Author

admin

Browsing

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said Sunday that comments from U.S. officials about the Arctic island have been disrespectful and that the island cannot be purchased, in defiance of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly floated the idea of buying the strategic territory.

Nielsen said Greenland ‘will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone’ as he stood by Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen during a joint press conference at Frederiksen’s Marienborg official residence in Lyngby, Denmark.

The Greenlandic prime minister was meeting with Frederiksen on the second day of a three-day official visit to Denmark. Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.

‘The talks from the United States have not been respectful,’ Nielsen said. ‘The words used have not been respectful. That’s why we need in this situation, we need to stand together.’

Political parties in Greenland recently agreed to form a broad-based new coalition government amid Trump’s targets on the territory.

This, as the island has for years been leaning toward eventual independence from Denmark.

Nielsen’s three-day visit seeks to address future cooperation between the two countries.

‘Denmark has the will to invest in the Greenlandic society, and we don’t just have that for historical reasons. We also have that because we are part of (the Danish) commonwealth with each other,’ Frederiksen said.

‘We of course have a will to also continue investing in the Greenlandic society,’ she added.

Nielsen is scheduled to meet Denmark’s King Frederik X on Monday before returning to Greenland with Frederik for a royal visit to the island.

Frederiksen and Nielsen were asked whether a meeting had been planned involving them and Trump.

‘We always want to meet with the American president,’ Frederiksen said. ‘Of course we want to. But I think we have been very, very clear in what is the [Danish commonwealth’s] approach to all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A nonprofit patient’s rights advocacy group has placed a billboard in New York City’s Times Square praising President Donald Trump for ‘delivering’ on a major healthcare promise within his first 100 days in office. 

The billboard, placed by PatientsRightsAdvocate.org, (PRA) will run from April 28 to May 4 and touts Trump’s executive order signed in February directing the departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to make healthcare prices transparent.

‘President Trump delivers healthcare price transparency,’ the billboard, along with a picture of Trump resembling Superman says. ‘First 100 Days!’

Trump’s order directed the departments to ‘rapidly implement and enforce’ the Trump healthcare price transparency regulations, which he claims were slowed by the Biden administration.

The departments will ensure hospitals and insurers disclose actual prices, not estimates, and take action to make prices comparable across hospitals and insurers, including prescription drug prices.

PRA says that more than 1 in 3 Americans postponed or avoided care due to ‘fear of unknown costs’ and that 100 million Americans are in medical debt, which represents the country’s largest cause of personal bankruptcy. 

 ‘The magnitude of President Trump’s delivering ‘radical’ price transparency in healthcare is historic,’ Cynthia Fisher, founder and chairman of PatientRightsAdvocate.org, said in a statement. 

‘Patients soon will have access to actual prices, not estimates, before they receive care. Prices create a functional market where the consumer benefits from competition and choice to lower costs,’ Fisher continued. ‘Soon, patients will be able to shop for the best quality of care at the best price. Prices protect patients with remedy and recourse from overcharges, errors, and fraud. We are closer than ever to shifting the power to the consumer to live healthier and longer lives at a far lower cost.’  

Andrew Bremberg, former assistant to President Donald Trump and director of the Domestic Policy Council at the first Trump White House, also touted Trump’s executive order, saying that the president ‘built on his first term healthcare legacy and signed an even stronger price transparency executive order. 

‘His efforts to deliver real prices, not estimates, underscore his unwavering commitment to the American people. President Trump has a bold vision to transform the American healthcare system with price transparency as the catalyst.’ 

The executive order notes a number of concerns with current healthcare pricing, including that prices vary between hospitals in the same region.

‘One patient in Wisconsin saved $1,095 by shopping for two tests between two hospitals located within 30 minutes of one another,’ according to the statement.

The White House claims one economic analysis found Trump’s original price transparency rules, if fully implemented, could deliver savings of $80 billion for consumers, employers and insurers by 2025.

‘The hospital wanted me to pay $3,700 up front for a simple fibroid removal surgery,’ Arizona patient Theresa Schmotzer said in a statement at the time of the billboard’s placement. ‘Because that seemed high, I went looking for what it should cost. I found the actual price online and saw that my share was only $700 not $3,700. Because I had access to real prices, not estimates, I saved $3,000. President Trump’s executive order on healthcare price transparency will allow more people to find real prices and save.’  

States across the country have been pushing similar measures in the form of legislation to ensure that patients are given more transparency about the healthcare costs they are assuming, including in Ohio, where legislation was recently signed into law requiring hospitals to post exact prices in dollars and cents for all available services. 

‘They’ll be able to check them, compare them, go to different locations, so they can shop for the highest-quality care at the lowest cost,’ Trump wrote in a statement when he signed the executive order. ‘And this is about high-quality care. You’re also looking at that. You’re looking at comparisons between talents, which is very important. And, then, you’re also looking at cost. And, in some cases, you get the best doctor for the lowest cost. That’s a good thing.’

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

OTTAWA- In a dramatic reversal, the governing Liberals, who were trailing the official opposition Conservatives in the polls earlier this year, appear poised to win their fourth consecutive term in office thanks to President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada’s economy and sovereignty, according to election watchers.

‘It looks like there will be a Liberal government, which seems to be what the polls point to, and it would be a very big surprise if the Conservatives won,’ Angus Reid, founder and chair of the Angus Reid Institute, told Fox News Digital.

In an Angus Reid Institute poll released on Dec. 30, the Conservatives were in super-majority territory with 45% support, compared to the Liberals at 11%. The results of a poll released on Saturday had the Liberals at 44% with a four-point lead over the Conservatives at 40%.

‘This really has been an extraordinary election in that, by all rights, Canadians had it with the Liberals’ woke policies and with their misspending and didn’t like Trudeau,’ Reid said.

He explained that the political dynamic changed when Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as Canada’s 23rd prime minister and Trump was inaugurated as the 47th president in January, and former central bank governor Mark Carney succeeded Trudeau as prime minister and Liberal leader in March.

‘Between tariffs and threats of annexation, Trump became the single most important issue in the country overnight,’ said Reid. ‘That gave Mark Carney an opportunity to be the first out of the gate to say that we’re not going to put up with this – we’re a sovereign nation and we’re going to fight.’

The campaign has been a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives and led by two starkly different leaders who focused on strengths that their critics considered weaknesses.

Carney, a 60-year-old former senior executive at Goldman Sachs who never held elected office prior to winning the Liberal leadership, has called on voters to consider – during a time of economic crisis fueled by Trump’s threats – his experience, which includes running the central banks of Canada and England, and as the United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance. 

His detractors, however, have accused him of being out of touch and ‘not connected to the common man’ and has spent a fair amount of time outside Canada, as a former deputy national Conservative Party campaign manager told Fox News Digital last month.

Meanwhile, Poilievre’s message to voters is that he is the agent for ‘change.’ However, his opponents claim the 45-year-old Conservative leader is part of the political establishment, having spent almost half of his life as a member of Parliament since he was first elected in 2004 – and the change he touts came with a shift in Liberal leadership from Trudeau to Carney.

The results of an Ipsos poll conducted for Global News in Canada, released on April 21, showed a narrow three-point lead for the Liberals at 41% over the Conservatives at 38%. 

Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, told Fox News Digital that the Liberals were ahead of the Conservatives by 12 points in mid-April and have lost ground since ‘because of the effect of Donald Trump, both positive and negative.’

‘When Donald Trump is in the news saying 51st-state stuff, that brings the focus back to the major issue that the Liberals lead on, which is dealing with him,’ said Bricker.

‘But over the past two weeks, Donald Trump has kind of gone dark on Canada. He’s been focused on China, U.S. government funding of Harvard University, and to the extent he’s talking about trade, it’s about global trade deals.’

That, said Bricker, has resulted in many Canadians returning to their pre-Trump main issue of affordability, through the lens of the Liberals running the government over the past decade.

Ultimately, the outcome of Monday’s general election will be decided by geography, according to Bricker, whosaid that the national vote ‘will be won or lost’ in Ontario, particularly in Toronto and the surrounding so-called 905 region, which refers to the telephone area code, where there are 55 ridings (electoral districts) and about 4.5 million eligible voters.

‘The 905 voted overwhelmingly for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals three times,’ said Bricker. ‘If they do it again, the Liberals will win a fourth consecutive term in office.’

Last week, Carney said if he remains prime minister following the election that he would have a meeting with Trump ‘within days’ as part of an ‘ambitious and broad-ranging discussion’ on a new trade and security deal between Canada and the U.S.

Reid said that the Liberals’ improved showing was not just about Canadians warming to Carney, but also about Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s failure to turn the dial from focusing on a consumer carbon tax, which the Liberal leader canceled on April 1 in his first act as prime minister, and ‘still reflecting on Trudeau long after he had gone, instead of jumping right away onto the Trump threat and becoming something that he would lead the charge on.’

The irony, in Reid’s view, is that ‘Trump imperiled the campaign of an individual who could be in many ways his stepbrother in Canada,’ he said about Poilievre, who he called ‘mini-Trump,’ and his ‘anti-woke,’ smaller-government stance – ‘Trump-esque policies that the American right might want to see in Canada and certainly a lot of Canadians on the right want to see.’

According to Elections Canada, a record 7.3 million Canadians cast their ballots in advance polls over the Easter weekend. With the country having six time zones, the results aren’t expected to be known until late Monday evening.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have been aggressively overhauling the bloated and cumbersome U.S. federal bureaucracy by re-examining contracts, questioning what taxpayer dollars are funding and who that funding is going to. 

The public health sector hasn’t been immune, with the Trump administration poring over the layers of bureaucracy and freezing or canceling millions in grants. Countless programs within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including those designed to target the treatment and spread of HIV/AIDS, are, or will be, in the crosshairs.

As a former White House director of national AIDS policy who was one of the chief architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the first director of the HIV/AIDS Bureau at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and as an LGBT conservative with a career in medicine, business, and public health, I believe HIV/AIDS advocates should embrace and support such a review. 

While it is critical that the United States’ demonstrably effective long-standing strategy tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and the resources dedicated to it, remain intact, many of these federal programs have not been re-evaluated in years, nor have they been audited for waste, fraud or abuse. 

Advocates in support of maintaining the United States’ aggressive approach to the HIV/AIDS epidemic should welcome the review of HIV/AIDS specific initiatives to ensure that they are optimally designed to meet the needs of the current epidemic.

Take the Ryan White CARE Act, for example, which funds essential healthcare services for uninsured and underinsured individuals living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. The program, which received $2.5 billion in federal funding in FY 2024, hasn’t been reauthorized by Congress since 2009. In that time, the expansion of healthcare coverage through Medicaid substantially reduced the number of people who needed Ryan White support for medical care and pharmaceuticals, yet its budget continued to grow. 

A reauthorization process would allow for a close look at spending priorities embedded in Ryan White – an initiative that was designed before highly effective HIV/AIDS therapy was even available. Surely, the HIV/AIDS community would do well to see if that funding might be better reallocated elsewhere, such as toward substance abuse and mental health services, or other needed care. 

DOGE can also remedy unnecessary bureaucratic overlap. The Ryan White program is run through the HRSA, and the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, started by Trump during his first term, is run through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Despite the programs’ complementary missions, they are siloed off into separate entities with their own budgets and staff, resulting in unnecessary administrative overhead costs and potentially wasteful spending. 

The Trump administration is reportedly looking to streamline these two initiatives into one program run through the HRSA to consolidate the resources and make them more efficient. Advocates for a strong public health response to HIV/AIDS should be open to considering these kinds of commonsense reforms and not wringing their hands or fearmongering to voters.

While efficiency is needed, it would be a grave mistake to deprioritize funding for the HIV/AIDS epidemic as national policy. While new cases of the disease are on the decline in the U.S. due to advances in treatment and prevention efforts, data has shown that cutting those efforts leads to spikes in new infections, which in turn burden the healthcare system with costlier care and treatments down the line. 

Another critical pillar of the U.S. approach to the epidemic is PEPFAR, which funds HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care globally. PEPFAR’s value is not only as a cost-effective success in saving millions of lives but also as a means of exerting significant diplomatic influence with dozens of partner nations. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio granted PEPFAR a waiver from the initial suspension of global health initiatives in the first days of the Trump administration. That does not mean that PEPFAR should be immune from an audit for inefficiency. 

Like all federal programs, there must be improvements that can be made and waste that can be cut. PEPFAR’s strategy and tactics, however, are undeniably working with an incredible return on investment. Keeping the program efficiently funded should be a bipartisan priority.

It’s easy to panic over reports of specific cuts or reorganizations to HIV/AIDS programs. Opponents of the Trump administration have every reason to fearmonger around the issue, as federal funding for prevention efforts is generally popular. 

But, if we genuinely care about the fight against HIV/AIDS, we must recognize that these programs, like the federal government itself, are not perfect. These HIV/AIDS programs are long overdue for auditing, evaluation and perhaps reorganization, and as long as our commitment to fighting the disease remains intact, the United States’ efforts will be stronger for it.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said President Donald Trump has accomplished more in the first 100 days of his tenure than ‘most politicians or presidents accomplish in their entire lifetimes.’

The top House Republican said this first period of a new GOP trifecta in government has been a ‘flurry of activity’ used to set the stage for the party’s plans to pass a massive piece of legislation setting up Trump’s priorities on defense, taxes, energy and the border.

‘o much of what we’ve done is leading up to the big reconciliation bill, and that is the legislative vehicle, as I’ve explained to people, it will help us, through which we will deliver the president’s America First agenda,’ Johnson told Fox News Digital.

‘We’ve done it with arguably the smallest margin in the history of the Congress, so challenges every day, but it’s been very rewarding to lead us through that.’

He noted that Trump and Congress had worked together on passing the Laken Riley Act, and on keeping transgender women out of biological women’s spaces.

But the speaker also acknowledged that Trump has acted quite a bit on his own, as well.

‘He’s issued, I think, 110 executive orders and many other executive actions. And we’ve been working to codify so much of that. It’s been kind of a partnership,’ Johnson said.

But not everyone views it as equal. Democrats have accused Republicans of acquiescing power to Trump on issues ranging from tariffs to government funding.

‘I don’t think we’ve ceded any authority. I think that he’s doing what is within his scope to do. There’s an assumption made by Congress that the administration, whoever is in the administration, will use the money that is appropriated to the executive branch as a good steward, that they will take every measure possible to prevent fraud, waste and abuse,’ Johnson said. 

‘And tariffs as well – the president, whomever is president, has a responsibility and I think an expectation from Congress that they will deal with unfair trade partners around the globe.’

He also pointed out that a significant number of Trump’s orders have targeted Biden administration actions or policies that were similarly enacted without Congress.

‘I don’t think the president has engaged in executive overreach,’ Johnson said. ‘So much of what he’s done by executive order is reversing executive orders of his predecessor. So, it looks like he’s doing a lot, but he’s unwinding the damage done by the previous occupant of the Oval Office. So, he certainly has latitude to do that.’

But Johnson, a former constitutional law attorney who styled himself ‘a jealous guardian of Article I,’ vowed he would raise his concerns with Trump if he ever felt Congress’ power was being infringed. 

‘I don’t think he’s crossed the line yet. If he does, or if he did, you know, I would address it with him personally as a concern, as a partner, and explain that I think it’s been overdone,’ he said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

During the Francis papacy, the role of women in the church emerged as a pressing priority, with Catholics across the globe calling for change.

The Argentine pontiff listened, breaking some important glass ceilings in the Vatican when it came to appointing female leaders to senior positions. He chose to make gradual changes that, to the outside may have seemed like small steps, but were huge leaps to those on the inside.

The pope appointed the first woman leader of a department in the church’s central administration and the first female president of the office governing the Vatican City State. Francis also chose the first women to sit at the board level in the church’s central administration, including at the influential department for choosing bishops.

By 2023, 10 years into his pontificate, the percentage of women in the Vatican workforce had risen from 19.2 to 23.4%. More broadly, Francis gave women the power to vote for the first time at a major global gathering of bishops, known as a synod, and formally opened up non-ordained ministry roles as he sought to increase participation.

On Holy Thursday last year he broke with tradition by travelling to a female prison in Rome to wash the feet of 12 women prisoners. It was the first time a pontiff had only washed the feet of women in the annual ceremony that emphasizes humility.

But while the pope made some landmark reforms, many will be hoping that his successor moves further, and faster, and there was sometimes sharp criticism of his stance on the role of women in society.

Kim Daniels, the director of Georgetown University’s Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life and a Vatican adviser on communication, said the pope had “made significant strides towards greater inclusion of women in church decision-making” and that his reforms to broaden participation would be key to his legacy.

The lack of opportunity for women in the church is likely to come into sharp focus during the forthcoming papal conclave: Only members of the all-male body which is the College of Cardinals will vote on who will become the next pope.

It highlights a wider concern that Catholics across the world have raised in recent years: That while women frequently make up a majority in the pews on Sunday, they are scarcely represented at the church’s decision-making levels. Although lay people are increasingly more involved in church administration, it is primarily bishops and priests who make final decisions.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that women are on the front lines of the church’s work on the ground, with nuns providing healthcare and education in developing countries and plenty of women leading Catholic schools and universities.

On the question of female involvement in a conclave, some have argued that women could be made cardinals, given the role of a cardinal is primarily to advise a pope and elect his successor.

Ordination questions

Sister Christine Schenk, an American nun, author and founder of international reform-focused group “FutureChurch,” said it was time to give a “deliberative voice” to women and lay people at “every level of the church,” adding that if the same model of electing a pope remains in place, “we need as many female cardinals as male cardinals at the conclave.”

A more realistic possibility in the short term is allowing women to once again become deacons, an ordained ministry distinct from the priesthood. Deacons can witness marriages, perform baptisms and preach during Mass. Those in favor point to evidence for female deacons in scripture and their presence in the early church right up until the Middle Ages.

Women deacons could also bolster the church’s presence in schools, hospitals and prisons, along with providing leaders for Catholic communities. Church leaders in the Amazon, where priests are in short supply, raised the question at a 2019 synod, calling on the pope to “promote and confer ministries for men and women in an equitable manner.” A 2024 synod concluding document, approved by the pope, said that the question of ordaining women as deacons should remain an “open” question.

To that end, several Vatican commissions were set up study the question of female deacons were established by Francis, although no findings were never made public.

Francis maintained the ban on women’s ordination as priests and deacons, something which disappointed those keen to see women in more visible church leadership roles, but insisted that decision-making and leadership doesn’t depend on whether someone is ordained. He repeatedly stated that the church is female and asked for theologians to help in trying to “de-masculinize” it.

Centuries of misogyny

Significantly, a live debate in the church about the role of women is being allowed to take place. Schenk described it as the most impactful shift during the Francis pontificate, ending the marginalization of “Catholics who wish to discuss full inclusion of women in every aspect of church ministry and decision-making.”

“The question Francis looked at is how to get more people involved in the work of the church, in as many ways and places as possible. That is why he appointed women to senior roles in the Vatican,” said Hofstra University Professor Phyllis Zagano, a member of the first commission on female deacons.

“On the question of women deacons, Francis was trying to deal with centuries of misogyny that misunderstood the role of women in the church and society. The synod process he started tried to get the church away from a male-only perspective and to look at women, rather than as a problem to be solved, but as able to be fully involved in the church’s work. Restoring women to the ordained diaconate reinforces the trajectory the church has been on.”

Despite the various ways Francis initiated reforms and made appointments, there is still a long way to go until women are given greater roles and responsibility in the church. The next pope is likely to find this topic right at the top of his in-tray.

“Previously the Vatican – indeed many, if not most, prelates – were leery of even using the words ‘women’ and ‘ministry’ in the same sentence,” said Schenk. “Now such issues are being openly discussed – something long overdue and a sign of newfound strength and maturity in a church that no longer fears discerning (and) discussing changes in how we walk together as the People of God.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held crunch war talks in the heart of the Vatican minutes before the start of the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday, as the White House mounts an increasingly urgent push to strike a peace deal in Ukraine.

Photographs released by the Ukrainian presidency showed the two leaders huddled in close discussion without aides in the ornate surroundings of St. Peter’s Basilica.

A White House spokesman accompanying Trump said that the two leaders “met privately today and had a very productive discussion.” A spokesman for Zelensky said the meeting lasted for about 15 minutes, and the leaders agreed to continue talks, possibly later Saturday.

It was the first face-to-face encounter between Trump and Zelensky since a disastrous White House meeting in February, when the President and other US officials publicly berated Zelensky for being insufficiently grateful for US support and briefly suspended arms shipments and intelligence sharing.

US involvement in talks

The US has been applying more pressure on Ukraine after threatening last week it could walk away from the talks “within days” if it becomes clear a deal cannot be reached.

Trump said Friday that Russia and Ukraine are “very close to a deal” that would end the conflict, which Russia launched in 2014 and escalated with its full-scale invasion of its neighbor in 2022.

“A good day in talks and meetings with Russia and Ukraine. They are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social after landing in Rome for the funeral of Pope Francis.

Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin for three hours on Friday, according to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, who said the talks were “constructive and very useful.”

Before leaving Kyiv for Rome on Friday, Zelensky suggested a number of compromises with the goal of advancing peace talks.

“In the coming days, very significant meetings may take place — meetings that should bring us closer to silence for Ukraine,” he said.

“We are ready for dialogue, I emphasize again, in any format with anyone,” he said, but “only after a real signal that Russia is ready to end the war. Such a signal is a complete and unconditional ceasefire.”

Kyiv and Moscow have not met directly since the early weeks of Moscow’s February 2022 invasion of its smaller neighbor. Any direct talks would likely require further discussion and add delay to the diplomacy the Trump administration has hoped will yield results in a matter of days.

Accepting that Ukraine would not join NATO in the foreseeable future, he said: “I think we have to be pragmatic. We have to understand what security guarantees Ukraine needs.”

Zelensky said those guarantees might include a military contingent from Europe and what he called a “backstop” from the United States.

“For us, the backstop does not necessarily have to be boots on the ground in Ukraine,” Zelensky said, but could include cyber defense “and above all Patriot air defense systems.”

On Thursday, Kyiv was hit by the largest wave of Russian missile strikes since July last year. Twelve people were killed.

‘Ukraine Deal Framework’ still faces hurdles

Zelensky also spoke Friday of what he called “constructive” proposals drawn up in London this week between Ukrainian and European officials.

A copy of those proposals was obtained by Reuters. Titled “Ukraine Deal Framework,” it proposes a full and unconditional ceasefire in the sky, on land and at sea, as Ukraine has previously agreed to.

The draft proposed Ukraine would receive “robust security guarantees including from the US … while there is no consensus among Allies on NATO membership.” Those would be similar to those in NATO’s Article 5, under which all members are obliged to assist an attacked nation.

One part of the draft that is likely to be opposed by Moscow says that “the guarantor states will be an ad hoc group of European countries and willing non-European countries.” There would be “no restrictions on the presence, weapons and operations of friendly foreign forces on the territory of Ukraine,” nor on the size of the Ukrainian military.

The draft says negotiations on territory would begin after the ceasefire comes into effect, and their starting point would be the current frontlines. But it adds that Ukraine would regain control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which has been occupied by Russian forces since March 2022.

On the proposed minerals agreement between the US and Ukraine, which would give the US access to billions of dollars-worth of rare metals, the draft says Ukraine will be fully compensated financially, including through Russian assets that will remain frozen until Russia compensates damage to Ukraine.

Moscow is also likely to oppose that.

The draft obtained by Reuters does not mention specifically mention Crimea. Witkoff’s plan proposed the US recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but did not suggest that Ukraine also had to. Recognizing Russian control of Crimea, which Moscow illegally annexed in 2014, would cross a major red line for Ukraine and its European allies, and would be in breach of established international law.

Zelensky rejected the idea, saying there was “nothing to talk about” as such a recognition would be against Ukraine’s constitution. He told reporters Friday: “I agree with President Trump that Ukraine does not have enough weapons to regain control of the Crimean peninsula by force of arms. But the world has sanctions opportunities, other economic pressure.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that his country has regained control of Kursk, the border region where Ukraine launched a surprise offensive last year, though Ukraine’s army says fighting continues.

“The Kyiv regime’s adventure has completely failed,” Putin said Saturday, congratulating the Russian forces that he said defeated the Ukrainian military in the region in what would be a symbolic boost for Moscow at a crucial point in the war.

But the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces said in a Telegram post that Putin’s claim about the end of hostilities in Kursk was “not true.”

“The defensive operation of the Ukrainian Defense Forces in the designated areas in Kursk region continues. The operational situation is difficult, but our units continue to hold their positions and perform their assigned tasks,” the Telegram post said.

Ukraine launched its shock incursion into Kursk in August, swiftly capturing territory in what was the first ground invasion of Russia by a foreign power since World War II.

Since then, Russia, with support from North Korean soldiers, has been fighting to oust Ukraine’s forces from its borders, while Kyiv had poured precious resources into holding onto its territory there, with the view of using it as a key bargaining chip in any peace talks. The operation was also launched to relieve pressure from the embattled eastern frontline.

In his address, Putin said recapturing Kursk “creates conditions for further successful actions of our troops in other important areas of the front.”

In a post on Telegram, Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian General Staff, thanked the North Korean soldiers, praising their “high professionalism, steadfastness, courage and heroism in battle.”

Ukrainian officials and Western intelligence reports found that about 12,000 North Korean soldiers had been sent to fight in Russia.

If Putin’s claims are true, hopes of using Kursk as a bargaining counter are now gone and Ukraine’s retreat has the potential to dent Kyiv’s political clout as well as its military’s morale after three years of war and with intense efforts underway towards finding peace.

Though the US has attempted to broker peace talks between Ukraine and Russia over recent months, tensions between the leaders of the three countries have meant that very little has come to fruition.

Another whirlwind week of diplomacy saw US President Donald Trump accuse Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of making it “so difficult to settle this war” for refusing to accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea but later saying Russia and Ukraine were “very close to a deal.”

On Saturday morning, at the funeral of the late Pope Francis in the Vatican, Zelensky briefly met with Trump for talks on potential peace negotiations. A White House spokesperson called the meeting “productive,” while Zelensky thanked Trump for the meeting, writing on X that it “has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results.”

This story has been updated.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Five people have been killed and more than 700 injured in a huge explosion at the port of Bandar Abbas in southwestern Iran, according to official Iranian media.

The head of the Iranian emergency services said four people had died in the blast. A spokesperson for the emergency services earlier said 516 had been injured.

A video distributed by the Mehr news agency showed surveillance footage of the moment of the explosion, which appears to have occurred in a warehouse at the port. Other footage showed helicopters dropping water at the site of the fire ignited by the explosion.

Debris was spread over a wide area and many buildings at the port complex were badly damaged, according to state media. Windows within a radius of several kilometers were shattered, they said.

Some reports said people were trapped in the wreckage of a building that was reduced to rubble.

The region’s governor, Mohammad Ashouri Taziani, said injured people were being transferred to Bandar Abbas medical centers and the fire had been contained. The port has been closed and maritime operations suspended, according to state media.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has ordered an investigation into the causes of the incident. He wrote on X that the interior minister had been sent to the region to “examine the dimensions of the accident.”

State broadcaster IRIB said the explosion took place in the chemical and sulfur area of the port.

A government spokeswoman, Fatemeh Mohajerani, said it would take some time to establish the cause of the explosion – “but so far what has been determined is that containers were stored in a corner of the port that likely contained chemicals which exploded. But until the fire is extinguished, it’s hard to ascertain the cause.”

Shahid Rajaee is a large facility for container shipments, covering 2,400 hectares (around 5,900 acres). It handles 70 million tons of cargo annually, including oil and general shipping. It has nearly 500,000 square meters (5.4 million square feet) of warehouses and 35 shipping berths.

This post appeared first on cnn.com