• Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
  • Lawmakers launch inquires into U.S. boat strike
  • Nov. 29, 2025, 10:07 PM EST / Updated Nov. 30, 2025,…
  • Mark Kelly says troops ‘can tell’ what orders…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Nov. 25, 2025, 8:34 PM ESTBy Dan De Luce, Courtney Kube and Abigail WilliamsIn a meeting with Ukrainian officials in Kyiv last week, U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll delivered a grim assessment. Driscoll told his counterparts their troops faced a dire situation on the battlefield and would suffer an imminent defeat against Russian forces, two sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.The Russians were ramping up the scale and pace of their aerial attacks, and they had the ability to fight on indefinitely, Driscoll told them, according to the sources. The situation for Ukraine would only get worse over time, he continued, and it was better to negotiate a peace settlement now rather than end up in an even weaker position in the future.And there was more bad news. The U.S. delegation also said America’s defense industry could not keep supplying Ukraine with the weapons and air defenses at the rate needed to protect the country’s infrastructure and population, the sources said.Driscoll’s message came after he had presented a U.S.-backed peace plan that Kyiv officials viewed as a capitulation to Moscow, according to the two sources.“The message was basically — you are losing,” one of the sources said, “and you need to accept the deal.”The meeting between Driscoll and the Ukrainians was part of an effort by some Trump administration officials to press the Ukrainians to accept the new U.S.-backed peace proposal without delay, even though it embraced Russia’s maximalist demands and required painful concessions from Kyiv’s government, multiple current and former Western officials said. Ukraine politely declined to sign on to the peace plan as it was presented, and the proposal has been heavily revised since the discussions between Driscoll and Ukrainian officials last week.The meeting was just the latest example of a long-running rift inside the Trump administration over how to end the war in Ukraine. The split features a looming potential political rivalry between two former senators and potential presidential hopefuls positioning themselves for 2028: Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.One camp, including Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff and other officials, views Ukraine as the primary obstacle to peace and favors using U.S. leverage to force Kyiv to make major compromises, according to multiple current and former officials. The other camp, represented by Rubio and other officials, sees Russia as the culprit for having launched an unprovoked invasion of its neighbor and says Moscow will relent only if it pays a price for its aggression through sanctions and other pressure.With his deputies vying for his attention along with Republican lawmakers and European leaders, President Donald Trump has veered back and forth on how to resolve the conflict. “It was clear for some time that there was a divide, but we’ve never seen it in action publicly quite the way we have in the last few days,” said a former senior U.S. diplomat with experience in Eastern Europe. Ukrainian servicemen fire a Caesar self-propelled howitzer toward Russian troops near the front-line town of Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region of Ukraine on Sunday. Anatolii Stepanov / ReutersReached for comment Tuesday, the White House referred to a social media post in which Trump said the original peace plan has been “fine-tuned, with additional input from both sides, and there are only a few remaining points of disagreement.”“I look forward to hopefully meeting with President Zelenskyy and President Putin soon, but ONLY when the deal to end this War is FINAL or, in its final stages,” Trump added in the post. A State Department spokesperson said, “President Trump’s entire team, including Secretary Rubio, Special Envoy Witkoff, Secretary Driscoll, and many others, are working in lockstep, as they have been for 10 months, to bring an end to the senseless and destructive war.”The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.Grave doubtsThe frenetic diplomacy began last week after a purported 28-point U.S. peace plan leaked to the media. The plan was the product of discussions in Miami between Russian President Vladimir Putin’s envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, and his U.S. counterpart, Witkoff, according to two sources with knowledge of the meeting. White House officials told reporters it was an American proposal, even though the document embraced Russia’s repeated demands to force Ukraine to cede territory it controls, scale back its military and give up ever joining the NATO alliance. Some elements of the plan contradicted the Trump administration’s previously stated positions, including language that implied U.S. military forces would be barred from Poland. Republican and Democratic senators said Rubio had told them it was a plan drafted by the Russians. But Rubio later said their account was false, and he and the White House later insisted it was a U.S. proposal with Russian and Ukrainian “input.” In an unusual move, the White House chose Driscoll, the Army secretary, to brief the Ukrainians on the proposal, instead of a senior diplomat. Driscoll, an old Yale Law School classmate of Vance’s, was headed to Ukraine on a previously scheduled visit to discuss drone technology, NBC News previously reported. Taken aback by the peace proposal’s terms, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed grave doubts but stopped short of vetoing the plan, saying his government was ready to hold diplomatic discussions. Rubio used cautious language about the plan after it leaked, posting on X that peace would “require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions” and that the United States would “continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war.”Trump, meanwhile, ramped up pressure on Ukraine, telling reporters that Zelenskyy’s choice was to accept a peace deal or “continue to fight his little heart out.”Andriy Yermak, chief of staff the Ukrainian presidential office, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a news conference after their closed-door talks at the U.S. Mission in Geneva on Sunday.Fabrice Coffrini / AFP via Getty ImagesRubio flew to Geneva over the weekend, and after talks with the Ukrainians and appeals from European diplomats, the most problematic provisions for Ukraine were removed or revised, according to multiple Western officials and sources with knowledge of the matter. Instead of the take-it-or-leave-it tone White House officials used about the peace plan earlier, Rubio portrayed the discussions as fluid and said the plan was rapidly evolving. “This is a living, breathing document. Every day with input it changes,” he told reporters in Geneva.By Tuesday, the Ukrainians had struck a positive note, expressing optimism about what was now a 19-point plan under discussion. “Our delegations reached a common understanding on the core terms of the agreement discussed in Geneva,” Rustem Umerov, secretary of Ukraine’s national security and defense council, wrote on social media. And he raised the prospect of a possible visit to Washington by Zelenskyy to seal the deal.Driscoll traveled on to Abu Dhabi, where he held talks with a Russian delegation Monday and Tuesday, officials said.With the peace plan revised from its original form, it resembled previous proposals that Russia has rebuffed. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, who had “welcomed” the initial draft from last week, suggested Tuesday that the Kremlin might reject what was now on the table. Lavrov cited discussions in August between Trump and Putin at a summit in Anchorage, Alaska, saying the latest draft proposal appeared to contradict the understanding reached in those talks.“Some forces want to jeopardize efforts by Donald Trump and to change the peace plan,” Lavrov said, adding, “If the ‘spirit’ of Anchorage will be wiped out from this plan, then it’s going to be a whole other story.”As in previous U.S. diplomatic efforts, one faction in the administration had tried to champion a proposal that favored Russia and other officials had pushed back, with the backing of European governments and senior Republicans in Congress, according to Western officials, former U.S. diplomats and experts.“If the split lasts, it’s going to be very difficult to pursue a coherent policy,” said William Taylor, a former ambassador to Ukraine who is now a fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank. Dan De LuceDan De Luce is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit. Courtney KubeCourtney Kube is a correspondent covering national security and the military for the NBC News Investigative Unit.Abigail WilliamsAbigail Williams is a producer and reporter for NBC News covering the State Department.Gordon Lubold and Peter Nicholas contributed.

admin - Latest News - November 26, 2025
admin
7 views 15 secs 0 Comments




The meeting between Army secretary Dan Driscoll and the Ukrainians was the latest example of the rift inside the Trump administration about how to end the war.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Nov. 25, 2025, 6:33 PM ESTBy Berkeley Lovelace Jr.The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Tuesday announced lower prices on 15 costly prescription drugs under Medicare, including Ozempic and Wegovy. The price cuts come through the Medicare drug price negotiation program created under the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. It’s different from President Donald Trump’s “most favored nation” drug pricing approach, which relies on executive orders and voluntary deals with drugmakers — not legislation. Trump recently announced such a deal with Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, to lower the price of the drugs in exchange for tariff relief.The Trump administration has been largely quiet about the Medicare price negotiation program.This is the second round of negotiations. Last year, the Biden administration reached deals on 10 prescription drugs, including several for heart disease and diabetes. Those price cuts are set to take effect in 2026. This latest round of price negotiations will go into effect in 2027.“President Trump directed us to stop at nothing to lower health care costs for the American people,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news release. “As we work to Make America Healthy Again, we will use every tool at our disposal to deliver affordable health care to seniors.” Drugmakers can choose not to strike deals under the negotiation program, but doing so would most likely mean withdrawing their drugs from Medicare — cutting them off from one of the nation’s largest markets. Drugmakers have challenged the program in court but so far have been unsuccessful. The negotiated prices are what Medicare will pay drugmakers for the medicines, not what patients will pay out of pocket. Those discounts will save taxpayers $12 billion, according to CMS. It’s expected to save Medicare enrollees $685 million in out-of-pocket costs in 2027. Here are the negotiated prices for the drugs, based on a 30-day supply, compared to the 2024 list price:Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy, for Type 2 diabetes and weight loss: $274 negotiated price, down from the $959 list price. (Negotiated prices for higher doses of Wegovy are $385.)Trelegy Ellipta, an asthma treatment: $175, down from $654.Xtandi, for prostate cancer: $7,004, down from $13,480.Pomalyst, a chemotherapy drug: $8,650, down from $21,744.Ofev, for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: $6,350, down from $12,622.Ibrance, a breast cancer drug: $7,871, down from $15,741.Linzess, a chronic constipation drug: $136, down from $539.Calquence, a cancer drug: $8,600, down from $14,228.Austedo and Austedo XR, for Huntington’s disease: $4,093, down from $6,623.Breo Ellipta, a COPD drug: $67, down from $397.Xifaxan, for diarrhea and irritable bowel syndrome: $1,000, down from $2,696.Vraylar, an antipsychotic drug: $770, down from $1,376.Tradjenta, a diabetes drug: $78, down from $488. Janumet and Janumet XR, diabetes drugs: $80, down from $526.Otezla, a psoriatic arthritis drug: $1,650, down from $4,722.The 15 drugs accounted for $42.5 billion, or 15%, of total Medicare Part D spending in 2024. Medicare Part D covers medications that people take at home, as opposed to those administered in a facility, such as IV chemotherapy. “The price negotiations look very reasonable to me,” said Stacie Dusetzina, a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “It should hopefully provide some relief for taxpayers and beneficiaries in the long run.” Dusetzina said the $274 negotiated price for Ozempic and Wegovy is higher than the $250 price in Trump’s deal. “They should’ve gotten that deal for the taxpayers and the Medicare beneficiaries,” she said.The price cuts come as many Americans say the cost of prescription drugs is unaffordable.About 1 in 5 adults say they’ve skipped filling a prescription because it was too expensive, according to a survey published in July by health policy research group KFF. About 1 in 7 say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses of medicine in the last year because of the cost. Berkeley Lovelace Jr.Berkeley Lovelace Jr. is a health and medical reporter for NBC News. He covers the Food and Drug Administration, with a special focus on Covid vaccines, prescription drug pricing and health care. He previously covered the biotech and pharmaceutical industry with CNBC.
NEXT
Source: FBI seeks to interview Democratic lawmakers over video
Related Post
November 24, 2025
Nov. 24, 2025, 12:01 AM ESTBy Jarrod BarryAs the holiday shopping season starts to kick into high gear, Americans are balancing Black Friday deals with lingering concerns about their own finances.Consumers are looking to shell out less this holiday season, new data from Deloitte shows. Surveyed shoppers said they plan to spend 4% less than last year between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, citing higher costs of living and more fear of the economy.It’s a reversal. Previous Deloitte surveys dating back to 2021 had shown shoppers planned to spend more than previous years during the post-Thanksgiving weekend.The pullback is expected to hit both ends of the income spectrum. Consumers making less than $50,000 a year are expected to spend 12% less than last year, according to the business services firm. Shoppers making more than $200,000 a year say they’ll cut their spending by 18%.“While we expect shoppers to plan to pull back on spending, we also anticipate strong participation throughout the holiday week,” Natalie Martini, Deloitte’s vice chair and U.S. retail and consumer products leader, said in a press release.The firm surveyed 1,200 consumers across the United States between Oct. 15 and Oct. 23.Shoppers are hitting the malls and retail websites at a precarious time, with Americans feeling increasingly fearful about both the broader economy and their personal finances. Consumer confidence hit one of the lowest levels on record in November, according to the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment survey that was released Friday. It’s just slightly above the June 2022 low, when inflation was soaring.Voters cited affordability as a top concern during November’s elections, fueling Democratic wins in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City. President Donald Trump has tried to address rising food costs by eliminating many of the tariffs he imposed this year on food imports, including beef and coffee from Brazil.The University of Michigan report found that consumers were particularly worried about their jobs and personal finances: 69% of respondents said they expect unemployment to increase over the next year, twice the percentage from a year ago.“After the federal shutdown ended, sentiment lifted slightly from its mid-month reading,” wrote Joanne Hsu, the director of consumer surveys at the school. “However, consumers remain frustrated about the persistence of high prices and weakening incomes.”The rate of inflation, which slowed earlier this year, has been climbing since April, according to federal data, reaching an annual rate of 3% in September. That’s stinging Americans’ wallets, and many aren’t expecting relief anytime soon. Respondents in the University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey expect inflation to hit 4.5% by next year.Retail earnings reports over the past few weeks point to some troubling consumer trends. Walmart posted strong results last week as the discount retailer benefited from shoppers looking to save money on core items like groceries and other staples. The company said higher-income families are shopping more at the store in search of bargains, while lower-income families are under greater financial strain.“As pocketbooks have been stretched, you’re seeing more consumer dollars go to necessities versus discretionary items,” said John David Rainey, Walmart’s chief financial officer, during the company’s earnings call.Discount fashion retailers like Gap and TJX Cos., which owns the chains T.J. Maxx and Marshalls, also reported strong quarterly earnings, another sign that shoppers are trading down and seeking out cheaper options. Target and Bath & Body Works, which are seen as stores that encourage splurging, struggled during the previous quarter.With their bank accounts already stretched, consumers are increasingly turning to financing in order to afford their purchases. A report last month from PayPal found that half of shoppers plan to use buy now, pay later services for their holiday shopping. These services, which include apps like Klarna, Afterpay and Affirm, allow customers to make a purchase and then pay it off in installments, typically with 0% interest.These apps are especially popular with younger shoppers. According to the Deloitte study, 39% of Gen Zers and millennials will use buy now, pay later apps for Black Friday spending. Many shoppers use these services to spread out their spending over a longer period of time, but some worry that it entices people to spend more than they can afford and can pull them into debt they didn’t expect.Jarrod BarryJarrod Barry is an intern with the NBC News Business Unit.
November 15, 2025
Nov. 15, 2025, 5:00 AM ESTBy Alexandra MarquezDemocrats were knocked back on their heels in 2024 by the party’s erosion of support among young men. They were gratified to see improvement with that group in key elections earlier this month.In between, the party has been on a mission to stop its erosion among young voters, launching research efforts, piloting different styles of communication and elevating new voices. And it has already come to one important conclusion, according to interviews in October with a range of people on the left working on the issue: The solution to Democrats’ struggle to appeal to young men won’t come from one national figure who will instantly, magically draw them in.“If not Trump, then who? And the question for the Democratic Party that I think is one of the challenges we have right now is, we don’t have a great answer for that,” Amanda Litman, the founder and executive director of Run for Something, a group that recruits young Democratic candidates for downballot races, told NBC News. “I don’t think Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have the answer to that,” she added, referring to the Senate and House minority leaders respectively.But while Democrats may not have one leading figure they can rely on to recruit young male voters, one overarching belief is that they do have popular policies that — if communicated well and in the right spaces — could put the party on a path to victory with young voters.“I don’t think that there is a lack of popularity with Democratic policies. It’s a lack of the ability to appropriately communicate those policies in a way that actually breaks through and resonates with these voters, right?” Danielle Butterfield, the executive director of Priorities USA, told NBC News. “We know that we are always going to be the party that has a more favorable, popular stance on health care and health care costs. The question is, do voters know that, and are we talking about it in places where they’re actually spending time?”The power of the ‘manosphere’In the year since the presidential election, Democrats have aimed to learn why their messaging to young men failed in 2024 and how to fix it.Some, like former Democratic Rep. Colin Allred, who was a collegiate and professional football player in the NFL before running for office, say it’s because Democrats alienated young men with their messaging.“If you listen to many Democratic speeches over the last few years, and you kind of listen to the recitation of policies, if you’re a young man listening into that, you might think that none of those were directed towards you. And I think that was a mistake,” Allred, who is running for Senate again in Texas next year after losing to GOP Sen. Ted Cruz last year, told NBC News.“What I’ve seen is that if somebody agrees with you on policy, but thinks that you don’t understand them, their culture, what they’re going through and where they come from, then they’re still not going to want to support you,” he added.One place that young male voters found a sense of community and culture, Democrats say, is in the loose collection of podcasts often dubbed the “manosphere.”These podcasts — hosted by comedians such as Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Tim Dillon and Andrew Schulz — often make “you feel like you’re not alone,” Litman said.“It’s funny, often very funny. It’s a little subversive or often very subversive. It feels intimate. You get to know the hosts over the course of hours and hours of conversation: their lives and their, their personalities and their quirks, and I think that is really special. Like, the parasocial relationship can be very powerful,” she added.Litman’s conclusions about the power of these podcasts are backed up by a Priorities USA research project called Warbler, which works to understand voters’ online habits and media consumption.“One of the things I think that we were struck by in the research that we did is, people are looking for long-form , by and large,” said Jeff Horwitt from Hart Research, a Democratic polling firm that partnered with Priorities USA on some of the research. (Horwitt and his firm also partner with a Republican polling outfit on the NBC News poll.) “They want a conversational back and forth. They want to learn something new rather than be told something old.”Butterfield added that media consumption behavior among young voters is “fundamentally different” than even a decade ago.“We were teaching our candidates to, like, ‘Get in and get out,’ ‘Say what you need to say, and let that voter move on,’ because their attention spans are like goldfish,” she said.Now, Butterfield added, “that’s actually not the case. If you can get their attention, you’ll have their attention, right? It’s not about a lack of, a lack of eyeballs.”A Priorities poll of 5,000 voters conducted in September found that while a majority — 66% — of voters who reported listening to or watching certain “manosphere” podcasts in the past month voted for Trump in 2024, there was still a bright spot for Democrats in the research: an emerging break with Trump among this cohort.Of those “manosphere” Trump voters, 8% said they now disapproved of his performance as president, while 7% said they would vote for a Democrat on a generic congressional ballot.Meanwhile, some “manosphere” podcasters have broken with Trump on issues such as deportations, Israel’s war in Gaza and the Jeffrey Epstein files in recent months.Still, Butterfield warned, Democrats can’t take these cracks in Trump’s coalition as an automatic sign of support for Democrats.“We’re not going to just earn back all of these voters right away just because of their opposition to Trump. We’re going to have to make sure we are offering an alternative point of view, alternative policies that solve their economic anxieties, visions for the future, etc.,” she said.“That’s going to be the difference between an okay midterm and a really amazing midterm,” Butterfield continued, adding: “We’re not going to just get by on people hating Trump alone. We’ll get far-ish, but not as far as we need to go.”In last week’s New Jersey and Virginia elections, for example, Democratic Govs.-elect Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger won by larger-than-expected margins and made gains among young men in both states, exit polls show. But those margins among young men were still in line with their overall margins of victory, among an age group in which Democrats for years ran up the score compared to the overall electorate.‘Message, messenger and medium’ are the keysIn some ways, Democratic strategists and candidates say, the solution to their party’s concerns about its performance among young men — or at least the start of it — is as easy as just appearing on these podcasts and in other male-friendly spaces.It’s something several potential 2028 presidential candidates have already dabbled in. In April, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg sat for a nearly three-hour-long interview with the hosts of “Flagrant.” In July, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, participated in a four-hour-long podcast taping of the “Shawn Ryan Show.” Both these podcasts hosted Trump in 2024.The problem with this strategy, Litman pointed out, is that not all Democratic leaders are comfortable with appearing on such programs.“You shouldn’t force it, but for the leaders who are capable of having those kinds of conversations, I think they should absolutely go into those environments and be a little bit risk averse or a little bit risk tolerant, rather,” she said.“It’s both message, messenger and medium — it’s all of the above,” Litman added later.One 2025 election winner who embraced this strategy was New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who gained popularity on TikTok, appeared on popular social media shows like “Subway Takes,” and joined the “manosphere” podcast “Flagrant.”Allred cited these “manosphere” podcasts as one place more Democrats should be going, but said there are local spaces with the same informal, intimate environment — like high school football games — that many of his fellow Democrats should feel comfortable in but don’t.“I think that in the Democratic Party, there’s almost been a reluctance to engage in things like football, and I don’t really get that. I don’t think you have to be the biggest fan of it to know that this is a place where the community is gathering and people are having, at least for me, these are some of the realest conversations I have in the entire week,” he said.Appearing in these spaces would go a long way “in terms of people seeing us, not as, kind of, elite ivory tower policy wonks,” Allred added. “At a football game, you can have the same conversation about policy. It might be a little bit less wonkish, but it’ll be more authentic … I think it’s what most people are looking for in their leaders.”Looking ahead to 2026 and 2028, Butterfield said that a priority “is making sure that we’re not sticking out like sore thumbs in these kind of ‘entertainment-first’ spaces.”“I think that your ability to authentically communicate in these spaces should be a requirement to be a good candidate in today’s world, right?” she added. “We need to be holding our candidates to a high standard of electability, such that if you can’t come across as yourself on social media, maybe we need to pick a different candidate.”Alexandra MarquezAlexandra Marquez is a politics reporter for NBC News.
November 27, 2025
Search underway for suspect in alleged wine theft
September 23, 2025
Super Typhoon Ragasa prompts rescues in the Philippines
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved