Brushing aside statistics that show violent crime in D.C. at a 30-year low, Trump on Monday described a new level of coordination between D.C. National Guard units and federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, ICE, and and the newly federalized D.C. police force. 

“We will have full, seamless, integrated cooperation at all levels of law enforcement, and will deploy officers across the district with an overwhelming presence. You'll have more police, and you'll be so happy because you're being safe,” he said at a White House press conference. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, standing beside Trump, promised close collaboration between the Pentagon and domestic authorities. “We will work alongside all DC police and federal law enforcement to ensure this city is safe.” 

What comes next? The June 2020 deployment of National Guard units to work alongside D.C. police offers a glimpse: citywide use of sophisticated intelligence-gathering technologies normally reserved for foreign war zones.

Some surveillance platforms will be relatively easy to spot, such as spy aircraft over D.C.'s closely guarded airspace. In 2020, authorities deployed an RC-26B, a military-intelligence aircraft, and MQ-9 Predator drones. The FBI contributed a Cessna 560 equipped with “dirtboxes”: devices that mimic cell towers to collect mobile data, long used by the U.S. military to track terrorist networks in the Middle East.

Other gear will be less obvious.The 2020 protests saw expanded use of Stingrays, another type of cellular interception device. Developed to enable the military to track militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, Stingrays were used by the U.S. Secret Service in 2020 and 2021 in ways that the DHS inspector general found broke the law and policies concerning privacy and warrants. Agency officials said “exigent” circumstances justified the illicit spying.

Now, with federal agencies and entities working with military personnel under declared-emergency circumstances, new gear could enter domestic use. And local officials or the civilian review boards that normally oversee police use of such technologies may lack the power to prevent or even monitor it. In 2021, the D.C. government ended a facial-recognition pilot program after police used it to identify a protester at Lafayette Square. But local prohibitions don’t apply to federalized or military forces. 

Next up: AI-powered surveillance 

How might new AI tools, and new White House measures to ease sharing across federal entities, enable surveillance targeting?

DHS and its sub-agencies already use AI. Some tools—such as monitoring trucks or cargo at the border for contraband, mapping human trafficking and drug networks, and watching the border—serve an obvious public-safety mission. Last year, DHS used AI and other tools to identify 311 victims of sexual exploitation and to arrest suspected perpetrators. They also helps DHS counter the flow of fentanyl; last October, the agency cited AI while reporting a 50 percent increase in seizures and an 8 percent increase in arrests.

TSA uses facial recognition across the country to match the faces and documents of airline passengers entering the United States in at least 26 airports, according to 2022 agency data. The accuracy has improved greatly in the past decade, and research suggests even better performance is possible: the National Institute of Standards and Technology has shown that some algorithms can achieve 99%-plus accuracy under ideal conditions. 

But conditions are not always ideal, and mistakes can be costly. “There have been public reports of seven instances of mistaken arrests associated with the use of facial recognition technology, almost all involving Black individuals. The collection and use of biometric data also poses privacy risks, especially when it involves personal information that people have shared in unrelated contexts,” noted a Justice Department report in December. 

On Monday, Trump promised that the increased federal activity would target “known gangs, drug dealers and criminal networks.” But network mapping—using digital information to identify who knows who and how—has other uses, and raises the risk of innocent people being misidentified. 

Last week, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request concerning the use of two software tools by D.C.’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. Called Cobwebs and Tangles, the tools can reveal sensitive information about any person with just a name or email address, according to internal documents cited in the filing.

Cobwebs shows how AI can wring new insights from existing data sources, especially when there are no rules to prohibit the gathering of large stores of data. Long before the capability existed to do it effectively, this idea was at the center of what, a decade ago, was called predictive policing. 

The concept has lost favor since the 2010s, but many law-enforcement agencies still pursue versions of it. Historically, the main obstacle has been too much data, fragmented across systems and structures. DHS has legal access to public video footage, social media posts, and border and airport entry records—but until recently, these datasets were difficult to analyze in real time, particularly within legal constraints.

That’s changing. The 2017 Modernizing Government Technology Act encouraged new software and cloud computing resources to help agencies use and share data more effectively, and in March, an executive order removed several barriers to interagency data sharing. The government has since awarded billions of dollars to private companies to improve access to internal data.

One of those companies is Palantir, whose work was characterized by the New York Times as an effort to compile a “master list” of data on U.S. citizens. The firm disputed that in a June 9 blog post: “Palantir is a software company and, in the context of our customer engagements, operates as a ‘data processor’—our software is used by customers to manage and make use of their data.”

In a 2019 article for the FBI training division, California sheriff Robert Davidson envisioned a scenario—now technologically feasible—in which AI analyzes body-camera imagery in real time: “Monitoring, facial recognition, gait analysis, weapons detection, and voice-stress analysis all would actively evaluate potential danger to the officer. After identification of a threat, the system could enact an automated response based on severity.”

The data DHS collects extends well beyond matching live images to photos in a database or detecting passengers’ emotional states. ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit, for instance, handles large volumes of multilingual email. DHS describes its email analytics program as using machine learning “for spam classification, translation, and entity extraction (such as names, organizations, or locations).”

Another DHS tool analyzes social-media posts to gather “open-source information on travelers who may be subject to further screening for potential violation of laws.” The tool can identify additional accounts and selectors, such as phone numbers or email addresses, according to DHS documentation.

Meanwhile, ICE’s operational scope has expanded. The White House has increased the agency’s authority to operate in hospitals and schools, collect employment data—including on non-imigrants, such as “sponsors” of unaccompanied minors—and impose higher penalties on individuals seen as “interfering” with ICE activities. Labor leaders say they’ve been targeted for their political activism. Protesters have been charged with assaulting ICE officers or employees. ICE has installed facial-recognition apps on officers’ phones, enabling on-the-spot identification of people protesting the agency’s tactics. DHS bulletins sent to local law enforcement encourage officers to consider a wide range of normal activity, such as filming police interactions, as potential precursors to violence.

Broad accessibility of even legally collected data raises concerns, especially in an era where AI tools can derive specific insights about people. But even before these developments, government watchdogs urged greater transparency around domestic AI use. A December report by the Government Accountability Office includes several open recommendations, mostly related to privacy protections and reporting transparency. The following month, DHS’s inspector general warned that the agency doesn’t have complete or well-resourced oversight frameworks. 

In June, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and several co-signers wrote to the Trump White House, “In addition to these concerning uses of sentiment analysis for law enforcement purposes, federal agencies have also shown interest in affective computing and deception detection technologies that purportedly infer individuals’ mental states from measures of their facial expressions, body language, or physiological activity.” 

The letter asks the GAO to investigate what DHS or Justice Department policies govern AI use and whether those are being followed. Markey’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Writing for the American Immigration Council in May, Steven Hubbard, the group’s senior data scientist, noted that of DHS’ 105 AI applications, 27 are “rights-impacting.”

“These are cases that the OMB, under the Biden administration, identified as impacting an individual’s rights, liberty, privacy, access to equal opportunity, or ability to apply for government benefits and services,” Hubbard said.

The White House recently replaced Biden-era guidance on AI with new rules meant to accelerate AI deployment across the federal government. While the updated guidelines retain many safety guardrails, they do include some changes, including merging “privacy-impacting” and “safety-impacting” uses of AI into a single category: “high impact.”

The new rules also eliminate a requirement for agencies to notify people when AI tools might affect them—and to offer an opt-out.

Precedents for this kind of techno-surveillance expansion can be found in countries rarely deemed models for U.S. policy. China and Russia have greatly expanded surveillance and policing under the auspices of security. China operates an extensive camera network in public spaces and centralizes its data to enable rapid AI analysis. Russia has followed a similar path through its “Safe Cities” program, integrating data feeds from a vast surveillance network to spot and stop crime, protests, and dissent.

So far, the U.S. has spent less than these near-peers, as a percent of GDP, on surveillance tools, which are operated under a framework, however strained, of rule-of-law and rights protections that can mitigate the most draconian uses.

But the distinction between the United States and China and Russia is shrinking, Nathan Wessler, deputy director with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in July. “There's the real nightmare scenario, which is pervasive tracking of live or recorded video, something that, by and large, we have kept at bay in the United States. It’s the kind of thing that authoritarian regimes have invested in heavily.” 

Wessler noted that in May, the Washington Post reported that New Orleans authorities were applying facial recognition to live video feeds. “At that scale, that [threatens to] just erase our ability to go about our lives without being pervasively identified and tracked by the government.”

The company, GoLaxy, has built data profiles for at least 117 sitting U.S. lawmakers and more than 2,000 other American political and thought leaders, according to the researchers that assessed the documentation. GoLaxy also appears to be tracking thousands of right-wing influencers, as well as journalists, their assessments show.

“You start to imagine, when you bring these pieces together, this is a whole new sort of level of gray zone conflict, and it’s one we need to really understand,” said Brett Goldstein, a former head of the Defense Digital Service and one of the Vanderbilt faculty that examined the files.

Goldstein was speaking alongside former NSA director Gen. Paul Nakasone, who heads Vanderbilt’s National Security Institute, in a gathering of reporters on the sidelines of the DEF CON hacker convention in Las Vegas, Nevada.

“We are seeing now an ability to both develop and deliver at an efficiency, at a speed and a scale we’ve never seen before,” said Nakasone, recalling his time in the intelligence community tracking past campaigns from foreign adversaries to influence public opinion.

Founded in 2010 by a research institute affiliated with the state-run Chinese Academy of Sciences, GoLaxy appears to operate in step with Beijing’s national-security priorities, although there is no public confirmation of direct government control. Researchers said the documents indicate the firm has worked with senior intelligence, party and military elements within China’s political structure.

The firm has launched influence campaigns against Hong Kong and Taiwan, and uses a propaganda dissemination system dubbed “GoPro” to spread content across social media, according to the researchers.

Goldstein, as well as his Vanderbilt colleague Brett Benson, first detailed the research in a New York Times guest essay. The Times then separately reported on the findings and confirmed the efforts, citing current and former U.S. officials. 

The cache was sent to Vanderbilt from a security researcher in April, Goldstein told reporters. Nearly all of the documentation was written in Mandarin, he added.

The firm has recently altered content on its website that removed references to its work with Beijing and denied the findings. A since-removed blog post, for instance, reveals GoLaxy pitched its AI tools to senior Chinese police and security officials.

“GoLaxy’s products are mainly based on open-source data, without specially collecting data targeting U.S. officials,” the firm told the Times.

“To my knowledge, China is rapidly building an AI governance system with distinct national characteristics. This approach emphasizes a balance between development and security, featuring innovation, security and inclusiveness,” said Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for China’s embassy in Washington, D.C.. “The government has introduced major policy plans and ethical guidelines, as well as laws and regulations on algorithmic services, generative AI, and data security. Together, these frameworks aim to improve the safety, fairness, and governance capacity of AI technologies in China.”

China’s use of GoLaxy’s technology is not the first time a U.S. adversary has leveraged AI to conduct influence operations at scale, but GoLaxy’s operation goes further, said Max Lesser, a senior emerging threats analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 

“While AI can certainly augment influence operations, it remains unclear whether it increases their impact,” he told Nextgov/FCW.

The Trump administration has largely dismantled offices that track influence operations, amid accusations that they have in the past censored Americans’ online speech when they coordinated with social media platforms to remove false information about contentious topics like the 2020 election and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. 

Under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the White House has also sought to diminish previous intelligence community findings that determined Russia launched an influence campaign to sway the outcome of the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump. Multiple reviews, including a comprehensive bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win.

ODNI under former President Joe Biden tracked influence operations launched by Russia, China and other foreign adversaries in the lead-up to the 2024 election. But they were never able to provide an assessment of the campaigns’ effectiveness because it would require intelligence analysts to pore through Americans’ social media posts and compromise their free speech rights, officials previously said.

Asked about whether the intelligence community should be drilling down on the effectiveness of influence campaigns, Nakasone said that the spy community needs to use its already given authorities to track threats overseas, but that there’s a “private sector piece” as well.

“You’re going to need a team, and it’s going to be a team that needs to think how they’re going to do this effectively and also creatively in the future,” he said.

That may require a regulatory structure. But Goldstein dismissed the idea of new regulations to solve the budding problem of more advanced influence operations.

“How do we have better detect methods, and how do we spur that research, academically [with the] private sector? Pieces like that,” he said. “I don’t know how regulation gets at that. I would be growing the private sector ecosystem. I’d be focused on academic research.”

The documents also suggest that there are accounts and personas hiding on Chinese-aligned infrastructure that can be taken down through standard U.S. operations that have dismantled launch points for hacks, Goldstein said.

“I think I come back to the concept of persistent engagement,” Nakasone said. “We should always be involved with our adversaries here. This is a really good case study of: it’s out there, and we need to find it and we need to be able to take it down.”

The show of force was necessary to tame Washington’s out-of-control criminal activity, Trump said, though actual crime in the city is at its lowest point in decades. Some 800 National Guard troops will deploy in the city, joining about 500 federal agents diverted from various agencies to patrol the streets. 

Only between 100 and 200 National Guard soldiers will be supporting law enforcement at any given time; they will perform duties including administrative tasks, logistics and “physical presence in support of law enforcement,” Army officials said in a statement. They will join officers and agents from the FBI; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Agency; Park Police; U.S. Marshals Service; and the Secret Service. 

Additional military deployments are possible, the president said. 

Last week, Trump deployed federal law enforcement to supplement Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department. At a Monday-morning press conference at the White House, the president said they have already made dozens of arrests and will crack down on gang violence and homeless populations. He announced that decision after a former employee of the Department of Government Efficiency appeared to be injured by individuals engaging in a carjacking. 

The president also said his efforts would ensure the safety of the federal workforce. 

“Every American has a constitutional right to be able to access and petition their government in safety, and countless federal officials and employees likewise have the right to carry out their jobs in peace without being shot,” he said. 

The president is federalizing Washington’s police force under a provision of the Home Rule Act, the 1973 law that allowed the capital city to mostly govern itself independently. Trump can only maintain federal control of the force for 30 days before requiring legislation from Congress. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said he would soon introduce a bill to overturn Trump's actions. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, however, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., praised Trump's decision. 

The president predicted federal staff would cooperate well with local police, and that Washington residents would welcome FBI agents and other federal law enforcement on their streets. 

“We will have full, seamless, integrated cooperation at all levels of law enforcement, and will deploy officers across the district with an overwhelming presence,” Trump said. 

Interior Department Secretary Doug Burgum, who oversees U.S. Park Police, said at the White House Monday his employees were celebrating Trump’s announcement. He noted the Park Police have already been involved in removing graffiti and homeless encampments. 

“They've been doing a fantastic job, but they are so pleased, the rank and file, that President Trump is now allowing them to enforce the law,” Burgum said. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the career staff in the Justice Department would ensure a smooth deployment of federal staff in Washington. 

“We have some of the best career law enforcement and prosecutors in the country who are ready to take this on,” Bondi said. 

Mayor Muriel Bowser, D-D.C., said Trump’s actions were “unsettling and unprecedented.” She said her administration had received no warning of them, but was unsurprised. She said she would continue to work with his administration to ensure the city’s economy “is supported by rational federal workforce, federal workers and federal property in the District of Columbia.” 

Pamela Smith, the chief of police in D.C., said she met with federal partners for an hour on Sunday to discuss where to aim their deployment, and will engage in a more detailed discussion later on Monday. Terry Cole, head of DEA, will coordinate the federal takeover of Washington’s police. 

Brian Schwalb, attorney general in D.C., said Trump's actions were unnecessary and his office was “considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents.” Bowser, however, noted the Home Rule Act compels her to comply with the president after he declares an emergency, as Trump has done.

National Guard soldiers deployed in the capital after the Sept. 11 attacks, to support COVID-19 relief efforts and during widespread protests in 2020.

President Donald Trump announced a federal takeover of the Washington, D.C., police force and plans to deploy the National Guard in the nation’s capital. As crime in D.C. hits the lowest level in decades, Trump said he was declaring a public-safety emergency and taking control under Section 740 of the DC Home Rule Act. Attorney General Pam Bondi will take charge of the Metropolitan Police Department, which will be run by Drug Enforcement Administration head Terry Cole, the president said at a Monday morning White House press conference.

The DC National Guard has been mobilized under Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and will be “flowing into DC in the coming weeks,” SecDef Pete Hegseth said at the conference. Trump also signed an executive order enabling Hegseth to work with various states to bring other National Guard forces to assist, an official said.

And: “We will bring in the military if needed,” Trump said. “If necessary, we’re going to move service members to help the National Guard.”

Over the weekend, hundreds of officers and agents from more than a dozen federal agencies began patrolling the nation’s capital. More than 500 will eventually be deployed, Trump said. The agencies include FBI; ICE; DEA; and Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Reuters reports. A bit more from the New York Times: “Most of the agents will be pulled from their regular duties at the F.B.I.’s Washington field office, but it was not immediately clear if agency leaders would need to pull additional personnel from nearby cities, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe details of an effort that were not meant to be public.” NPR has photos of FBI patrols.

The record shows that violent crime in D.C. hit a 30-year low last year and then dropped another 26 percent this calendar year. So what’s going on? Here’s Politico: “A 19-year-old man known as ‘Big Balls’ who played a key role in the DOGE initiative to shrink the size of government was assaulted over the weekend in Washington, according to city police.” Trump mentioned him at the conference. 

The president also offered deeply exaggerated descriptions of the situation in DC, with residents who are afraid to “go into a store and buy a newspaper” while “caravans of youth rampage through the streets.” He also issued a vague threat against neighborhoods: “We’re getting rid of the slums…where they live.” 

By the way, here’s author and historian Garrett Graff, who reminds readers on social media that “Trump’s first act was to pardon HUNDREDS of J6 rioters who assaulted and beat DC police officers. Trump’s been responsible for a large percentage of the total assaults (and many of the worst/most brutal) on DC police in the last decade.”

Bigger picture: “Trump's announcement is his latest effort to target Democratic-run cities by exercising executive power over traditionally local matters, and he has shown particular interest in asserting more control over Washington,” Reuters writes. “The Republican president has dismissed criticism that he is manufacturing a crisis to justify expanding presidential authority in a heavily Democratic city.” Read more, here.

For some legal perspective, here’s national security law professor Steve Vladeck, writing before Trump’s press conference about federalizing troops for the capital. 

Writing after the conference, Vladeck observed that Trump’s actions Monday set “an ominous political precedent for pretextually overriding local government,” and warned that “if we get acclimated to the President doing this anywhere, we get desensitized to him trying to do it everywhere.”

Additional reading: 

• “Trump expands L.A. military tactics by sending National Guard to Washington D.C.,” the LA Times reports; 
• ICYMI, “At Purple Heart Ceremony, Trump Says, ‘It Wasn’t That Easy for Me Either,’” Mediaite reported last week. 
• And “Pro-Trump group wages campaign to purge ‘subversive’ federal workers,” Reuters reported in a special investigation Thursday. 

Welcome to this Monday edition of The D Brief, a newsletter dedicated to developments affecting the future of U.S. national security, brought to you by Ben Watson with Bradley Peniston. Share your tips and feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1988, al-Qaeda was reportedly founded during a meeting in Peshawar. 

Russia’s Ukraine invasion, day 1265

President Trump is planning to speak with Russian leader Vladimir Putin Friday in Alaska. The meeting was reportedly requested by Putin, and is ostensibly about the future of Putin’s Ukraine invasion. However, the talks do not yet feature anyone from Ukraine, as French President Emmanuel Macron objected on social media Saturday, citing the support of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Macron: “Ukraine’s future cannot be decided without the Ukrainians, who have been fighting for their freedom and security for over three years now,” the French president said, and insisted, “Europeans will also necessarily be part of the solution, as their own security is at stake.”

Kyiv’s president, too, rejected the idea of talks without Ukrainian representation. “Any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace. They will not achieve anything,” Volodymir Zelenskyy said in a video message Saturday. 

Kyiv is not alone. Macron, Merz and Starmer were joined by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a joint statement Saturday encouraging talks to end Russia’s Ukraine invasion, while also calling for Ukrainian and European involvement in future peace negotiations. 

“The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine,” the European ensemble said. “We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,” they added, and recommended, “The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.”

By the way: The EU parliament and NATO allies are creating a new financial institution akin to the World Bank to help boost military spending, officials announced last week. It’s known as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, or the DSRB, and it involves many top banks like JP Morgan Chase, German Commerzbank, and Canadian RBC Capital Markets.

The idea: “Nations who become DSRB’s shareholders are likely to contribute a total of US$65 billion to US$70 billion dollars in capital,” the Financial Post reported Thursday. “This would help get the bank a triple-A credit rating, after which the bank intends to go to the bond market and raise money which would in turn be used to expand lending in the defence sector…The bank will also help commercial banks in member countries expand their lending into the defence sector, which has often been seen as off limits,” the Post writes. The DSRB will hold its first meeting in September, with plans to launch the institution formally at the end of 2026. 

What to expect: “European NATO members will likely leverage the bank to sustain investments in Ukraine's defense industrial base, to launch further joint production initiatives with Ukraine, and to fund defense production intended for Ukraine and NATO allies' own stocks,” analysts at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War wrote Sunday. 

In Alaska, Putin is likely to bring up a lopsided Russian ceasefire proposal pitched last week to U.S. officials in Moscow. The plan “would require that Ukraine hand over eastern Ukraine, a region known as the Donbas, without Russia’s committing to much other than to stop fighting,” the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. “The offer, which Putin conveyed Wednesday to U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, set off a diplomatic scramble to obtain further clarity on details of the proposal.” (More on that in the next item.)

Why Russia might seek a Ukrainian withdrawal from Donetsk: “Conceding to such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its ‘fortress belt,’ the main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014—with no guarantee that fighting will not resume,” ISW said Saturday. “The fortress belt is a significant obstacle to Russia's current path of advance westward,” they noted. 

Europe pitched a counter-prosal to U.S. officials on Saturday, and it “includes demands that a cease-fire take place before any other steps are taken,” the Journal reported separately on Sunday. “It also says that territory can be exchanged only in a reciprocal manner—meaning that if Ukraine pulls out of some regions, Russia must withdraw from others.” As well, potential NATO membership for Ukraine cannot be removed from discussions, as Russian officials have insisted.  

Second opinion: “Russia remains unwilling to compromise on its long-standing war aims of preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, regime change in Ukraine in favor of a pro-Russian proxy government, and Ukraine's demilitarization—all of which would ensure Ukraine's full capitulation,” ISW analysts warned Sunday. Russia will also “very likely violate and weaponize any future ceasefire agreements in Ukraine while blaming Ukraine for the violations as it repeatedly did in Spring 2025,” they added. 

One recent speedbump: Trump’s inexperienced Russian envoy, real estate billionaire Steve Witkoff, misinterpreted withdrawal terms presented by his Russian counterparts during talks last week at the Kremlin regarding the future of Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine invasion, European officials said this weekend.

Witkoff mistook Russia’s insistence that Ukrainians leave their own Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia regions and initially thought instead that Putin volunteered to “peacefully withdraw” Russian troops from the latter two regions, Germany’s Bild reported this weekend. The Wall Street Journal confirmed Witkoff’s misrepresentation. The U.S. envoy also misunderstood a Russian ceasefire regarding energy infrastructure and long-range strikes, European officials told Bild.

Expert reax: “This is deeply damaging incompetence,” former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote on social media. “Witkoff should finally start taking a notetaker from the U.S. embassy for future meetings. That’s how professional diplomacy works.”

The view from Kyiv: “Russia is dragging out the war,” and “deserves stronger global pressure,” Zelenskyy said in an address Sunday evening. Hours later, he released another video describing the results of Russia’s latest overnight drone and missile barrage, which allegedly struck homes, a bus station and a clinic in Zaporizhzhia. “Today, along the entire front line, in frontline communities, and in border towns and villages, the Russians once again continued to take lives.” 

“No deadlines, no expectations work on them,” Zelenskyy said. “Everyone sees that there has been no real step from Russia toward peace, no action on the ground or in the air that could save lives.”

Additional reading:

• “Russia launched ‘catalog’ of kidnapped Ukrainian children up for adoption: ‘This is digital child trafficking,’” the New York Post reported last week; find similar coverage at the Moscow Times, the UK’s Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and elsewhere;
• And “Putin’s warlord ally [in Libya is] flying migrants into Europe,” the UK’s Telegraph reported Saturday.