9/11 attacks, denounced Biden's "outrageous" move to take billions of dollars from Kabul to compensate Americans while millions of Afghans are on the brink of starvation due to economic sanctions the U.S. imposed at the conclusion of its 20-year war.
"The suffering of the Afghan people at the hands of the United States and its allies is reprehensible," she said. "This is adding insult to injury."
In an opinion piece published earlier this week, Bloomberg columnist Ruth Pollard wrote that in the wake of Biden's executive order, "many in Afghanistan and its diaspora pointed out the obvious: This appears to be a backwards attempt to punish Afghanistan for its role in the 2001 attacks on the U.S."
"If so," wrote Pollard, "the aim was off-target. Of the origins of the 9/11 hijackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Lebanon and Egypt. Not one was Afghan. The Taliban, who ruled most of the country, had provided refuge to Osama bin Laden; but, given the median age of Afghans today is 18, those attacks took place before many were even born."
As for the $3.5 billion that the White House has proposed using for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, peace activist Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, urged global aid groups to reject those funds and called on "other countries and institutions not to cooperate in the implementation of [Biden's] unjust order."
\u201cWe ask worldwide humanitarian aid groups to refuse receipt of the $3.5 billion in Afghan money commandeered by Biden and call on other countries and institutions not to cooperate in the implementation of his unjust order. #UnfreezeAfghanistan https://t.co/WtnCkDvjqx\u201d— Medea Benjamin (@Medea Benjamin) 1644853932
Experts have noted that the sovereign wealth captured by Biden undergirds Afghanistan's currency and is not meant for aid.
According to Pollard:
While the United Nations and other humanitarian groups work to convince the U.S. and the World Bank to ease what amounts to an economic blockade on Afghanistan, Biden's actions are blatantly counterproductive.
...U.N. chief Antonio Guterres in January called on the World Bank to immediately release $1.2 billion in reconstruction funds to ease the humanitarian crisis and inject liquidity to prevent an economic collapse. It had already transferred $280 million to the U.N. Children's Fund and the World Food Programme a month earlier.
As IRC president David Miliband told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism during a hearing last week, "The proximate cause of this starvation crisis is the international economic policy, which has been adopted since August and which has cut off financial flows not just to the public sector, but in the private sector in Afghanistan as well."
"Bank branches lack cash, and sanctions, which are meant to be on the Taliban, end up freezing private sector activity," said Miliband. "Aid cannot make up for an economy deprived of oxygen."
Graeme Smith of the International Crisis Group concurred, saying during the hearing that "you can send bags of food, but more than that, you need to address the reason why people are hungry, which is the collapse of the economy mostly due to Western economic restrictions."
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and long-time critic of sanctions, said this week in a statement that "a country without central bank reserves is on a road to economic collapse. By confiscating these reserves, the U.S. government is guaranteeing this collapse, and the resulting widespread death and mass migration."
"This is fatally wrong and immoral, and it cannot continue," said Weisbrot. "The only question is how many people will die before the U.S. government changes its policy."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Following the Biden administration's unilateral decision last week to seize $7 billion worth of assets from Afghanistan amid a mounting humanitarian crisis that threatens to kill more civilians than two decades of war, foreign leaders and critics worldwide continue to express disgust, with China on Tuesday condemning the U.S. for dispossessing Afghans of their own money.
"Without the consent of the Afghan people, the U.S. willfully disposes of assets that belong to the Afghan people, even keeping them as its own. This is no different from the conduct of bandits," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said Tuesday during a press conference in Beijing.
China's response came after U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday signed an executive order to confiscate more than $7 billion that the Afghan Central Bank has on deposit in the Federal Reserve. Biden froze those funds last August when the Taliban regained control of Kabul as U.S. military and NATO forces withdrew, and now he plans to divide them between the families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and humanitarian aid for Afghanistan.
According to Wang, "This latest example has once again laid bare that the rules-based order the U.S. claims to champion is not the kind of rules and order to defend the weak and uphold justice, but to maintain its own hegemony."
He added that the U.S. "should unfreeze [Afghan] assets, lift unilateral sanctions on Afghanistan as soon as possible, and assume its due responsibility to ease the humanitarian crisis in the country."
Amid U.S. sanctions and worsening winter conditions, suffering in Afghanistan has reached catastrophic levels. According to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), 97% of Afghans are projected to fall into poverty by the second half of 2022. Moreover, nearly 23 million Afghans--over half of the country's population of roughly 40 million--are facing acute food insecurity, with one million children at risk of the most severe form of malnutrition.
If the Biden administration refuses to change course, more Afghans could starve to death in the coming months than were killed during two decades of U.S.-led war, prompting critics to describe the White House's decision to snatch the war-torn and poverty-stricken country's assets as "tantamount to mass murder" and reflective of a brutal willingness to facilitate "mass civilian death."
Related Content
In a Tuesday interview with France24, former Afghan President Hamid Karzai urged Biden to reverse his decision to allocate $3.5 billion to families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, stressing that all $7 billion belongs to Afghanistan and that it is "wrong" for the U.S. to expropriate another country's money for its own purposes.
"The people of Afghanistan share the pain of the American people, share the pain of the families and loved ones of those who died, who lost their lives in the tragedy of September 11," Karzai said earlier this week.
"We commiserate with them [but] Afghan people are as much victims as those families who lost their lives. Withholding money or seizing money from the people of Afghanistan in their name is unjust and unfair and an atrocity against Afghan people," he added, asking U.S. courts to return the funds.
Phyllis Rodriguez, the mother of a victim of the 9/11 attacks, denounced Biden's "outrageous" move to take billions of dollars from Kabul to compensate Americans while millions of Afghans are on the brink of starvation due to economic sanctions the U.S. imposed at the conclusion of its 20-year war.
"The suffering of the Afghan people at the hands of the United States and its allies is reprehensible," she said. "This is adding insult to injury."
In an opinion piece published earlier this week, Bloomberg columnist Ruth Pollard wrote that in the wake of Biden's executive order, "many in Afghanistan and its diaspora pointed out the obvious: This appears to be a backwards attempt to punish Afghanistan for its role in the 2001 attacks on the U.S."
"If so," wrote Pollard, "the aim was off-target. Of the origins of the 9/11 hijackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Lebanon and Egypt. Not one was Afghan. The Taliban, who ruled most of the country, had provided refuge to Osama bin Laden; but, given the median age of Afghans today is 18, those attacks took place before many were even born."
As for the $3.5 billion that the White House has proposed using for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, peace activist Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, urged global aid groups to reject those funds and called on "other countries and institutions not to cooperate in the implementation of [Biden's] unjust order."
\u201cWe ask worldwide humanitarian aid groups to refuse receipt of the $3.5 billion in Afghan money commandeered by Biden and call on other countries and institutions not to cooperate in the implementation of his unjust order. #UnfreezeAfghanistan https://t.co/WtnCkDvjqx\u201d— Medea Benjamin (@Medea Benjamin) 1644853932
Experts have noted that the sovereign wealth captured by Biden undergirds Afghanistan's currency and is not meant for aid.
According to Pollard:
While the United Nations and other humanitarian groups work to convince the U.S. and the World Bank to ease what amounts to an economic blockade on Afghanistan, Biden's actions are blatantly counterproductive.
...U.N. chief Antonio Guterres in January called on the World Bank to immediately release $1.2 billion in reconstruction funds to ease the humanitarian crisis and inject liquidity to prevent an economic collapse. It had already transferred $280 million to the U.N. Children's Fund and the World Food Programme a month earlier.
As IRC president David Miliband told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism during a hearing last week, "The proximate cause of this starvation crisis is the international economic policy, which has been adopted since August and which has cut off financial flows not just to the public sector, but in the private sector in Afghanistan as well."
"Bank branches lack cash, and sanctions, which are meant to be on the Taliban, end up freezing private sector activity," said Miliband. "Aid cannot make up for an economy deprived of oxygen."
Graeme Smith of the International Crisis Group concurred, saying during the hearing that "you can send bags of food, but more than that, you need to address the reason why people are hungry, which is the collapse of the economy mostly due to Western economic restrictions."
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and long-time critic of sanctions, said this week in a statement that "a country without central bank reserves is on a road to economic collapse. By confiscating these reserves, the U.S. government is guaranteeing this collapse, and the resulting widespread death and mass migration."
"This is fatally wrong and immoral, and it cannot continue," said Weisbrot. "The only question is how many people will die before the U.S. government changes its policy."
Following the Biden administration's unilateral decision last week to seize $7 billion worth of assets from Afghanistan amid a mounting humanitarian crisis that threatens to kill more civilians than two decades of war, foreign leaders and critics worldwide continue to express disgust, with China on Tuesday condemning the U.S. for dispossessing Afghans of their own money.
"Without the consent of the Afghan people, the U.S. willfully disposes of assets that belong to the Afghan people, even keeping them as its own. This is no different from the conduct of bandits," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said Tuesday during a press conference in Beijing.
China's response came after U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday signed an executive order to confiscate more than $7 billion that the Afghan Central Bank has on deposit in the Federal Reserve. Biden froze those funds last August when the Taliban regained control of Kabul as U.S. military and NATO forces withdrew, and now he plans to divide them between the families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and humanitarian aid for Afghanistan.
According to Wang, "This latest example has once again laid bare that the rules-based order the U.S. claims to champion is not the kind of rules and order to defend the weak and uphold justice, but to maintain its own hegemony."
He added that the U.S. "should unfreeze [Afghan] assets, lift unilateral sanctions on Afghanistan as soon as possible, and assume its due responsibility to ease the humanitarian crisis in the country."
Amid U.S. sanctions and worsening winter conditions, suffering in Afghanistan has reached catastrophic levels. According to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), 97% of Afghans are projected to fall into poverty by the second half of 2022. Moreover, nearly 23 million Afghans--over half of the country's population of roughly 40 million--are facing acute food insecurity, with one million children at risk of the most severe form of malnutrition.
If the Biden administration refuses to change course, more Afghans could starve to death in the coming months than were killed during two decades of U.S.-led war, prompting critics to describe the White House's decision to snatch the war-torn and poverty-stricken country's assets as "tantamount to mass murder" and reflective of a brutal willingness to facilitate "mass civilian death."
Related Content
In a Tuesday interview with France24, former Afghan President Hamid Karzai urged Biden to reverse his decision to allocate $3.5 billion to families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, stressing that all $7 billion belongs to Afghanistan and that it is "wrong" for the U.S. to expropriate another country's money for its own purposes.
"The people of Afghanistan share the pain of the American people, share the pain of the families and loved ones of those who died, who lost their lives in the tragedy of September 11," Karzai said earlier this week.
"We commiserate with them [but] Afghan people are as much victims as those families who lost their lives. Withholding money or seizing money from the people of Afghanistan in their name is unjust and unfair and an atrocity against Afghan people," he added, asking U.S. courts to return the funds.
Phyllis Rodriguez, the mother of a victim of the 9/11 attacks, denounced Biden's "outrageous" move to take billions of dollars from Kabul to compensate Americans while millions of Afghans are on the brink of starvation due to economic sanctions the U.S. imposed at the conclusion of its 20-year war.
"The suffering of the Afghan people at the hands of the United States and its allies is reprehensible," she said. "This is adding insult to injury."
In an opinion piece published earlier this week, Bloomberg columnist Ruth Pollard wrote that in the wake of Biden's executive order, "many in Afghanistan and its diaspora pointed out the obvious: This appears to be a backwards attempt to punish Afghanistan for its role in the 2001 attacks on the U.S."
"If so," wrote Pollard, "the aim was off-target. Of the origins of the 9/11 hijackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Lebanon and Egypt. Not one was Afghan. The Taliban, who ruled most of the country, had provided refuge to Osama bin Laden; but, given the median age of Afghans today is 18, those attacks took place before many were even born."
As for the $3.5 billion that the White House has proposed using for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, peace activist Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, urged global aid groups to reject those funds and called on "other countries and institutions not to cooperate in the implementation of [Biden's] unjust order."
\u201cWe ask worldwide humanitarian aid groups to refuse receipt of the $3.5 billion in Afghan money commandeered by Biden and call on other countries and institutions not to cooperate in the implementation of his unjust order. #UnfreezeAfghanistan https://t.co/WtnCkDvjqx\u201d— Medea Benjamin (@Medea Benjamin) 1644853932
Experts have noted that the sovereign wealth captured by Biden undergirds Afghanistan's currency and is not meant for aid.
According to Pollard:
While the United Nations and other humanitarian groups work to convince the U.S. and the World Bank to ease what amounts to an economic blockade on Afghanistan, Biden's actions are blatantly counterproductive.
...U.N. chief Antonio Guterres in January called on the World Bank to immediately release $1.2 billion in reconstruction funds to ease the humanitarian crisis and inject liquidity to prevent an economic collapse. It had already transferred $280 million to the U.N. Children's Fund and the World Food Programme a month earlier.
As IRC president David Miliband told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism during a hearing last week, "The proximate cause of this starvation crisis is the international economic policy, which has been adopted since August and which has cut off financial flows not just to the public sector, but in the private sector in Afghanistan as well."
"Bank branches lack cash, and sanctions, which are meant to be on the Taliban, end up freezing private sector activity," said Miliband. "Aid cannot make up for an economy deprived of oxygen."
Graeme Smith of the International Crisis Group concurred, saying during the hearing that "you can send bags of food, but more than that, you need to address the reason why people are hungry, which is the collapse of the economy mostly due to Western economic restrictions."
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and long-time critic of sanctions, said this week in a statement that "a country without central bank reserves is on a road to economic collapse. By confiscating these reserves, the U.S. government is guaranteeing this collapse, and the resulting widespread death and mass migration."
"This is fatally wrong and immoral, and it cannot continue," said Weisbrot. "The only question is how many people will die before the U.S. government changes its policy."
Any such effort, said one democracy watchdog, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
In his latest full-frontal assault on democratic access and voting rights, President Donald Trump early Monday said he will lead an effort to ban both mail-in ballots and voting machines for next year's mid-term elections—a vow met with immediate rebuke from progressive critics.
"I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election," Trump wrote in a social media post infested with lies and falsehoods.
Trump falsely claimed that no other country in the world uses mail-in voting—a blatant lie, according to International IDEA, which monitors democratic trends worldwide, at least 34 nations allow for in-country postal voting of some kind. The group notes that over 100 countries allow out-of-country postal voting for citizens living or stationed overseas during an election.
Trump has repeated his false claim—over and over again—that he won the 2020 election, which he actually lost, in part due to fraud related to mail-in ballots, though the lie has been debunked ad nauseam. He also fails to note that mail-in ballots were very much in use nationwide in 2024, with an estimated 30% of voters casting a mail-in ballot as opposed to in-person during the election in which Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took back the US Senate and retained the US House of Representatives.
Monday's rant by Trump came just days after his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Trump claimed commented personally on the 2020 election and mail-in ballots. In a Friday night interview with Fox News, Trump claimed "one of the most interesting" things Putin said during their talks about ending the war in Ukraine was about mail-in voting in the United States and how Trump would have won the election were it not for voter fraud, echoing Trump's own disproven claims.
Trump: Vladimir Putin said your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting… he talked about 2020 and he said you won that election by so much.. it was a rigged election. pic.twitter.com/m8v0tXuiDQ
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 16, 2025
Trump said Monday he would sign an executive order on election processes, suggesting that it would forbid mail-in ballots as well as the automatic tabulation machines used in states nationwide. He also said that states, which are in charge of administering their elections at the local level, "must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do."
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, which tracks voting rights and issues related to ballot access, said any executive order by Trump to end mail-in voting or forbid provenly safe and accurate voting machines ahead of the midterms would be "unconstitutional and illegal."
Such an effort, said Elias, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.