1 month ago
3
PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: The new Ukraine-U.S. minerals deal creates a joint investment fund aimed at rebuilding Ukraine and expanding its ability to mine and extract critical resources like rare earth minerals. Notably, the U.S. contribution to the fund will partially come in the form of future military aid, though the agreement does not provide Ukraine with any military security guarantees.
👥 Who’s Involved: The agreement involves the United States and Ukraine, with significant involvement from national leaders Donald J. Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
📍 Where & When: The deal was signed late on Wednesday.
💬 Key Quote: “I am glad to announce the signing of today’s historic economic partnership agreement between the United States and Ukraine establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund to help accelerate Ukraine’s economic recovery. Economic security is national security.” — Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.
⚠️ Impact: The deal could increase America’s stake in the Ukrainian economy, potentially paving the way for security guarantees to preserve American interests.
IN FULL:
Ukraine’s new minerals deal with the United States does not include security guarantees but does outline the creation of a joint investment fund between the two nations. According to the agreement text, the U.S. will manage the fund, and its income will be derived from Ukraine’s mineral resources.
The deal covers several strategic resources, such as titanium, used in construction and aircraft, uranium for nuclear power and weapons, and lithium, a vital component of electric vehicles and consumer electronic batteries.
“I am glad to announce the signing of today’s historic economic partnership agreement between the United States and Ukraine establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund to help accelerate Ukraine’s economic recovery. Economic security is national security,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said.
Ukraine has succeeded in removing a condition that would have labeled previous U.S. aid as debt requiring repayment via mineral wealth. This aspect of the agreement is seen as a compromise to avoid embarrassment for the Ukrainian government.
Key to the deal is its potential to foster U.S. interests in Ukraine, aligning the U.S. government’s strategic goals with the fate of the Ukrainian state.
The finalized deal also maintains the opportunity for Ukraine to join the European Union (EU), keeping an essential future pathway to Western integration open. Potential NATO membership for Ukraine remains more elusive and is not supported by President Trump.
PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain or deport a group of Venezuelan illegal immigrants from a Texas facility.
👥 Who’s Involved: U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez, the Trump administration, Venezuelan illegal immigrants alleged to be part of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
📍 Where & When: Southern Texas, with the ruling issued on Thursday, May 1.
💬 Key Quote: Judge Rodriguez claims the president’s invocation of the AEA through proclamation “exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
⚠️ Impact: The administration is barred from using the AEA and Trump’s proclamation to detain or remove the migrants, but removal proceedings can still proceed under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
IN FULL:
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald J. Trump‘s March 15 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to expedite the deportation of illegal immigrants residing in the United States exceeds the statutory authority laid out in the law. U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez—appointed to the bench in 2018 during Trump’s first term in office—issued the decision on Thursday, determining that the America First leader cannot use the AEA as a legal justification for holding or deporting illegal immigrants either residing or detained in the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Texas.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote in his ruling. He continued: “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States… The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the president can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of TdA,” the judge continued, concluding: “As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the president’s invocation of the AEA through the proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
Notably, Tren de Aragua has been officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization, and the FBI reportedly has evidence that the Venezuelan government is aiding its infiltration of the U.S.
The lawsuit, initially filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the subsequent ruling come as a blow to the Trump White House’s push to swiftly deport dangerous, criminal illegal immigrants. Should the administration appeal Judge Rodriguez’s decision, the conservative-dominated 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, would hear the case. However, the 5th Circuit has shown a penchant in the past to rule against actions it sees as constitutional overreach by the Executive Branch, especially on the issue of immigration. Previously, the appellate court ruled against measures enacted by former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama aimed at allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
Notably, Judge Rodriguez took over the case from James Boasberg, who serves as the chief judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The change in venue and judge occurred after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that legal challenges to President Trump’s deportations can only be filed in the court district where the deported person resides or is detained. In addition, the Supreme Court determined that lower court rulings on the matter only apply to the judge’s respective judicial district.
While still presiding over the case earlier this year, Judge Boasberg issued a temporary halt to the deportation of illegal Venezuelan immigrants under the AEA in a bizarre order that demanded the Trump administration recall two planes that were over international waters carrying deportees to El Salvador.
show less
English (US) ·