There Is No Constitutional Shortcut to Slashing Spending

These programs have to be undone the same way they were created.

By Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, March 8, 2025 - On Thursday, a second federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from pausing federal spending. Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the federal district court in Rhode Island issued his ruling Thursday in a 45-page opinion. He joins Judge Loren L. AliKhan, of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., who issued a similar ruling in a 39-page opinion last week. ....

..  when it comes to freezing domestic spending, the president’s problem isn’t the partisan affiliation of the jurists; it’s the Constitution’s bedrock separation of powers principle.

Congress decides by statute what the government will spend taxpayer money on. The president’s job is to carry out those decisions — to execute the laws faithfully. The president lacks impoundment power of the extravagant breadth the administration likes to imagine.

... In terms of nullifying policy, a president may undo previously issued executive orders and agency guidance memos — although even with respect to that, the Supreme Court ... has required compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. A president, however, has no authority to negate statutes by executive order.

If Trump wants spending to conform to his policy priorities, he can veto future budget bills that don’t do so  ... the president has no power to “veto” that spending just because he disagrees with it.

... I’m not saying presidents have no impoundment power at all ...  A president may refuse to spend funds if he can establish that such spending would violate the law. .... A president may also pause spending for a reasonable period of time to ensure its lawfulness, provided that doing so does not countermand Congress’s directions about when the funds should be expended. 

... Beyond those narrow exceptions, the president cannot legitimately nullify spending Congress has enacted into law. When Congress writes a domestic spending law, it tends not to add the proviso “as long as expenditures are consistent with the president’s policy priorities.” That would get the Constitution exactly backward. The president takes an oath to carry out the laws, not rewrite them; and those laws predominantly reflect Congress’s priorities. (Read it all)

Rod's Comment: Please read the full article for an explanation of why a President cannot just refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. In the article, the nuances and case law are examined. Trump's refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress is clearly unconstitutional. There is a method to impound funds, but a procedure must be followed and that must involve Congress.  It is astounding that most Republicans can now justify governing in violation of the Constitution. I am pleased that National Review remains committed to the principle it has espoused since its founding while so many other Republicans and conservative organizations have abandoned those sacred principles. 

For more on this topic see the following:

Wall Street Journal: This Spending Fight Is Actually About the Constitution

National Constitution Center: The Constitution and the federal budget process

Competitive Enterprise Insitute: The Constitutionality of Presidential Impoundment

Cato Insitute: DOGE Can’t Slash Government Without Congress

Forbes: There Is A Legal Path For The President To Impound Funds

Top Stories

Wall Street Journal: Why Trump’s Idol, McKinley, Abandoned His Own Tariff Strategy

by Rod Williams, March 7, 2025 - President Trump loves tariffs of that there can be no doubt. He has said the word "tariffs" is the most beautiful word in the English language. He was an advocate of tariffs long before he even became president. He imposed some limited tariffs in his first term but surrounded by sane people who understand economics he was dissuaded from launching an all-out trade war. When running for President this last campaign he often spoke of tariffs, even saying he would use tariffs to fund the government and would abolish the income tax. 

Since taking office this second term, Trump announced tariffs on Mexico and Canada and China, then paused the tariffs on Mexico and Canada for thirty days, then instated tariffs on those two countries at the end of that thirty days, then said he would pause the tariffs of auto imports from Canada for thirty days, then he paused almost all tariffs on Mexico and Canada. Also, on April 2nd he has promised so-called reciprocal tariffs on almost all countries. He has stalled the tariffs and waffled so much it is hard to keep track. While Trump loves tariffs, he also does not want to see a stock market crash and the stock market tumbled as a result Trump's tariff policy, so one may assume that is what has led to Trump's on again-off again waffling. 

In addition to the on again-off again actions on tariffs, Trump's reason for imposing tariffs have been all over the place. One reason he offers is that he is imposing tariffs to force Mexico and Canada to do something about the fentanyl problem in America, although it is hard to see how imposing tariffs would affect the fentanyl trafficking issue and despite the fact that only about 1% of the fentanyl imports come from Canada. 

Trump has also offered as a justification for imposing tariffs the raising of revenue, the protection of American industries from competition, and because "we have been treated so unfairly." A lot of this makes no sense. Tariffs almost always punish the importing country as much or more that the exporting country. As much as Trump may deny it, tariffs are paid by the importer of goods, and ultimately the purchaser of imported goods, and not the exporter of goods. 

Tariffs can do several things. They can raise revenue, they can protect domestic producers, they can enhance national security, and they can get other nations to change behavior. They cannot do all of these things at once. They can also weaken alliances, cause an increase in prices even included the price of goods not subject to the tariff, destroy export industries, and lead to a worldwide economic collapse. Also, tariffs are subject to the Laffer Curve effect just like taxes on income or consumption. At a certain level, lower tariff rates bring in more revenue than higher tariff rates and we do not know the shape or the slope of the curve. To increase tariffs to bring in more revenue can backfire. 

President Donald Trump has often cited the 25th President, William McKinley, as an inspiration for tariffs. He again praised McKinley and tariffs in this recent not state of the union address to Congress.  The ‘McKinley Tariffs’ were some of the largest hikes in U.S. history, but in his second term, McKinley changed his mind, and argued for more free international trade as a way of helping the U.S. economy. The above video explains why McKinley changed his mind on tariffs.

Let us hope that Trump can learn from hero William McKinley and see the folly of shooting ourselves in the foot. 

Top Stories

Lech Walesa, Polish Labor Leader Who Liberated Poland from Communism and Other Polish Prisoners of War Denounce Trump’s Treatment of Zelensky

by Rod Williams, March 7, 2025- If you are a person under the age of fifty or so or one who was not paying attention during the end of the Soviet era, you may only vaguely be aware of Lech Walesa.  He was the leader of the trade union Solidarity in Communist Poland when such unions and almost all non-government associations were banned. At the time Poland was dominated by the Soviet Union. Before Walesa lead Poland to freedom and cast-off the yoke of Soviet domination, a nation that had once gone Communist had never regained its freedom. Walesa did what had never been done before.

If I were creating a list of the ten greatest champions of freedom the world has ever known, Leck Walesa would be near the top of that list. He is a great man. He is a hero. His action led to freedom for Poland, the break in the iron curtain that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the death of Communism as potent political force and a seductive ideology. 

After Poland cast off the yoke of Communism and gained its independence, Walesa became the first president of Poland.

Former Polish president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Wałęsa has written a letter, co-signed by 38 other former political prisoners of Poland’s Communist regime, to Donald Trump, condemning the US president’s treatment of Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine. Here is that letter as translated and posted to Facebook:

Your Excellency Mr President,

We watched the report of your conversation with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenski with fear and distaste. We consider your expectations to show respect and gratitude for the material help provided by the United States fighting Russia to Ukraine insulting. Gratitude is due to the heroic Ukrainian soldiers who shed their blood in defense of the values of the free world. They have been dying on the frontline for more than 11 years in the name of these values and independence of their Homeland, which was attacked by Putin's Russia.

We do not understand how the leader of a country that is the symbol of the free world cannot see it.

Our panic was also caused by the fact that the atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation reminded us of one we remember well from Security Service interrogations and from the debate rooms in Communist courts. Prosecutors and judges at the behest of the all-powerful communist political police also explained to us that they hold all the cards and we hold none. They demanded us to stop our business, arguing that thousands of innocent people suffer because of us. They deprived us of our freedoms and civil rights because we refused to cooperate with the government and our gratitude. We are shocked that Mr. President Volodymyr Zelenski treated in the same way.

The history of the 20th century shows that every time the United States wanted to keep its distance from democratic values and its European allies, it ended up being a threat to themselves. This was understood by President Woodrow Wilson, who decided to join the United States in World War I in 1917. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this, deciding after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 that the war for the defense of America would be fought not only in the Pacific, but also in Europe, in alliance with the countries attacked by the Third Reich.

We remember that without President Ronald Reagan and American financial commitment it would not have been possible to bring the collapse of the Soviet Union empire. President Reagan was aware that millions of enslaved people were suffering in Soviet Russia and the countries it conquered, including thousands of political prisoners who paid for their sacrifice in defense of democratic values with freedom. His greatness was m. in. on the fact that he without hesitation called the USSR the "Empire of Evil" and gave it a decisive fight. We won, and the statue of President Ronald Reagan stands today in Warsaw vis a vis of the US embassy.

Mr. President, material aid - military and financial - cannot be equivalent to the bloodshed in the name of independence and freedom of Ukraine, Europe, as well as the whole free world. Human life is priceless, its value cannot be measured with money. Gratitude is due to those who make the sacrifice of blood and freedom. It is obvious for us, the people of "Solidarity", former political prisoners of the communist regime serving Soviet Russia.

We are calling for the United States to withdraw from the guarantees it made with the Great Britain in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which recorded a direct obligation to defend the intact borders of Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons resources. These guarantees are unconditional: there is no word about treating such aid as an economic exchange.

Lech Wales, b. political prisoner, Solidarity leader, president of the Republic of Poland III
Mark Bailin, b. political prisoner, editor of independent publishing houses
Severn Blumstein, b. political prisoner, member of the Workers' Defense Committee
Teresa Bogucka, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition and Solidarity
Gregory Bogut, b. political prisoner, activist of democratic opposition, independent publisher
Mark Borowik, b. political prisoner, independent publisher
Bogdan Borusewicz, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Gdansk
Zbigniew Bujak, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Warsaw
Władysław Frasyniuk, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Wrocław
Andrew Gintzburg, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Richard Grabarczyk, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Alexander Janiszewski, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Peter Kapczy otrski, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Mark Kossakowski, b. political prisoner, independent publicist
Christopher the King, b. a political prisoner , independence activist
Jaroslav Kurski, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Barbara Swan, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Bogdan Lis, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Gdansk
Henryk Majewski, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Adam Michnik, b. political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition, editor of independent publishing houses
Slavomir Najniger, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Peter the German , b. political prisoner, journalist, and printer of underground publishing houses,
Stefan Konstanty Niesiołowski, b. a political prisoner , independence activist
Edward Nowak, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Wojciech Onyszkiewicz, b. political prisoner, member of the Workers' Defence Committee, Solidarity activist
Anthony Pawlak, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition and underground Solidarity
Sylwia Poleska-Peryt, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Christopher Push, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Richard Push, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity,
Jacek Rakowiecki, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Andrew Severn, b. political prisoner, actor, director of the Polish Theater in Warsaw
Witold Sielewicz, b. political prisoner, printer of independent publishing houses
Henryk Sikora, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Christopher Siemien Krski, b. political prisoner, journalist, and printer of underground publishing houses
Gra ,yna Staniszewska, b. a political prisoner, leaders of Solidarity of the Beskids region
George Degrees, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Joanna Happy, b. political prisoner, editor of Solidarity underground press
Ludwik Turko, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Matthew Wierzbicki, b. political prisoner, printer and publicist of independent publishing houses

Top Stories

Trump's Statement About Balancing the Federal Budget is a Claim at Utter and Complete Odds with Fiscal Reality and the Policies he is Promising

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, March 5, 2025 - Yesterday, President Trump laid out his economic and other policy priorities in his first address to a joint session of Congress of his second term. In addition to outlining his policies regarding extensions of the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; removal of taxes on overtime, tipped income, and Social Security benefits; and other campaign promises, he stated, “In the near future, I want to do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget. We are going to balance it.” 

The following is a statement from Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 

The President’s statements about wanting to balance the budget can be taken in two ways: one as a positive acknowledgement of the need to prioritize fiscal responsibility; or the other, a claim at utter and complete odds with fiscal reality and the policies he is promising.  

Troublingly, America's fiscal imbalances have grown so large that balancing the budget is likely out of reach in the medium term. It would take nearly $17 trillion in ten-year savings to balance the budget by 2035. For context, the largest savings package in the past dozen years, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, saved $1.5 trillion over a decade.  

Fiscal goals are more effective when they are aspirational, yes, but more importantly, reasonable and achievable as well. With our national debt on course to reach its highest share of the economy we’ve ever seen, we urgently need solutions to match the rhetoric. One reasonable goal proposed by the Treasury Secretary is to bring the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP. This requires $7.5 trillion of savings over ten years, and while aggressive, it is doable if Congress starts immediately and scours all parts of the budget, including both spending and taxes. But taking Social Security and Medicare off the table, which the President has previously promised, would make this much more difficult, and extending the tax cuts and adding his campaign agenda would make the problem $5 to $11 trillion worse. 

Exaggerated claims about economic growth will not fill the gap. Proponents of counting on sustained growth to wipe away big chunks of the deficit are relying on assumptions that are many multiples higher than all credible estimates. 

Our fiscal hole has grown dangerously large. It now threatens American households, the US economy, future generations, and even our national security. Dealing with these fiscal challenges will require acknowledging the trade-offs, rejecting free-lunch theories, and pursuing bipartisan efforts to make some of the long-overdue hard choices.  

We applaud the goal of improving the fiscal situation, but it does no good and serves as a distraction unless it is backed with achievable metrics and a real plan. Congress should make deficit reduction its number one fiscal goal and put in place a comprehensive debt deal to boost long-term economic growth and control our dangerous and growing national debt.  

Rod's Comment: The CRFB is a non-partisan, think tank focused on economic, fiscal, and monetary policy. For many years The CRFB was disparaged by liberals as budget hawks and dismissed as a conservative organization. They have always provided honest analysis of policy proposals and have advocated honest accounting and scoring. They have not changed but in the Trump years their analysis has shown Republican policies to be more irresponsible than Democrat policies. The CRFB is one of the organizations I find worth of my civic giving. I have been a supporter for many years. To learn more about the organization follow this link.

Top Stories

Should Zelinsky Apologize?

by Rod Williams, March 4, 2025- Should Zelinsky apologize? In a fair world, no. In a fair world, Trump and J. D. Vance should apologize.  However, if a thug has a knife to your throat or is holding your children hostage threatening to kill them and demanding you apologize, then it may be wise to apologize, flatter, and kiss ass. If Zelinsky has to grovel to save his country, I will not think less of him. I understand the circumstances. 

Top Stories

Why Economists Hate Trump's Tariff Plan

by Rod Williams, March 4, 2025- President Trump's 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% tariffs on imports from China went into effect at midnight last night. In anticipation of the effects of this, the stock market took a dip of about 1.5% yesterday. That may not seem like a lot, and we will have to wait and see if it recovers or if there is further decline, but that is reason to be concerned. Also, Canada and Mexico are not taking this lying down. Canada is threatening to cut electricity they send to America and may leave some cities in the dark, in the event of a heat wave and may leave American car manufacturers without the electricity they need to keep their plants open. 

It is estimated that the new tariffs will cost the typical household about $1250 a year. Many products will see price increases including fruits and vegetables and houses and cars. The cost of a new pickup truck will increase by about $4000 and the price of an electric vehicle will jump about $12,000. Yet Trump supporters support the tariffs.

I don't know what it is that causes Trump supporters to believe everything Trump says. Maybe it is because they saw Trump play a smart guy on The Apprentice and they think he is smart.  Maybe because we have had preached to us for so long a message of egalitarianism, that we think it is elitist to defer to people who are better informed. Maybe we have been conditioned to question experts, whether it is about vaccines or economics.  Maybe it is because there are simply a lot of ignorant people in America. If I was saying what I said in the above paragraphs to the typical Trump supporter, after getting a "fake news," I would be told that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they disagreed. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion but there are informed opinion and uninformed opinion. The opinion of the overwhelming majority of economist are that tariffs are bad for the economy. 

In addition to believing Trump that tariffs are a beneficial, many MAGA people also believe that when we impose a tariff on a county that it is that country that pays the tariff. That is simply not so. When a good is imported, it is not the exporter that pays the tariff, but the importer. This is simply a fact. The importer then makes a payment to the Federal government. Of course, the importer cannot simply eat an additional 25% in cost, and they must pass that cost on to the consumer. 

Not only do tariffs cause the price of the imported item to increase but it can cause the price of items not subject to the tariff to increase in price also. As people switch to the item not subject to the tariffs, that creates more demand for those items which can lead to higher prices. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. You may not believe in gravity but step off a buildings ledge and you will fall. Some economic facts are as true as the facts of physical science. 

Below is a video from the Wall Street Journal that explains tariffs in easy-to-understand simple terms. It addresses some of the arguments in favor of tariffs and explains why those arguments are wrong. 

Top Stories

At Least Now We Know the Truth

It’s ugly, but necessary to face.

By David Frum, The Atlantic, Feb. 28, 2025- At least the Oval Office meeting held by President Donald Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was held in front of the cameras. False friendliness in public by Trump and Vance, followed by behind-the-scenes treachery, would have been much more dangerous to the Ukrainian cause.

Instead, Trump and Vance have revealed to Americans and to America’s allies their alignment with Russia, and their animosity toward Ukraine in general and its president in particular. The truth is ugly, but it’s necessary to face it.

.... Both the president and vice president showed the U.S.-led alliance system something it needed urgently to know: The national-security system of the West is led by two men who cannot be trusted to defend America’s allies—and who deeply sympathize with the world’s most aggressive dictator.

.... The American people need to reckon with the mess Trump and Vance are making of this country’s once-good name—and the services they are performing for dictators and aggressors. There may not be a deep cause here. Trump likes and admires bad people because he is himself a bad person.

.... The good and great America that once inspired global admiration—that good and great America still lives. But it no longer commands a consensus above party. The pro-Trump party exposed its face to the world in the Oval Office today. Nobody who saw that face will ever forget the grotesque sight. (read it all)

Top Stories

Tennessean Guest Columnist Denty Cheatham: American history shows Trump should be on Ukraine's side, not for Russia's Putin.

 I worry that many Americans will listen to President Trump's words and fail to realize it is in our national interest to continue our military support for Ukraine.

by Denty Cheatham, Guest Columnist, The Tennessean, March 2, 2025- Recently, I listened to a conversation between Tennessean columnist Cameron Smith and Super Talk 99.7 WTN radio personality Matt Murphy about the war in Ukraine.

Murphy started the conversation by reading President Trump's recent statement in which he claimed, among other things, that Ukraine started the war.

This is an absurd lie. Ukraine, a much smaller nation than Russia, is the victim of an unprovoked invasion, which its people have courageously pushed back, to the extent that after nearly three years of war Ukraine still controls 80% of the country.

Its people have suffered thousands of casualties, and although reliable totals are not known, all the reports indicate the Russians have suffered far more. ... I heard talk in the conversation of Murphy and Smith about "boots on the ground." But in this war our Ukrainian allies have not asked for that and appear willing to shed as much of their blood as it takes to defend their country.

Putin will become more aggressive if he conquers Ukraine

.... Putin has. said he wants to restore the empire Russia, and later the Soviet Union, used to have. Obviously, if he took over Ukraine he is not likely to stop there. In fact, success in taking Ukraine would encourage him to continue his aggression.

The idea that what happens in Europe is no concern of ours is a wrong idea that we should know was wrong from World War I, which we finally decided to enter, proclaiming we needed to "make the world safe for democracy" three years after it started.

Despite that experience, some people, like Trump today, said we should put “America First” and stay out of European affairs while Hitler took Austria and Czechoslovakia, increasing his power before he invaded Poland and started World War II. ...

Will we honor sacrifices of American solders in both world wars?

I worry that many Americans, not as experienced as this 83-year-old and knowing less history, will listen to President Trump's words that are obviously influenced by his mysterious attachment to Putin, a murderous dictator and war criminal, and fail to realize it is in our national interest to continue our military support for Ukraine.

Indeed, to fail to do so, under the circumstances, should be considered a failure to properly honor and respect our soldiers who served and sacrificed themselves in two world wars to maintain peace and freedom in Europe. (read it all)

Denty Cheatham of Nashville is a lawyer with more than 50 years of experience and a partner with his wife in the law firm Cheatham & Palermo.

Top Stories

Putin Wins the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office Spectacle

 Vice President Vance starts a public fight that only helps Russia’s dictator.

By The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 28, 2025- Toward the end of his on-camera, Oval Office brawl with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday, President Trump quipped that it was “great television.” He’s right about that. But the point of the meeting was supposed to be progress toward an honorable peace for Ukraine, and in the event the winner was Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media on Friday afternoon after the exchange, while booting the Ukrainian president from the White House. “He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” The two didn’t sign a planned agreement on minerals that would have at least given Ukraine some hope of future U.S. support.

The meeting between Messrs. Trump and Zelensky started out smoothly enough. ... But then the meeting, in front of the world, descended into recriminations. The nose dive began with an odd interjection from Vice President JD Vance, who appeared to be defending Mr. Trump’s diplomacy, which Mr. Zelensky hadn’t challenged. Mr. Zelensky rehearsed the many peace agreements Mr. Putin has shredded and essentially asked Mr. Vance what would be different this time.

Mr. Vance unloaded on Mr. Zelensky—that he was “disrespectful,” low on manpower, and gives visitors to Ukraine a “propaganda” tour. 

Why did the Vice President try to provoke a public fight? Mr. Vance has been taking to his X.com account in what appears to be an effort to soften up the political ground for a Ukraine surrender, most recently writing off Mr. Putin’s brutal invasion as a mere ethnic rivalry. Mr. Vance dressed down Mr. Zelensky as if he were a child late for dinner. He claimed the Ukrainian hadn’t been grateful enough for U.S. aid, though he has thanked America countless times for its support. This was not the behavior of a wannabe statesman.

Mr. Zelensky would have been wiser to defuse the tension by thanking the U.S. again, and deferring to Mr. Trump. There’s little benefit in trying to correct the historical record in front of Mr. Trump when you’re also seeking his help.

But as with the war, Mr. Zelensky didn’t start this Oval Office exchange. Was he supposed to tolerate an extended public denigration of the Ukrainian people, who have been fighting a war for survival for three years?

It is bewildering to see Mr. Trump’s allies defending this debacle as some show of American strength. The U.S. interest in Ukraine is shutting down Mr. Putin’s imperial project of reassembling a lost Soviet empire without U.S. soldiers ever having to fire a shot. That core interest hasn’t changed, but berating Ukraine in front of the entire world will make it harder to achieve.

Turning Ukraine over to Mr. Putin would be catastrophic for that country and Europe, but it would be a political calamity for Mr. Trump too. The U.S. President can’t simply walk away from that conflict, much as he would like to. Ukraine has enough weapons support to last until sometime this summer. But as the war stands, Mr. Putin sees little reason to make any concessions as his forces gain ground inch by bloody inch in Ukraine’s east.

Friday’s spectacle won’t make him any more willing to stop his onslaught as he sees the U.S. President and his eager deputy unload on Ukraine’s leader. Some Trumpologists have been suggesting Mr. Trump will put pressure on Mr. Putin in due time. But so far Mr. Putin hasn’t made a single concession on territory, or on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future after a peace deal is signed.

President Trump no doubt resents having to deal with a war he thinks he might have prevented had he won in 2020. But Presidents have to deal with the world they inherit. Peace in Ukraine is salvageable, but he and Mr. Zelensky will have to work together on an agreement that Ukrainians can live with.

Mr. Trump does not want to be the President who abandoned Ukraine to Vladimir Putin with all the bloodshed and damage to U.S. interests that would result. Mr. Vance won’t like to run for President in such a world either.

Top Stories