Category: Washington Post

  • Hunger monitor says Gaza is still seeing acute malnutrition but not famine

    Hunger monitor says Gaza is still seeing acute malnutrition but not famine

    JERUSALEM — The Gaza Strip is no longer facing famine in any of its regions after humanitarian and commercial food deliveries surged following an October ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but more than three-quarters of the population, or 1.6 million people, still experience acute food insecurity and malnutrition, the global authority on hunger said Friday.

    The report from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) was the first to be published since the international group of experts declared in August that the Gaza City region was experiencing “man-made” famine as a result of two years of war, displacement, and harsh Israeli restrictions on food and other aid. Although the IPC had projected that by September, more than 600,000 people would experience Phase 5, or “catastrophic” levels of starvation and malnutrition, that figure dropped to 100,000 by the end of November after Israel began loosening the flow of aid as part of an Oct. 10 ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States, according to the latest report.

    Israel has come under intense international criticism this year for choking the flow of humanitarian aid, which Israeli officials said was being stolen by Hamas fighters and resold, prolonging the conflict. In a statement Friday, the Israeli government said the latest report showed “even the IPC had to admit that there is no famine in Gaza” and criticized the group’s findings as based on incomplete data.

    Between “600 and 800 aid trucks enter the Gaza Strip every day, 70% of them carrying food — nearly five times more than what the IPC itself said was required for the Strip,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry said in a statement that criticized the latest IPC report as “deliberately distorted.”

    The IPC said that although the nutrition situation has improved since its August report, acute malnutrition is considered “critical,” or Phase 4 in its five-tier classification, in Gaza City and “serious,” or Phase 3, in the Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis regions. North Gaza is also believed to be suffering from malnutrition, the report warned, adding that conditions remain severe for the most vulnerable populations.

    “Over the next 12 months, across the entire Gaza Strip, nearly 101,000 children aged 6-59 months are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition and require treatment, with more than 31,000 severe cases,” the report found. “During the same period, 37,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women will also face acute malnutrition and require treatment.”

  • Trump’s predecessors would be unsettled by his naming obsession

    Trump’s predecessors would be unsettled by his naming obsession

    It is becoming increasingly clear that Donald Trump and his most ardent supporters view the U.S. presidency as a golden opportunity for branding.

    On Thursday, the White House announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump Kennedy Center, after what was reported to be a unanimous vote by the board of trustees that the president himself installed there. Trump is the board’s chairman.

    The move was roundly denounced by Democrats and by members of the Kennedy family.

    “Perhaps the board isn’t aware that the Kennedy Center is THE memorial to the president of the United States, John F. Kennedy,” JFK’s nephew Tim Shriver wrote on Instagram. “Would they rename the Lincoln Memorial? The Jefferson? That would be an insult to great presidents. This too is an insult to a great president.”

    Workers install Donald J. Trump above the current signage on the Kennedy Center on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

    It is also questionable whether it could be done without Congress’s approval, given that the center was established by statute. But the new name was already being affixed to the building on Friday — a move very much in line with other actions taken recently by the Trump administration.

    It freshly rechristened the U.S. Institute of Peace to be the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. Tax-deferred investment vehicles for children that are coming in 2026 will be called “Trump accounts.” And a new government website to help people shop for lower-priced drugs can be found at TrumpRx.com.

    This month, the National Park Service added Trump’s June 14 birthday to its list of free-admission days. The president’s birthday coincides with Flag Day. But the Park Service simultaneously dropped its policies of not charging admission on Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth, which unlike Flag Day are federal holidays.

    U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach confirmed in October that the U.S. Mint was drafting $1 coins featuring the image of Trump on both sides to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding.

    Trump’s image is not among the designs for the semiquincentennial coins and medals coin unveiled by the Mint thus far, however — the idea possibly impeded for now by a law that presidents cannot appear on coins until two years after their deaths.

    In 2003, there was a move among Republicans in Congress to replace Franklin D. Roosevelt on the dime with an image of Ronald Reagan. The former president was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and unable to speak for himself, but his wife, Nancy, put a stop to the effort.

    “While I can understand the intentions of those seeking to place my husband’s face on the dime, I do not support this proposal and I am certain Ronnie would not,” she said. “When our country chooses to honor a great president such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another.”

    Though the impulse of a real estate developer is to slap his name on everything around him, the nation’s past chief executives, with rare exceptions, have refrained from doing so while in office.

    Perhaps the most notable of those exceptions was naming the capital city in 1791 after George Washington, the nation’s first president, who had selected the site for the federal district. The decision on what to call it was made by a three-member commission to oversee the city’s development that was appointed by Washington.

    Moves to christen institutions and landmarks after history’s most well-regarded presidents have often risen from the ground up and reflected the wishes of local communities. Across the map, there are countless counties and towns, schools and libraries, streets and squares called George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.

    Sometimes, the way former presidents have been honored for their historic achievements has gone against their wishes. In 1941, Roosevelt put his hand on his presidential desk in the Oval Office, where he had signed the legislation that made the New Deal a reality, and told Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter precisely what kind of monument he would like to see to his presidency.

    “If any memorial is erected to me, I know exactly what I should like it to be. I should like it to consist of a block about the size of this and placed in the center of that green plot in front of the Archives Building,” Roosevelt said. “I don’t care what it is made of, whether limestone or granite or whatnot, but I want it plain without any ornamentation, with the simple carving, ‘In Memory of ____’.”

    Indeed, that modest block of stone was put into place on Pennsylvania Avenue in 1965. But a little more than three decades later, the largest and most grandiose of all presidential monuments was dedicated in Roosevelt’s honor. It stretches across 7.5 acres along the southwest side of the Tidal Basin.

    And there is irony in the gargantuan Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center — a federal building eclipsed only by the Pentagon in size — given the 40th president’s aversion to big government.

    A special poignancy led to the naming of the Kennedy Center. The concept of a national cultural center had been kicking around for decades and was a project embraced by Kennedy’s Republican predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy were enthusiasts, and helped raise money, but still couldn’t get it off the ground.

    In a speech at Amherst College less than a month before his 1963 assassination, Kennedy said: “If sometimes our great artists have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our nation falls short of its highest potential.”

    “I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist,” he added.

    After his death, his widow asked that the center become a reality and a “living memorial” to her husband. There was still a furious fight in Congress over appropriating government money to the project — $15.5 million in federal dollars to match private donations. Republicans in particular decried it as frivolous.

    But where patronage of the arts has usually been the province of the wealthy, this idea caught on with ordinary Americans.

    “A great number of people throughout the United States have sent in small contributions to the Treasury and to the White House, in denominations of $1 to $25,” Rep. James C. Auchincloss of New Jersey, one of the few Republicans to support providing federal funds for the center, argued on the House floor.

    The measure passed two months after Kennedy’s assassination, on Jan. 23, 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson broke ground for the center in December.

    “Pericles said, ‘If Athens shall appear great to you, consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty,’” Johnson said. “As this center comes to reflect and advance the greatness of America, consider then those glories were purchased by a valiant leader who never swerved from duty — John Kennedy. And in his name I dedicate this site.”

  • Trump administration appeals ruling in Harvard research funding case

    Trump administration appeals ruling in Harvard research funding case

    The Trump administration has moved to appeal a federal judge’s ruling in favor of Harvard University on research funding, signaling that its high-profile fight with the university continues.

    In September, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution by freezing federal research funding at Harvard. Burroughs wrote that suspending and canceling more than $2 billion in research grants and other federal actions amounted to retaliation and unconstitutional coercion in violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights.

    Burroughs wrote that it was “difficult to conclude anything other than that defendants used antisemitism as a smoke screen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities” that had jeopardized decades of research.

    The court filing did not outline the administration’s legal argument but signaled it would be appealing Burroughs’s decision.

    The Trump administration has sought to compel cultural change at universities, claiming some have not done enough to combat antisemitism on campus, among other complaints. At several schools, it abruptly froze federal research funding.

    Its most forceful actions have been taken against Harvard. In April, the university refused a sweeping list of demands and filed a lawsuit. The Trump administration sought to bar foreign students and scholars from Harvard, opened investigations, and threatened to block it from receiving federal funding.

    The probes included one into possible violation of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act.

    After the ruling, federal grants and contracts for work in fields such as cancer research and quantum science were reinstated, and most of the funding that was owed to Harvard for that work was restored.

    Late Thursday, lawyers for the government filed a notice of appeal.

    A spokesman for Harvard said Friday that the September ruling reinstated “critical research funding that advances science and life-saving medical breakthroughs, strengthens national security, and enhances our nation’s competitiveness and economic priorities. We are confident that the Court of Appeals will affirm the district court’s opinion.”

    An attorney for a group of faculty who separately sued the Trump administration, a case heard concurrently with Harvard’s, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

    Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. President Donald Trump had vowed to appeal even before Burroughs issued her ruling.

  • Drug companies line up to make deals with Trump after initial hesitation

    Drug companies line up to make deals with Trump after initial hesitation

    When President Donald Trump declared in May that he wanted drug companies to voluntarily cut their prices, few pharmaceutical executives wanted to go first. Now, no one wants to be last — and risk the wrath of the president.

    Nine drug companies announced price cuts with Trump at the White House on Friday, touting discounts on medication to treat diabetes, heart disease, HIV, hepatitis B, and other conditions. The deals will offer discounts on drugs sold to the government and to Americans through a new website, TrumpRx.gov, in exchange for tariff relief and other incentives, including faster FDA reviews for future approvals.

    The program, known as the Most Favored Nation initiative, is an effort to link U.S. drug prices to lower costs abroad.

    “Every president for a generation has promised to reduce drug prices, but … I am the only one of them to ever even think in terms of ‘favored nations,’” Trump boasted Friday, flanked by drug-company executives and health officials.

    Friday’s announcements follow similar deals with five other companies, beginning in September when Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla joined Trump to unveil price cuts. Since then, other drug-company executives have joined Trump to announce discounts on fertility and GLP-1 drugs and other offerings. In return, the administration has lifted the threat of tariffs and offered the companies other benefits, such as priority vouchers to expedite FDA reviews, which can lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue for a company if a new drug is quickly approved.

    Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi all announced new price cuts Friday. Three of the 17 pharmaceutical companies initially targeted by the Trump administration — AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson and Regeneron — have yet to appear with the president to tout price cuts, but officials said that those companies are set to make their own announcements soon.

    Trump has heralded his initiative — which he attempted to pursue in his first term — as one of his most significant achievements this year, arguing that even small savings matter amid the difficulty of curbing drug prices. The deep-pocketed pharmaceutical industry has repeatedly blocked most major efforts at reform for decades, and U.S. drug spending continues to rise, outpacing other wealthy countries.

    “This is the biggest thing ever to happen on drug pricing and on healthcare,” Trump claimed. He also criticized other countries for relying on high drug prices in the United States to subsidize the cost of pharmaceutical research and development, saying that global prices needed to be more equitable.

    “We were subsidizing the entire world. We’re not doing that anymore,” the president said.

    Democrats and outside experts have credited the deals as potentially helping some patients but said the initiative’s overall savings to the U.S. health system will be negligible and dismissed Trump’s hyperbole.

    “It’s a bit laughable to call this ‘the biggest thing ever’ in health policy. I’m not even sure this cracks the top 10 health policy changes,” said Craig Garthwaite, director of healthcare at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. “Giving Most Favored Nation prices to Medicaid, particularly for older drugs, likely won’t save that much.”

    The president has sought to make regular announcements about his drug-price deals, aiming to show progress and counter voter frustration over rising healthcare costs entering a midterm year that favors Democrats. Trump is timing Friday’s event to be one of his final White House events of the year, before he heads to North Carolina for a rally on affordability and then to his Mar-a-Lago resort.

    Pharmaceutical companies also touted their willingness to cut U.S. prices. A Bristol Myers Squibb executive said the company would provide its blood-thinning drug Eliquis, its most-prescribed medicine, to Medicaid free. Merck said it would offer discounts on its drugs Januvia, Janumet, and Janumet XR, which are used to treat Type 2 diabetes.

    “I reflect on your goal, driving affordability and access to Americans, but equally getting prices up outside the United States,” Merck CEO Robert Davis told Trump. “We’re 100 percent supportive of your actions.”

    Democrats have questioned whether Trump’s dealmaking with the companies is creating a quid pro quo, with pharmaceutical executives striking agreements to give the president a political win in exchange for potential profit.

    “Congress and the American people remain in the dark about the contours of your agreement with the Trump Administration,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Reps. Richard E. Neal (D., Mass.), Frank Pallone Jr. (D., N.J.) and Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D., Va.) wrote in letters sent this week to pharmaceutical executives participating in the initiative. The lawmakers are the top Democrats on four congressional committees that oversee aspects of the U.S. health system.

    Several former FDA officials — including two physicians who recently oversaw the agency’s drug-regulation center — have warned that the voucher program may be illegal and risk undermining public health by streamlining reviews. While the agency’s drug reviews can traditionally take about a year, as scientists pore over safety and effectiveness data, Trump officials have said that the voucher program can guarantee a review within one or two months. The administration has defended the program, saying that safety and effectiveness remain priorities despite the accelerated timetable.

    Trump officials have used other levers, too. The administration has relied on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’s innovation center, which allows officials to pilot payment changes without seeking congressional approval, to pressure drug companies that do not voluntarily lower prices. Several drug-payment pilots have already been announced, and more are expected on Friday, the people said.

    Wall Street analysts say the companies have incentives to strike quick deals with the administration, rather than tempt Trump’s ire. Medicaid represents a relatively small portion of their business, and many companies are agreeing to price cuts similar to discount programs they have begun.

    Pfizer’s announcement with Trump also sent a signal to the rest of the industry, several pharmaceutical executives and industry analysts have told reporters.

    “When you saw the lack of impact to earnings of the initial companies’ deals, for most coming after, it’s a no-brainer,” said Chris Meekins, a managing director at Raymond James.

    Trump officials have said that the initial negotiations were tough, and securing concessions has become easier over time.

    “I think the first five companies that came through the pipeline were some of the hardest ones to get through,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said in an interview on Dec. 7, pointing to the size of companies like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, which were among the first companies to agree to deals.

    Trump officials have leaned on the healthcare companies’ civic responsibilities, in addition to applying pressure through tariffs and the CMS innovation center.

    Chris Klomp, the head of the Medicare program and a lead negotiator on the drug-price cuts, said he stressed “duty and patriotism” in a conversation with one prominent CEO.

    “And when we got done, he said, ‘I didn’t get into this business for [quarterly earnings],” Klomp said in remarks at last month’s MAHA Action summit. “I have children. I want to make them proud. I understand this is important to you and the president. We will show up.’”

  • How brokers gamed the ACA marketplace, roiling subsidy debate in Congress

    How brokers gamed the ACA marketplace, roiling subsidy debate in Congress

    The Florida insurance brokers offered an enticing deal to unemployed and homeless people: Enroll in a Healthcare.gov health plan they weren’t eligible for in exchange for gift cards, food, alcohol, or cash. They coached them to lie about their income to qualify for heavily subsidized coverage, according to court documents. Sometimes they enrolled people without their knowledge.

    A federal jury convicted Cory Lloyd and Steven Strong last month of collecting millions of dollars in commissions between 2018 and 2022 through a widespread plot to defraud the federal insurance marketplace. People earning at least the federal poverty level can get income-based subsidies to help them afford monthly premiums for plans sold through the Affordable Care Act. Under Lloyd and Strong’s scheme, the federal government paid at least $180 million in ineligible subsidies.

    Many more agents and brokers — likely thousands, according to two career staffers at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to press — are gaming the marketplace where 24 million Americans get health insurance.

    Corruption among Healthcare.gov agents and brokers had emerged as a sticking point in Washington as Congress failed to reach a deal to halt the year-end expiration of enhanced subsidies for insurance premiums, which will drive up the cost of plans for millions of Americans. Republicans invoked the fraud to argue against extending the subsidies while Democrats said the solution is better enforcement rather than withholding assistance from Americans who need it.

    Last year, the Biden administration temporarily suspended 850 insurance agents and brokers suspected of fraudulent or abusive conduct. CMS hasn’t terminated any agents or brokers this year — although spokesman Christopher Krepich said the agency has “initiated terminations” even as it sets up stricter enrollment rules for customers amid Administrator Mehmet Oz’s promises to root out fraud.

    Around 100,000 agents and brokers are authorized by Healthcare.gov. They facilitate more than three-quarters of enrollments. For each person enrolled, insurers pay them a small monthly commission, typically between $5 and $20. Florida, where Lloyd and Strong operated, offers the largest commissions in the country, averaging $28 per enrollee, according to the nonpartisan health policy organization KFF.

    A new government report underscored how easy it is to game the marketplace.

    When the Government Accountability Office, which evaluates federal programs and spending, submitted 20 fraudulent applications to Healthcare.gov for coverage this year, 19 were initially approved even though the agency didn’t submit documents requested to prove income, citizenship, and Social Security numbers. The marketplace terminated one enrollee for insufficient documentation. The government is still paying more than $10,000 a month in subsidies for 18 remaining enrollments.

    Investigators also discovered misuse of Society Security numbers — in one case, a single number was used for 125 policies in 2023 — and identified serious shortcomings in how CMS assesses marketplace fraud.

    Stopping marketplace fraud is “not a priority” for CMS, said Seto Bagdoyan, a director at GAO who worked on the report.

    Krepich said the agency has undertaken “a thorough investigation into improper agent and broker activity” and is committed to “ensuring consumers are never enrolled in coverage without their knowledge or consent.”

    Democrats complain the Trump administration is doing little to fix the problem despite its bluster about waste, fraud, and abuse in federal health programs.

    Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas), the top Democrat on a subcommittee overseeing CMS, wrote a letter to Oz last week requesting closer scrutiny of the reinstated agents and brokers. “The remedy is not to deny a mother access to care for her sick child,” Doggett said in a statement. “What we need is effective law enforcement.”

    Like brokers for Lloyd and Strong, who did not return requests for comment, many have enrolled people without their knowledge, switched their plan without their consent or created fake enrollments to maximize commissions.

    The GAO concluded that the enhanced subsidies worsened fraud in recent years as bad actors seized upon the beefier assistance to lure new customers. As enrollments on Healthcare.gov skyrocketed under the extra subsidies, fraudulent sign-ups grew too. The Congressional Budget Office estimated those misstating their incomes to get more subsidies nearly doubled from 1.3 million to 2.3 million between 2023 and 2025.

    “We believe that the expansion of the subsidies — which put more money in the pool — invigorated the financial incentive to sign up as many people as possible,” Bagdoyan said.

    The GAO’s findings were among the hurdles to Republicans in Congress agreeing to extend extra subsidies for a marketplace they’ve accused of failing to sufficiently police from bad actors.

    “These findings validate long-standing Republican warnings: Obamacare’s subsidy system lacks even the most basic guardrails and has created an environment where criminals, identity thieves, and unscrupulous brokers can exploit taxpayers with ease,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) said in a statement last week.

    Democrats say the proper response isn’t to let the extra subsidies expire but to go after the brokers.

    “I’ve always said any fraud is too much,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (Oregon), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight of healthcare issues.

    Wyden introduced a bill to create new civil penalties for brokers who commit fraud. He said Republicans haven’t signed onto his bill or offered similar measures.

    After receiving hundreds of thousands of complaints about fraud, the Biden administration started requiring customers to hold a three-way call with their broker and the marketplace call center in July 2024. But the new policy left plenty of loopholes, agents told GAO. The rule didn’t apply to new enrollees. And the marketplace took only “limited steps to verify the identity of the consumer on the three-way call,” the report says.

    Oz has been vowing to root out the abuse, slamming the prior administration for rules he said were too lenient and touting stricter enrollment rules CMS released in June. Those rules don’t include any direct, new restrictions on agents and brokers but could indirectly make fraud harder by ending year-round enrollment for people earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level, roughly $23,000 for an individual.

    “The past administration prioritized achieving big program enrollment numbers over protecting program integrity,” Oz said in a video posted recently to X.

    CMS is also preparing to implement stricter verification requirements laid out in Trump’s sweeping tax-and-spending law he signed this summer. That legislation bans the marketplaces from awarding subsidies before verifying a customer’s personal information, including their income and legal status, before awarding any subsidies, which could make it harder for bad actors to sign people up.

  • Putin says Europe out of step with an increasingly Moscow-friendly U.S.

    Putin says Europe out of step with an increasingly Moscow-friendly U.S.

    MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin told Europe it was out of step with the new priorities of the United States and painted a picture of the world in which America was closer to Russia than its traditional Western allies, during his marathon year-end call-in show Friday.

    Over the course of several hours, Putin answered questions from journalists and the public, playing up the economy, expressing confidence on the Ukraine war and denying responsibility for the massive human casualties taking place. He also blamed the West for the invasion.

    He ridiculed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s warning this month that Russia could attack a NATO country in the next five years by saying such sentiment contradicted the new U.S. National Security Strategy, which does not identify Russia as an adversary to the U.S. and instead seeks “strategic stability.”

    “The United States is the creator of NATO, its main sponsor. All the main resources come from the U.S. — money, military technology, weapons, ammunition, everything,” Putin said. “And in the new U.S. National Security Strategy, Russia is not named as an enemy or a target. Yet the NATO secretary general is preparing for war with us. What is that? Can’t you read?”

    The Kremlin said earlier this month that the security document, which alarmed U.S. allies in Europe, was “largely consistent” with Russia’s vision.

    Putin said that the conflict between U.S. President Donald Trump and European leaders was because “European political elites openly supported the Democratic Party” and its 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris, and said these same elites were hoping Republican losses in the midterm elections would put pressure on Trump.

    The combined-format event, blending a large news conference with a “Direct Line” call-in from citizens that often runs for four hours, marks Putin’s most significant public address this year and one of his rare moments of engagement with the public. He skipped the traditional state-of-the-nation speech, normally held in the spring.

    While Putin did say he was ready for peace with Ukraine and would compromise to end the conflict, he still repeated his well-worn lines blaming Kyiv for refusing to end the war — although it was Russia that invaded Ukraine. He also said Ukrainian forces were retreating “in all directions.”

    Putin, who has taken a hard line on peace negotiations in recent days, said that Russia was ready for peace — on terms suitable to Moscow that eliminated what the Kremlin calls “the root causes” of the conflict, which would see a Ukraine subservient to its Russian neighbor.

    Putin denied responsibility for human casualties in the war, “as we did not start that war.”

    He said that he had told Trump that Russia was willing to compromise in peace talks when he met him in Alaska in August, although the Russian leader this week insisted that Russia would take more Ukrainian territory — which he called Russia’s “historical lands” — through military force if it failed to gain these through negotiations.

    “When I arrived in Anchorage, I said these would not be easy decisions for us. But we agree to the compromises being proposed,” Putin said, adding that “to say that we reject anything is absolutely incorrect and has no basis.”

    “The ball is entirely in the court of our opponents, so to speak, and, first and foremost, the leaders of the Kyiv regime and their, in this case, and above all, European sponsors,” Putin said.

    Asked by the BBC whether there would in future be new “special military operations,” the Kremlin’s euphemism for the war — Putin said: “Western leaders created this situation themselves and continue fanning the flames by saying they are preparing for war with Russia,” adding it was “nonsense” that Russia wanted to go to war with Europe.

    During the conference questions from Russians flashed up on screens in the hall, including one that suggested that Russian elections were “a fiction” and another that asked why ordinary Russians lived so badly.

    “When you will return the ‘normal internet?’ It’s impossible to even send a question to the president!” one asked. Another asked, “Are you going to nominate yourself to run for president in 2030?”

    When the Levada Center independent polling agency asked Russians last month what questions they had for Putin, 21% wanted to know when the war would end, and 16% wanted to ask when pensions and benefits would increase.

    Putin adopted a triumphalist tone, boasting that Russia would have new military successes before year’s end. “I have no doubt that you and I will witness new successes of our armed forces, our troops on the contact line before the end of this year. That’s the plan.”

    Putin also rolled out a list of statistics to show the economy was doing well, including an unemployment rate of just 2.2% and a national debt that he boasted is among the lowest of developed countries. While growth this past year was only 1%, he maintained it was deliberate.

    “This was done in the course of targeting inflation,” he said. Inflation has dropped from nearly 10 percent down to 5.7%, he said. He added that an increase in sales tax on Jan. 1 from 20% to 22% was needed to balance the budget and would not be permanent.

    But in a sign that Western sanctions are taking a real toll on Russia’s economy, questions addressed high prices of chicken and other essential items, as well as a shortage of fish.

    “Stop price increases!” said a message from one Russian displayed on the screens in the hall.

    “There really isn’t enough fish on people’s tables. We’re not meeting the standard here,” Putin admitted.

    A question from a child was read out asking, “Why the pastries in the cafeteria rise but my parents salary does not?”

    The press marathon comes amid a burst of diplomatic activity as Trump pushes for a deal to settle the conflict in Ukraine. Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner are expected in Miami this weekend for talks with Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s key investment envoy and a central figure in back-channel discussions, Axios and Politico reported.

    On Thursday, the Kremlin confirmed Russia is preparing for American contacts to clarify details from recent U.S. consultations with Ukraine and Europeans held in Berlin earlier this week.

    Putin’s address comes after European leaders agreed Friday to give Kyiv nearly $105 billion in a loan backed by the bloc’s budget, after the failure of a last-ditch effort to tap Russia’s $246 billion in frozen assets to finance Ukraine’s state and army. Putin called the attempt to tap the assets “open robbery” during the event.

    Moscow had stepped up anti-European rhetoric and vowed retaliation against any seizure, warning that without fresh funding, Kyiv’s resources could dry up within months.

    The Kremlin said about 3 million questions had been received by Friday, according to spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Putin’s approval rating remains steady at 84%, according to a Levada poll in October and November published last month.

    But as the Ukraine war — planned by the Kremlin to last just a few days — approaches its fourth year, war fatigue has set in, with casualties skyrocketing as Russia presses on with limited territorial gains.

    More than 65% of people surveyed by Levada in mid-November believed it was time for peace talks instead of continued military action, a four-percentage-point increase over the previous month. Tellingly, 55% in a separate Levada poll the previous month said they would not want a family member to sign a military contract to fight in Ukraine, 14% higher than in May 2023.

    According to the recent Levada poll, 65% of Russians believe the country is heading in the right direction, down from 74% in March, while 21% feel Russia is on the wrong path, compared with 16% in March.

    With Russia’s economy under intense pressure amid sanctions, declining oil prices and high interest rates, dozens of Russian companies have laid off workers or cut wages, while residents grapple with inflation and a rising cost of living. According to the poll, 25% said their life had gotten worse in the past year.

    In the lead-up to Putin’s question session, residents in villages and towns across Russia recorded videos complaining of local issues: a lack of heating in their homes; terrible roads; public transport failures; odorous smoke from local landfills; and other matters that will probably be featured during the event.

    Dixon reported from Riga, Latvia. Natalia Abbakumova in Riga, Latvia contributed to this report.

  • Future of driving takes an unexpected turn, as gas cars get a new boost

    Future of driving takes an unexpected turn, as gas cars get a new boost

    BRUSSELS — The gasoline-powered car is outlasting the policies that had aimed to banish it.

    The latest example of the combustion engine’s staying power came Tuesday, when the European Union said it would back away from a landmark pledge to ban emissions from new vehicles in 2035. That announcement came one day after Ford said it would scale back electric vehicle production plans, joining a long list of American and European automakers to rethink climate strategies.

    Those retreats, taken together, show that the full-on electric transition is far less certain than it might have looked several years ago — and that polluting cars and trucks could remain on roads across Europe and America for decades to come. The moves also sharpen the contrast between the West and China, which has developed a massive and lucrative EV market supplied by state-backed automakers.

    In the United States, where President Donald Trump has portrayed electric cars as an expensive “scam,” the White House has cut EV incentives and this month announced plans to weaken fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks.

    European officials say they favor a future that is mostly electric, and many countries still have EV incentives in place. But Brussels faced intense pressure from the continent’s automakers to dilute the 2035 ban. Those legacy carmakers, with huge workforces and factories built around combustion engines, have struggled to compete with China’s low-cost, high-quality EVs.

    The revised proposal will force carmakers to meet 90% fleetwide emissions reductions compared with 2021 levels. That means most vehicles will be fully electric. But it also leaves room for hybrids — including those with a plug-in option — and gas-powered vehicles.

    Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, the director of the Center Automotive Research in Bochum, Germany, said he sees the world’s auto industry splitting into three parts — one in the United States, fully supportive of gas cars; one in China, all in on EVs; and another in Europe, where policies are now muddled. He said Chinese automakers are likely to benefit most from that dynamic because the Chinese market dwarfs those in the U.S. and Europe and looks to keep growing — and electrifying.

    American and European markets have had a hard time splitting from the gas-powered vehicles because combustion engines have higher profit margins. But that strategy leaves them in a long-term bind.

    “In the future, China will define the rules of the car industry,” Dudenhöffer said.

    With a license to keep producing gas vehicles, he said, Western manufacturers “earn some kind of short-term windfall. But in the long term, they lose a lot. The advantages of the Chinese carmakers will be larger and larger.”

    Ford, in its announcement, said it was seeking out “higher-return opportunities” by expanding gas and hybrid options. It said it would produce a gas-powered pickup truck at a Tennessee plant while putting a hold on production of its flagship EV, the F-150 Lightning.

    Carmakers such as Volvo and Porsche have also pulled back from more ambitious EV plans. Earlier this year, Stellantis, which includes the Jeep and Fiat brands, shifted away from plans to be fully electric in Europe by 2030.

    The gas vehicle ban had been a core component of Europe’s much-heralded climate plan, introduced four years ago as officials cited the “generational task” of saving the planet. At the time, E.U. leaders said they had put the continent’s car industry — which accounts for 7% of Europe’s gross domestic product — at the forefront of innovation by creating a clear future target.

    But large automakers — including Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and BMW — have seen their market values nosedive. In a strategic error, the EVs they produced tended to be high-end, not for the mass market. In the meantime, leaders in Germany and Italy described the 2035 target as a danger to European jobs.

    “Such a hard cutoff in 2035 will not take place, if I have anything to do with it,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had said.

  • Coast Guard abruptly deletes swastika, noose entry from policy manual

    Coast Guard abruptly deletes swastika, noose entry from policy manual

    The U.S. Coast Guard on Thursday deleted language from its new workplace harassment policy that had downgraded the definition of swastikas and nooses from overt hate symbols to “potentially divisive,” an abrupt turnaround after the more lenient interpretation of those items was allowed to take effect this week despite objections from Congress.

    In a message to all Coast Guard personnel, Adm. Kevin Lunday, the service’s acting commandant, said those revisions had been “completely removed” from the policy manual. The document, a copy of which was reviewed by the Washington Post, now shows a large black bar obscuring the relevant chapter in its table of contents and a message directing readers to a separate manual outlining the Coast Guard’s civil rights policies.

    Lunday’s message also says that a separate directive he issued last month prohibiting swastikas and nooses “remains in full effect.”

    The sudden turn of events appeared to satisfy Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) and Jacky Rosen (D., Nev.), who said after Lunday’s announcement that they had lifted their holds on his nomination to become the service’s full-time commandant. Both cited their disapproval of the new policy when explaining earlier this week why they had taken such measures.

    Lunday’s announcement caps a tumultuous few weeks within the Coast Guard, following Washington Post reports detailing the service’s plan to include the incendiary language within its new workplace harassment manual, its vow to reverse course in the face of widespread criticism, and the wording’s surprising retention as the new manual took effect earlier this week.

    In response to the Post’s initial reporting in late November, Lunday issued an order condemning and categorically prohibiting swastikas and nooses, and said then that his directive would supersede any other policy language. But for reasons that remain unclear, Lunday’s order was never incorporated.

    Two people familiar with the policy manual overhaul said this week that the Coast Guard, which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, wanted to strike the “potentially divisive” wording from the document but was unable to do so. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the contentious situation.

    The Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy was an early focus of Lunday’s after the Trump administration, upon entering office in January, fired his predecessor, Adm. Linda Fagan — the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military. In announcing Fagan’s removal, officials cited among other things her “excessive focus” on diversity and inclusion initiatives.

    Within days, Lunday ordered the suspension of the policy manual that, among its other guidance, said explicitly that the swastika was among a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.” Nooses and the Confederate flag also matched that description under the previous policy. Lunday was later nominated by Trump to lead the service as its commandant.

    In a statement announcing that she had lifted her hold on his nomination, Rosen said she had put another on Sean Plankey, Trump’s nominee to be the director of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and “will keep that hold in place until we see that this new policy works to protect our men and women in uniform from racist and antisemitic harassment.” She also chastised leadership within the Coast Guard and at DHS who, she said, had been “evasive, misleading, and elusive” as lawmakers sought assurances the “potentially divisive” wording would be cut from the policy manual.

    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said in a social media post earlier Thursday that the language was being removed from the manual “so no press outlet, entity or elected official may misrepresent the Coast Guard to politicize their policies and lie about their position on divisive and hate symbols.”

    Neither DHS nor the Coast Guard has addressed questions seeking to understand whether Lunday, as acting commandant, was empowered to change the manual’s wording on his own or if DHS leadership had to approve it.

    The lack of action, particularly amid a rise in antisemitism, incensed an array of lawmakers, including Republicans, who said Lunday had pledged to them that the “potentially divisive” wording would be removed from the policy manual before it went into effect.

    Several expressed anger at the existence of an official U.S. government document defining swastikas, inseparable from the extermination of millions of Jews in World War II, and nooses, a symbol of racial hatred, as “potentially divisive.”

    Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) was among those who registered disapproval with what his office called the Coast Guard’s “conflicting policies.” A GOP aide said Lankford took his concerns directly to the Trump administration and urged officials to change the manual.

  • Democrats will not release the autopsy of their 2024 loss

    Democrats will not release the autopsy of their 2024 loss

    The Democratic National Committee will not publicly release its autopsy of the 2024 presidential campaign, party officials said, a reversal intended to avoid a contentious reckoning over the party’s failure.

    Operatives involved in drafting the autopsy worried that revisiting Kamala Harris’ loss to Donald Trump would reignite the fiery internal debates that consumed the party in the wake of the 2024 loss at a time when Democrats are eager to celebrate a string of wins in 2025 and focus on the 2026 midterms, the officials said.

    But by declining to make the report public, the party is also keeping the lessons learned from its 2024 failures limited to a small group of insiders and dodging a public accounting that many Democrats believe is necessary to avoid repeating past mistakes.

    There remain sharp internal debates, for example, over the party’s stance on transgender rights, its handling of generational change, and whether Harris’ selection as President Joe Biden’s replacement on the ticket was properly conducted.

    “We completed a comprehensive review of what happened in 2024 and are already putting our learnings into motion,” Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement that did not directly address the committee’s decision to shield the report. “In our conversations with stakeholders from across the Democratic ecosystem, we are aligned on what’s important, and that’s learning from the past and winning the future. Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”

    Democratic officials briefed on the report’s contents said the autopsy chastises the party for failing to adequately listen to voters in 2024. The report describes a feeble response to concerns about public safety and immigration in particular, allowing Republicans to dominate the issues, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private findings. That amplified the Democrats’ credibility problem on the election’s central issue: the economy.

    Another key takeaway, officials said, was that the party took young voters for granted, neglecting a group that normally supports its candidates in overwhelming numbers. As a result, they swung toward Trump, with the president winning a majority of first-time voters and increasing his share of youth voters by double digits. The report faults a party wedded to traditional media that often bypasses these voters. It calls for greater engagement with nontraditional media, something that vexed the Harris campaign.

    The report, generated based on hundreds of interviews with Democrats in all 50 states, also highlights missteps in how Democrats contact voters, the officials said, noting that while the party reached more voters than ever last year, the outreach was ineffective, led to poor-quality conversations with swing voters, and came too late in pivotal states. The changes suggested by the party, the officials said, include measuring the success of an outreach program by the impact of the conversations, not the number of attempted calls, while also investing in more long-term party building so voter contact does not begin weeks before Election Day.

    Democratic officials have struggled to craft and discuss the report for much of the year amid internal debates over the party’s direction and leadership.

    They were in the final stages of preparing it in October and began briefing top operatives and donors on its contents. But the expected public release was delayed until after off-year elections in November, with the party hoping to keep the focus on races they eventually swept in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia.

    Those preliminary briefings did not include any reflection on the handling of Biden’s late withdrawal from the race, his perceived infirmity and the lack of a competitive process used to select Harris as his replacement, which many Democrats have said was central to their party’s defeat. Members of the Democratic committee, including Martin, argued that little could be learned from those reflections, given that it is unlikely the party will face a similar situation again. Still, the lack of any reflection on Biden or Harris led some party insiders to criticize the report as intentionally avoiding what many saw as the most decisive issue in the 2024 loss.

    The delays in releasing the report have spurred internal Democratic grumbling, and the committee’s decision to keep it private was already stirring up Democratic anger.

    “A handful of wins is not the same as the rehabilitation of the Democratic brand, which is required to build real governing majorities and a national coalition,” said Alyssa Cass, a Democratic operative in New York. ”Achieving that requires real soul-searching and new ideas, and it would be nice for candidates and campaigns to know they had a partner in that hard work, instead of an institutional structure buried in the sand.”

    Other Democrats echoed Cass, casting the decision as the Democratic National Committee looking to obscure its own failings in 2024.

    But some Democratic operatives, especially those close to the committee, praised the decision as prudent. “Democrats don’t need to engage in a hand-wringing exercise about last year’s elections when we’re winning this year’s elections,” said Xochitl Hinojosa, a former top spokesperson for the DNC.

    How the party handles learning from the 2024 loss could prove critical for years to come. Democratic officials and campaign operatives from winning campaigns this year have already said they used lessons from the 2024 campaign to strengthen their operations. And some of the party’s most high-profile members, including Harris, have begun to break from the policies that defined the Biden administration.

    In a speech Friday night at the Democratic National Committee meeting in Los Angeles, Harris argued that both Democrats and Republicans have failed to address Americans’ deep financial anxieties and lack of confidence in government.

    “Both parties have failed to hold the public’s trust. Government is viewed as fundamentally unable to meet the needs of its people,” Harris said in an implicit condemnation of the Biden administration, which she served in for four years as his vice president and defended throughout her unsuccessful presidential campaign.

    Trump “is not the only source of our problems,” Harris said, arguing that the rise of his political movement is “a symptom of a failed system that is the result of years of outsourcing and offshoring, financial deregulation, growing income inequality, a broken campaign finance system and endless partisan gridlock.”

  • Trump will use military housing money for $1,776 Pentagon bonuses

    Trump will use military housing money for $1,776 Pentagon bonuses

    The Trump administration will repurpose $2.6 billion in military housing assistance to pay $1,776 “warrior dividend” bonuses to service members, according to a senior administration official.

    In a prime-time address Wednesday night, President Donald Trump announced the Christmastime bonuses “in honor of our nation’s founding in 1776.”

    “Nobody deserves it more than our military. And I say congratulations to everybody,” Trump said.

    The president said the money for the bonuses came from revenue from import taxes he’s imposed on trading partners worldwide. That was incorrect, however, and Trump does not have the authority to spend the money from tariffs without authorization from Congress.

    But lawmakers this summer did approve $2.9 billion to supplement the military’s basic allowance for housing as part of Trump and the GOP’s mammoth tax and immigration law, the One Big Beautiful Bill.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to spend most of that money as a one-time payout on the bonuses, said the senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

    The use of the housing funds to pay the bonuses was reported earlier by Defense One.

    Roughly 1.45 million service members, including 174,000 reservists, will receive the bonuses, which Hegseth said in a video Thursday would be tax-free.

    “This warrior dividend serves as yet another example of how the War Department is working to improve the quality of life for our military personnel and their families,” Hegseth said.

    Trump renamed the Department of Defense as the Department of War in September, designating that as the department’s “secondary title” and authorizing its use. It’s unclear whether Trump has the authority to permanently rename cabinet departments without congressional approval.

    “I can think of no better Americans to receive this check right before Christmas, whether it’s for pay, housing, faith, support, all elements of what we’re doing are to rebuild our military,” Hegseth said.

    The defense secretary called the payment “a direct investment in the brave men and women who carry on the legacy of our armed forces every single day,” and said military members in pay grades E-1 to O-6 would be eligible. The top pay grade eligible includes the ranks of colonel in the Air Force, Army, Marines and Space Force, and captain in the Navy and Coast Guard.

    Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump said his staff originally presented him with a plan for $1,775 bonuses.

    “And I said, ‘Wow, I think we can afford one more dollar,’” Trump said.

    In Congress, reaction to the bonuses was mixed, largely along party lines. Sen. Roger Wicker (Mississippi), the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview that the payments were “quite appropriate.”

    He added in a statement that the bonuses would “put real money in the pockets of our service members and their families, helping provide greater stability and improved housing options as they manage the unique demands of military life.”

    Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the top Democrat on the panel, said he was concerned that pulling the money for the bonuses from the housing assistance program would prevent the Defense Department from improving housing for service members and conducting overdue maintenance.

    “There has been a real fundamental need for housing improvements and maintenance,” Reed said. “I think they could find a better source for the funds.”

    Sen. Chris Coons (Delaware), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, was more blunt — both about the purpose of the checks and Trump’s authority to issue them.

    “Read the Constitution! You can’t just sprinkle the country with checks just because you came up with it late at night,” Coons said.

    The National Defense Authorization Act, which Trump is set to sign into law Thursday evening, approves pay increases for troops, and the annual appropriations bill — which Congress has yet to pass — funds it, he said.

    “That’s how we do this, not game-show checks. Not last minute whimsy by a president,” Coons said. “This is a classic campaign stunt that does not serve our warfighters, our Constitution, or our republic well.”

    The Trump administration has a track record of aggressively shifting resources around the Pentagon to goose service members’ compensation.

    During the government shutdown, the administration twice moved money from other parts of the Pentagon budget to keep paying troops. Doing so without the approval of lawmakers — who normally have a say over large changes in federal spending — was controversial in Congress, where aides from both parties acknowledged that the move was probably illegal.