What’s MIA in the Trump–Putin story

Trump’s Recent Diplomacy with Russia Draws Scrutiny from Media and Analysts

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, in August 2025. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

A version of the article below first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter is published twice a week and covers politics, media, and culture.

As an adult, I have had two recurring dreams for decades. The first is that I must return to college to complete my studies and earn a diploma. The second is that I appear on an episode of Saturday Night Live and attend the afterparty. There is little I can do about the first. For the second, I say it is never too late. The closest I have come occurred earlier this week when I was a guest on The Daily Show.

Jon Stewart invited me to discuss my new book, How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America, and recent developments involving Trump, Putin, and the war in Ukraine. Stewart allowed extended discussion and shared laughs with the audience. At one point, after I described Trump’s approach to Putin, Stewart asked whether Trump might be pursuing a spheres-of-influence arrangement among Russia, China, and the United States for reasons of stability. I replied that this gave Trump too much credit. Stewart noted there is a first time for everything. He added that a line from Peaky Blinders—“Big fucks small”—captured Trump’s worldview. The exchange continued for the remainder of the segment.

You can watch it here.

Stewart showed familiarity with the record of Trump’s statements about Putin. In the same period, Trump’s public comments on Russia and Ukraine received extensive coverage. A few hours before the Daily Show taping, I appeared on Nicolle Wallace’s program to discuss the same topics. Wallace asked why some observers have difficulty integrating the full sequence of events involving Russian actions toward the United States and Trump’s responses. I answered that documented Russian election interventions in 2016, 2020, and 2024, along with ongoing operations, constitute a sustained pattern that some find difficult to accept as a single narrative.

I noted that Trump has consistently described investigations into these matters as a hoax. After the Mueller report, Democratic emphasis on the issue decreased, leaving an opening for alternative framing that has continued for years. Critics from various perspectives have described books on the topic as backward-looking. I wrote the book because the sequence forms a significant part of the public record that has not always been presented as one continuous account.

In subsequent days, coverage of Trump’s statements on a diesel-related arrangement, his descriptions of Russian actions in Ukraine, and his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continued. Two New York Times analyses illustrated the pattern. David Sanger, White House and national security correspondent, wrote that Trump’s recent effort to adjust relations with Russia and characterize Zelenskyy as an obstacle to peace stood out for its pace and its denial that Russia continues military operations. Valerie Hopkins observed that Trump has departed from prior U.S. policy by reducing economic pressure on Russia while directing criticism at Ukraine. She noted that Putin has advanced toward normalized relations with Washington without concessions on Ukraine.

These accounts accurately described the immediate statements and policy shifts. Neither included earlier events such as the 2016 election interference documented in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which concluded that Russian actors directed by Putin took actions intended to help Trump. The Mueller report later examined whether the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government and stated that it did not establish such conspiracy or coordination, while documenting numerous contacts and Trump’s public acceptance of Russian denials.

Subsequent U.S. government assessments and indictments have described additional Russian influence operations in 2020 and 2024, including disinformation efforts. Trump has maintained that claims of Russian interference constitute a politically motivated narrative and has authorized the release of certain previously classified materials that his administration presents as evidence against the 2016 assessment. Russian state media has aired commentary welcoming Trump’s recent positions. One segment quoted a pro-government journalist stating that victory had already been achieved from their perspective.

The current developments occur against the background of more than a decade of Russian government actions aimed at influencing U.S. politics and weakening Western institutions, as described in successive intelligence assessments. They also occur against the background of Trump’s repeated public statements expressing admiration for Putin and questioning the basis of U.S. sanctions and support for Ukraine. Official records show that Trump has not endorsed the Intelligence Community Assessment on 2016 interference and has described related investigations as unfounded.

Russian state television has carried commentary describing Trump’s recent moves as favorable. Coverage in Western outlets has varied in the degree to which it connects present statements to the earlier documented interventions. The Mueller report’s specific finding on the absence of established conspiracy remains part of the public record alongside the intelligence assessment of Russian intent.

The sequence of events includes the 2016 interference operation, Trump’s acceptance of Putin’s denials, continued Russian operations in later cycles, and Trump’s current policy adjustments. Reporting that focuses solely on the most recent statements omits these earlier elements. Reporting that presents only the long-term narrative without noting the Mueller report’s conclusion on coordination also leaves out a documented finding. Both the 2017 assessment and the Mueller report conclusions are available in unclassified form.

Trump’s public record shows consistent skepticism toward claims of Russian election interference and consistent interest in improved relations with Putin. Russian government actions, according to U.S. indictments and assessments, have included efforts to amplify divisive content and, in some cases, to assist Trump-aligned narratives. These two threads—documented Russian operations and Trump’s stated positions—have run in parallel for ten years. Current coverage continues to differ in how fully it integrates both threads.