February 2025 APA Newsletter
Updated: Mar 19, 2025
Mission Statement
The American Politics Association (APA) aims to provide the St Andrews community with a platform for open and nonpartisan conversation surrounding U.S. politics.
With frequent discussions, podcasts, newsletters, and more, the APA strives to promote awareness of the changing political environment and recent developments. We also seek to support students who are interested in a career in U.S. politics and foster a space for networking.
We encourage people of all backgrounds and subject areas to join us on our mission to increase engagement and awareness surrounding U.S politics in the St Andrews community and beyond.
Government Restructuring and the Federal Funding Freeze
Sophia Kazan
The Trump administration’s recent decision to temporarily freeze federal funding for various government programs has sparked intense debate, legal battles, and uncertainty across federal agencies. While the administration argues that this measure is necessary to eliminate waste and reallocate resources more effectively, critics claim that it disproportionately harms essential social services and undermines congressional authority over federal spending.
On January 27, the memo released by the White House Budget Office announced a pause on federal funding to allow the administration to review agency programs and make decisions that align with the President’s interests. The memo specifically expresses concerns with curbing federal funding that is perceived as wasteful, stating taxpayer dollars should not be used “to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.”
The funding freeze prompted swift legal pushback. Following the announcement, a coalition of states’ attorney generals sued, arguing that agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency require consistent funding to fulfill their critical missions. On March 6, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ruled to extend a block on the administration’s attempt to halt federal grants, declaring that the spending freeze “fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.” New York Attorney General Letitia James applauded the ruling, emphasizing that “despite what Trump may think, the power of the purse belongs to Congress.” This also comes with widespread confusion about the practical effects of a funding freeze. The memo detailing the freeze was quickly rescinded after agencies and recipients of federal assistance struggled to understand its implications. The abrupt nature of the announcement and withdrawal only added to the uncertainty surrounding the administration’s budgetary strategy.
At the core of the issue is the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which limits a president’s ability to unilaterally withhold funds that have already been approved by Congress. Mr Trump has stated that he wants this law struck down by the Supreme Court to give him greater control of federal funding and spending. Critics argue this freeze is an overstep of the executive branch, disrupting the delicate relationship of checks and balances between the three branches.
Social service programs that rely on federal grants now face an uncertain future. Agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are among those reportedly affected, raising concerns about potential cuts to Medicaid, housing assistance, and food security programs. Opponents argue that the freeze disproportionately impacts lower-income Americans who rely on these services, while supporters believe it will prevent wasteful spending and refocus funds on national priorities. The freeze is part of a wider attempt by the administration to dramatically cut government funding and restructure the federal workforce. Additionally, under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency the administration has fired tens of thousands of federal employees, citing efforts to target fraud and eliminate wasteful expenditure.
As legal battles continue to unfold, the long-term impact of the funding freeze remains uncertain. Federal employees, grant recipients, and state governments are all watching closely to see whether further workforce reductions and funding shifts will materialize. With a growing number of legal challenges and mounting opposition from state leaders, the Trump administration faces an uphill battle in its effort to reshape federal spending. Whether this move ultimately leads to greater efficiency or widespread disruption will be a defining issue in the coming months.
References
Diamond, D., & Siddiqui, F. (2025) DOGE Redefines ‘Fraud’ to Defend Cutting Federal Employees, Programs. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/07/doge-fraud-cuts-elon-musk-trump/
Dorn, S., & Bohannon, M. (2025). Here’s Where Trump’s Government Layoffs Are Targeted –As CIA Begins Firing New Recruits. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/03/06/heres-where-trumps-government-layoffs-are-targeted-as-cia-begins-firing-new-recruits/
Montague, Zach. (2025). Judge Blocks Trump’s Funding Freeze, Saying White House Put Itself ‘Above Congress.’ The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/trump-funding-freeze-states.html
Moore, Elena. (2025). A Second Federal Judge Has Ruled to Block the Trump Administration’s Spending Freeze. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5312069/trump-federal-funding-freeze-court-order
Raymond, Nate. (2025) Second Judge Blocks Trump’s Sweeping Freeze on Federal Funding. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/second-judge-blocks-trumps-sweeping-freeze-federal-funding-2025-03-06/
Sprunt, B., Moore, E., Walsh, D., Khalid, A., & Keith, T. (2025). White House Response Adds to Confusion on Federal Funding Freeze. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/29/g-s1-45313/trump-federal-funding-freeze-reversed
The New York Times. (2025). Read the Memo Pausing Federal Grants and Loans. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/27/us/omb-memo.html
Cabinet Appointments and Confirmations
Jillian McLeod
Approximately one and a half months into his second term in office, President Trump has not strayed from his tendency to stir the pot, this time by selecting DC outsiders and rabble-rousers for his Cabinet. Most of Trump’s picks fall into categories reflective of his political profile: they have either served in his first administration, been media personalities or major Trump donors, or they have origins in Florida. Though there is a good share of career politicians in and amongst the group of 22 department heads, even those with previous experience in government have faced a slate of difficulties in their confirmation processes.
As of early March, 20 of Trump’s 22 nominations have been confirmed, with votes not yet being held for Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer, nominee for Department of Labor, and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Trump’s pick for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. A few cabinet members who did successfully endure their confirmation hearings did not make it out unscathed, however, as they were challenged on their pasts and future ambitions for federal agencies.
One of the most infamous confirmation hearings was that of Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kenedy Jr., commonly known as ‘RFK’. Nephew of former President John F. Kennedy–which he often touts–and an environmental lawyer with no legitimate medical qualifications, RFK is a vaccine skeptic and frequent endorser of unverified health claims who, in his new role as Department head, oversees US federal health agencies, including those that manage the approval of vaccines and pharmaceuticals.
In his confirmation hearing, RFK faced steep opposition from Democratic lawmakers on his past promotion of vaccine conspiracy theories, plus additional opposition from Republicans who challenged him on his past support for abortion rights. RFK’s own family members spoke out against him publicly: Caroline Kennedy, daughter of John F. Kennedy and former ambassador, called her cousin a ‘predator’ and lacking of “any relevant government, financial, management, or medical experience” in a video posted to Instagram on January 28th.
Despite familial condemnation, Senate debate, and millions of dollars spent by activist groups to block his confirmation, RFK received enough votes to be confirmed- 52 to 48. Former Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was the sole Republican to break with his party and vote in opposition alongside Democrats. McConnell has previously recounted his survival of Polio as a child. In his hearing, RFK told Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) that he would not change the nation’s vaccine schedule, then went back on his word on February 18th, vowing to investigate the childhood vaccine schedule for illnesses including measles and polio.
Another highly contentious Trump pick is Pete Hegseth, former Fox News host and veteran, now heading the Department of Defense. Hegseth was the subject of much consternation in his confirmation hearings; the political outsider has a checkered past, having made divisive statements on inclusivity within the military and having sexual assault claims made against him, which he denies. He was also questioned on allegations of public drunkenness and financial mismanagement of two veterans’ groups he previously ran. Hegseth made it through his hearing successfully- the final vote was 50-50 with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Three GOP senators voted against Hegseth’s confirmation: Sen. McConnell, Sen. Murkowski (R-AK), and Sen. Collins (R-ME) all voted no.
The unconventionality of Trump’s cabinet is not limited to those leading these government agencies. The influence of Elon Musk, a close advisor to the president and rabble-rouser himself, loomed large at Trump’s first cabinet meeting. Musk laid out his plans for reshaping the federal government, specifically how he would remodel the agencies of Trump’s Cabinet. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), unveiled by its de facto lead Musk days after Trump won the Presidential election in November 2024, is what he describes as “a support function for the president and for the agencies and departments to help achieve those savings to effectively find 15% reduction in fraud and waste.”
Not all secretaries are completely on board with this plan, however; DOGE started sending emails to federal employees requiring a five-point response on what tasks and projects they accomplished the previous week, to which secretaries from the departments of State, Justice, Defense, and the FBI have instructed staff to disregard.
Despite this silent opposition, there seems to be, at least on the surface, no strong conflict between the President and his cabinet on the looming figure of Musk and DOGE. Trump wrote on his social media site Truth Social, “ALL CABINET MEMBERS ARE EXTREMELY HAPPY WITH ELON”. There also seems to be limited opportunity for secretaries to express opposition. During the cabinet meeting, Trump asked the room, “Is anybody unhappy?”, to which applause followed and Trump added, “I think everyone’s not only happy, they’re thrilled.”
With the confirmations of career politicians like Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Pam Bondi as Attorney General (despite being second pick for the role after first choice and found sexual predator and criminal Matt Gaetz stepped aside), the Cabinet of the second Trump administration is perhaps given more legitimate ground to stand on. It’s hard to say how the dynamic between the President and his Cabinet will play out throughout the next four years, especially considering the novel presence and astounding influence of Musk. Regardless, it will surely follow suit in the Trump universe and surprise us all, likely in a somewhat ugly manner.
References
BBC. (2025) Who is on Trump’s top team? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx24gze60yzo.
Bowman, Tom. (2025) “Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick for defense secretary, wins Senate confirmation”. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/24/nx-s1-5272854/trump-cabinet-picks-pete-hegseth-senate-confirmation-vote.
Doyle, Katherine. (2025) “Trump and Elon Musk dominate his first Cabinet meeting”. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-elon-musk-dominate-first-cabinet-meeting-rcna193836.
Hernandez, Joe. (2025) “Caroline Kennedy calls her cousin, RFK Jr., a ‘predator’ ahead of his confirmation hearings”. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/28/nx-s1-5278407/caroline-kennedy-rfk-jr-confirmation-hearing.
Kaufmann, P., Lodhi, H., Keller, C., Burnett, S.. (2025) “Trump Cabinet confirmation status: Which nominees have been confirmed?” The Associated Press. https://apnews.com/projects/trump-cabinet-confirmation-tracker/
Kinnard, Meg. (2025) “Trump’s Cabinet members have already backtracked on some promises made before being confirmed”. The Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/trump-cabinet-promises-patel-kennedy-bessent-rollins-b86a6dd08ab08f4b54e1a4d18fce11be.
Moore, E., Domonoske, C., Han, J.. (2024) “Trump taps Musk to lead a ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ with Ramaswamy”. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/12/g-s1-33972/trump-elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-government-efficiency-deep-state.
Simmons-Duffin, Selena. (2025) “RFK Jr. confirmed as Trump’s health secretary, over Democrats’ loud objections”. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/13/nx-s1-5294591/rfk-jr-trump-health-human-services-hhs-vaccines.
The Rollback of DEI Policies Across Government and Private Sectors
Sam Fayhee
Cultural clashes are a constant force in American politics, but the rollback of DEI policies highlight the extreme divide in American culture today. From day one of Trump’s second term, the administration has attempted to amend hiring practices and workplace policies in government agencies and corporations which rely on federal funding. To better understand how the President’s efforts have played out and will impact hiring and policies in the future, we must understand what is shaping the current landscape.
DEI, DEIA, and environmental justice cover a broad scope of efforts and initiatives. Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility can help people from a wide variety of backgrounds access education and employment opportunities equitably; additionally, environmental efforts have long-term impacts on every individual (Aratani, 2024). Of course, merit is of value within schemes considering DEI, but so are other factors, factors which are worth considering in creating a positive workplace. Along with the Federal government, many companies have made efforts over the last decade to expand their workforce in this dimension, especially with the connection made to better performance and profitability (Patterson, Halevy, and Byrd, 2025). This practice has grown especially in the last five years, but it has not been without challenge. In 2023, the Supreme Court found that affirmative action was unconstitutional, and since then there has been an uptick in cases brought in connection to institutional practices around hiring and admissions (Aratani, 2024).
This new wave of dissent from DEI and other initiatives has found value within the Trump administration, which has found the trend to be against the principles of equality and the value of meritocracy without exception (Exec. Order No. 14,151, 2025). To counter the trend, President Trump has signed three executive orders to rollback DEI efforts at the beginning of his term along with several references throughout his communications. The practice of considering certain characteristics such as economic resources and disability status appears to the President and his party as contradictory to the equal rights promised to all Americans, and so the funding for all programs has been ended for the Federal government’s agencies and related organizations (Exec Order No. 14,151, 2025, Exec Order No. 14,170, 2025, and Exec Order No. 14,173, 2025). The impact of these directives has already been seen in a reduction of new hires along with corporations either aligning with the new policies or reaffirming their existing initiatives. The orders state that there will be a wind-down window in which the previous resources invested will be analysed and a new path forward will be created which aligns better with the administration’s vision.
The landscape of legality and politics surrounding this issue remains unsettled, which can be seen in both public and corporate responses to the rollback of attempts at equitable hiring practices. There is a sense of immense risk for not following the President’s wishes, and accordingly many corporations such as Walmart and Amazon have begun their rollback (Sherman, 2025). Conversely, others such as JPMorgan Chase and Coca-Cola have said that they will continue to reach out to marginalised communities as they find their contributions valuable (Murry and Bohannon, 2025). This divergence in corporate strategies will continue to fuel friction in the marketplace and in the legislative sphere, with the fundamental question of equity versus equality remaining at the heart of the issue.
References
Aratani, L. (2024, September 6). How the US Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling unleashed anti-DEI cases. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/sep/06/dei-affirmative-action-lawsuits
Exec Order No. 14,151, 3 C.F.R. (2025). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/
Exec Order No. 14,170, 3 C.F.R. (2025). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reforming-the-federal-hiring-process-and-restoring-merit-to-government-service/
Exec Order No. 14,173, 3 C.F.R. (2025). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/
Murray, C., Bohannon, M. (2025, March 5). Victoria’s Secret Tweaks DEI Language to ‘Inclusion and Belonging’: Here Are All the Companies Rolling Back DEI Programs. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/05/victorias-secret-tweaks-dei-language-to-inclusion-and-belonging-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/
Patterson, B., Halevy, A., Byrd, L. (2025, February 27). Executive orders and the changing landscape of employer DEI programs. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/executive-orders-changing-landscape-employer-dei-programs-2025-02-27/
Sherman, N. (2025, January 10). Meta and Amazon scale back diversity initiatives. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmy7xpw3pyo
US-Ukraine Relations and Conflict
Ainsley McLoy
President Trump and President Zelensky’s nationally televised quarrel has called into question the fragile relationship between the White House and Ukraine. The implications of a falling-out could be disastrous for Ukraine, especially during the crucial moments of war where it intends to establish allies and ensure ammunition. The future is yet unknown, but a contextual analysis of the soured diplomatic relations between the two States may shed light on the conflict itself.
Ukraine has been navigating war since Russia first occupied Crimea and supported pro-Russian separatists and the Donbas war in 2014. While attempts at a ceasefire had been made, Vladamir Putin disregarded the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements, a precedent further corroborated by the expanded ‘Special Military Operation’ in 2022. The United States has provided military aid to Ukraine in various capacities since the first hostilities. In 2014, the Obama Administration provided Ukraine with nonlethal security assistance and in 2017, the Trump Administration began providing lethal aid (CRS Reports, 2024).
Aid, among other topics, was the subject of Trump and Zelensky’s fiery meeting in late February (C-Span, 2025). The two presidents intended to sign a mineral deal, however, sharp disagreements on the U.S. approach to peace-making halted the proceedings. Trump, styled as a peacemaker and deal ‘closer,’ emphasized a foreign policy that would conclude the war speedily and minimize further human casualties. However, Zelensky criticized Trump’s mediation strategy, arguing that it failed to account for Russian aggression. Trump stated that many Ukrainian “concessions” and “compromises” must be made to end the conflict.
Russia’s diplomatic trustworthiness was another point of contention between the two representatives. Trump stated that Putin would respect an international agreement that he negotiated. However, Ukraine, plausibly scarred from the Minsk Agreements, was skeptical of Trump’s ability to ensure that Russia adheres to international law and rules-based order. To that end, Zelensky has advocated for a security guarantee that protects Ukraine in the event of resumed fighting. Moreover, when asked directly about a potential U.S. response to a broken ceasefire, Trump refused to answer, arguing that a break would not occur.
This meeting intended to finalize a mineral deal to provide the United States with mining rights for valuable Ukrainian raw minerals (graphite, lithium, titanium, etc.). The deal also envisions the creation of a jointly owned investment fund, constructed from the proceeds from mineral sales, that will support Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction (Aikman, 2025). Though the deal was unsigned after the disastrous meeting, a recent conciliatory letter from Zelensky restated Ukraine’s willingness to sign the mineral agreement and enter peace discussions.
Following the White House confrontation, President Trump suspended crucial US military and intelligence aid to Ukraine (Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, 2025). The most pressing concern arising from this decision is Ukraine’s access to advanced air defense systems, a need that President Zelensky strongly emphasized during the late February meeting. In particular, Ukraine relies on Patriot interceptors to protect against Russia’s frequent aerial assaults. Additionally, the withdrawal of US intelligence support - widely regarded as the most sophisticated in the world - will undermine Ukraine’s targeting capacity and situational awareness on the battlefield (The Economist, 2025). The United States' move has already resulted in serious repercussions; Ukraine faced a large-scale overnight offensive on energy and gas infrastructure. This attack has provoked the United States to threaten Russia with banking tariffs and sanctions.
The fallout between Trump and Zelensky threatens Ukraine’s defense and stability, weakening the Ukrainian military's air defense and intelligence capabilities. While the mineral deal remains unsigned, Zelensky’s willingness to negotiate signals hope for renewed cooperation. The future of U.S.-Ukraine relations will shape Ukraine’s war effort and broader geopolitical stability in the years ahead.
References
Aikman, I., & Gregory, J. (2025, February 26). Ukraine Minerals Deal: What We Know So Far. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn527pz54neo
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. (2025, January 10). U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine . United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine
C-SPAN. (2025, February 28). President Trump Meets with Ukrainian President Zelensky. C-SPAN.org; C-SPAN. https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-trump-meets-with-ukrainian-president-zelensky/656418
Congressional Research Service. (2024). U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040
The Economist. (2025, March 4). What Will America’s Pause in Military Aid Mean for Ukraine? The Economist. https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2025/03/04/what-will-americas-pause-in-military-aid-mean-for-ukraine
The Changes and Implications of NATO Funding
Andrea Stephen
During Trump’s first administration, at the 2018 NATO Summit in Brussels, he demanded that NATO allies raise their financial commitments to the organization, and implied to journalists that he had threatened to withdraw the US from NATO to ensure that his demands were met (White House, 2018). This approach has continued in Trump’s second administration, but with far more significant implications for European security, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2022.
As early as February 2024, during a presidential campaign event, Trump suggested that in the event of a hypothetical attack on a NATO country by Russia, he would withhold protection from that NATO ally if they failed to meet the 2% of national GDP defense spending contribution (Durbin, 2024). The impact of this sentence cannot be overstated— Jens Stoltenberg, then NATO Secretary General, argued that Trump’s comments “undermine all of our security” (Durbin, 2024). Yet, for Trump, these debates about spending highlight what he perceives to be “uneven burden-sharing” between NATO members, with the US bearing a greater burden of NATO funding (Diamond, 2018). This perception is evident in Trump’s recent push in 2025 for NATO members to increase their target commitment to NATO from 2% of national GDP to 5% of GDP (Posaner, Kayali, Brinkmann, and Noyan, 2025). Notably, NATO members actually agree with Trump that their defense expenditure must increase (Posaner, Kayali, Brinkmann, and Noyan, 2025). However, as many European nations are battling domestic financial issues, many worry about the feasibility of the 5% goal (Posaner, Kayali, Brinkmann, and Noyan, 2025).
The issue then is that NATO allies worry that, like at the 2018 NATO summit, Trump will threaten to leave NATO again today should allies fail to immediately increase their financial commitment to NATO. In fact, Trump recently questioned why, despite being an ocean away, the US is giving more money to NATO than European nations (Posaner, Kayali, Brinkmann, and Noyan, 2025), especially considering European nations should be more worried about their security given their proximity to Russia. Amid mounting concerns of Russia’s growing threat to European security and the perception that Trump is an unreliable ally, European nations have started to take security into their own hands.
The shift towards a European-led collective defense is undeniably underway. During the now-infamous February 27th meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky, US leadership threatened to withdraw funding from Ukraine, criticized Zelensky over insignificant matters, and eventually got so heated that Zelensky was asked to leave the White House (Rawnsley, 2025). Despite the fairly clear indicators that Ukraine would not be getting further support from the US, NATO allies took up the mantle. Just a few days after the White House meeting, on March 2nd, Starmer convened an ‘emergency’ summit on Ukraine (Rogers, 2025). For this meeting, various NATO and EU officials were invited along with all NATO member states, except the United States (Prime Minister’s Office, 2025). During the emergency summit, nations present essentially sorted out a plan to continue helping Ukraine without the assistance (or even with the counterproductive interference) of the United States; solutions included the formation of a European “coalition of the willing” (Rogers, 2025).
This meeting truly signifies a shift to a new era of security, led by European nations rather than the United States. Ultimately, as Trump continues to threaten allies and remain an unreliable ally, the rest of the NATO allies will be compelled to take the lead in drafting new strategies and the way forward, empowering European nations while isolating the US from the center of core decision-making.
References
Diamond, J. July 11, 2018. “Trump opens NATO summit with blistering criticism of Germany, labels allies ‘delinquent’”. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/donald-trump-nato-summit-2018/index.html.
Durbin, A. February 11, 2024. “Nato chief says Donald Trump comments ‘undermine all of our security’”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68269354.
Prime Minister’s Office. March 1, 2025. “Prime Minister Keir Starmer to host leaders summit on Ukraine”. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-keir-starmer-to-host-leaders-summit-on-ukraine
Rawnsley, J. March 10, 2025. “JD Vance's cousin criticises him for 'belittling' Zelensky”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2yl5kevrpo.
Rogers, I. March 2, 2025. “European Leaders Meet in London on Ukraine: Live Blog”. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2025-03-02/euopean-leaders-meet-in-london-on-ukraine?embedded-checkout=true
White House. July 12, 2018. “Remarks by President Trump at Press Conference After NATO Summit”. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-conference-nato-summit-brussels-belgium/.
Comments