Trump, Putin agree on limited ceasefire in Ukraine

PRESIDENT TRUMP and Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to make progress on a limited ceasefire agreement in Ukraine during a lengthy phone call on Tuesday that the White House says is the first step toward a longterm peace deal.

Trump said Putin agreed to halt attacks on Ukraine’s energy systems and infrastructure.

“We agreed to an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

However, Putin rejected the U.S. proposal for a full 30-day ceasefire that Ukraine has agreed to.

And Moscow said Putin demanded the U.S. end its military and intelligence sharing with Ukraine ahead of long-term peace talks. 

Further negotiations between senior U.S. and Russian officials will “begin immediately in the Middle East," the White House said.

It remains to be seen what concessions Russia and Ukraine will need to make to reach a longterm peace deal.

There was no mention of how territory Russia seized would be divided up.

Read more: 5 takeaways from the Trump-Putin call

WAR RETURNS TO GAZA

Israel launched new attacks in Gaza on Tuesday after Hamas refused to release additional hostages, effectively ending the fragile ceasefire deal that had been teetering on the brink.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the White House was consulted ahead of the strikes.

The U.S. has been ramping up attacks against Iranian-backed terrorist leaders in the Middle East.

Trump and Putin on Tuesday “spoke broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts,” including “the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons.”

The White House said Putin agreed that “Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel.”

MEANWHILE...

Chief Justice John Roberts injected himself into the battle between the Trump administration and the judiciary over deportations.

Roberts issued a rare public statement after Trump and some GOP lawmakers called for impeaching U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who temporarily blocked Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Boasberg, who was appointed by former President Obama, accused the Trump administration of ignoring an order to return Venezuelan migrants who were on a plane headed for El Salvador.

The Trump administration says it was too late to turn the planes around by the time the judge issued his written order, but there are questions about whether the administration ignored Boasberg’s verbal order.

Boasberg had implemented a two-week pause on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act after it was challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

Evening Report spoke with University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias about Roberts’s rare move to release a public statement addressing a feud between the president and a federal judge.

“I think Roberts is trying to calm the waters and bring the temperature down,” Tobias said. “So far, Trump has said he’ll comply with court orders, but this recent dustup with Boasberg has people dubious.”

A move to impeach the judge would almost certainly be blocked in the Senate, where it would need two-thirds support.

“Roberts is correct — there’s no history of impeaching judges or even bringing articles of impeachment against judges for decisions that presidents disagree with," Tobias said. "Only a tiny number of federal judges ... have been impeached or convicted, usually for criminal activity like fraud or bribery, so I hope the president will take the statement in the fashion it was meant to be offered.”