Post-Alaska summit, there’s still no end in sight to the war in Ukraine: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, a newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team’s latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

In today’s edition, Andrea Mitchell lays out where the talks around ending the Russia-Ukraine war stand nearly two weeks after the Alaska summit. Plus, Sahil Kapur and Scott Wong explore why so many members of the House Freedom Caucus are running for other offices.

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

— Adam Wollner

Programming note: We are taking a few days off ahead of the holiday weekend and will be back in your inboxes next Tuesday, Sept. 2.

Minnesota school shooting: Two children are dead and 17 people were injured after a gunman opened fire at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. Follow live updates →

Almost two weeks after the Alaska summit, there’s still no end in sight to the war in Ukraine

Analysis by Andrea Mitchell

At the longest White House event he has ever hosted, President Donald Trump said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “not exactly innocent either.” That was his response yesterday when pressed about why he hasn’t cracked down on Russian President Vladimir Putin nearly two weeks after the Alaska summit — blaming the victim, not the aggressor.

But after ignoring his own self-imposed deadlines to punish Putin for rejecting a ceasefire, what are the concessions Trump and his advisers claimed after the meeting with the Russian leader?

There’s no ceasefire. Nor a plan for the promised bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. On “Meet the Press,” Lavrov also told Kristen Welker that Russia expects a role in security guarantees for Ukraine. Translation: The invader will determine how to protect the victim from future attacks.

None of this creates a reasonable starting point for peace negotiations between the warring parties. But it does conform to Trump’s fallback position, believing the best of the Russian president and remaining suspicious of the Ukrainian.

Last week, Trump showed reporters a memento Putin had sent him from the summit: A picture of the two leaders together in Alaska. “That was very nice that it was sent to me,” Trump said. At his marathon Cabinet meeting, Trump said of the Ukrainian leader, “I get along with Zelenskyy now.” But their relationship is hardly the cozy camaraderie that accorded Putin a red-carpet reception in the U.S.

The “tell” on Putin’s dismissive attitude toward his adversary is when Welker pressed Lavrov about a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy. He said, “How can we meet with a person who is pretending to be a leader?” Asked if Putin recognizes Zelenskyy as the legitimate leader of Ukraine, Lavrov replied that he is the “de facto leader of the regime,” not legally able to sign documents to end the war.

Lost in Putin’s rationale for launching what he calls a “special military operation” to reclaim Ukraine as part of the former Soviet empire is that Russia signed treaties decades ago recognizing Ukraine as a sovereign nation — even taking responsibility for disposing of Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, turned over by Kyiv as part of the agreement.

Trump assigned Marco Rubio, his secretary of state and national security adviser, the task of organizing the putative security guarantee regime for Ukraine. The U.S. offered to provide air cover and intelligence to a European-led peace keeping force on the ground.

But that presumes there is a peace to keep. And with no discernible new U.S. economic pressure on Putin, he is still hammering Ukraine’s civilian targets with no end in sight.

The Freedom Caucus could be gutted as key members run for new jobs in 2026

By Sahil Kapur and Scott Wong

The House Freedom Caucus faces an existential moment with some of its most prominent members eyeing the exits for new jobs in the 2026 election.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, the group’s most outspoken lawmaker, is running for state attorney general. Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., is running for the Senate. Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C.; Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.; and Byron Donalds, R-Fla., are all running for governor. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., is considering running for governor. And yet others facing tough re-elections or redistricting threats could be gone by the end of next year.

With about three dozen members, the House Freedom Caucus has created persistent headaches for Republican leaders since its founding in 2015 as a home for fiscal conservatives willing to use aggressive tactics to get their way.

In recent years, the ultraconservative group has been embroiled in public infighting as its members clashed over the direction of the caucus. In 2023, members booted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., out of the group over her support for then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and after she cussed out Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.

This year, the hard-line caucus has softened and acceded to President Donald Trump’s wishes on issues it never used to compromise on, such as government funding.

A current Freedom Caucus member said that he was contemplating dropping out of the group himself but has decided to stay on after having heard that Roy and other “attention-seekers” who “hijacked” the caucus won’t be running for re-election to the House in 2026.

Read more from Sahil and Scott →

That’s all From the Politics Desk for now. Today’s newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner.

If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at [email protected]

And if you’re a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here.