That wasn’t close to accurate.

Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of Zelensky in a poll conducted in Ukraine from late November to early January, by a group of academics in partnership with a prominent Ukrainian pollster. And 57% of respondents said they trusted Zelensky in a February poll conducted by that pollster, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

Recent polling suggests Zelensky remains at a similar level of public support. A Gallup poll conducted in early July found 67% of respondents said they approved of Zelensky, and a Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll conducted in late July and early August found 58% of respondents said they trusted Zelensky – down from his 2025 peak of 74% in May but in the vicinity of his figures earlier in the year and most of last year.

Johnson: GOP will ‘defy history when we grow the majority in the House’

Ukrainian support for a quick end to the war

Trump claimed Monday: “I’ve seen a poll coming out of Ukraine: 88% of the people would like to see a deal made. And if you go back three years, everybody was gung-ho for war.”

Trump was right that Ukrainian support for a negotiated quick end to the war has soared since 2022. However, it’s not “88%” in any public poll CNN could find. The Gallup poll in early July found 69% of respondents supported Ukraine seeking to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible – a new high in Gallup polling, and way up from 22% in 2022, but still far from Trump’s figure.

When CNN asked the White House what “88%” poll Trump was referring to, the official said that the president’s claim is corroborated by the Gallup poll – whose figure, again, is 69%. The official said, “The President is right. The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians want to see a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, as evidenced in this Gallup poll.”

If Trump had said “overwhelming majority,” his claim would have been accurate. But he said “88%,” which was inaccurate.

For context, it’s also worth noting that the Gallup poll did not ask Ukrainians what kind of deal to end the war they would support; Olga Onuch, a University of Manchester professor who conducts polling in Ukraine, noted that Gallup’s finding wasn’t that 69% of respondents are “willing to accept territorial concessions.” The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll in late July and early August found widely varying levels of support for different potential proposals, with strong opposition to ideas previously floated by Russia.

Zelensky and aid money

During his February barrage of criticism against Zelensky, Trump falsely claimed on social media that Zelensky “admits that half of the money we sent him is ‘MISSING.’”

Zelensky never said that. Rather, in comments mischaracterized by some viral social media posts, Zelensky took issue with inflated claims about how much US cash Ukraine had received.

Zelensky told the Associated Press in February that although people talked about Ukraine getting as much as $200 billion in US aid, Ukraine had actually received about $76 billion, largely in the form of weapons. Zelensky said he didn’t know where all the supposed additional money had gone and that perhaps these higher figures were correct “on paper,” according to a translation by the news outlet Ukrainska Pravda.

That was not a confession that half of US cash had vanished. In reality, Zelensky was saying what experts in the US and elsewhere had repeatedly pointed out – that a large chunk of US support for Ukraine is not in the form of money handed to the Ukrainian government.

The White House official claimed Thursday that “Zelensky did say” what Trump claimed he said. But Zelensky simply didn’t. As supposed evidence, the official linked to a Washington Post article that noted Trump’s claim did not describe “exactly what Zelensky said.”

The Post article explained how Zelensky’s comments were in line with the fact that tens of billions of the US funds counted as Ukraine assistance were “not earmarked for Ukraine” but instead were spent on “sending equipment through drawdowns from U.S. stockpiles, enhancing U.S. military capabilities, humanitarian aid funneled through organizations in Europe, including for refugees, global food security, sanctions enforcement, economic aid through the World Bank and more.”

Biden warns ‘these are dark days’ under Trump administration

Trump and Putin leave Alaska with no Ukraine deal

US President Donald Trump has left Alaska without a deal to end the war in Ukraine, following a high-stakes meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

“There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump told the world’s media following the meeting, adding that “great progress” was made but “we didn’t get there”.

On his flight back to Washington he held a call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, who later said he would travel to Washington on Monday. European leaders were also on the call.

Despite the fanfare around the summit – and Trump’s confidence in being able to achieve a ceasefire – no tangible progress was made towards a resolution to the war in Ukraine.

Every stage of the leaders’ arrival at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage was carefully choreographed.

Putin, who is facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, stepped off his jet and onto a red carpet to be warmly greeted by Trump.

Over the roar of a B2 bomber overhead, the two leaders posed for photos before climbing in Trump’s presidential vehicle, known as The Beast.

But despite the pageantry and public shows of geniality – as well as the Kremlin’s earlier estimate that the meeting could last six or seven hours – Trump and Putin emerged less than three hours later with just a joint statement to the press.

Putin said that, in order to make a “settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate the root causes of the conflict” in Ukraine.

The phrase indicated that Putin has not budged from his longstanding position that Ukraine should withdraw from four regions partially occupied by Russia – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia – and give up its efforts to join the Nato military alliance.

Zelensky has ruled out retreating from the four embattled region, warning that would leave the door open for an emboldened Russia to mount another offensive in the future. Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, after annexing the Crimean peninsula in 2014.

Putin also urged Ukrainians and Europeans to “not throw a wrench” into the peace process. Trump remained silent as his guest spent about eight minutes addressing the media.

After being given the floor, the US president said he had a “fantastic relationship with President Putin. Vladimir,” switching to the Russian leader’s first name.

Even though “many points were agreed to”, he said, “a few” remain, adding that “one is the most significant” – without specifying what that key sticking point was. Neither took questions.

The two also did not attend the planned bilateral “working lunch” that was set to follow the talks.

An interview on Fox News after the meeting offered few additional details.

The meeting went “very well”, Trump told host Sean Hannity, adding “maybe we’ll have a good result”.

Heading into the Alaska meeting, Trump had threatened “very severe consequences” if his Russian counterpart did not agree to end the war. In July, he said he’d impose 100% secondary tariffs targeting Russia’s remaining trade partners if a peace deal with Ukraine was not reached within 50 days.

But questioned on Fox News over where the meeting left those threats, Trump said: “We don’t have to think about it today.”

“Maybe in two weeks, three weeks,” he said, “but the meeting went very well.”

Asked about a possible trilateral summit including Zelensky, Trump said: “They both want me there and I’ll be there,” without giving a date or location for meeting.

Conspicuously absent from the Alaska meeting was the Ukrainian leader who, like Putin, has elicited a range of reactions from Trump since he returned to the Oval Office.

The two had a lengthy call on the flight back to Washington DC, before other Nato leaders including UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer joined the conversation.

Zelensky said he would travel to Washington on Monday to meet Trump, and that he supported Trump’s proposal for a trilateral meeting.

He noted “positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security” – something European allies have called for as part of a combined effort to prevent another conflict.

Those in Ukraine may breathe a sigh of relief that no deal that would cede territory to Russia had been reached.

But they may also be alarmed that Putin continued to use rhetoric that seeks to justify the original objective of the invasion – to dismantle Ukraine as an independent state.

D.C. police chief remains in command under deal with Trump administration

With fighter jets, a red carpet and a hopeful slogan — “Pursuing Peace” — plastered on the wall, President Donald Trump welcomed his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin for a summit in Alaska on Friday whose results remained entirely unclear once it abruptly ended.

After meeting for nearly three hours, the two men emerged to proclaim progress. But they exited their scheduled news conference without explaining what, exactly, they have achieved.

One thing that was evident: There was no deal made. And the ceasefire Trump said he wanted in place when the summit ended was far from becoming a reality as he increasingly put the onus on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “make a deal.”

“There were many, many points that we agreed on – most of them, I would say,” Trump said at the news conference, speaking after Putin. “A couple of big ones that we haven’t quite gotten there, but we’ve made some headway.”

“There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump pronounced.

He and Putin departed the stage without answering questions.

It was an inconclusive end to a showy summit that — for all its unknowns — did seem to decisively welcome Putin back into the diplomatic fold.

Still, for all of the pomp and protocol, the indications of how difficult Trump’s task will be were evident from the moment the meeting began.

Emergency services workers extinguish a fire, causeed by the explosion of a Russian drone, at the central market in Sumy, Ukraine, earlier in the day on Friday.

Francisco Richart Barbeira/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Just as the presidents were greeting each other on the Elmendorf Air Force Base tarmac, alerts went out in Ukraine about incoming Russian drones and aircraft — a sign of Putin’s intent to keep up his war, even as Trump was lavishing him with trappings of respect on US soil.

Ghislaine Maxwell told DOJ Trump never did anything concerning around her: Sources

Here are key takeaways from Friday’s summit in Anchorage:

Progress but not a deal

Both Trump and Putin offered a vague accounting of a meeting that stretched for hours.

“We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to,” Trump told reporters. “There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

In an interview immediately after the summit, Trump was asked by Fox News’ Sean Hannity about territorial concessions that would give Russia land it didn’t previously have and about potential US security assurances for Ukraine.

“Well, I think those are points that we negotiated, and those are points that we largely have agreed on,” Trump said without elaborating.

He stressed that Ukraine “has to agree to it.” Asked what his advice was for Zelensky, Trump responded: “Gotta make a deal.”

In the lead-up to the talks, it was always clearer what an unsuccessful outcome would look like than a successful one. Trump had vowed to “walk” if he didn’t like what Putin was saying, threatened to downgrade the joint news conference to a solo appearance and said “severe” consequences would come for Moscow if the war didn’t end.

But as he flew to Anchorage, Trump said he didn’t know what success would look like — suggesting he would recognize it when he saw it.

It turns out, success was just as hard to identify after the summit as it was when it began.

Trump says he’ll be at potential Putin-Zelensky meeting

In his Fox interview, Trump said both Putin and Zelensky want him at a potential second meeting — which he had said before the summit would be his ultimate objective.

“They both want me there, and I’ll be there,” he told Hannity.

Trump said nothing about the prospect of a trilateral meeting at the news conference, only indicating he would get on the telephone with “the various people that I think are appropriate” — including Zelensky — to update them on the talks.

The shadows of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are cast during a press conference following their meeting.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

But the only forthcoming meeting mentioned during Trump and Putin’s joint appearance was a potential follow-up with the Russian leader.

“We’ll speak to you very soon, and probably see you again very soon,” Trump said.

“Next time in Moscow,” Putin responded in English — a suggestion that would appear to exclude Zelensky from the discussion.

Putin back in from the cold

Soon after his arrival in the US, Putin’s grin as he peered out the window of Trump’s limousine said everything: after years of western isolation, he was back in the most powerful nation on earth.

It had been 10 years since Putin was last in America and several more since he was welcomed to the country for a major presidential summit. After he invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Russian leader was made a pariah by many leaders, unwelcome in most western nations and even threatened with an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court. (Alaska was a desirable location for the summit, in part, because the US is not a member of the ICC.)

People watch a broadcast of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, from a restaurant in the Brighton Beach neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.

Andres Kudacki/Getty Images

But Putin’s isolation ended when his plane landed in Anchorage. With a red carpet welcome, a flyover of fighter jets and a round of applause from the US president himself, the message from Trump was clear: Putin was back in from the cold. Their smiling greeting was hailed on Russian state television as a “historic handshake.”

Though Putin is still not welcome in many places in Europe, the decision to host him by Trump — who oversees the world’s largest economy and its most powerful military — does more to erode attempts at diplomatic shunning than any other leader could attempt.

That became clearer when Putin climbed into Trump’s armored vehicle, an unusual gesture that seemed to capture in an instant the Russian leader’s return to global diplomacy. Even without any major progress, it was, for him, a victory.

Aides were added to what had been billed as a one-on-one

The surprise came just as Trump was landing: No longer would he be meeting Putin one-on-one, with only their translators present. Instead, two aides would join each leader for their bilateral talks.

That was different from earlier in the week, when the White House said the summit would include a one-on-one component. A US official said it was a late change but offered no explanation for why the format shifted.

Trump’s one-on-one meetings with Putin during his first term were shrouded in a degree of mystery. With only a translator inside the room, it was often unclear what exactly was discussed. Aides sometimes had a difficult time ascertaining if the two men reached any agreements. After one such meeting, in Germany, Trump asked his interpreter to discard his notes.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Marco Rubio talks before the joint news conference.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

The addition of two aides to Friday’s session — Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff — could allow for greater clarity in the coming days, particularly if Russia offers an accounting of events that differs from the US perspective.

Still, there was one moment that only Trump and Putin will be able to recount: their brief ride in the presidential limousine from the tarmac to the room where the meeting took place. No one else was in the car with them except Secret Service agents — no advisers or even translators.

That leaves the contents of their brief chat known only to them.

D.C. police chief remains in command under deal with Trump administration

The scope of city-federal cooperation on immigration enforcement remained an open question in the court-ordered negotiations.

The two sides opened talks on Friday afternoon at Reyes’ insistence during a hearing on a city lawsuit challenging Trump’s move to assume full control of D.C. law enforcement by invoking a never-before-used emergency clause of the district’s 50-year-old-plus home rule charter.

The lawsuit, filed by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, had sought a court order blocking the takeover as illegal.

During oral arguments on Friday, Reyes expressed skepticism that the Trump administration has legal authority to run the city’s police force or that Cole could effectively take charge of the department as its chief.

“I still do not understand on what basis the president, through the attorney general, through Mr. Cole, can say: ‘You, police department, can’t do anything unless I say you can,'” Reyes told a Justice Department lawyer.

TRUMP DECLARES CRIME ‘EMERGENCY’

Trump said on Monday he was deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington and temporarily taking over the city’s police department to curb what he depicted as a crime emergency in the U.S. capital.

According to U.S. Justice Department data, violent crime in 2024 hit a 30-year low in the city, technically a self-governing federal district under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress.

Federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the DEA, have deployed agents to patrol the streets and carry out arrests. On Thursday, Bondi escalated the situation by issuing an order transferring control of the police department from the city to the DEA’s Cole.

Trump, who has suggested he could take similar actions in other Democratic-controlled cities, has sought to expand the presidency in his second term, inserting himself into the affairs of major banks, law firms and elite universities.

Friday’s lawsuit, which names Trump, Bondi, Cole, and others as defendants, intensified a growing battle over the city between Bondi and Bowser, who have emerged as the public faces of the power struggle.

Bondi’s order had stipulated that the city must receive approval from Cole before it can issue any directives to the roughly 3,500-member police force. It also sought to rescind several of the police department’s prior directives, including one addressing its involvement with immigration enforcement.

Schwalb wrote in a social media post on Friday, “This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it.”

The 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act is a federal law that established local self-governance for the district.

It includes a provision giving the U.S. president authority to control the D.C. police in response to “special conditions of an emergency nature” for up to 30 days. The 30-day period can be extended by a joint resolution of both chambers of the U.S. Congress, something Trump has suggested he might seek.

Some legal experts said Trump exceeded his authority, arguing the text of Home Rule Act does not authorize a complete presidential takeover of the police force.

One challenge for D.C.’s attorney general might be that the U.S. Supreme Court has in some cases endorsed broad assertions of presidential authority.

“Historically, courts have been very deferential, for better or worse, to presidential declarations of emergency,” said Jill Hasday, a University of Minnesota law professor.

Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Tim Reid, Jan Wolfe, Andy Sullivan, and Andrea Shalal. Writing by Tim Reid; Editing by Paul Thomasch, Diane Craft and Rosalba O’Brien

Explainer: Can Trump take control of Washington’s police?

CAN TRUMP EXTEND POLICE CONTROL BEYOND 30 DAYS?

Trump on Wednesday suggested that he could extend the 30-day federal takeover of D.C. police without congressional approval.

“If it’s a national emergency, we can do it without Congress, but we expect to be before Congress very quickly,” Trump said.

Legal experts said the law is clear: A presidential takeover is limited to 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it through a joint resolution. Any such legislation would likely fail in the Senate, where Democrats can use procedural rules to block most bills.

ARE THERE LIMITS TO TRUMP’S POWER OVER D.C. POLICE?

Trump’s Justice Department asserts that Section 740 allows for a broad presidential takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued policy directives for the force, and on Thursday named Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole as the department’s “emergency police commissioner.”

In Friday’s lawsuit, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, a Democrat, asserted that Section 740 was a “limited grant of authority” to the president. Even if a president declares an emergency, local officials retain the power to dictate Washington police policies and chain of command, according to the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who is hearing the case, has so far been skeptical of Trump’s view that Section 740 allows for a total presidential takeover of the city’s police. But this is the first time the issue has been litigated.

WHAT ABOUT THE NATIONAL GUARD AND FEDERAL AGENTS?

Trump has broad control over the D.C. National Guard’s 2,700 soldiers and airmen. They report directly to the president, unlike their counterparts in other states and territories. Unlike the D.C. National Guard, each state’s National Guard serves as a militia force that answers to their governors except when called into federal service.

Trump said on Monday he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to Washington.

Trump in recent months has also directed federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI to increase police presence in Washington. Trump has broad authority to reallocate federal agency personnel.

CAN TRUMP’S D.C. ACTIONS SERVE AS A MODEL FOR OTHER CITIES?

Trump has said the federalization of Washington’s police force could serve as a model for similar action in other U.S. cities. Trump has previously said he would expand his efforts to other Democratic-run cities such as Chicago that he claims have failed to address crime.

But Washington is unique because of the District of Columbia’s legal status and the Home Rule Act.

There is no similar legal authority that Trump can cite to take over police departments in other cities. The U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment vests in states a police power to provide for the health, safety and welfare of state residents.

Trump could decide to send the National Guard or other military forces to support law enforcement in other cities, as he did when he sent 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests against his administration’s aggressive immigration raids. There has been a longstanding tradition against using the military to police civilians within the United States.

California’s governor has sued Trump, arguing that the president improperly called the state’s National Guard into service and violated an 1878 U.S. law that generally prevents the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement. Trump said the National Guard presence was justified because protests and acts of violence in Los Angeles were “a form of rebellion” that necessitated a military response.

A judge heard testimony this week in the California lawsuit, which seeks a ruling that would return the National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump’s action was illegal.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington; Additional reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Will Dunham, Rod Nickel and Lincoln Feast