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.
Protesters in Louisville, Kentucky set up a short-lived encampment outside the city's ICE facility.
The real result from Trump’s deportation plans will be not mass removals of people, but massive time delays and wastes of both Americans’ time and money.
When a student in the 2000s, I was actively involved in immigrant raid response efforts that churches, labor unions, and community groups organized to mitigate the effects of then-President George W. Bush’s nationwide enforcement actions.
We took resources like clothes, food, and money to affected families in the states of Minnesota and Iowa, and conducted “Know Your Rights Trainings” for undocumented workers on what to do if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents went to their homes.
Since then, we have learned two things.
First is that enforcement actions, that is, arresting, detaining, and deporting people en masse, fail to stem the flow of undocumented migrants coming into the U.S. The Bush-era deportation machine didn’t stop the flow of people coming north, the lack of opportunities due to the 2007-08 financial crisis did. Deportations during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term paralleled what Bush did, but failed to reach Obama-era levels in terms of numbers. Still, Covid-19—not mass arrests—caused the drop in border crossings, illegal and legal. Crossings picked up post-pandemic with political and economic disasters in Central America and Venezuela driving people north.
How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
The second thing we learned is how to play defense.
More to the point—in addition to remembering how to prepare immigrant communities for raids, groups like those I was part of grew to include politicians and lawyers who over the years generated sanctuary ordinances around the country that proved effective the first time Trump was in power. Accordingly, the tools for Trump’s mass deportation plan are well-known and his fantasy of addressing our ongoing immigration crisis by amping up arrests will fail.
Before parsing details, let’s make one thing clear—Trump’s immigration policies are mostly about generating fear, with little by way of serious substance. Just listen to incoming “Border Czar,” former ICE director Tom Homan, who promised “shock and awe”—the phrase used to inaugurate the U.S. war of aggression on Iraq in 2003—to describe the incoming administration’s approach to immigration policy.
Bombast and terror aside, we can expect that Biden-era policies like humanitarian parole for asylees from Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela will be revoked. Restrictions on ICE concerning arrest priorities will also be lifted, like Trump did when he was first president. The president-elect has already said that his “Remain in Mexico” policy will return, which, for anyone trying to enter the United States to seek asylum, means that they cannot reside within the country while awaiting a court date. Trump will also seek resources from Congress to build a nonsensical wall that people desperately trying to get into the United States will either scale, dig under, or run around. Resources will also be sought for hiring additional border patrol agents and ICE officers.
Of the many problems Trump’s deportation machine will face, let’s start with this last one—personnel. Put simply, people don’t want to do Trump’s bidding. Nothing has changed in this regard since 2017, when he ordered the hiring of 5,000 additional agents to patrol the border. In 2018, just 118 people answered the call.
There is also the price tag for arresting and deporting the nearly 12 million undocumented people in the U.S., with estimates placing the cost of mass deportation at over $315 billion, shrinking the economy in the process by between 4% and 7%. Unphased, Trump has said that mass deportations “have no price tag.”
Trump may learn to regret those words, as besides money, the government will have to expend considerable time.
The reason is that the U.S. is a federal system where states and cities can, and have, created sanctuary policies. These ordinances, which are popular with law enforcement, stipulate that local police do their day-to-day jobs of providing security without collaborating with federal immigration authorities to arrest and deport undocumented people. Practically for immigrant justice, sanctuary policies gum up the deportation machine, making the federal government do its job alone. Despite what ill-informed critics claim, instead of creating a climate of murder and mayhem, sanctuary jurisdictions allow local police to work with federal agents when a person commits a violent crime.
There is also the idea that the military will be called to detain undocumented migrants, as Trump has mentioned.
Here the fear campaign is on full display. I mean, it’s scary to think that soldiers would be turned on undocumented people who live all around the country. Yet, pausing to think this through, the military does not have any special information as to the whereabouts of migrants. So, are we to expect military vehicles driving up and down city streets, with soldiers pointing rifles at people they suspect of being in the country illegally? Will the army storm farms around the country and detain half of the essential workers without status who make the food system operate? How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
Regardless of the extent that Trump pushes mass arrests, he will for sure whine and complain about sanctuary policies, threatening the politicians who uphold them like he did in his first term. And like his first term, many politicians will resist. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are already gearing up.
For those areas outside of sanctuary jurisdiction, arrests may increase. This happened during Trump’s first time in power, especially in places like Florida’s Miami Dade county that repealed its sanctuary policies.
Here, the problem is that immigration courts are woefully under-resourced, reporting a backlog of 3 million cases. Some believe that doubling the number of judges will help address these cases—but by 2032. Mass arrests will only further jam up the system. Meanwhile, immigration lawyers are skilled at defending their clients, taking the time to search for how people can change their status, for instance if people have suffered domestic abuse or witnessed a crime.
This will be the real result from Trump’s deportation plans—not mass removals of people, but massive time delays and wastes of both Americans’ time and money.
Still, what is most important in this discussion are our immigrant movement networks. Before and during Trump’s first term, this movement has built an underground railroad of sorts, connecting immigrants with churches, legal resources, and meals if needed. And more critical than things, this movement has for years provided that one thing that Trump and his lackeys are working so hard to wrest from migrant communities—hope. That is, hope that there will be a better day for migrants and their allies to press serious politicians about making real reforms instead of being terrorized and living in fear.
Until that day comes, we fight on.
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. |
When a student in the 2000s, I was actively involved in immigrant raid response efforts that churches, labor unions, and community groups organized to mitigate the effects of then-President George W. Bush’s nationwide enforcement actions.
We took resources like clothes, food, and money to affected families in the states of Minnesota and Iowa, and conducted “Know Your Rights Trainings” for undocumented workers on what to do if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents went to their homes.
Since then, we have learned two things.
First is that enforcement actions, that is, arresting, detaining, and deporting people en masse, fail to stem the flow of undocumented migrants coming into the U.S. The Bush-era deportation machine didn’t stop the flow of people coming north, the lack of opportunities due to the 2007-08 financial crisis did. Deportations during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term paralleled what Bush did, but failed to reach Obama-era levels in terms of numbers. Still, Covid-19—not mass arrests—caused the drop in border crossings, illegal and legal. Crossings picked up post-pandemic with political and economic disasters in Central America and Venezuela driving people north.
How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
The second thing we learned is how to play defense.
More to the point—in addition to remembering how to prepare immigrant communities for raids, groups like those I was part of grew to include politicians and lawyers who over the years generated sanctuary ordinances around the country that proved effective the first time Trump was in power. Accordingly, the tools for Trump’s mass deportation plan are well-known and his fantasy of addressing our ongoing immigration crisis by amping up arrests will fail.
Before parsing details, let’s make one thing clear—Trump’s immigration policies are mostly about generating fear, with little by way of serious substance. Just listen to incoming “Border Czar,” former ICE director Tom Homan, who promised “shock and awe”—the phrase used to inaugurate the U.S. war of aggression on Iraq in 2003—to describe the incoming administration’s approach to immigration policy.
Bombast and terror aside, we can expect that Biden-era policies like humanitarian parole for asylees from Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela will be revoked. Restrictions on ICE concerning arrest priorities will also be lifted, like Trump did when he was first president. The president-elect has already said that his “Remain in Mexico” policy will return, which, for anyone trying to enter the United States to seek asylum, means that they cannot reside within the country while awaiting a court date. Trump will also seek resources from Congress to build a nonsensical wall that people desperately trying to get into the United States will either scale, dig under, or run around. Resources will also be sought for hiring additional border patrol agents and ICE officers.
Of the many problems Trump’s deportation machine will face, let’s start with this last one—personnel. Put simply, people don’t want to do Trump’s bidding. Nothing has changed in this regard since 2017, when he ordered the hiring of 5,000 additional agents to patrol the border. In 2018, just 118 people answered the call.
There is also the price tag for arresting and deporting the nearly 12 million undocumented people in the U.S., with estimates placing the cost of mass deportation at over $315 billion, shrinking the economy in the process by between 4% and 7%. Unphased, Trump has said that mass deportations “have no price tag.”
Trump may learn to regret those words, as besides money, the government will have to expend considerable time.
The reason is that the U.S. is a federal system where states and cities can, and have, created sanctuary policies. These ordinances, which are popular with law enforcement, stipulate that local police do their day-to-day jobs of providing security without collaborating with federal immigration authorities to arrest and deport undocumented people. Practically for immigrant justice, sanctuary policies gum up the deportation machine, making the federal government do its job alone. Despite what ill-informed critics claim, instead of creating a climate of murder and mayhem, sanctuary jurisdictions allow local police to work with federal agents when a person commits a violent crime.
There is also the idea that the military will be called to detain undocumented migrants, as Trump has mentioned.
Here the fear campaign is on full display. I mean, it’s scary to think that soldiers would be turned on undocumented people who live all around the country. Yet, pausing to think this through, the military does not have any special information as to the whereabouts of migrants. So, are we to expect military vehicles driving up and down city streets, with soldiers pointing rifles at people they suspect of being in the country illegally? Will the army storm farms around the country and detain half of the essential workers without status who make the food system operate? How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
Regardless of the extent that Trump pushes mass arrests, he will for sure whine and complain about sanctuary policies, threatening the politicians who uphold them like he did in his first term. And like his first term, many politicians will resist. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are already gearing up.
For those areas outside of sanctuary jurisdiction, arrests may increase. This happened during Trump’s first time in power, especially in places like Florida’s Miami Dade county that repealed its sanctuary policies.
Here, the problem is that immigration courts are woefully under-resourced, reporting a backlog of 3 million cases. Some believe that doubling the number of judges will help address these cases—but by 2032. Mass arrests will only further jam up the system. Meanwhile, immigration lawyers are skilled at defending their clients, taking the time to search for how people can change their status, for instance if people have suffered domestic abuse or witnessed a crime.
This will be the real result from Trump’s deportation plans—not mass removals of people, but massive time delays and wastes of both Americans’ time and money.
Still, what is most important in this discussion are our immigrant movement networks. Before and during Trump’s first term, this movement has built an underground railroad of sorts, connecting immigrants with churches, legal resources, and meals if needed. And more critical than things, this movement has for years provided that one thing that Trump and his lackeys are working so hard to wrest from migrant communities—hope. That is, hope that there will be a better day for migrants and their allies to press serious politicians about making real reforms instead of being terrorized and living in fear.
Until that day comes, we fight on.
When a student in the 2000s, I was actively involved in immigrant raid response efforts that churches, labor unions, and community groups organized to mitigate the effects of then-President George W. Bush’s nationwide enforcement actions.
We took resources like clothes, food, and money to affected families in the states of Minnesota and Iowa, and conducted “Know Your Rights Trainings” for undocumented workers on what to do if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents went to their homes.
Since then, we have learned two things.
First is that enforcement actions, that is, arresting, detaining, and deporting people en masse, fail to stem the flow of undocumented migrants coming into the U.S. The Bush-era deportation machine didn’t stop the flow of people coming north, the lack of opportunities due to the 2007-08 financial crisis did. Deportations during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term paralleled what Bush did, but failed to reach Obama-era levels in terms of numbers. Still, Covid-19—not mass arrests—caused the drop in border crossings, illegal and legal. Crossings picked up post-pandemic with political and economic disasters in Central America and Venezuela driving people north.
How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
The second thing we learned is how to play defense.
More to the point—in addition to remembering how to prepare immigrant communities for raids, groups like those I was part of grew to include politicians and lawyers who over the years generated sanctuary ordinances around the country that proved effective the first time Trump was in power. Accordingly, the tools for Trump’s mass deportation plan are well-known and his fantasy of addressing our ongoing immigration crisis by amping up arrests will fail.
Before parsing details, let’s make one thing clear—Trump’s immigration policies are mostly about generating fear, with little by way of serious substance. Just listen to incoming “Border Czar,” former ICE director Tom Homan, who promised “shock and awe”—the phrase used to inaugurate the U.S. war of aggression on Iraq in 2003—to describe the incoming administration’s approach to immigration policy.
Bombast and terror aside, we can expect that Biden-era policies like humanitarian parole for asylees from Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela will be revoked. Restrictions on ICE concerning arrest priorities will also be lifted, like Trump did when he was first president. The president-elect has already said that his “Remain in Mexico” policy will return, which, for anyone trying to enter the United States to seek asylum, means that they cannot reside within the country while awaiting a court date. Trump will also seek resources from Congress to build a nonsensical wall that people desperately trying to get into the United States will either scale, dig under, or run around. Resources will also be sought for hiring additional border patrol agents and ICE officers.
Of the many problems Trump’s deportation machine will face, let’s start with this last one—personnel. Put simply, people don’t want to do Trump’s bidding. Nothing has changed in this regard since 2017, when he ordered the hiring of 5,000 additional agents to patrol the border. In 2018, just 118 people answered the call.
There is also the price tag for arresting and deporting the nearly 12 million undocumented people in the U.S., with estimates placing the cost of mass deportation at over $315 billion, shrinking the economy in the process by between 4% and 7%. Unphased, Trump has said that mass deportations “have no price tag.”
Trump may learn to regret those words, as besides money, the government will have to expend considerable time.
The reason is that the U.S. is a federal system where states and cities can, and have, created sanctuary policies. These ordinances, which are popular with law enforcement, stipulate that local police do their day-to-day jobs of providing security without collaborating with federal immigration authorities to arrest and deport undocumented people. Practically for immigrant justice, sanctuary policies gum up the deportation machine, making the federal government do its job alone. Despite what ill-informed critics claim, instead of creating a climate of murder and mayhem, sanctuary jurisdictions allow local police to work with federal agents when a person commits a violent crime.
There is also the idea that the military will be called to detain undocumented migrants, as Trump has mentioned.
Here the fear campaign is on full display. I mean, it’s scary to think that soldiers would be turned on undocumented people who live all around the country. Yet, pausing to think this through, the military does not have any special information as to the whereabouts of migrants. So, are we to expect military vehicles driving up and down city streets, with soldiers pointing rifles at people they suspect of being in the country illegally? Will the army storm farms around the country and detain half of the essential workers without status who make the food system operate? How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
Regardless of the extent that Trump pushes mass arrests, he will for sure whine and complain about sanctuary policies, threatening the politicians who uphold them like he did in his first term. And like his first term, many politicians will resist. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are already gearing up.
For those areas outside of sanctuary jurisdiction, arrests may increase. This happened during Trump’s first time in power, especially in places like Florida’s Miami Dade county that repealed its sanctuary policies.
Here, the problem is that immigration courts are woefully under-resourced, reporting a backlog of 3 million cases. Some believe that doubling the number of judges will help address these cases—but by 2032. Mass arrests will only further jam up the system. Meanwhile, immigration lawyers are skilled at defending their clients, taking the time to search for how people can change their status, for instance if people have suffered domestic abuse or witnessed a crime.
This will be the real result from Trump’s deportation plans—not mass removals of people, but massive time delays and wastes of both Americans’ time and money.
Still, what is most important in this discussion are our immigrant movement networks. Before and during Trump’s first term, this movement has built an underground railroad of sorts, connecting immigrants with churches, legal resources, and meals if needed. And more critical than things, this movement has for years provided that one thing that Trump and his lackeys are working so hard to wrest from migrant communities—hope. That is, hope that there will be a better day for migrants and their allies to press serious politicians about making real reforms instead of being terrorized and living in fear.
Until that day comes, we fight on.
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."