In shift, Trump downgrades soaring rhetoric on campaign promises
Brett Samuels – December 29, 2024
President-elect Trump on the campaign trail made grandiose promises to voters to bring down costs quickly, to end the war in Ukraine before he even took office and to use tariffs to bolster the U.S. economy and manufacturing.
Since winning November’s election, Trump has indicated delivering on those promises may not be as simple as advertised.
Trump in a recent “Meet the Press” interview said he could not guarantee tariffs would not lead to higher consumer prices.
He acknowledged in a Time magazine interview for his Person of the Year honor that it’s difficult to bring down the cost of groceries once they’ve gone up.
And in his first post-election press conference from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump suggested ending the war in Ukraine would be more difficult than easing tensions in the Middle East.
While Democrats and critics accused Trump of lowering expectations or signaling he would not deliver on his campaign promises, the Trump transition and other allies argued it was the president-elect shifting from sweeping campaign rhetoric to the nuances and realities of governing.
“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver,” said Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the transition and the incoming White House press secretary, in a statement.
One Trump ally argued the president-elect was not contradicting his promises on the trail, but he rather was shifting away from the sales pitch rhetoric that is typical of campaigns.
Trump made improving the economy, and inflation in particular, a core part of his campaign for the White House in 2024. He frequently railed against the Biden White House for the high cost of groceries specifically, and he often told supporters he would bring down costs by increasing the energy supply, which would have a ripple effect on overall prices.
“Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything,” Trump told supporters in North Carolina in August.
At a rally in Pennsylvania on the eve of Election Day, Trump said a vote for him meant “your groceries will be cheaper.”
Congress’ youngest woman says her election is a “signal” that future of Democratic Party is changing
Griffin Eckstein – December 29, 2024
Yassamin Ansari Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The Democratic Party is searching for its soul. Tasked with rebuilding from an electoral loss in November, one of the biggest questions on Democratic voters’ minds is how the party will engage with checked-out young voters.
Voters under 30, who strongly lean Democratic, failed to turn up for Vice President Kamala Harris, with 54% of the age group voting for her compared to the more than 60% who voted for President Joe Biden in 2020. While the loss is no doubt driven by a multitude of factors, some young voters said they simply feel left behind by the party.
Critics took Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, D-N.Y., unsuccessful bid for House Oversight leadership as a sign that the party was unwilling to change its ways after 84-year-old ex-speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly campaigned against her in favor of 74-year-old Gerry Connolly, D-Va. Still, some choose to focus on the progress, not the setbacks.
In an interview with Salon, 32-year-old Rep.-elect Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., counted herself as part of a new generation of Democratic leaders ready to make change.
“There truly is a shift happening with young people getting more involved,” Ansari said, adding that part of the transition to younger leadership is getting young voters more involved.
Ansari connects with constituents through informal, online outreach. On TikTok and Instagram, the congresswoman-elect documents the procedural business for new members, provides legislative updates and organically promotes constituent services.
“One of the major lessons learned from this election and overall the climate that we’re living in is that people are really wanting authenticity,” she told Salon. “I don’t wanna prescribe for others what they should do because I think the most important thing is that no matter who you are, if you’re an elected official or have a platform, that you’re doing what feels natural to you and comfortable to you.”
Ansari’s TikTok videos aren’t so much a savvy strategy as they are the authentic output of a power user. In one post on the platform, Ansari admits she can be found scrolling through the app most nights. “Most of my feed is the Eras Tour,” she admits. That connection to the platform makes it easier for her content to break through.
“I think it’s incumbent upon elected officials to, again, go out of their way and go above and beyond to be more proactive in the community,” Ansari said. “We do live in a time where we can be less worried about… just being on script all the time… It’s important for people to see that politicians are people and have some of the same interests and hobbies as they do.”
Slated to be the youngest woman in Congress when she’s sworn in on Jan. 3, Ansari was elected the Democratic freshman class president last month. In a statement, she called her election to that post a “small signal to Democratic voters, and especially young people, that the party is ready for new, young voices in Congress to be given opportunities to lead.”
Amid criticism, Ansari points to major signs that the Democratic Party is ready to listen to young people.
“Angie Craig, who is a Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota representing a rural community, beat out someone that is several decades her senior,” Ansari said. “She will be, now, the lead Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, which I think is awesome and really encouraging for younger members.”
Likewise, 35-year-old Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, will take a leading role in the lower chamber, chairing the House Progressive Caucus.
“It may not be happening as quickly as some people would like,” Ansari acknowledged, adding that winning leadership posts required building a large and diverse coalition, reflective of the entire Democratic caucus.
Ansari also recognizes how important Democratic leadership will be over the next four years, as President-elect Donald Trump prepares an assault on Arizona’s most marginalized residents.
“I’m acutely aware that [Arizona’s] District 3 is going to be on the front lines of the immigration battle and particularly Trump’s devastating and harmful pledge to carry out mass deportations … I have not stopped working since election day preparing for this,” Ansari told Salon. “I am representing a blue district, a racially diverse district in a red or purple state, that’s going to be on the front lines of this battle. So I’m not gonna sit out. I intend to do everything I can to protect families in Arizona’s 3rd district.”
Amid fear and discontent, Ansari emphasized that staying involved in the political process was crucial, especially for young people who feel left behind.
“It can be very tempting to wanna completely disengage from politics,” Ansari said. “I would say that just because you’re disassociating from politics doesn’t mean it is disassociating from you. And at the end of the day, politics do matter.”
Though she holds a relatively uncompetitive seat, replacing Sen.-elect Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., Ansari is no stranger to the importance of each vote.
The rep.-elect won a heated primary in Arizona’s third congressional district by a wire-thin margin in August, besting former Arizona Democratic Party chair Raquel Terán by just 36 votes.
“Stay active when you can because it does matter — and it’s exciting!” Ansari said.
Reagan FBI director urges caution against Gabbard, Patel
Luke Barr – December 28, 2024
The only man to lead both the FBI and the CIA urged caution to senators who might vote to confirm former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and Kash Patel to lead the FBI, according to a letter sent to senators this week.
“I am deeply concerned about the potential nominations of Mr. Kash Patel to lead the FBI and the inclusion of Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as DNI in intelligence roles,” William Webster, who led the FBI during the Carter and Reagan administrations and the CIA after that, said in a letter to senators on Thursday.
PHOTO: In this Dec. 18, 2014, file photo, former FBI Director and Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) under Ronald Reagan, Judge William Webster is interviewed for a documentary about directors of the CIA. (David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images, FILE)More
Webster wrote that Patel’s loyalty to Trump may cause problems.
“Statements such as ‘He’s my intel guy’ and his record of executing the president’s directives suggest a loyalty to individuals rather than the rule of law — a dangerous precedent for an agency tasked with impartial enforcement of justice,” said Webster, who turns 101 in March.
PHOTO: Kash Patel, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for director of the FBI, speaks to reporters before a meeting with U.S. Senator Ted Cruz on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Dec. 12, 2024. (Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters)More
He said that during his tenure at the FBI, he was contacted by the president only twice — once by President Jimmy Carter, who asked him to investigate an issue, and once when President Ronald Reagan had a question about Nancy Reagan’s security.
Webster added that Gabbard’s “profound lack of intelligence experience and the daunting task of overseeing 18 disparate intelligence agencies further highlight the need for seasoned leadership.”
“History has shown us the dangers of compromising this independence. When leaders of these organizations become too closely aligned with political figures, public confidence erodes and our nation’s security is jeopardized,” he wrote. “Every president deserves appointees they trust, but the selection process must prioritize competence and independence to uphold the rule of law.”
The letter was first reported by Politico.
Webster did endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president in 2024 and Joe Biden for president in 2020.
The Trump transition team defended both Patel and Gabbard to Fox News.
“Kash Patel is loyal to the Constitution. He’s worked under Presidents Obama and Trump in key national security roles,” said Alex Pfeiffer, a Trump transition team spokesman.
PHOTO: President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be Director of National Intelligence, former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, is shown at the Hart Senate Office Building, Dec. 18, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)More
Alexa Henning, a Trump transition official, also defended Gabbard.
“Lt. Col. Gabbard is an active member of the Army and has served in the military for over two decades and in Congress. As someone who has consumed intelligence at the highest levels, including during wartime, she recognizes the importance of partnerships with allies to ensure close coordination to keep the American people safe,” she told Fox News.
Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now
Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte – December 26, 2024
The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.
The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.
The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. More than half of the witnesses whose testimony was displayed at its nine public hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration. The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. In particular, Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have. While the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!”
Some will argue that the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, precludes Congress from rejecting electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6, on the basis of 14th Amendment disqualification. This view lacks merit for three reasons.
First the majority’s suggestion that there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment is what lawyers call dicta. Dicta are the musings of an opinion that are not required to decide the case. The holding that Section 3 is not self-executing may be an alternate holding, but thoughts about the kind of implementing statute required are plain dicta. Dicta are not precedential. The four dissenters strenuously objected to this part of the opinion as overreach to decide a question not presented. This overreach is a power grab which Congress is not required to credit.
Second, counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.
Third, specific legislation designed for this situation already exists. The Electoral Count Act was first enacted in 1887 and later amended and restated in 2022. That statute provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as to the validity of Electoral College votes.
The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not “regularly given.” A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words “not regularly given.” Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years’ residency in the United States.
To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.
The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Evan Davis was editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review and David Schulte was editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. Both clerked for Justice Potter Stewart. Davis is a New York lawyer who served as president of the New York City Bar, and Schulte is a Chicago investment banker.
Americans and their leaders are to blame for returning Trump to the White House
April Lieberman – December 26, 2024
From rural Tennessee to Democratic presidential politics, I’ve lived in both worlds − of “us and them.”
Here’s my take on why:
my neighbors don’t trust Democrat
a convicted felon is returning to the White House.
There’s plenty of blame to go around.
Biden himself is among those to blame among Democrats
President Joe Biden: for selfishly pursuing the presidency despite cognitive decline, his sundowning obvious back in the 2019 primary debates.
Biden supporters and allies: First Lady Dr. Jill Biden and his family for letting him. White House staff, the Democratic National Committee, and party leaders, for enabling this epic disservice to the country. His Cabinet, profiles in cowardice, for not invoking the 25th Amendment and removing him.
Attorney General Merrick Garland: for delaying appointing a special counsel, allowing now President-elect Donald Trump to run out the clock. Rep. Jim Clyburn, for delivering Biden South Carolina in the 2020 primaries. Former President Barack Obama, for strong-arming Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, out of the race, placing loyalty over country, then again by preemptively supporting Biden’s reelection bid, deterring primary challengers.
The Clintons: 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and coastal elites, for underestimating Trump in 2015-2016 and neglecting the Blue Wall. Former President Bill Clinton and ‘90s NAFTA Dems for decimating small towns across America, including mine. All of them (not named Bernie Sanders), for decades of ignoring rural and blue-collar voters while taking Black and Latino Americans for granted, instead pushing agendas far left of the American electorate.
Miscellaneous: Whichever idiot coined “Bidenomics,” an infuriating attempt to gaslight America.
MAGA voters and justice system are responsible for returning Trump to the White House
MAGA: For placing a racist/rapist/convicted felon over our Constitution.
Other Republicans: Most of them, for striking Faustian bargains in normalizing Trump, sacrificing their integrity for power, none more craven than Sen. Lindsey Graham’s betrayal of “Amigo” John McCain on his deathbed to worship at the orange altar. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, for not saving us this national nightmare by ordering his minions to remove the Insurrectionist-in-Chief, forever barring him from federal office − Howard Baker he is not.
Right-wing Supreme Court justices: For not checking the presidency, instead placing Trump above the law, dismantling our rights and democracy itself.
Judge Juan Merchan: For delaying sentencing on 34 felony convictions until after the election, instead of letting Trump campaign from a New York City jail cell.
Media, dictators, billionaires and Congress bear responsibility too
Legacy media: For feeding the beast for ratings, and not reporting the emperor’s lack of clothes until the Biden-Trump debate debacle.
Right-wing media: All of them, particularly the late Rush Limbaugh for pioneering a talk radio of racism, misogyny, and mockery; Fox News, for admittedly “entertaining” the masses with decades of disinformation and paranoia; and Joe Rogan’s #1 podcast, for touting conspiracy theories to millions. His interview and endorsement of Trump? Huuuuge.
Dictators: Putin, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), et al., for funding Trumpworld and interfering in our elections, from stirring division online to disenfranchising voters with bomb threats.
Evangelical leaders: Most of them, for interfering in politics while claiming religious tax exemptions, radicalizing congregations, hailing a rapist as a messiah, and pushing us toward theocracy.
Congress: For pandering to gerrymandered extremes, failing to check SCOTUS, the president, or itself. But, the Senate’s abrogation of its constitutional duty to remove an insurrectionist from the presidency, forever barring him from federal office, is the greatest failure in the 248-year history of American democracy.
April Lieberman is a former appellate attorney with family experience in presidential politics, a Yale Law School graduate who studied philosophy at Vanderbilt, and Democratic politics in the backwoods of West Tennessee.
Chuck Schumer Reveals Stealth Dem Plan to Block MAGA Revolution
David Gardner – December 26, 2024
Kent Nishimura / Getty Images
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has revealed the Democratic Party’s secret weapon in fighting a rearguard action against Donald Trump’s MAGA offensive.
The Democrats are holding onto one last hope after a disastrous election in which they lost control of the White House and both chambers of Congress.
For the past four years, President Joe Biden, Schumer, and his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been quietly stacking the federal judiciary with liberal-minded judges knowing they could one day provide a crucial bulwark against a resurgent Trump.
Just before Christmas, they achieved their goal of pushing through a record 235 judicial nominations, more confirmations in a single administration than any since the Jimmy Carter White House. That total includes 150 women judges, the most under any president.
With less than a month to go before Trump can begin putting his MAGA policies into action, Biden and Schumer see the batch of new judges as their best, and perhaps their only chance of preserving any kind of legacy from the last four years.
“I don’t know exactly what (Trump will) do. But I can tell you this: The judiciary will be one of our strongest — if not our strongest — barrier against what he does,” Schumer told Politico Playbook in an exclusive interview.
“They’re going to come after everything,” he said of the Trump administration. “They have so many different parts of MAGA: the people who are anti-women’s rights; the people who are anti-environment; the people who are anti-working people rights and union rights; the people who are anti-the consumer. They’re going to use the judiciary in every way they can.”
The Democrats didn’t go the traditional route of picking prosecutors and lawyers from “fancy” firms but chose people from all walks of life – civil rights lawyers, voting rights experts, teachers, mentors, union reps, scholars – to “resemble America,” Schumer boasted.
Schumer said they tried to get “as many judges confirmed as possible because we knew that Trump had loaded the bench up with a lot of MAGA judges and achieving balance was important. And the more the better.”
He told Politico: “In a time when there’s more legislative gridlock and there’s an attempt to use the judiciary to actually legislate, having judges that are not MAGA judges, that are not extreme judges, is more important than it’s ever been.”
Schumer saw the writing on the wall in the last couple of years and he said: “We also saw that the hard right was gearing up to use the bench in case after case to achieve their goals.”
It will be a struggle to control a rampant Republican Congress, fueled by a White House intent on recrimination. But Schumer is hoping his army of judges can hold the fort until (he hopes) the cavalry arrives in the mid-terms two years away.
The use of the Senate’s power to shape the judiciary was aggressively practiced by Schumer’s Republican opposite number Mitch McConnell, who had set a record for confirmations under Trump’s first term. McConnell also created a conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court with a series of power moves. First he blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland, then a federal appeals court judge, by then-President Barack Obama to replace the conservative justice Antonin Scalia who died in March 2016, then when presented with an almost identical vacancy by the death of the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, rushed the conservative Amy Coney Barrett on to the bench.
Russia’s multibillion-dollar revenue stream may soon grind to a halt, thanks to Ukraine. Its ripple effects could hit Europe
Prarthana Prakash – December 24, 2024
While Russia has lost its gas market share in Europe to the likes of Qatar and Norway since it invaded Ukraine, some countries like Slovakia and Austria still rely heavily on the supplies. (Olga Rolenko—Getty Images)
Russia’s wartime economy has been sustained, in part, by oil and gas revenues as Europe has relied on it for several decades. Key to that arrangement is Ukraine, the country Russia is at war with, as the countries have a deal in place to allow Russian gas to transit via Ukraine and reach Europe.
The deal is nearing expiry when the year ends, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has resisted renewing the contract on the same terms even if the Kremlin wants it to. This could create a worry for Russia amid the plunging value of the ruble and a protracted war.
Russia’s gas revenues from supply sent via Ukraine to Europe will be worth $5 billion this year, according to Reuters estimates. In 2023, Russia shipped about 15 billion cubic meters of gas—only a fraction of the supply to Europe pre-pandemic.
Meanwhile, Ukraine makes just $800 million from facilitating the transit of gas to Europe, the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) said last week.
“Despite reams of evidence that Russia uses gas exports to inflict harm on Europe, buyers in Moscow-friendly countries are now pressuring Ukraine to continue the transit from 2025,” CEPA experts wrote.
The dependence on Russian oil and gas supplies has built up over time. In 2022, much of that reliance needed to be rethought following the invasion, forcing gas prices to shoot up. However, governments slowly began decoupling from Russia’s gas supplies, which had a direct impact on Gazprom’s revenues as a state-owned energy supplier.
While Russia has lost its gas market share in Europe to the likes of Qatar and Norway since it invaded Ukraine, some countries like Slovakia and Austria still rely heavily on the supplies. Moreover, because of sanctions, Russia has already taken a big hit on energy-related revenues, which still account for a fifth of its GDP.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov admitted to the impending fallout on the gas transit contract as being “very difficult, requiring greater attention,” on Monday.
A sharp energy-price spike because of the gas transit contract is unlikely. Still, given that transit fees are much higher in other European countries, it could add to uncertainties, ruling them out as viable options for countries such as Hungary.
Russia’s economy has shown some cracks owing to inflation and overexposure by military-adjacent industries. But in sum, it has remained resilient despite the war being dragged on for three years.
For instance, Russia has built trade relationships with allies elsewhere in the world, such as China and India. “The Russian economy has adapted, and key industries have found ways to get the goods and components they need from alternative suppliers or via more circuitous trade routes,” Sergey Vakulenko, a senior fellow at Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, wrote earlier this year.
Russia calls gas sales to Europe ‘complicated’ as deal with Ukraine nears end
Reuters – December 23, 2024
Illustration shows natural gas pipeline, Russian Rouble banknote and flag
MOSCOW (Reuters) -Russia said on Monday the situation with European countries that buy its gas through a transit deal via Ukraine was very complicated and needs more attention, a day after talks between President Vladimir Putin and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.
Ukraine has said it will not be renewing a five-year deal to pipe Russian gas to Europe, which is due to expire at the end of the year, as it does not want to aid Moscow’s military effort.
The flow accounts for around half of Russia’s total pipeline gas exports to Europe, with Slovakia, Italy, Austria and Czech Republic set to be most affected if it ends.
Kremlin-controlled Gazprom also exports gas to Europe via the TurkStream pipeline on the bed of the Black Sea.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he could not give more details about Sunday’s talks between Putin and Fico, which also touched on bilateral relations and the Ukraine conflict.
Fico said that Putin had confirmed Russia’s willingness to continue to supply gas to Slovakia, although this was “practically impossible” once the Ukraine transit deal expires.
It was not clear what potential solution the two leaders might have discussed.
Slovakia has said the loss of supplies from the east would not hit its consumption and it has diversified supply contracts. However, it would drive up its costs and the country sought to preserve the Ukraine route to keep its own transit capacity.
Slovakia’s main gas buyer SPP has contracts for the purchase of gas from a non-Russian source with BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Eni and RWE.
The benchmark front-month contract at the Dutch TTF gas hub rose by 1.52 euros to 45.33 euros per megawatt hour (euros/MWh) by 1443 GMT, LSEG data showed.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Monday criticised what he said was Fico’s lack of desire to end his country’s dependency on Russian natural resources as a “big security issue” for Europe and Slovakia.
Hungary has also been keen to keep the Ukrainian route, although it will continue to receive Russian gas from the south, via the TurkStream pipeline.
Zelenskiy said last week it might be possible to renew the transit deal, but only if Russia was not paid for the gas until after the war is over, a condition Moscow is unlikely to accept.
“You heard the statement from the Ukrainian side, and you know about the positions of those European countries that continue to buy Russian gas and that consider this necessary for the normal operation of their economies,” Peskov told reporters.
“Therefore, there is now a very complicated situation here that requires increased attention,” Peskov added.
Putin said last week it was clear there would be no new deal with Kyiv to send Russian gas through Ukraine to Europe.
(Reporting by Gleb Stolyarov, additional reporting by Jason Hovet; writing by Mark Trevelyan and Vladimir Soldatkin; Editing by Andrew Osborn and Alexander Smith)
Russia’s economy is set to lose another source of income that Ukraine controls
Huileng Tan – December 24, 2024
Scroll back up to restore default view.
Russia’s natural-gas transit deal with Ukraine is set to expire soon, which would cut billions in revenue.
The deal’s possible end affects European countries relying on Russian gas via Ukraine.
Russia has shifted much of its energy exports to India and China amid Western sanctions.
Russia is set to lose yet another source of income for its war chest in days — and it’s Ukraine calling the shots.
An agreement to let piped Russian natural gas transit via Ukraine to Europe is set to expire at the end of the year, depriving Moscow of billions of dollars in income for its wartime economy.
European countries receiving gas from the pipeline have voiced concerns about the end of the supply, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly said that the five-year agreement will not be renewed.
Russia has meanwhile said it’s ready to extend the agreement — though President Vladimir Putin said last week that it was “clear” there wouldn’t be a new contract.
Still, the situation could change.
Zelenskyy said last week that Ukraine could consider continuing the arrangement if Russia doesn’t receive payments for the fuel until the war ends.
On Monday, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said the gas transit was complicated.
“The situation here is very difficult, requiring greater attention,” Peskov said, according to the TASS state news agency.
Russia is probably making $5 billion in gas sales via Ukraine this year
The end of the five-year transit deal would be a blow for Russia, which could make about $5 billion from gas sales via Ukraine this year alone, according to Reuters‘ calculations based on Moscow’s gas price forecast.
It would also impact several European countries that still depend on Russia for gas, including Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Austria. There are alternative energy sources and pipelines available, but they could be pricier.
Ukraine could lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year in transit fees — a Kyiv consulting firm told Bloomberg in September that this amounted to about $800 million.
But Ukraine’s $800 million revenue from transit would just be a “paltry 0.5% of the country’s annual GDP,” analysts at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a think tank, wrote in a report last week.
They argued that it was “simply preposterous” to think that continuing the transit deal would offer Ukraine a security guarantee as Russia would want to preserve its gas flows to Europe.
This is because “Russia always put itself first,” the analysts added.
Russia diverts energy flows away from Europe
The end of the Ukraine transit route for Russia’s gas would put more pressure on Putin’s wartime economy, which has plummeted because of sweeping Western sanctions targeting its massive oil and gas trade.
Energy accounts for about one-fifth of Russia’s $2 trillion GDP. The country’s energy revenue fell 24% last year on the back of sanctions and continues to be under pressure this year as Europe weans itself off Russian gas.
Russia once accounted for as much as 40% of Europe’s gas market, but the EU has cut its reliance on the fuel since the Ukraine war.
In response, Russia has diversified its energy customer base, diverting most of its previously Europe-bound oil to India and China.
On Friday, the Russian energy giant Gazprom said in a Telegram post that it delivered a record amount of gas to China via an eastern Siberian pipeline. It didn’t specify the volume of gas it delivered but said it was above its contractual obligations with the state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation.
Elon Musk wants to ‘delete’ many Americans’ financial lifeline
Sharon McGowan, opinion contributor – December 24, 2024
Nearly every exit poll conducted on Election Day found that, more than any other issues, voters’ concerns about the economy helped to return Donald Trump to the White House and put Republicans back in charge of both houses of Congress. Americans who felt the sting of inflation and who had trouble making ends meet, as companies steadily increased prices for essential goods like groceries and clothing, voted in the hopes that a new administration and new Congress would bring relief for their families.
So it is especially surprising that one of the first federal agencies to come under scrutiny from the incoming administration is one that has returned billions of dollars to many of the same consumers who were counting on leaders in Washington to look out for their wallets.
On Nov. 27, Elon Musk — who, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, has been tasked by President-Elect Trump with running a new Department of Government Efficiency — posted on his platform X that he wants to “Delete CFPB,” referring to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency, Musk said, was part of a problem of “too many duplicative regulatory agencies” in Washington. But there are no other agencies in the federal government returning money to Americans’ bank accounts in the way the CFPB does.
Since its founding, the agency has returned more than $19 billion in cash to people who have been scammed by financial institutions, including predatory payday lenders and even some of the largest banks in the country. It has done so under Republican and Democratic presidents, including major actions against Wells Fargo and Equifax during President Trump’s first term in office, which, combined, returned $425 million to consumers. (Those actions both began under the Obama administration, but Trump’s CFPB directors oversaw the execution of those fines.)
The money recovered is made available to those who have been impacted by the institutions’ wrongdoing through the CFPB’s victims’ relief fund. To date, more than 200 million Americans have been eligible for payments from the fund. The agency has also cancelled many consumers’ debts altogether and reduced loan principles for many others.
In fact, just days after Musk posted his message on X, the CFPB announced that it was mailing refund checks to more than 4 million people who were scammed by so-called credit repair companies, including Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com, which illegally collected fees from consumers seeking relief for the effects of economic woes weighing down them and their families. The companies will pay $2.7 billion in consumer redress and civil penalties; $1.8 billion of that will go directly to those who lost money as a result of the scam.
It’s no wonder the agency enjoys broad, bipartisan support, with more than eight in 10 Americans supporting the CFPB’s various enforcement actions. In red and blue states, Americans seem to support returning money to those who have been cheated.
The agency’s impact is felt in other ways, too. In Oklahoma, CFPB collected evidence that helped retired Lt. Col. Susan Parisi in her fight against loan company GreenSky — which scammed her into a high-interest loan she never agreed to. The CFPB found that GreenSky was using “deceptive” and “fraudulent” tactics and ordered the company to return $9 million to consumers. My organization is representing Lt. Col. Parisi in her class action on behalf of others who were scammed by GreenSky.
So why is an agency that has been so effective, and returned so much money to so many people, being targeted for “deletion?” Because, in the course of holding wrongdoers accountable, it has crossed paths with some of the most powerful people in the country.
Musk’s post on X, for example, seems to have been prompted by complaints from Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist whose companies have been sanctioned (and, in the case of LendUp Loans, shuttered) because of CFPB investigations and actions. Andreessen accused the agency of “terrorizing financial institutions,” and was clearly infuriated when the CFPB found that LendUp had misled customers about high-interest loans and overcharged U.S. service personnel.
President-elect Trump and Republicans in Congress should not let Andreessen’s views overshadow the overwhelming opinion among Americans that the agency is doing important work that makes a real difference to those who turn to financial institutions and lenders for help during tough financial times. By one count, even under the first Trump administration’s CFPB directors — who tended to enforce far fewer fines against companies than Biden and Obama appointees — the agency brought more than $1 billion in redress back to consumers’ wallets. That’s direct relief, and money in wallets, for millions of Americans. “Deleting” the agency would almost certainly ensure that no such future relief ever reaches consumers again.
Fortunately, neither Musk nor the incoming administration can completely eliminate the CFPB, whose funding comes from the Federal Reserve in a model, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, that is meant to protect it from political meddling. Republicans and Democrats alike should ensure that firewall remains in place, and the CFPB remains on the job, if they’re serious about providing real, meaningful economic relief to Americans.
Sharon McGowan is the chief executive officer of legal advocacy organization Public Justice.
Scroll back up to restore default view.