Russian President Vladimir Putin said he agreed with Donald Trump’s claim that the war in Ukraine would not have ever even begun if he had not lost the 2020 election and was serving as president when the carnage began, instead of former President Joe Biden.  

‘I can confirm that,’ Putin said at the tail-end of a press conferece that took place Friday evening after the pair met for a summit at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. 

Trump made the assertion multiple times on the campaign trail, and continued saying it after he took back the White House. Trump has faced pushback on the claim, as well as on claims that Ukraine instigated the war’s inception and the Biden administration failed to do things that could have thwarted it from beginning in the first place.

‘I’d like to add one more thing,’ Putin said, as the two heads of state provided remarks to the press, according to a translation of the Russian president’s address. ‘I’d like to remind you that in 2022, during the last contact with a previous administration, I tried to convince my previous American colleague that the situation should not be brought to a point of no return when it would come to hostilities and I said it quite directly back then that it’s a big mistake. Today, when President Trump is saying that if he was the president back then there would be no war – I am quite sure that it would indeed be so. I can confirm that.’

Earlier in his address, Putin lamented that bilateral relations between the U.S. and Russia, prior to Trump, had ‘fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War,’ and highlighted the fact that there have been no summits between the U.S. and Russia over the last four years.

‘That’s not benefiting our counties and the world as a whole,’ Putin said, adding that it was ‘apparent that sooner or later [U.S. and Russia] had to amend the situation to move on from the confrontation to dialogue.’

Meanwhile, Putin praised Trump for ‘his strive to get to the crux of the matter and to understand this history,’ referring to the backstory surrounding the war. He called the commitment ‘precious.’ 

The Russian president also remarked during his address that he hopes this new chapter of foreign diplomacy under Trump will ‘help us rebuild and foster mutually beneficial and equal ties at this new stage, even during the hardest conditions.’

‘Overall, me and President Trump have built a very good business-like and trustworthy contact, and have every reason to believe that moving down this path we can come to the end of the conflict in Ukraine,’ Putin said Friday. 

The optics of Trump’s meeting with Putin were slammed by critics, who compared the scene Friday to when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Trump at the White House. 

The infamous meeting saw Zelenskyy publicly argue back-and-forth with Trump and other top leaders in the administration, as President Trump criticized the Ukrainian president for his approach to ending the war.

‘Biden could’ve stopped it, Zelenskyy could’ve stopped it, and Putin should’ve never started it,’ Trump said in April about the war in Ukraine.

It was a made-for-TV moment: The two leaders met on the tarmac at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, Air Force One and two F-35 fighters in the background. As they walked together, overhead came the roar of those F-35s, followed by the low, almost ghostly sweep of a B-2 stealth bomber — a display of U.S. airpower as much as a nod to the Cold War history between the nations.

Hours later, after their closed-door discussions, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared again — this time on a raised stage, each behind a podium, U.S. and Russian flags flanking both sides, with a blue backdrop behind them that read ‘Pursuing Peace.’ It was the first U.S.-hosted summit between American and Russian presidents on U.S. military soil.

Trump had spent days rehearsing via secure calls with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, coordinating ‘red lines’ to take into the meeting: no territorial concessions to Russia, Ukraine in the room for all negotiations, and clear conditions for any sanctions relief. Yet, despite the military pomp and the careful stagecraft, what emerged from Alaska was not a deal, but a diplomatic pause — warm words, thin details, and the hard work still ahead.

Putin spoke first, describing the talks as ‘constructive and mutual respect.’ He recalled moments in history when the U.S. and Russia ‘worked together’ and said he sought a ‘long-term settlement.’ He acknowledged Russia’s ‘legitimate concerns’ and said it was ‘very important for our countries to turn the page.’ He described a ‘trustworthy tone’ in the conversation and praised Trump for having ‘a good idea of what he wants.’ In a line clearly aimed at the cameras back home, Putin claimed Trump told him that if he had been president earlier, ‘there would not have been war,’ and confirmed that he believed it was true.

Trump followed, also taking no questions. ‘We had productive meetings,’ he said. ‘Big agreements. No deal until there is a deal.’ He promised to call ‘NATO,’ to ‘call Zelenskyy,’ and declared, ‘We really made great progress today.’ He reminded the audience of his ‘fantastic relationship with Putin’ and judged there was ‘a good chance of getting there,’ even if ‘we’re not there yet.’ Most importantly, Trump said, ‘We need to stop thousands of people being killed every week.’

For all the positive tone, the substance was modest. Putin left Alaska dangling the prospect of a ceasefire — but with strings attached. We know from prior statements that he wants the U.S. to lift certain sanctions and drop tariff threats aimed at countries like India that buy Russian energy. He intends to keep control of two eastern Ukrainian provinces seized in 2022. Likely, Trump did not concede those points, but evidently they agreed to a follow-on meeting ‘soon.’ 

While the flags fluttered in Anchorage, the war did not stop. Russian forces pressed forward modestly near Dobropillia in Donetsk region, testing Ukrainian defenses in what looks like an attempt to improve their tactical position before any pause. Ukraine rushed reinforcements, stabilizing the line for now, but fighting remains intense.

Russia’s long-range bombardment shows no sign of abating. In July alone, Moscow launched more than 70 cruise missiles and thousands of Iranian-made Shahed drones at Ukrainian targets. Ukraine has answered with deep strikes — including a hit on a Russian oil refinery and the bombing of a cargo ship carrying drone parts in the Caspian Sea. Neither side is behaving as if the war’s end is imminent.

That’s why any ceasefire talk must be backed by ironclad verification: neutral observers on the ground, satellite surveillance, clearly mapped lines, and automatic ‘snap-back’ sanctions for violations. Without that, Moscow will have every incentive to rearm under the cover of diplomacy.

If nothing else, Alaska revealed the bottom lines.

For Putin, it’s about locking in territorial gains and relieving the economic pressure eroding his war machine. Rolling back sanctions on countries that help him skirt restrictions would boost his revenues and signal to others that U.S. economic warfare is negotiable.

For Trump, it’s about testing whether Putin can be moved toward de-escalation without sacrificing U.S. credibility. Involving Zelenskyy keeps Ukraine’s fate from being decided in absentia, and reaffirming NATO’s support reassures allies.

For Ukraine, it’s a double-edged sword. A follow-on meeting offers a diplomatic opening, but Putin’s explicit territorial demands remain a political, legal, and moral red line.

Washington must resist trading sanctions relief for vague promises. The sanctions regime is one of the few levers that works, and any easing must be tied to measurable, sustained compliance verified by independent intelligence as well as neutral monitors.

Putin leaves Alaska with the optics of being a willing negotiator — useful for his domestic image — but no immediate relief on sanctions or Western recognition of his land grabs. Expect him to probe Western unity with limited escalations in the next two weeks.

Kyiv has a brief window to reinforce its defenses and prepare a clear case for the next meeting: explicit security guarantees, timetables for arms deliveries, and a non-negotiable stance on sovereignty.

Allied capitals can point to a small win: the U.S. did not cut a side deal. But they must be ready to step up enforcement and fill any gaps if U.S. resolve wavers.

Beijing will study Alaska closely. If the West blinks on sanctions enforcement, it could embolden Chinese adventurism in the Pacific. A unified Western stand would send the opposite message.

If the U.S. wants these ceasefire talks to go anywhere, three steps are essential:

1. Lock in Enforcement MechanismsBuild a monitoring framework that combines neutral observers, allied intelligence, and technological oversight. Make violations costly and automatic to deter cheating.
2. Keep Ukraine at the Center‘No decision about Ukraine without Ukraine’ must remain non-negotiable. Zelensky needs a real voice and veto over any territorial terms.
3. Use Sanctions as Leverage, Not CurrencyAny relief should be phased, conditional, and reversible. Sanctions should be the reward for sustained compliance, not an upfront concession.

The Alaska summit was not the breakthrough some hoped for, but it wasn’t a failure, either. It gave both sides a clearer picture of the negotiating terrain and bought time for positioning. But time favors the side that uses it best.

For the United States, that means holding firm on sanctions, bolstering Ukraine’s defenses, and treating any ceasefire as the start of a rigorous verification process, not the war’s conclusion. For Ukraine, it means preparing for two divergent paths: meaningful diplomacy or intensified conflict. For Russia, it means deciding whether continued war is worth the mounting cost when the West refuses to pay in land.

If Alaska was merely a pause, the next meeting will decide whether it becomes a bridge to peace — or a bridge to nowhere.

The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan brushed off any threat of backlash from neighboring powers Iran and Russia following a U.S.-brokered peace accord – an agreement hailed as the start of a new era, ending more than three decades of war and hostility in the South Caucasus.

In exclusive Fox News Digital interviews, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev both praised President Donald Trump and his envoy for their role in brokering the framework agreement. They emphasized that the deal, which promised increased regional economic integration and political cooperation, is not directed at any third party – and may actually provide strategic advantages to Moscow and Tehran.

‘This is not a zero-sum game,’ Pashinyan said. The agreement ‘contains quite tangible benefits for Iran and for Russia as well.’

‘Iran would have access through railway from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea and Russia and Iran will have opportunity to have a railway connection between the two countries.’

Russia – a long-standing ally of Armenia and a presence in the region through its border guards – welcomed peace but sent a warning about U.S. involvement. Its foreign ministry described the accord as ‘positive,’ expressing hope for stability in the Caucasus, but warned that foreign involvement should complement, not complicate, the peace process. 

The ministry emphasized that regional solutions should include neighbors like Russia, Iran and Turkey, and cautioned against repeating the pitfalls of Western-led interventions in the Middle East.

Aliyev echoed Pashinyan’s remarks and declined to see U.S. diplomatic involvement as a provocation toward Moscow. 

‘It will be very difficult for any country – whether far away or in our region – to say something bad about today’s agreement,’ he told Fox News Digital.’We’ve taken the final step toward peace.’ 

He added: ‘It’s not against anyone. It’s a connectivity project which will be one of the most important parts of international transportation.’

At the heart of the pact is the planned Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) – a roughly 27-mile transit route linking mainland Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave, passing through Armenian territory. Armenia has granted the U.S. exclusive development rights via a 99‑year lease, allowing for infrastructure projects such as roads, rail lines, pipelines, fiber optics and possibly power transmission, aimed at opening new trade and transit paths in the region.

This bold move shifts regional dynamics, offering Washington a powerful strategic foothold while bypassing traditional Russian and Iranian routes.

Iran, in contrast, has responded with hostility. 

Ali Akbar Velayati, a key advisor to Iran’s supreme leader, warned of serious consequences if the ‘Zangezur Corridor’ – as Iran calls the route – is enacted, asserting that it ‘will not become a passage owned by Trump, but rather a graveyard for Trump’s mercenaries,’ according to the semi-official news agency Tasnim.

Iran has even signaled readiness to use military means to block the route. 

Domestically, Pashinyan faces opposition. Armenian nationalists, already fierce critics of any deal with Azerbaijan, view the agreement as a betrayal. The Republican Party of Armenia has declared that Pashinyan lacks the mandate to sign such a treaty, demanding full transparency and an end to concessions made under external pressure.

Pashinyan, however, is undeterred. He said the accord could transform Armenia’s investment climate and attract foreign capital. 

‘We expect to have some criticism, and that’s part of democracy,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘But we are confident we made the right decision.’ 

Once the dominant power in the South Caucasus, Russia is losing its grip. The war in Ukraine, mounting sanctions and resource strains have depleted its regional influence, enabling the U.S., Turkey and the European Union to expand their diplomatic reach.

Relations with Azerbaijan particularly soured following the December 2024 downing of Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. Aliyev accused Moscow of accidentally shooting the passenger jet with Russian air defenses during operations against Ukrainian drones, killing 38 people. 

Aliyev told Fox News Digital he didn’t believe the incident was an intentional attack by Russian leadership, but demanded a formal admission of guilt, punishment for those responsible and full compensation – moves Russia has resisted, apologizing only vaguely for what they called a’tragic incident.’

And amid political divisions, Pashinyan finds himself in a conflict with one of the country’s most respected institutions  – the Armenian Apostolic Church, where figures like Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan have led public protests against Pashinyan’s decision to return border villages to Azerbaijan.

On June 25, authorities arrested Galstanyan, a leading figure in the church and of the ‘Sacred Struggle’ opposition movement, accusing him of orchestrating a terrorist plot to overthrow the government. Armenia’s Investigative Committee alleged he had recruited more than 1,000 former police and military personnel to stage bombings, disrupt power grids and paralyze transportation networks. 

Pashinyan assured that the judiciary system acted independently of his government and ‘in full accordance with the law of Armenia, respecting all the rights of all people.’

Smithsonian museums must represent the U.S. in a ‘fair’ manner and portray both the good and the bad of American history, according to President Donald Trump. 

Trump made his comments after the White House sent a letter to the Smithsonian Tuesday unveiling plans to conduct a review of its museums and exhibits in preparation for the 250th birthday of the United States in 2026.

‘We want the museums to treat our country fairly,’ Trump told reporters Thursday. ‘We want their museums to talk about the history of our country in a fair manner, not in a woke manner or in a racist manner, which is what many of them, not all of them, but many of them are doing.’ 

‘Our museums have an obligation to represent what happened in our country over the years. Good and bad,’ Trump said. ‘But what happened over the years in an accurate way.’ 

The Smithsonian told Fox News Digital it was reviewing the Trump administration’s letter and would work with the White House, Congress and its governing Board of Regents moving forward. 

‘The Smithsonian’s work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research and the accurate, factual presentation of history,’ the Smithsonian said in a statement. 

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, weighed in on the matter earlier Thursday, saying left-wing activists had ‘obscenely defaced’ the museum. 

‘The Smithsonian is supposed to be a global symbol of American strength, culture and prestige,’ Miller posted to X Thursday. ‘A place for families and children to celebrate American history and greatness. Instead, the exhibits have clearly been taken over by leftwing activists who have used the Smithsonian as yet one platform to endlessly bash America and rewrite / erase our magnificent story.

‘These activists have obscenely defaced this beloved institution,’ Miller added. ‘The Trump Administration will proudly and diligently restore the patriotic glory of America and ensure the Smithsonian is a place that once more inspires love and devotion to this nation, especially among our youngest citizens.’

The White House’s initial letter to the Smithsonian Tuesday said the review would evaluate social media, exhibition text and educational materials. This would be done to ‘assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,’ the letter said. 

‘This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,’ the letter said.

The review will focus on the following museums: the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.

Trump has taken previous steps to alter what content is shown in the Smithsonian museums and signed an executive order in March that placed Vice President JD Vance in charge of overseeing the removal of programs or exhibits that ‘degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.’ 

Vance has already moved to shake things up at the Smithsonian. 

Artist Amy Sherald canceled an exhibit scheduled to arrive at the Smithsonian in September that included a portrait of a transgender Statue of Liberty at the National Portrait Gallery after Vance claimed the show featured woke and divisive content, Fox News Digital first reported. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

The ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee penned a letter to the Department of Justice demanding information about Ghislaine Maxwell’s recent prison transfer and meeting with a top Trump administration official. 

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the recent transfer of Maxwell – a convicted sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend and alleged accomplice – out of a maximum security prison in Tallahassee, Florida, gives ‘the strong appearance’ that the Trump administration ‘is attempting to cover up the full extent of the relationship between President Trump and Mr. Epstein.’ 

In the letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Bureau of Prisons Director William K. Marshall III, Raskin said Maxwell’s new home at a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, provides ‘greater freedom for inmates.’ He argued that such an ‘extraordinary transfer’ would typically be ‘categorically off limits to sex offenders.’ 

‘These actions raise substantial concerns that the administration may now be attempting to tamper with a crucial witness, conceal President Trump’s relationship with convicted sex offenders, and coax Ms. Maxwell into providing false or misleading testimony in order to protect the President,’ Raskin wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by Fox News Digital. ‘The transfer also appears to violate both DOJ and Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies.’ 

The letter asked for a cache of documents related to why Maxwell was transferred from Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Tallahassee to Federal Prison Campe (FPC) Bryan. 

Raskin is also seeking a transcript and recording of Maxwell’s recent, hours-long meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche at the Tallahassee prison. 

‘These meetings were highly unusual for several reasons. Mr. Blanche, who until ten months ago served as Donald Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer, met with Ms. Maxwell and her attorney with no line prosecutors present. The meeting took place just days after DOJ leadership fired one of the chief career prosecutors on the Epstein matter,’ Raskin wrote, referencing the Justice Department’s firing of Maurene Comey from the Southern District of New York. 

Comey – the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey – most recently worked on the prosecution of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs. Her other high-profile cases include the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutions. 

The DOJ confirmed criminal investigations into her father – as well as former CIA Director John Brennan last month. 

Reached by Fox News Digital on Wednesday, a Justice Department spokesperson confirmed the receipt of Raskin’s letter but declined to comment further.

In his letter to Bondi and Marshall, Raskin further argued that convicted sex offenders would typically be barred from federal prison camps, which provide ‘access to the community,’ and any transfer would require ‘multiple levels of review that would ordinarily take months to complete.’ He said any approval of a transfer ‘typically requires new facts or evidence’ and even so, ‘an inmate would then have to join a months-long waitlist for an opening at a camp.’

‘Ms. Maxwell, however, appears to have short-circuited the entire review process and jumped the queue, receiving a place in Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Bryan within a matter of days,’ Raskin wrote. ‘Neither DOJ nor BOP has provided anything like a satisfactory explanation for providing Ms. Maxwell this uniquely favorable treatment.’ 

The letter – also signed by all Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee – seeks a list of any administration officials who ‘were aware of, were involved in, or approved’ of the transfer. Raskin also demanded information regarding ‘any possible benefits to Ms. Maxwell, including transfers, changes to conditions of confinement, pardons, commutation, or changes to DOJ positions in ongoing matters.’

Raskin acknowledged that Maxwell was recently subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee to testify. To Bondi and Marshall, the congressman said ‘there can be no question that your actions have served to send a clear message to Ms. Maxwell in the lead up to any testimony before Congress and the American public: this Administration can punish or reward her as it sees fit for its own purposes.’