| Today marks the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The invasion represented a huge escalation in the conflict between the two countries and has left over 1 million people dead or injured on both sides. It also has dramatically upended American foreign policy and politics, especially since Donald Trump returned to the White House promising to end the conflict. The anniversary coincides with Trump’s increasingly critical rhetoric toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which has alarmed U.S. allies and some in Trump’s own party. Trump has called the Ukrainian leader a “Dictator without Elections,” blamed him for the Russian invasion of his country and asserted that it’s “not very important” for Zelensky to be part of peace talks. During a radio interview Friday, after being prodded repeatedly by the host, Trump acknowledged that Russia “attacked” Ukraine — but he insisted it was preventable because Russia “could’ve been talked out of that so easily.” Zelensky has pushed back against Trump’s attacks but also added a new dynamic Sunday when he said he would be willing to step down if it meant the war would end or Ukraine could gain NATO membership. Trump’s diatribes against Zelensky have unnerved even some fellow Republicans. “I support President Trump, and I believe that most of his policies on national security are right,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) said last week on the Senate floor before ripping into Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Tillis described as “a cancer and the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.” Trump’s recent remarks about the war were panned at an anti-Trump, center-right gathering — the Principles First Summit — that was held over the weekend in Washington. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, the only Republican presidential candidate to visit Ukraine during the 2024 campaign, accused Trump of being solicitous of Putin because Trump wants to be like the Russian leader. Former congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) bashed Vice President JD Vance’s recent assessment that this was an unwinnable war for Ukraine. “If the United States would actually double down and support Ukraine, we could guarantee an outcome of Russia losing,” Kinzinger told us, pointing to Russia’s economic woes and Ukraine’s advancement in wartime, including expanded domestic manufacturing of arms. Still, Republicans are largely placing their faith in Trump to wind down the war as the prospects look dim for further Ukraine aid in Congress. That was made clear at the pro-Trump Conservative Political Action Conference last week just outside D.C., where speakers dismissed the need for more Ukraine aid at a time when the party is especially focused on slashing spending. “There’s no appetite for that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said Thursday. “President Trump is exactly right — it’s time for it to end — and he is the brute force, I think, that can make that happen.” There is still some bipartisanship around the cause in Washington. The Congressional Ukraine Caucus — whose co-chairs include Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina — is set to hold a news conference at 5 p.m. today at the Capitol to “mark 3 years since Russia launched their illegal war and full-scale invasion of Ukraine.” Wilson told us he had a different assessment of the war’s origin and status than the one that Trump and Vance have shared in recent days. But he said he continues to believe that Trump would help Ukraine, pointing to the military aid Trump gave the country during his first term. “I have faith in President Trump, and I have faith in President Zelensky,” Wilson said. Meanwhile, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), who traveled to Ukraine recently with Tillis and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) said there is “still strong bipartisan support in the Senate for aiding Ukraine.” “I understand that some Americans are weary of the war, but we must recognize that abandoning Ukraine now would embolden Putin — and dictators everywhere — and undermine our own national security,” she said in a statement to us. Herman Pirchner Jr., president of the American Foreign Policy Council, a Washington-based think tank, told us that he has “given up predicting what Trump actually thinks” when it comes to his strategy for peace. Time will tell whether Trump’s recent hostility toward Ukraine can precipitate an end to the war, Pirchner said, but “in the short run, it’s caused great problems for American credibility” abroad. Pirchner told us that one aspect of the war that he thinks Americans are overlooking is the pressure that Putin is facing inside Russia, such as frustrations over the state of the economy. “The general debate in Washington does not reflect weaknesses inside of Russia as described by Russians themselves,” Pirchner said. Back in America, support for Ukraine has been ticking downward. Late last year, Gallup found that half of Americans favored ending the war as fast as possible, even if it meant letting Russia keep territory it took from Ukraine. Nearly as many Americans — 48 percent — supported continuing the war until Ukraine can reclaim its territory, but it was the first time the survey showed more Americans prioritizing a quick end to the war over restoring Ukraine’s territories. At the same time, U.S. voters are not convinced Trump is handling the war well, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday. Forty-four percent of voters disapproved of his handling of the war, while 40 percent approved and 16 percent had no opinion or didn’t know. It’s against this backdrop of public opinion that his administration is pushing for a breakthrough in negotiations to end the war. Special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff told CNN on Sunday he is “optimistic” that the administration “can get something done rather quickly.” At the same time, U.S. officials are now aiming to ink an agreement with Ukraine that would give the United States rights to rare earth minerals in exchange for aid. “I expect to see a deal signed this week,” Witkoff said. The ‘big, beautiful bill’ Hello again from me, Jacob Bogage, on the economic policy beat here to talk about Republicans’ “big, beautiful” reconciliation bill. And as the House GOP tries to convince itself it’s making progress on this thing, let’s begin taking a look at the fine print. When there’s a major tax and spending bill on the horizon, lawmakers start lining up their favorite measures to get them included. Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the House Budget Committee chairman, is driving the reconciliation process and has first dibs. His issue of choice? Weed. Arrington introduced a bill late last week — when the House wasn’t even convened — to prohibit companies involved in the cultivation or sale of marijuana from claiming business expensing tax deductions. Is that at the top of Arrington’s list of priorities? Of course not. To jog your memory: Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes for all income brackets, but concentrated most of the benefits among the wealthiest earners and corporations. The business provisions are permanent, but the individual side of the bill expires at the end of 2025, meaning most folks will face a large tax hike if Congress does not act. That issue along with lowering the corporate rate further and approving Trump’s agenda on border security are Arrington’s greatest concerns. But the marijuana provision — which would keep companies from claiming tax breaks even if the Trump White House or future administrations loosened restrictions around the substance — points to just how much this “big, beautiful bill” could change the economy, and how much money is going to flow through Washington to shape the legislation. MJBizDaily, an industry research trade publication, reported retail and medical marijuana sales reached $50 billion in 2024 and could top $70 billion by 2028. The money is green on K Street, too. Curaleaf, Trulieve Cannabis and Green Thumb Industries, three of the country’s largest marijuana companies, spent a combined $2.3 million lobbying on cannabis-related issues in 2024, according to federal disclosures. (Data for 2025 isn’t available yet.) I’m told Arrington approaches this issue from a “values perspective,” according to a person close to the Budget chair. Arrington has attracted six co-sponsors, including some influential members of GOP leadership and the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee: Reps. Blake D. Moore (Utah), Pete Sessions (Texas), Vern Buchanan (Florida), Greg Murphy (North Carolina), Chuck Edwards (North Carolina) and Gary Palmer (Alabama). House Speaker Johnson has said he plans to put Arrington’s budget resolution up for a floor vote this week. We’ll see about that. If/when it passes, then the sprint will be on to get provisions like Arrington’s included, along with the big-ticket tax items. We’ll keep you posted. Got something I ought to know? Reach me securely on Signal at jacobbogage.87. Want to get in touch elsewhere or wish me a happy half-birthday (it’s today)? Find me on Bluesky: @jacobbogage.bsky.social. | 
Meryl Kornfield and 
