Trump Turns on Putin, Ducks Epstein, and Congress Rolls Over

After years of slavish fawning over Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump has apparently made an abrupt about-face in his views on the Russian President. In the last week, he has threatened huge tariffs on Russia’s trading partners if Putin didn’t agree to a ceasefire; he’s also restarted the flow of arms to Ukraine via third-party transactions with European allies. But will his resolve on Ukraine hold? 

Contributing writer Tamar Jacoby, Director of the New Ukraine Project for the Progressive Policy Institute, joined Editor in Chief Paul Glastris, Politics Editor Bill Scher, Exective Editor for Digital Matt Cooper and moderator Anne Kim for this week’s episode of the Washington Monthly Politics Roundtable.  They also discuss Jeffrey Epstein drama and the Rescissions battle in Congress.

Below is a three part transcript of their conversation, edited for clarity.

Trump’s Dramatic Shift on Ukraine

Anne Kim:
Good morning, everyone—and welcome, Tamar!

Let’s start with you. Trump seems to have made a complete 180 in his posture toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. Just last week, he threatened to impose major tariffs on Russia’s trading partners unless Putin agreed to a ceasefire. He’s also restarted the flow of weapons to Ukraine through third-party deals with European allies. You recently wrote a great piece for the Monthly asking whether this about-face is permanent. How are Ukrainians feeling about all of this?

Tamar Jacoby:
Trump is single-minded—he came in thinking he’d be the one to make peace in Ukraine. And it’s finally dawned on him, six months in, that Putin is the obstacle to that. So he’s angry. And when Trump gets angry, he lashes out. He doesn’t count to ten, he doesn’t pause to assess—he acts out of irritation.

I don’t think his underlying admiration for Putin or Russia has changed. He still sees Russia as a great power that should be on friendly terms with America. He’s long been irritated with Ukraine. And I don’t think he fully understands how wily and aggressive Putin is. But right now, he’s frustrated—and so he’s threatening to punish Putin. Emphasis on “threatening”—nothing’s happened yet.

The key for Ukraine is that Trump’s allowing weapons to flow. Not through traditional foreign aid—he’s not giving them to Ukraine directly. Instead, the U.S. is selling arms to European allies, who are then passing them along. But for Ukrainians, that’s a distinction without a difference. They’re glad to have the weapons, and in some ways it’s more dependable coming from the Europeans. They feel a little more self-reliant—less at the mercy of Trump’s whims.

Anne Kim:
You mentioned earlier that Kyiv is more dangerous now than it’s been. Can you say more about that?

Tamar Jacoby:
It’s gotten much worse. Just a year ago, a typical night might mean 20 drones overhead. Now it’s 700. That’s a 35-fold increase. The point is to terrorize—and it is terrifying.

A year ago, an air alert might not mean anything for your neighborhood. You might hear a boom, then it was over. Now it feels like a war zone. In my first three years in Kyiv, I went to the basement shelter maybe four or five times. Now I go every time there’s an alert. And I’m not alone—people who used to shrug it off are now taking shelter, and talking about it the next morning. “How was it in your neighborhood?” “How’s your kid handling it?” It’s become part of daily life.

And yet, life goes on. Young professionals in my building are still getting married, buying apartments, having babies. Ukrainians haven’t given up. There’s always a sense that something—some new technology, some battlefield shift—is just around the corner. That resilience is still there.

Paul Glastris:
You’ve written that Ukrainians see the trickle of weapons from Trump as underwhelming. The initial shipments were just a handful of Patriot missiles—enough to last maybe an hour or two on a bad night?

Tamar Jacoby:
That’s right. And there’s no new U.S. money behind any of it. What’s changed is that Europeans are stepping up and paying. Patriots are these massive, truck-mounted missile systems. The missiles themselves—called interceptors—are like million-dollar bullets. A dozen of them doesn’t go very far. What Ukraine really needs are the full systems: the launchers, radars, all of it.

Germany’s giving two systems, Norway one. That will help. And then there’s new tech in development—Eric Schmidt, of Google fame, has a new system being built in Poland that might help shoot down drones. Patriots are great for ballistic missiles, but using them on cheap drones is a bad trade. Ukraine needs the next generation of drone defense.

Paul Glastris:
What about offensive weapons? Are we seeing Trump allow longer-range systems that could reach into Russia?

Tamar Jacoby:
In classic Trump fashion, he’s trying to have it both ways. He reportedly asked Zelensky whether these missiles could reach Moscow or St. Petersburg—but the next day the White House said he wasn’t authorizing anything, just asking. So for now, there’s no official permission to use U.S.-supplied weapons for deep strikes.

Ukraine is already doing some deep strikes with its own drones, but those only go so far. It’s hard to imagine either side achieving total military victory. More likely is a long slog that combines battlefield gains, economic pressure, and Western staying power until Putin decides it’s not worth it anymore. Will he ever? Hard to say. He’s talked about fighting the Swedes for 20 years back in the 1700s. This could go on a long time.

Paul Glastris:
In a previous show, we speculated that the best-case scenario might be Trump just losing interest and letting U.S. weapons flow passively. Is that still your view?

Tamar Jacoby:
There was real fear that Trump would impose a bad peace deal—something totally unfair to Ukraine. If he wants to neglect the peace process now, fine. That might help in the short term. But Ukraine still can’t win without U.S. intelligence and weapons. Benign neglect isn’t a strategy.

Matthew Cooper:
You embedded with the Ukrainian infantry recently. What did you learn?

Tamar Jacoby:
It was eye-opening. Infantry is the oldest profession—men fighting men, almost hand-to-hand. But now they’re stuck between two technological forces: drones from the enemy, and drones from their own side. It’s transforming warfare.

Trenches that used to be just a few hundred yards apart are now separated by 15 miles of “no man’s land,” because drones can see and strike anything that moves. You don’t even want to leave the trench to pee—drones will see you. Getting into the trenches is dangerous, and once you’re in, you stay. Soldiers used to rotate every day or two. Now they stay 30 days straight because the walk in and out is too dangerous.

So yes, there’s better tech on their side, but also much greater vulnerability. We’re in a transitional moment—between old-fashioned boots-on-the-ground warfare and a future where robots dominate the battlefield.

Anne Kim:
So where does Trump go from here? Will he stay frustrated with Putin, or flip again?

Tamar Jacoby:
If I could predict Trump, I’d be rich. But no, I don’t think he’s given up on the fantasy of two great men from two great countries making deals. But as a European diplomat once told me after Trump was elected: “Don’t worry. Putin will f*** it up.” And I’ve thought about that a lot. Whenever there’s movement toward peace, Putin resists. So if Trump really wants peace, Putin will frustrate him.

Paul Glastris:
Wasn’t this workaround—having Europe buy and transfer the weapons—Ukraine’s idea?

Tamar Jacoby:
Absolutely. Ukrainians understand Trump can’t be relied on. Europe has more skin in the game. If Putin wins in Ukraine, Europe is next—maybe not with tanks, but in some form. So it’s in their interest to keep the war contained to Ukraine. That’s what’s driving their support. Nobody in Kyiv is sentimental about U.S. aid turning into sales. Everyone understands. It was Zelensky’s idea.

Paul Glastris:
And we’re finally seeing Europe rearming?

Tamar Jacoby:
Yes, slowly. Since the full-scale invasion in 2022, Europe has been talking a good game. Now they’re putting real money into it. Whether they’ll be ready in time—big question. And Putin’s trying to divide them from each other and from the U.S. No one knows how that will play out.

But for now, it’s grim in Kyiv. Nobody expected peace this week. The war continues. The question is whether Ukrainians—and the West—have the stamina to keep up with the pace of technological change and military pressure.

Paul Glastris:
Is the war degrading Russia’s capacity?

Tamar Jacoby:
Unfortunately, not really. Putin has put the whole economy on a war footing. They’re making more drones, more missiles—it’s overheating their economy, but it’s not collapsing. Russia has operated like this before. It’s not new. Peter the Great sustained his economy through war, until eventually it drained everything else.

People I trust say that if the West really clamped down—cut oil revenues, blocked key components getting in through Turkey or Kazakhstan—it could make a difference. But that hasn’t happened yet.

Anne Kim:
Thank you, Tamar. Please stay safe. We hope to have you back again soon.

Tamar Jacoby:
Unless a missile gets in the way, I’ll be back. Thanks for having me.

Trump, Epstein, and the Rescissions Fight

Anne Kim:
Okay, let’s turn now to the controversy over Jeffrey Epstein, which is turning out to be almost as bizarre as the conspiracy theories themselves. There’s been longstanding MAGA obsession with Epstein’s client list. Now you’ve got Trump allies like Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino, and FBI Director Cash Patel—who came to power promising to expose the files—all saying, essentially, “nothing to see here.”

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal just ran a piece about a cryptic and racy birthday note from Trump to Epstein. So—maybe there is something to see here. What do you all make of it? Is this a real threat to Trump’s presidency?

Matthew Cooper:
I’d say not yet. Trump and Epstein had a falling out long ago, so I don’t think we’ll see documentation of Epstein “pimping” for Trump. Maybe something will come out, but who knows. Jonathan Alter has a good piece up this morning based on Michael Wolff’s hours of interviews with Epstein.

Alan Dershowitz made a point in the Journal: why would a criminal make a client list? And if such a list existed, it would’ve been destroyed long ago. That said, Trump is getting hoisted on his own petard. He built his power fanning conspiracy theories—and now he’s caught in one.

Still, I doubt it’ll dent his popularity or his ability to move legislation through a Republican Congress.

Anne Kim:
Bill, Paul—your take?

Bill Scher:
It may not block legislation, but it’s creating fissures at the MAGA grassroots and among conservative influencers. And that generates media churn.

Trump’s brand is rooted in conspiracy—being the guy who stands outside the establishment and claims to reveal the “real truth.” That’s a strong bond with his base. But now, when a conspiracy turns on him, he’s trying to wave it away. He posted something like, “We could give them grand jury stuff, but it’ll never be enough.”

It’s the same playbook as the birther saga—when he demanded Obama’s long-form birth certificate and even that wasn’t enough. He knows these theories can’t be resolved. Even if there’s no client list, there could be deposition transcripts naming people who were never charged. Under normal rules, you wouldn’t release that.

Trump’s impulse will be to redact or withhold—but that just fuels more suspicion. It’s a no-win cycle.

Paul Glastris:
Totally agree. What stands out is how weirdly Trump has behaved. He’s thrown out every trick in the book to distract from this. That suggests either:

1. the whole thing was a cynical power play—he and allies like Bondi rode the conspiracy to power, and now they’re exposed; or
2. there is something incriminating—maybe not a client list, but something he doesn’t want released.

The New York Times today reports that Trump’s solution is to redirect the outrage toward the press—attacking the Journal, attacking Rupert Murdoch. And MAGA hates Murdoch more than most liberals realize. They see Fox as part of the “fake news” machine when it criticizes Trump.

But I’m not sure the Times is right that this tactic will work. It might redirect the base’s anger—or it might not. Either way, this isn’t good for Trump.

Anne Kim:
Reuters had a poll last week: 69% of Americans think the government is hiding something about Epstein. And only 35% of Republicans approved of how Trump is handling the case. That was before the Wall Street Journal piece and his latest attacks on the media.

Paul Glastris:
And let’s be clear—it’s basically illegal to release grand jury depositions. So even if there is some juicy material, it’s probably going to be redacted or blocked by the courts. The MAGA base that wants full transparency is going to be disappointed.

As Josh Marshall pointed out, the real issue isn’t what’s in the depositions—it’s the physical evidence seized from Epstein’s homes during his second arrest. That’s what people want to see, and no one in Trump’s camp is even mentioning it.

Anne Kim:
So what should Democrats do? Ro Khanna teamed up with Tom Massie to demand release of the files. But now Trump is calling the whole thing a Democratic hoax. Should Democrats lean into this or back off?

Bill Scher:
I’m inclined to support what Ro Khanna’s doing—forcing a vote is fair game. But I’d be cautious about turning this into a full-on fire-with-fire campaign.

Democrats should be the party of governance, not conspiracy. Feeding deep cynicism about institutions might win a news cycle but it’s corrosive long-term. It empowers demagogues. Better to call out Trump’s hypocrisy: he fans conspiracies when convenient, then denies them when they threaten him.

That message—“You’re being exploited”—is more powerful than just stoking outrage.

Matthew Cooper:
There’s also a lesson from George W. Bush in 2000. After the Lewinsky scandal, even though Clinton had rebounded in popularity, Bush leaned into the “ick factor.” He talked about restoring honor and turning the page. I think there’s room for Democrats to do that now: tap into the public’s revulsion without turning into conspiracists themselves.

Paul Glastris:
Agreed. This is damaging to Trump because even his base isn’t fully buying his denials. Having someone like Khanna team up with Massie is smart. But Democrats shouldn’t overplay their hand. Let Trump destroy himself. The more this becomes a partisan talking point, the easier it is for him to reframe it as an attack from the left.

Anne Kim:
Let’s move to another major story: the rescissions package. Congress just passed a $9.4 billion rollback of previously approved funds—including foreign aid and money for NPR and PBS. The White House says more rescissions are coming. Are we watching Congress give up the power of the purse?

Bill Scher:
I’m writing about this for tomorrow. To set the stage: Congress passes annual spending bills, called discretionary spending. These usually get bundled into omnibus or minibus bills when deadlines approach and deals are struck.

This year, Congress passed three such packages for FY2025. Trump signed the last one in March. But now, through a legal workaround, they’ve passed a partisan rescissions bill that rolls back some of that funding.

It’s legal under the Impoundment Control Act—but it undercuts the original bipartisan deal. And Trump’s budget director has made clear: more rescissions are coming. He even said the appropriations process should be less bipartisan.

Anne Kim:
So what can Democrats do?

Bill Scher:
They could walk away. Republicans want to govern solo—let them.

Now, the tricky part is: you can’t do discretionary spending through reconciliation, so if Democrats withdraw, how does the government stay open?

Two options:

1. Republicans change the rules to pass everything on a party-line vote.
2. Republicans backtrack and agree to protect future bills from rescissions.

I doubt either happens. But Democrats don’t need to fill in the gaps anymore. Republicans asked for one-party rule—let them figure it out.

Matthew Cooper:
And this exposes the hypocrisy of Republicans who used to champion “regular order.” For years they’ve bemoaned omnibus bills and backroom deals. But now they’re undercutting the very norms they said they wanted to restore.

Democrats can claim the high ground: If Trump wants to eliminate the Education Department, fine—but follow the law. Don’t do it by memo from the OMB.

Paul Glastris:
Exactly. The rescissions may technically be legal, but it’s Congress voluntarily weakening itself. Better than Trump doing it unilaterally? Maybe. But we’re inching toward a system where Congress abdicates control over spending—its most fundamental constitutional power.

Bill Scher:
To be fair, the rescissions process is codified in the Empowerment Act. The president proposes cuts, and Congress votes. This time, they did it on a party-line basis—legal, but dishonorable, because it breaks the bipartisan agreement that got the original appropriations passed.

Other moves—mass firings, gutting USAID, shuttering the Education Department—are unilateral and legally murkier. But in spirit, it’s the same. The Constitution is supposed to ensure checks and balances. If Republicans no longer want shared power, they should own it—and be held accountable in 2026.

What We’re Watching

Anne Kim:
So in the last few minutes we have, I want to ask what each of you is watching for this week.

Matthew Cooper:
Trump has weighed in on the Washington Commanders—he’s threatening to block the deal to build a new stadium in D.C. unless the team changes its name back to the Redskins. He’s also made similar threats to the Cleveland Guardians, formerly the Indians.

This could be a fleeting culture war flare-up—or it could be something he sticks with. He does have some leverage: the new stadium is planned for federally owned land leased to the District on a 99-year lease. Trump could try to use that as a pressure point. So this distraction could actually become a real policy fight.

Paul Glastris:
Another one to watch—maybe not this week, but in the coming weeks—is redistricting. Trump wants Texas to redraw its congressional maps to make it harder for Democrats to take back the House in 2026. Gavin Newsom in California says if Texas does that, he’ll push to eliminate GOP-leaning districts in California.

Other Democratic governors and legislatures are saying the same. So we’re seeing the beginning of a giant game of political chicken over redistricting power. Who has the nerve—and the authority—to follow through? It’s going to be worth tracking.

Bill Scher:
Looking a little ahead: the Senate is supposed to wrap up its summer session at the end of July. But Trump is demanding they extend it to confirm more of his nominees, including judicial appointments. So this becomes another test of loyalty. Do Republicans really want their summer vacation—or do they want to prove they’re with Trump?

Anne Kim:
And among those nominees is Emil Bove. He’s facing major opposition—a letter opposing his confirmation has been signed by more than 900 former Justice Department employees and lawyers. So the question becomes: does he even have the votes? And if not, will Schumer or the majority leader think it’s worth sticking around to try?

Matthew Cooper:
And just to note, The Monthly was the first to flag Bove as a potential Supreme Court nominee if a vacancy opens during Trump’s second term. Trump is no longer aligned with Leonard Leo or the Federalist Society. He’s looking for loyalists now—not Kavanaughs. Bové fits that bill perfectly.

Anne Kim:
I’m looking forward to speaking with economist Rob Shapiro later this week for the podcast. He has a new piece up with his forecast for the U.S. economy, and we’ll dig into it together.

Thanks to everyone for tuning in to the Politics Roundtable. I’m Anne Kim, joined today by Washington Monthly editor-in-chief Paul Glastris, politics editor Bill Scher, and executive editor for digital Matt Cooper. Have a great week, and see you next time.