Donald Trump made headlines once again, this time for an unusual reason, he bought a Tesla. But this wasn’t just any car purchase. It was a highly orchestrated PR move aimed at supporting Elon Musk and his struggling electric vehicle company.

The stunt, which took place at the White House, saw Trump sitting in a Tesla Model S, armed with scripted notes detailing the car’s features.

The timing of this purchase was no coincidence. Tesla’s stock had just plummeted 15%, its worst drop in five years.

Many analysts attribute this decline to Musk’s controversial role in Trump’s administration, particularly in his leadership of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Trump, ever the showman, hoped his public endorsement would bolster confidence in Musk and Tesla. “Elon Musk is putting it on the line for our nation,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “He’s doing a fantastic job!”

Photographs captured Trump holding note cards with key selling points about Tesla. Phrases like “SAFEST car,” “state of the art,” and “affordable” were visible on the document—words Musk clearly wanted him to say.

Trump didn’t deny it. “They gave me notes,” he admitted while flipping through the papers. But despite having a script, his enthusiasm appeared genuine as he climbed into the Tesla. “Wow,” he said, settling into the driver’s seat. “That’s beautiful.”

While Trump’s endorsement may have offered a brief stock boost, Tesla’s troubles aren’t over. The company faces declining sales, production issues, and a growing backlash over Musk’s political ties.

His other ventures aren’t faring much better—X (formerly Twitter) suffered outages this week, and two SpaceX Starship test flights ended in explosions.

Trump’s decision to align so publicly with Musk raises questions. Was this a genuine show of support for a friend, or a calculated political move?

Some critics argue it was an unpaid Tesla advertisement disguised as a White House event.

Others see it as Trump doubling down on his loyalty to Musk, who was a major financial backer of his 2024 campaign.

Trump’s Tesla stunt did generate buzz, but will it translate into real support for the company? Tesla’s stock saw a small rebound, but the long-term impact remains uncertain.

One thing is clear—both Trump and Musk thrive on attention, and this spectacle ensured they stayed in the headlines.

With Trump continuing to push his “America First” economic policies and Musk deeply entangled in his administration, their partnership is likely far from over.

Whether this benefits Tesla or backfires spectacularly remains to be seen.

More than 10,000 people packed Lincoln High School’s gym in Warren, Michigan, for one reason—to hear Bernie Sanders speak. The overflow crowd spilled into hallways and outdoor spaces, a testament to the growing energy behind his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour.

The sheer size of the turnout sent a clear message: the progressive movement is alive, mobilized, and ready to take on the billionaire class.

Wayne County Health Director Abdul El-Sayed, a potential 2026 U.S. Senate candidate, fired up the audience before Sanders took the stage.

“They want us to step back,” he declared. “But today, all of you have said we are stepping forward. We have everything we need to build a government for the people.”

Sanders didn’t just deliver a speech—he issued a battle cry. He compared this moment in history to the American Revolution and the fight against slavery, emphasizing that real change only happens when ordinary people stand up against oppression.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” he told the roaring crowd. “We’re not just fighting corruption. We’re fighting the Big Lie—a parallel universe designed to manipulate, mislead, and divide.”

Sanders made it clear: America is at a crossroads. One path leads to a government controlled by billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. The other leads to a government that serves the working class. The choice, he said, belongs to the people.

Sanders isn’t just rallying supporters in progressive strongholds. His tour is laser-focused on Republican-held swing districts, where shifting a few thousand votes could flip congressional seats.

He called out Rep. John James (R-Mich.), challenging him to hold an in-person town hall and face the voters directly.

“He has the right to speak,” Sanders said, “but you have the right to ask him tough questions. That’s democracy.”

His direct challenge underscored a broader theme: accountability. Sanders is pushing for a government that listens to the people, not just the ultra-rich.

United Auto Workers (UAW) President Shawn Fain took the stage wearing an “Eat the Rich” T-shirt, fueling the crowd’s energy. His message was blunt: “Billionaires don’t have a right to exist while millions struggle to survive.”

El-Sayed followed with an attack on the Trump administration’s policies, warning, “They want to move fast and break things—but what they’re breaking is our government, funded by our tax dollars.”

The speeches weren’t just political rhetoric. They were calls for a working-class rebellion against corporate greed and government corruption.

Warren wasn’t an isolated event. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, Sanders drew 4,000 people. In tiny Altoona, Wisconsin, 2,600 supporters showed up—staggering numbers for such a small town.

The movement is gaining traction, and with every stop, the question looms larger: Is Sanders preparing for another run?

He insists this isn’t about a campaign. “The country’s in trouble,” he told reporters. “I want to play my role.” But with enthusiasm reaching fever pitch, speculation about a 2028 bid is impossible to ignore.

Not everyone in the Democratic Party is moving at Sanders’ pace. Progressive leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have praised his activism. “Who else is doing this?” she asked. “No one.”

Grassroots organizations like Indivisible are also rallying behind him, organizing protests and pressuring Republican lawmakers.

“I wish more Democrats were traveling the country rallying the majority against Musk and Project 2025,” said Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin.

But establishment Democrats have taken a more traditional approach. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, for example, has focused on a book tour rather than direct grassroots engagement—drawing criticism from those who believe the moment demands bold action.

Sanders’ tour is more than a series of speeches; it’s a movement-building effort designed to reshape the political landscape. Whether or not he runs for office again, his influence is undeniable.

By focusing on swing districts and galvanizing working-class voters, he is setting the stage for a progressive resurgence in the 2026 midterms—and beyond.

Ontario just fired a major shot in the escalating trade war with the U.S. The province has slapped a 25% surcharge on electricity exports, directly impacting millions of American homes and businesses.

This aggressive move comes as a response to President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods, and it’s already shaking up cross-border relations.

Ontario’s Bold Move: Why Impose a 25% Surcharge?

Ontario Premier Doug Ford isn’t backing down.

In a fiery press conference, he announced that Ontario would tax every kilowatt-hour of electricity exported to the U.S. The reason? Retaliation.

Ford made it clear: until the U.S. removes its trade restrictions on Canadian exports, this surcharge stays.

Ontario sees Trump’s tariffs as unfair attacks on Canadian businesses, and this move is meant to send a message—Canada won’t be bullied.

Millions of Americans Will Feel the Impact

This isn’t just a political tug-of-war. The surcharge directly affects 1.5 million homes and businesses in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota—states that rely heavily on Ontario’s electricity supply.

What does this mean for them?

• Higher energy bills: Experts estimate an increase of $100 or more per month for affected customers.
• Business struggles: U.S. factories, stores, and offices dependent on Ontario’s power may face rising costs or even reduce operations.
• Revenue redistribution: Ontario plans to use the surcharge revenue to support local industries hit by U.S. tariffs.

Trump Fires Back: Threats and New Tariffs Incoming?

President Trump wasted no time responding. In a blunt statement, he dismissed Canada’s move, labeling Ontario as a “tariff abuser”. But he didn’t stop there.

Trump announced:

• A 50% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, striking back at one of Canada’s biggest industries.
• A warning that Ontario will “pay a financial price” for its actions.
• A possible National Emergency on Electricity, aimed at securing alternative energy sources for affected states.

A Trade War That’s Getting Worse

The economic fallout of this dispute is already visible. The stock market took a hit, with the Dow Jones dropping 890 points as investors feared further instability.

Other potential consequences include:

• Supply chain disruptions: Businesses on both sides of the border could struggle to keep up with changing costs.
• Uncertain energy future: U.S. states might be forced to seek out higher-cost alternative energy sources.
• Worsening trade relations: If neither side backs down, more tariffs and surcharges could follow, deepening the crisis.

Could Ontario Cut Off Power Completely?

Doug Ford has hinted at an even more drastic step—completely halting electricity exports to the U.S.

If that happens, American cities and businesses will have to scramble for alternative power, driving up energy costs even further.

Meanwhile, Trump remains defiant, vowing to impose further economic penalties if Canada doesn’t reverse course.

What’s Next? A Cross-Border Showdown

Both sides seem unwilling to budge.

The trade war between Ontario and the U.S. is heating up, and neither Ford nor Trump appears ready to back down.

Donald J. Trump promised an economic boom like no other. His campaign speeches painted a picture of soaring job creation, rising incomes, and a revitalized American economy. But once in office, his economic playbook evolved.

He started by championing the stock market as proof of his success, only to later downplay its importance. This shift signaled a deeper transformation in his economic strategy—one that prioritized trade battles and economic restructuring over short-term market gains.

Trump sold the American people a vision of prosperity, but the market had other ideas. While his tax cuts boosted corporate profits, his trade wars introduced uncertainty. Investors, once hopeful, grew uneasy as tariffs took center stage.

• Stock Market Volatility: The S&P 500 experienced sharp declines, challenging the narrative of sustained growth.
• Trade War Uncertainty: Tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico triggered economic tensions and business anxiety.
• Recession Warnings: Economists from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs raised red flags about the impact of trade disputes on economic stability.

At first, Trump measured his economic success by the stock market’s highs. As volatility increased, he changed his tune. In a Fox News interview, he dismissed market fluctuations and framed his policies as a long-term economic overhaul rather than a short-term financial fix.

“There is a period of transition… It takes a little time, but I think it should be great for us.”

“The stock market is not the economy.”

“Our country has been ripped off for decades, and we’re not going to be ripped off anymore.”

His words signaled a shift—one that distanced him from Wall Street’s daily swings and leaned into economic nationalism.

Trump’s commitment to tariffs and trade battles rattled businesses. Top executives, gathered under the Business Roundtable, urged the administration to clarify its policies.

Investors, once bullish, grew hesitant. Even some Republican lawmakers voiced concerns, questioning how long the economy could withstand prolonged trade conflicts.

Trump’s strategy focuses on protectionism and reshaping global trade relations. The big question: Can this approach hold if market turbulence persists?

If investors lose confidence and businesses struggle under the weight of tariffs, will his administration double down or pivot once more?

Trump’s economic policies represent a dramatic break from traditional Republican market-focused strategies. His administration prioritizes economic nationalism, but its long-term impact remains uncertain.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ running mate in the 2024 presidential election, isn’t sugarcoating the defeat.

In a candid interview with Politico, he admitted their campaign lacked boldness. He believes the Democratic Party must take more risks if they want to reclaim the White House in 2028.

Walz didn’t mince words—his team played it too safe. The campaign relied too much on controlled messaging and missed opportunities for direct voter engagement. “We shouldn’t have been playing this thing so safe,” Walz said.

The campaign had only 107 days to rally support after Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the nominee on August 5. With Biden stepping down due to concerns over age and mental fitness, Harris and Walz had to build momentum overnight.

They found themselves scrambling against a well-oiled Trump-Vance campaign machine.

Walz believes their campaign should have been more aggressive. More town halls, unscripted moments, and direct voter interactions could have made the difference.

Instead, they opted for a cautious approach, avoiding potential controversies but also missing opportunities to energize voters.

“These are things you might have been able to get your sea legs 18 months out, where the stakes were a lot lower,” Walz reflected.

Instead, they were thrown into a high-stakes battle with little time to experiment or take bold steps.

The final results made it clear: playing it safe didn’t work. Harris and Walz lost to Trump by an electoral college margin of 312 to 226, with a 1.5% deficit in the popular vote.

Even more concerning, Republicans took control of both houses of Congress, giving Trump a clear path to push his agenda.

Despite the setback, Walz isn’t retreating. He hasn’t announced a 2028 presidential bid, but he isn’t ruling it out. “I’m staying on the playing field to try and help because we have to win,” he said.

In the meantime, he’s focusing on reconnecting with voters across the country. He plans to be a visible presence in key congressional districts, engaging with both mainstream and non-traditional media to rebuild trust with the American people.

He argues the Democratic Party needs to meet voters where they are—not just in traditional strongholds but everywhere.

The Democratic Party is facing a tough road ahead. Losing the White House and Congress in one election cycle is a gut punch, and regaining ground won’t be easy. But Walz believes the path forward isn’t about waiting for a political savior—it’s about grassroots engagement.

At a recent event in Montana, he told a crowd, “No charismatic leader is coming to save us. Our way back out of the wilderness is sitting at each and every one of these tables.”

The lesson from 2024 is clear: caution won’t win elections. If Democrats want to take back power, they’ll need to take chances, connect with voters on a deeper level, and stop playing it safe.

Walz is already laying the groundwork, and his reflections may shape how the party approaches the next battle for the White House.

The Trump administration is preparing to strip legal status from 240,000 Ukrainians who fled to the United States after Russia invaded their country.

These refugees, who sought safety through humanitarian parole, now face an uncertain future.

If Trump returns to office, his hardline immigration policies could force thousands into legal limbo or even deportation.

Why Are Ukrainians Losing Their Legal Protection?

During the Biden administration, many Ukrainian refugees received temporary protection, allowing them to live and work in the U.S.

But Trump has vowed to end these humanitarian programs as part of his broader crackdown on immigration.

This policy change will affect not just Ukrainians but also Haitians, Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Afghans—many of whom came to the U.S. seeking safety from war, political turmoil, or persecution.

How Will This Decision Affect Ukrainian Families?

For thousands of Ukrainian families, this policy shift isn’t just about legal status—it’s about survival. Many have built new lives in the U.S., secured jobs, and enrolled their children in American schools.

If their legal status is revoked, they could:

• Lose work permits, making it illegal for them to earn a living.
• Face deportation, forcing them to return to a war-torn country.
• Be pushed into undocumented status, limiting their ability to access healthcare, housing, or legal protections.

Who Else Is at Risk?

Trump’s immigration plan doesn’t stop with Ukrainians. He wants to cancel temporary protections for 1.8 million migrants, including:

• Afghans who assisted U.S. troops and fled after the Taliban takeover.
• Haitians and Cubans escaping political and economic crises.
• Venezuelans and Nicaraguans who fled oppressive regimes.

What Happens Next?

If Trump wins the 2024 election, his administration could begin rolling back protections as early as April 2025. This means:

• Ukrainian migrants may have to find alternative visas or risk deportation.
• Protests and legal battles could delay or challenge the decision.
• Immigration lawyers and advocacy groups may fight to protect affected families.

What Can Ukrainians Do to Stay in the U.S.?

For those at risk, there are a few possible options:

• Apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), if eligible.
• Seek legal assistance to explore other visa categories.
• Stay informed on policy changes and court rulings that may impact their status.

The Bigger Picture: Politics, Immigration, and America’s Future

This decision is more than just an immigration policy—it’s a reflection of America’s stance on refugees and global crises.

As the 2024 election nears, Trump’s proposed immigration policies will likely spark heated debates over national security, humanitarian aid, and America’s role in global conflicts.

For now, 240,000 Ukrainians are waiting anxiously, wondering if they will be forced to leave the country they have come to call home.

Donald Trump’s prime-time address to Congress reignited the nation’s political tensions, exposing a deepening divide. While Republicans rallied behind his vision, Democrats pushed back with outrage, protests, and strategic defiance.

Democrats, outnumbered in both the Senate and House, had few options to directly challenge Trump’s 100-minute speech. Some, like Senator Chris Murphy and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, refused to attend.

Others made their opposition clear by silently holding protest signs that read “No Kings” and “Save Medicaid” or waving Ukrainian flags in defiance.

Trump, never one to shy away from confrontation, called out the Democratic resistance. “These people won’t clap, won’t stand, and certainly won’t cheer for these astronomical achievements,” he sneered, pointing toward the stone-faced opposition.

Not all protests were silent. When Trump praised law enforcement, Democratic lawmakers erupted, shouting “January 6” in reference to the Capitol riot.

The most dramatic moment came when Representative Al Green of Texas refused to back down, loudly questioning Trump’s legitimacy.

Security quickly intervened, escorting Green from the chamber. Outside, he remained defiant. “This was worth it,” Green declared. “We cannot normalize his presidency.”

Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan delivered the Democratic response, pulling no punches. She attacked Trump’s foreign policy, particularly his soft stance on Vladimir Putin.

Channeling Ronald Reagan’s legacy, she argued, “Reagan would be rolling in his grave. True strength means standing up to tyrants, not cozying up to them.”

Slotkin warned Americans that democracy itself was at risk, urging them to resist Trump’s agenda. “This is not about partisanship,” she emphasized. “This is about whether America remains a beacon of freedom or surrenders to authoritarianism.”

Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas captured the frustration of many Democrats with her raw reaction.

“Why are we fighting with Greenland? We’re fighting with Canada, we’re fighting with Mexico, and yet we’re in love with Putin? This is not America. This is a nightmare. Somebody slap me and wake me up.”

Her words spread rapidly across social media, igniting debates about Trump’s foreign policy priorities.

For Democrats, it was further proof that Trump’s leadership was pushing America away from its allies and toward instability.

Trump’s speech was packed with aggressive policy proposals, including tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, drastic spending cuts, and a crackdown on undocumented immigration.

He honored victims of violent crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, reinforcing his hardline stance on border security.

For his supporters, it was a bold roadmap to restore America’s dominance. For his critics, it was a warning of deeper division.

With Trump in power and Republicans controlling both chambers, Democrats must decide their next move. Will they fight through legislative battles, legal challenges, or by mobilizing voters?

One thing is certain: America’s political divide is growing, and the struggle for the nation’s future has only just begun.

Donald Trump has reignited the controversial idea of the U.S. taking control of Greenland. In a recent speech, he called the Arctic island a “critical asset” for America’s security and economic future.

His bold statement, “One way or another, we’re going to get it,” has sparked outrage in Denmark and raised global concerns.

Why does Trump want Greenland? Is this a strategic power play, or is he stirring controversy to rally his base?

Why Greenland? The Island That Could Reshape Global Power

Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, sits at the heart of the Arctic—a region rapidly becoming a battleground for world powers.

The U.S., Russia, and China all have their eyes on this icy frontier. But why?

• Military Advantage – The U.S. already operates Thule Air Base in Greenland, a key Arctic outpost for missile defense and surveillance. Controlling Greenland would strengthen America’s military dominance.
• Untapped Natural Wealth – Beneath Greenland’s ice lies a treasure trove of rare earth minerals, essential for modern technology and defense industries. China currently dominates the rare earth market, and the U.S. wants to break that grip.
• Melting Ice, New Opportunities – Climate change is rapidly reshaping the Arctic, opening new shipping routes. Controlling Greenland could give the U.S. an economic and strategic edge over rivals.

Denmark’s Response: A Firm ‘No’ to Trump’s Ambitions

Denmark has rejected Trump’s Greenland ambitions before, calling them “absurd.” In 2019, Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland, only to be met with mockery and diplomatic backlash.

Danish officials insist that Greenland is not for sale.

Greenland’s government has also dismissed Trump’s remarks, reaffirming their autonomy and commitment to Denmark.

But with Trump doubling down, could pressure mount on Greenlandic leaders to reconsider their future?

Could Trump Force Greenland’s Hand? Here’s What Could Happen Next

Trump’s renewed push could take multiple forms. The U.S. might:

1. Offer a Better Deal – Instead of outright purchase, Washington could propose an economic partnership, offering billions in investment to sway Greenland’s leadership.
2. Increase Military Presence – The U.S. could expand its operations in Greenland, tightening its grip without needing Denmark’s approval.
3. Use Diplomatic Leverage – Trump could pressure NATO allies or push for Greenland’s greater independence from Denmark, making it easier to negotiate a deal.

While an outright takeover is unlikely, Trump’s rhetoric signals America’s increasing focus on the Arctic.

A Global Power Struggle—What’s at Stake?

Trump’s Greenland push isn’t just about America and Denmark—it’s part of a larger geopolitical game.

Russia has ramped up military activity in the Arctic, while China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” power, investing heavily in the region.

If the U.S. secures control over Greenland, it could shift the balance of power in the Arctic.

But if Denmark and Greenland resist, tensions could rise, straining international relations.

Will Greenland Become America’s 51st State?

Trump’s statement raises a bigger question: Could Greenland eventually break away from Denmark and seek closer ties with the U.S.?

While that seems unlikely today, the Arctic’s growing importance could change the conversation in the future.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has drawn a firm line in the sand. If the United States pushes ahead with its new 25% tariffs on Canadian goods, Ford is ready to retaliate by cutting off electricity exports to the U.S. – and he says he’ll do it “with a smile on my face.”

For decades, the United States has relied on Ontario for a steady supply of electricity. States like New York, Michigan, and Minnesota depend heavily on Canadian energy to keep their grids stable.

If Ford follows through on his threat, millions of Americans could face higher energy prices—or even blackouts.

But it’s not just electricity that’s at stake. The new U.S. tariffs include a 10% levy on electricity imports from Canada, making energy costs more expensive for American consumers.

Canada, in response, has imposed tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. imports, further escalating tensions.

Standing before a packed crowd at a mining convention in Toronto, Ford didn’t mince words:

• “If they want to try to annihilate Ontario, I will do everything—including cut off their energy with a smile on my face.”
• He warned that Ontario wouldn’t hesitate to make the U.S. “feel the pain” if the tariffs moved forward.
• Ford also hinted at stopping nickel shipments to the U.S., a critical resource used in electronics and car manufacturing.

His message was clear: Ontario would not be bullied into submission.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wasted no time condemning the tariffs, calling them an unfair attack on Canada’s economy. His government has responded aggressively, slapping a 25% tariff on $155 billion worth of American goods.

Foreign Minister Melanie Joly described the U.S. tariffs as an “existential threat,” warning that they could wipe out up to a million Canadian jobs. The Canadian government, she assured, would do everything necessary to protect its industries and workers.

While political leaders trade blows, businesses on both sides of the border are growing increasingly anxious. American car manufacturers, already struggling with supply chain disruptions, could see production slow even further without a steady supply of Canadian nickel.

Meanwhile, energy providers warn that increased electricity costs could be passed on to U.S. consumers, leading to higher utility bills.

Retailers, manufacturers, and exporters in both countries are urging leaders to reach a compromise before the situation spirals into a full-scale trade war.

With tensions escalating, experts fear a prolonged standoff between Canada and the U.S. If both sides refuse to back down, industries across North America could suffer.

Tension builds as President Donald Trump prepares for a high-stakes meeting on March 3, 2025, that could redefine America’s role in Ukraine’s war against Russia.

With billions in military aid at stake, the world watches to see if Trump will pull the plug on U.S. support or keep the lifeline open.

Why Is Trump Rethinking Ukraine’s Military Aid?

Trump has long questioned America’s involvement in foreign conflicts. His upcoming meeting with top security officials signals a potential policy shift that could reshape the war’s outcome.

The decision follows a heated conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28.

During their White House meeting, Zelensky pressed for continued military assistance, but Trump pushed back.

According to insiders, Trump argued that Europe should take on more responsibility, hinting at possible cuts to U.S. aid.

So far, Trump has allowed previously approved aid packages to go through, but he has blocked new weapons shipments.

Now, he faces pressure from both sides—Republican lawmakers urging restraint and national security officials warning of the consequences of abandoning Ukraine.

What Are Trump’s Options?

During the March 3 meeting, Trump will weigh multiple scenarios with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The administration has narrowed its choices down to three:

1. Full Suspension – Cutting off all military aid to Ukraine immediately.
2. Partial Reduction – Reducing the volume and type of weapons sent.
3. Continued Support – Keeping previously approved aid flowing while halting future commitments.

Each option carries risks. A full suspension could embolden Russian forces, while a partial reduction might frustrate allies.

If Trump maintains current support levels, he risks alienating his base, which favors a more isolationist foreign policy.

What Happens If the U.S. Pulls Out?

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has depended on $65.9 billion in U.S. military aid. If Trump cuts funding, the consequences could be severe:

• Ukraine’s military could weaken, making it harder to hold back Russian advances.
• European allies might step up, but their support may not be enough to replace U.S. aid.
• Russia could see this as a green light, increasing its attacks and pushing for greater territorial gains.

With Ukraine’s survival on the line, Zelensky is scrambling to rally European leaders for backup. But without Washington’s support, Ukraine’s fight could become even more difficult.

Will Trump Announce His Decision Soon?

The March 3 meeting will be pivotal, but Trump may not make an immediate decision. Insiders say he is weighing political factors, including Republican sentiment and voter reactions.

A final announcement could come in the days or weeks following the meeting.

Meanwhile, European leaders and NATO officials are watching closely, preparing for the possibility of a U.S. retreat