From Washington: President Trump's Growing Impatience With Putin
31:50 Share

You may get a little excited when you shop at Burlington. Oh, what a low price! Ha ha! Did you see that? They have my fitness like a whole new eye! I can bite too! Woo! I'm saving so much! Burlington saves you up to 60% off other retailers' prices every day. Will it be the low prices or the great brands? Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow! I told you so. Styles and selections vary by store. She's made up her mind to get pretty smart.

Boring money moves make kinda lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC Bank. Brilliantly boring since 1865.

Saturday, May 31st, 2025. I'm Jared Halpern. President Trump is growing more and more impatient with Vladimir Putin. What does it mean for potential peace talks? Trump really wants a deal. He really wants to have a peace agreement and he wants to get back to doing business with Russia and making money. And to do that, he doesn't want to push Putin away. He wants to pull him in.

And that's why I think he's always been using carrots and never any sticks, never any pressure. And Harvard can keep enrolling foreign students for now as its legal fights with the administration expand. There has to be a balance here, and part of that balance has to be to guarantee free speech while we also guarantee the safety of students on our campuses. This is the Fox News Rundown from Washington.

What happened to Vladimir Putin? That question has been asked this week by President Trump about the Russian leader amid intensifying airstrikes against Ukrainian cities. I don't like what's happening. That's one thing I'll say. I don't like when I see rockets being shot into cities. That's no good. We're not going to allow it.

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate say they are preparing sanctions legislation. And President Trump says he, too, is considering ratcheting up pressure on Putin, though explained why he hasn't so far. Only the fact that if I think I'm close to getting a deal, I don't want to screw it up by doing that. For diplomats who have known Putin for years, his behavior is not unexpected.

Well, I first met him when I was working in the Bush administration. I was at the National Security Council. Kurt Volker served as the U.S. ambassador to NATO during the Bush administration and was a special representative to Ukraine during President Trump's first term. Had to have been 2002.

There was a NATO summit in Italy and we had just revved up the NATO Russia Council and Vladimir Putin came to that NATO Russia summit in Italy in 2002. So more than 20 years. I guess what I was getting at is, you know, we've seen the president now, President Trump this week, kind of.

put a lot of pressure verbally on Putin and suggest that maybe he doesn't want peace. And a lot of folks that I talked to initially had the reaction of, you know, welcome to the club, Mr. President. Right. They kind of like this is what we've known about him. Exactly. What do you make of kind of President Trump's I don't know if they're shifting views, but the way that he has been talking about Putin over the last several days?

First off, I don't know anything about his personal relationship with Putin. And that's what he always refers to. He says, I've known him a long time. Well, I don't know what that relationship has been like. But I'm with all of those other people who has observed Putin, had dealt with Putin in one way or another for 20 plus years. And this is no surprise at all.

And in fact, we all saw him deliberately invade and take over Crimea in 2014. We all saw him continue that war for several years afterwards at a low level. And then we all saw him invade Ukraine again in February of 22. These were all intentional moves by Putin. So I just don't know what Trump's relationship is that made him think otherwise or think differently about that.

The only thing I can say that I have some confidence in is that Trump really wants a deal. He really wants to have a peace agreement and he wants to get back to doing business with Russia and making money. And to do that, he doesn't want to push Putin away. He wants to pull him in.

And that's why I think he's always been using carrots and never any sticks, never any pressure. And I could guess that's why he's now saying, look, Putin, I've tried to work with you. I've tried to work with you. But now Putin has changed as if it's a way to give Putin a way to come back. Let me ask about the stick and carrot approach, though, because, listen, I think there are a lot of folks that would say the sticks don't work either. Russia was sanctioned to the hilt and still invaded and

was sanctioned further and didn't pull back. And over the last three years, we've seen their inability to do business with like the entire European continent, with U.S. interests, with foreign interests. Why would sanctions change the mind of President Putin? Well, but I don't think that's quite accurate, though. I know that's

the way people have talked about Russia being sanctioned to the hilt. But for example, the Biden administration issued a waiver every, I think it was every six months, to exempt Russian banks from sanctions if they were being paid for energy.

So on the one hand, they said, yeah, we're going to sanction it. But then on the other hand, they let people go ahead and pay because they were afraid of rising oil prices globally and therefore rising gasoline prices at the pump. So it was actually politics. That's bad politics and bad sanctions policy, because you you what Trump has done and it got to give him a lot of credit for it is change the market.

Now the market is expecting rising American oil and gas production, Saudi Arabia increasing their oil production, declining global oil prices, so we can afford to actually toughen the sanctions on Russia and not worry about what happens at the gas pump because there's enough downward pressure there anyway.

So he has played this completely differently. Now, the other thing that's happened just on the sanctions piece is the initial round of sanctions had an impact, and then Russia found workarounds. And if you look at the decrease in European trade with Russia, then you look at the increase in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, a couple of other countries, it almost completely offsets.

So there's been no effort to tighten the sanctions once Russia has found ways around them and no way of applying secondary sanctions on those who are violating the primary set. You know, Russia's sanctioned people then help them go around. There's no penalty for that. And that's what the Senate. That's where President Trump seems to be headed, right? That if there are sanctions, they will be what are called secondary sanctions. So that is sanctioning not Russia, but sanctioning people who do business with Russia, thus putting sanctions.

kind of a premium on not doing business with Russia. That's right. So making those primary sanctions much more effective by creating a, um, a penalty for those who would evade them. So we know that there are going to be at least the administration that the Trump administration hopes that there are going to be talks, um, in Turkey, uh, next week. Um,

There had been talks scheduled before. My understanding from the reporting is that Russia sent a fairly low-level delegation. It was not what the U.S. had expected. What do you expect for another round of talks if those happen between Russia and Ukraine and Turkey? It's going to be exactly what we have seen up until now. Russia will pretend to engage in good-faith negotiations, but what they'll do is they'll make outrageous demands.

And then Ukraine will say those who are outrageous

And then Russia will say, see, Ukraine's not willing to negotiate. And we have to not allow ourselves to be played that way time and time again, like Lucy in the football. We have to see that, you know, this is what Russia is doing. And if we want Russia to actually agree, as President Trump insisted on from the beginning, agree to an immediate ceasefire, no conditions, just stop. A 30-day ceasefire that Ukraine has agreed to. Exactly. Just stop the killing.

we're going to have to put more pressure on Putin to get him to do that. And it may take time. I think that we've gotten hung up on deadlines, you know, 24 hours, 100 days, 30 day ceasefire. So I think we need to create conditions where it becomes clear to Putin that it will only get worse for him over time. And at some point, he's going to have to decide to stop the fighting. That's what we have to try to push for.

Is there a sustainability issue? I mean, I know that there are a lot of estimates and intelligence assessments about the losses militarily and economically that Russia is facing.

Does that get to a point where Putin's kind of in a position where he needs to negotiate an end? Yes. Yes, I think so. Are we near that point? I think it's this year. I think it's sometime this year. And it has to do with his state finances. He's already spending a huge portion of GDP, probably like 10% of GDP on the military right now, and he's burning through it. 40% of the state budget is going toward defense. And the

The way he has money to spend is from these oil and gas sales and financial transactions. And so if we keep oil prices low, as they now are, if we tighten up those sanctions, his state budget is going to get very, very difficult. And he's going to have to start making some choices. Can I continue this war at this level or not?

And if not, how do I negotiate a ratcheting down so I can continue to afford doing what I'm – keeping the state running and keeping up a modest military effort but being able to regroup, rebuild, get more money back in the system, particularly if he gets any sanctions relief. That's what he's going to want to do.

So I think we can squeeze and I think we can see that his foreign exchange reserves will dwindle as we get closer toward the end of this year. And it creates an incentive for him to actually agree to a ceasefire. In the meantime...

Should US weapons this weapons assistance from the US continue to Ukraine and if so, why yeah Absolutely US weapons should be available for Ukraine going forward for as long as the eye can see because we have to deter Putin from continuing his attacks He only understands force but they're gonna be a lot of people that say why is that in the US interest? This is a European conflict

Well, in the president ran on detangling the United States from a lot of these foreign conflicts. Well, but, you know, what we've learned over history is that when there is a major war in Europe, such as World War One or World War Two, we end up getting sucked into it one way or another.

World War I was the Lusitania that was the cause proximate, but we could see where this was headed. World War II, we started helping out the UK with the Lend-Lease Program. We didn't want to join World War II. We stayed out of it for years, and then the Japanese attacked us, and we ended up getting sucked in anyway.

And the same thing is going to happen here. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, he does have designs on other countries in Europe that will trigger Article 5 of NATO, and we will have to get involved. So it is much better for us to give Ukraine the arms and let them fend off the Russians and stop this.

And the only thing I want to stress, though, is that where President Trump, I think, has it exactly right. There is no need for this to be on the back of U.S. taxpayers. What we did for the previous administration was provide appropriations and give aid to Ukraine. But what President Trump has done with this minerals deal is create a basis whereby Ukraine's own natural wealth can be leveraged.

to pay for American arms. And what I would do if I were in Congress waving a wand today, I would pass authorization for Ukraine to borrow money from the United States

and buy American weapons and ammunition. Money never leaves the country and it's not taxpayer funded. It's funded by loans that Ukraine will pay back. Very much like what we did for the UK in World War II. - During the Lind Lease, yeah. Let me ask this 'cause you've known, I know President Zelensky as well. Obviously there was that very visible blow up in the Oval Office several weeks ago. Both sides seem to be past that.

Are you satisfied with the overtures, with the way, because President Trump has been critical of Zelensky too, right? He says every time he speaks, he makes matters worse. Is President Trump right?

I think it's frustrating for President Trump. Trump is trying to maneuver Putin into a position where he agrees to a ceasefire and we can start moving on into, you know, wrapping up this war for good. And Putin is not doing that. That's very frustrating for President Trump. And he doesn't want to have to confront Putin and make it harder, but he feels he may have to now.

And Zelensky keeps pouring flames on the fire saying we need more support, we have to stand up to Putin, we have to fight Putin. Trump doesn't want to hear that right now. So I think he finds that commentary frustrating. And ultimately though, I can't really judge, I haven't been in a room with President Trump for a very long time.

But I think he understands and has some actual respect for...

and liking for Zelensky. He stood up for his country. He defended his country. He was a very good salesman for the first couple of years of the war, as Trump has said, getting countries to help Ukraine defend itself. He didn't throw Trump under the bus during the impeachment process, which Trump appreciated as well. But I think Trump is now just very frustrated because he really wants to see this killing stop. And it's...

You can't get Putin to do it without more pressure on Putin. And he wants Zelensky just to stay in alignment, stay lined up, say we want to cease fire, say we want to end this war, pay your own way, and we can do this together. The other component to this is President Trump has suggested, listen, if this doesn't work, the U.S. will just walk away. What do you think that looks like?

Well, I think what that means, and to be honest, the administration has not been clear as to what walking away means. I think what it means is this substantial diplomatic effort that President Trump has made, that Marco Rubio has made, to really push for a negotiated solution. We'll just say, forget it. You guys are not doing this. Russia is not doing this. Sanctions stay in place, maybe even get increased.

Arms are available if people want to buy them. Ukrainians or Europeans want to buy them for Ukraine, you're welcome to. Maybe we could even lend them the money if Congress approves that. But I don't think you're going to see that diplomatic effort.

If it were more than that, if we're giving up on the sanctions, if we're saying we're not providing, not allowing Ukraine even to buy weapons, that would be a problem because that would be rewarding Putin, giving him exactly what he wants, which is a green light to just keep trying to take over the rest of Ukraine.

Ambassador Kurt Volker, really appreciate your time, your expertise on this. I'm sure we'll continue to have these conversations as we continue to watch this peace process play out. Thank you very much. Indeed, I look forward to it. Thanks. Feeling a little stalled in the bedroom? Through hymns.

You can get some gas back in the tank with personalized ED treatment options that are accessible without ever stepping foot into a doctor's office. With hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers, HIMS can help you find the ED option that works for you. HIMS provides access to a range of doctor-trusted ED treatments like chewable tablets, Viagra, and Cialis, and their generics for up to 95% less. No insurance is needed, and one low price covers everything from treatments to on

The featured products include compounded products which are not approved nor verified for safety, effectiveness,

♪♪♪

Harvard University can continue admitting foreign students. A federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's inclusion in a foreign student program. But incoming students who need a visa to study in the U.S. could soon face new scrutiny. The State Department is pausing visa interviews and enhancing background and social media checks of potential foreign students.

Officials say it's to ensure visa holders are not security threats or at risk of creating unsafe environments. There's also concern of growing influence on campuses from the Chinese Communist Party. All of it is setting up legal challenges and testing how far the administration can go in deciding who can and cannot come to the country to study, or in the case of students already here, remain in the country.

Jessica Rosenthal spoke about the visa questions with Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley. I would be surprised if even the most favorable judge in the most favorable district would try to enjoin this type of temporary suspension. What the Trump administration is saying is that they want to examine how these applications are vetted to make sure that we're taking greater care.

as to who's coming into the country. That is right in the heart of executive powers and controlling our borders and national security. How significant is that reasoning? Look, we just want to vet

future prospective students more deeply, in particular, looking at their social media posts. It sort of indicates to us that if a deeper dive is headed in that direction, maybe we haven't thus far been looking at a lot of social media posts. Do a lot of, I guess, applicants now increase their security settings on their social media posts? Like, how do we do this?

Well, there may be some change in conduct as people learn of these threshold inquiries. The United States has been known as a fairly open border, not just in terms of the controversy at the southern border, but also in terms of student visas and other entries.

that was based on our desire for people to come here, to study here, to join as part of this community. Those are all very good reasons. But this is not a new issue. For years, many have suggested that the United States needs to tighten a bit in terms of looking at who's coming in on these student visas. It was always viewed as the easiest path for entry into the United States was to secure a student visa.

If more students end up being rejected, like let's say, oh, I got into Harvard, I live abroad and I got into Harvard or I got into Yale, and then they're denied the student visa, even though they have an acceptance letter from one of these universities. Is that where we might see more lawsuits or more sort of legal reaction to this decision?

I would expect that would be true, although I'm still not confident that those challenges would have much in terms of their chances in court. The courts have largely deferred to the executive branch in regulating our borders and entries.

There is a concern among the free speech community, and it's not a trivial one, as to how much the United States government will discriminate on the basis of viewpoints. Even if someone criticizes the United States, that does not mean that they're a danger to the United States. Quite to the contrary, some people may criticize the United States because they feel that we're not living up to our own values.

So it is a dangerous course if you take too broad an approach or too arbitrary of an approach in looking at speech content. Interesting. Yes.

Tell me about that a little bit more. I know you are at times on a college campus yourself for obvious reasons. The protests we've seen mostly on these college campuses and we've heard Secretary of State Rubio react to them and we've heard President Trump react to them are very much pro-Palestinian, sometimes pro-Hamas protests.

anti-Israel. It seems that that's what this administration is reacting to. How do you respond to that when it comes to the free speech argument if they are here on a visa and they're not American citizens?

Well, first, in terms of any issue that goes into court, you have to keep in mind that Harvard itself completed a study and found that they had created or allowed the establishment of a hostile environment for Jewish students. So the university itself came to that conclusion. Obviously, outside groups have also come to that conclusion.

So there's a real issue here that the Trump administration is identifying. If if you had a university that found that they'd created a hostile environment for African-Americans or women, there would be a lot of outrage of people saying, well, how can we fund those schools? So there is a bit of hypocrisy here among critics.

Now, having said that, once again, there is a concern among the free speech community. You are allowed to protest against Israel, to protest for Palestinian rights.

The administration created, I thought, a clear high ground when it said it was focusing on students that were engaging in unlawful conduct, the taking over of buildings, the threatening of individual students, the committing of trespass. All of those things are potential criminal acts. You're not allowed to do that if you're here upon the discretion of the United States government as a student.

Now, what concerns some of us is that the administration has also claimed that they can remove people because of the content of their speech, even aside from any type of criminal conduct. That gets into a grayer area. You know, obviously, Hamas is a terrorist organization, and many of us have seen protests supporting Hamas and even some supporting what happened there.

in the massacre of Jewish citizens by Hamas. That is a serious problem for universities where we have to guarantee that Jewish students feel safe. And you have protests saying in some cases that Hamas was justified in doing what it did. Well, what it did was murder. What it did was the commission of rape, the killing of children, the taking of hostages.

So this puts universities in a very tough position. I'm hoping that the universities and the Trump administration can still reach an accommodation. There has to be a balance here, and part of that balance has to be to guarantee free speech while we also guarantee the safety of students on our campuses.

So we've been talking about those who want to come here and you just referenced those who are already here. I want to ask you a little bit more about that because Secretary of State Rubio had said that we were revoking 300 visas.

I know the case of Mahmoud Khalil out of Colombia, that's moving forward while he's detained. He has permanent residency status, but he may end up being deported. That's different from the case of, for example, Rumaisa Ozturk, the tough student. She's been ordered released even though her visa's been revoked. She wrote a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel op-ed.

Do we have an understanding about who can be deported, who can be detained if their visa is revoked or other sort of status is questioned? Or does each case sort of need to move through the legal process on its own here and be adjudicated on its own?

Well, that's a great question because it is disconcerting that many of us do not know what that standard is as you compare these cases. Khalid is a little different because the administration insists that he was involved in what became a protest with violent and criminal elements and that he was not just simply a pedestrian or an onlooker, but someone who played a significant role in that.

The question of how much they have to show is being answered by the administration by saying not much. I mean, the administration is saying that under the federal statute, Secretary Rubio just needs to find a reasonable basis to believe that the conduct of this individual may undermine the national security of the United States. That's a very forgiving standard.

Let me get your thoughts on the president's threat to pull grant funding to Harvard, because more importantly within that is the administration's attempt to block Harvard from enrolling international students. I did not realize this, but nearly 30 percent of their students are not from the United States. The attempt to stop international enrollment has been blocked by a federal judge for now. But is the State Department's effort to vet international students more carefully likely a reaction?

to what's happening here at Harvard at a more tailored level. I should say that even though I have been a fierce critic of Harvard's, I think that the administration needs to consider the economic and cultural impact of this. Now, having said that, I wrote a column that says that this is a war of attrition.

that Harvard's likely to lose, even if they prevail in courts. It's sort of like in the Civil War when General Grant said that he was quite satisfied to stay and fight on this line for as long as it takes because Grant knew that his opponent could not suffer the casualties and would lose in a war of attrition. Well, the same is true with Harvard, even with its massive endowment.

Trump is actually showing a fair degree of knowledge about higher education. Foreign students are the soft underbelly of American higher education. Harvard has over 27% foreign enrolled students. Most of those students pay a full ride. And so...

Harvard and other universities are desperate to get foreign students because they do pay a full ticket. So if you squeeze out federal grants and you freeze foreign enrollments, even a university like Harvard is going to start to have trouble catching wind. I mean, it is it's a major blow.

So this could get tied up in the courts for years. In the meantime, it places this big red light on Harvard that it is persona non grata.

And so researchers, students are maybe more likely to go to University of Chicago or some other school, MIT, that is not in the crosshairs of this controversy. Interesting. Professor Turley, I could ask you several more questions, but I'll let you go. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate you. Thank you very much. Great to talk to you.

PMS, pregnancy, menopause. Being a woman is a lot. Oli supports you and yours with expert solutions for every age and life stage. They just launched two new products exclusively at Walmart. Period Hero combats flow, mood swings, and more during PMS. And Balance Perimeno to support hormonal balance, mood, and metabolism during perimenopause. Grab yours at Oli.com. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Tomorrow on the Fox News Rundown, Elon Musk has left the government, but his signature mission, the Department of Government Efficiency, is not done. Ryan Schmelz speaks with Fox News digital reporter Liz Elkin about Republicans' plans to make Doge cuts permanent. And the Senate takes up the one big beautiful bill next week. Dave Anthony speaks with a potential GOP holdout, Senator Ron Johnson.

Until then, thanks for listening. I'm Jared Halpern from Washington. Stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon Music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.

Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy, host of the Trey Gowdy Podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com.