In a fresh twist to U.S.-Ukraine relations, the Trump administration has reportedly demanded that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issue a public apology before moving ahead with a significant minerals deal. This condition was set following a heated Oval Office meeting between Zelenskyy and former President Donald Trump, as noted by Fox News’ Peter Doocy.

The dispute centers on strategic disagreements regarding Ukraine’s handling of crucial mineral resources—resources that are seen as vital for U.S. national security, particularly in areas like semiconductor production and defense technology. The administration’s insistence on a public apology has added another layer of complexity to an already tense relationship.

Adding to the controversy, former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, weighed in during an appearance on The Faulkner Focus. Sondland, who played a notable role during Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, now faces renewed calls to resign amid the escalating fallout from the meeting.

Analysts suggest that the public apology requirement could further strain the diplomatic ties between Washington and Kyiv, as both nations balance economic interests, strategic resource management, and political optics. While some officials argue that securing access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth is crucial, others warn that setting such political preconditions may complicate broader international partnerships.

As the situation unfolds, observers are keeping a close eye on Zelenskyy’s next moves, uncertain whether he will concede to the demands or stand firm, potentially redefining the strategic relationship between the United States and Ukraine.

 On Friday, Fox News' Peter Doocy pressed White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki about whether or not Biden had ever been to the border. 

"Why did President Biden say he has been to the border," Doocy asked.

"As you may have seen, there has been reporting that he did drive through the border when he was on the campaign trail in 2008," Psaki responded. "And he is certainly familiar with the fact, and it stuck with him, the fact that in El Paso, the border goes right through the center of town."

"But, the most important thing everyone should know and understand is that the president has worked on these issues throughout his entire career and is well-versed in every aspect of our immigration system, including the border – that includes when he was Vice President," Psaki added.

Psaki appeared to have alluded to a "fact-check" published in The Washington Post, which reported that Biden made a "brief drive-by" along the US-Mexico border 13 years ago. 

Q    Okay.  Following up on something else the President said last night, why did President Biden say he has been to the border?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, Peter, as you may have seen, there’s been reporting that he did drive through the border when he was on the campaign trail in 2008.  And he is certainly familiar with the fact — and it stuck with him — with the fact that in El Paso, the border goes right through the center of town.

But what the most important thing everyone should know and understand is that the President has worked on these issues throughout his entire career and is well versed in every aspect of our immigration system, including the border.  That includes when he was Vice President.  And he went to Mexico and Central America 10 times to address border issues and talk about what we can do to reduce the number of migrants who were coming to the border. 

He worked in a bipartisan manner with senators like Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John McCain, and others to push for comprehensive immigration reform. 

He does not need a visit to the border to know what a mess was left by the last administration.  That’s his view.

Q    Does that count as a visit?  He said, “I’ve been there before.”  You’re saying he drove by for a few minutes.  Does that count?

MS. PSAKI:  What do you — what is the root cause — where are people coming from who are coming to the border, Peter?

Q    The President said that he has been to the border —

MS. PSAKI:  I’m asking you — I’m asking you a question, because I think people should understand the context.

Q    No, you’re answering —

MS. PSAKI:  Where do people —

Q    — a question with a question.

MS. PSAKI:  Where do people —

Q    I’m asking you if that counts.

MS. PSAKI:  Okay, I’ll answer it for you: People come from Central America and Mexico to go to the border.  The President has been to those countries 10 times to talk about border issues.

There is a focus right now on a photo op.  The President does not believe a photo op is the same as solutions.

Q    But he said, “I…” —

MS. PSAKI:  That may be a difference he has with Republicans.

Q    But that’s not what he said either.  He said, “I guess I should go down.”  So, does he think that he needs a photo op?  Is that what he’s saying?  Is that what you’re saying?

MS. PSAKI:  He doesn’t.  And that’s a fundamental disagreement he has.  I would say the former President went to the border at least once, maybe more — you may know the numbers. 

Q    But has anything changed —

MS. PSAKI:  How did that immigration policy result, Peter?  That immigration policy resulted in separating kids from their parents, building a border wall that’s feckless and that cost billions of dollars for taxpayers.  The President fundamentally disagrees on how we need to approach the immigration issue.

Q    Has anything changed at the border between 2008, when he drove by, and 2021? 

MS. PSAKI:  Aside from the fact that migrants are still coming to the border through the course of Democratic and Republican Presidents, and the — the immi- — the need to reform the immigration system is even farther long overdue?  No.  But we need to work with Democrats and Republicans to get that done.

I think we’re going to have to keep chugging along here.

BREAKING: Jen Psaki leaves FOX News’ Peter Doocy speechless after he tries to attack Biden over police vaccine mandates and she responds, “Do you what the #1 cause of death among police officers last year? It was COVID.”

MS. PSAKI:  Yep.  Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you, Jen.  Why is the administration flying

thousands of migrants from the border to Florida and New York in the middle of the night?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I’m not sure that’s in the middle of the night, but let me tell you what’s happening here.

Q    2:13 a.m., 4:29 a.m. — very early in the morning then.  Pre-dawn.

MS. PSAKI:  Well, here — here we are talking about early flights — earlier than you might like to take a flight.

It is our legal responsibility to safely care for unaccompanied children until they swiftly — can be swiftly unified with a parent or a vetted sponsor.  And that’s something we take seriously; we have a moral ri- — obligation to come to do that and deliver on that.

As a part of the unification process, our Office of Refugee Resettlement facilitates travel for children in its custody to their families or sponsors across the country.  So, in recent weeks, unaccompanied children passed through the Westchester airport, which I think is what you’re referring to, en route to their final destination to be unified with their parents or a vetted sponsor.

It’s no surprise that kids can be seen traveling through states, not just New York.  It’s something that we’re also working to unite children with their family members or vetted sponsors in other parts of the country as well.

Q    Okay.  To follow up on some of the tax talk, there’s this new proposal by Democrats in Congress and the Treasury Secretary to start monitoring every bank account that has $10,000 of cash flow per year.  So, is the plan to catch billionaire tax cheats by snooping on accounts that just have $10,000 in them?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, that’s not exactly an accurate description, so let me help you with an accurate description of what is actually happening here.  And there was a statement by the Secretary of Treasury on exactly this, where she said in this statement — just to reiterate — that she deeply appreciates “the work of Chairman Wyden and Chairman Neal’s leadership on reconciliation and, in particular, the need to close the tax gap.”

At the core of a discrepancy in the ways types of income are reported to the IRS are opaque income sources frequently which avoid — frequently avoid scrutiny, while wages and federal benefits are typically subject to full compliance.  So people who get W-2s — whether they are teachers, firefighters, employees at Fox News, anywhere where they may be getting a W-2 — that’s not what we’re talking about here; they’re already reporting their income.

We’re talking about high-net-worth individuals who are not paying the taxes they owe, and that’s what this policy would propose to address.

Q    But in the statement that you just cited, it says, “Many top earners avoid paying billions in the taxes that they owe by exploiting the system.” 

So, what — why is it that you need to start looking at accounts that just have $10,000 in it?  Maybe somebody doesn’t get a W-2.

MS. PSAKI:  That is — that is not exactly what it does. The $10,000 is the — anything under that would not be applicable, nor would people who received W-2s, Peter.  What we’re talking about here are people who are high-net-worth individuals who are not paying the taxes they owe — something we think everybody believes should happen and can help pay for in a range of important investments to make us more competitive.

Q    Okay.  And then just one on vaccine requirements.  If the whole point of a vaccine mandate is to make people safer, but a vaccine mandate also means tons of police and military may walk off the job, then, at the end of the day, does a vaccine mandate make people safer?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, where are tons of police and military walking off the job?

Q    Well, the Washington Post says that hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members remain unvaccinated, which is leading to questions about possible military readiness.  The L.A. County Sheriff says that 5 to 10 percent of their workforce could walk off the job.  And so, considering the — I mean, is there any concern about that?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would say what we point to, or what I would point you to, is evidence with a range of companies, organizations.  Frankly, the Department of Defense can also give you the up-to-date statistics on members of the military; I believe it’s over 90 percent, but I would point you to them for statistics.

Q    In certain branches.  But there are other problems in the world than COVID-19: international terror, gang violence, murder, arson, drug-dealing. 

MS. PSAKI:  What was —

Q    Is there any concern about dealing with these things?

MS. PSAKI:  What was the highe- — what was the number-one cause of death among police officers last year?  Do you know?  COVID-19.  So that’s something that we’re working to address and police departments are working to address. 

If you look at Seattle, as an example — which I know has been in some of the reporting — 92 percent of the police force is vaccinated, as are 93 percent of firefighters; 99 percent of Seattle’s 11,000 employees have submitted vaccine verification or an exemption request.

Q    My question is about public safety, though.  All these other problems — terror, murder, robberies, kidnappings — is there any concern that if police forces shrink or if the size of the ready military force shrinks that the United States or localities may not be equipped properly to deal with that or to respond?

MS. PSAKI:  Peter, more than 700,000 people have died of COVID.  Again, it was the number-one cause of death among police departments and police officers.  It’s something that we should take seriously.  Departments are trying to save people in their departments, people who work for them.  We support that effort, and there’s been success across the country in that regard.

Q    Thank you, Jen.  Given that you have two separate meetings with moderates and progressives today, is this White House confident that it will reach a deal on reconciliation by Democratic leadership’s self-imposed October 31st deadline?

MS. PSAKI:  That’s not a deadline that we have proposed.  The timeline for that is the surface transportation bill expiring, which is, of course, important — something we need to renew and save the jobs of thousands of employees who could be furloughed. 

But what our effort is and our focus is on is continuing to make progress, and we are getting closer to an agreement on a path forward to deliver for the American people.  The President believes in the value of meeting face-to-face, hence the meetings today and his full day of meetings today.  And we believe his view of the urgency here is reflected in the views of a lot of these members he’s meeting with as well.

Q    So, I hear you saying essentially that it’s unlikely that you will reach — and I understand that’s not your deadline, but, still, it’s the deadline set by Democratic leadership.  I hear you indicating it’s unlikely you’ll have an agreement by October 31st.

MS. PSAKI:  That’s not what I — no, that’s actually not what I’m indicating.  I’m indicating that we’re continuing to make progress.  We’re getting close to the final stages here.  We’re working to get agreement on a path forward.  We’re making progress on that. 

Q    Will it happen by the October 31st?

MS. PSAKI:  I’m not going to set new deadlines.  I understand why you guys want them; they’re not particularly constructive otherwise.  So —

Q    Let me ask you about what Senator Manchin said.  He said, “I don’t know how that would happen.”  He went further than you are going.  How can the President press for urgency in these talks when one of the top negotiators clearly doesn’t think that this is imminent — a deal is imminent?

MS. PSAKI:  I think the President’s view, which is shared by the vast majority of the Democratic Caucus, is that he proposed these plans months ago.  We’ve had months to discuss, consider, debate, litigate the nitty-gritty details.  We’re continuing to do that today, and it will come time soon to move forward and deliver for the American people.  And that’s something that the vast majority of the caucus agrees on.

Q    Let me just ask you about the Child Tax Credit —

MS. PSAKI:  Sure.

Q    — because there’s been some discussion — a push by moderates for those tax credits to be limited to families making less than $60,000.  Would the President agree to a final deal that only applied to those — that didn’t apply to those making less than $60,000?

And what would you say to families who say they just missed the cut and they need those benefits?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, there’s a lot of proposals that are out there.  I’m not going to speak to every single one of them. 

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI:  We’re going to look at a final package.  The President proposed an extension of the Child Tax Credit.  He has also supported, at times, as you know, income caps for a range of his proposals, including the Child Tax Credit.

But again, I’m not going to speak to individual proposals at this point in time.

Q    Can I ask you about Haiti —

MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.

Q    — Jen, quickly?  There are reports that the gang that kidnapped the 17 American and Canadian missionaries is asking for $17 million for their release — a million dollars per person.  What is the administration’s response to that, particularly in light of the policy that the U.S. does not negotiate with those holding hostages?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, that remains our policy, and I can’t get into too many details operationally here because that’s never — has never been in the interest of bringing people home who are being held for ransom.

What I can reiterate, Kristen, is that the FBI is a part of a coordinated U.S. government effort to get the U.S. citizens involved to safety; also, that the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince is coordinating with local authorities and providing assistance to the families to resolve the situation.

I’d also note that we’ve had a travel advisory for Haiti, which is at a Level 4, conveying do not travel due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and, of course, COVID-19.  But kidnapping is widespread and victims regularly include U.S. citizens.  We know these groups target U.S. citizens who they assume have the resources and finances to pay ransoms, even if that is not the case.  So, that is also something that is — remains a concern to us, but I can’t get into more operational details.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki didn't have an answer Wednesday on whether President Biden has ever or will ever visit the southern border to address the illegal immigration crisis.

Psaki was asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy during her daily press briefing if the president had "ever been to the southern border" during his nearly 50 years in public office.

"I will have to look back in my history books and check the times he’s been to the southern border," Psaki said.

"We have been looking all morning," Doocy said, "and we have not found any record of him visiting the border as president, vice president, senator, or even as a concerned citizen."

Doocy later continued, "This is a president who makes a point when there are disasters in this country, like a wildfire or hurricane, to go and see for himself firsthand what the needs are of the local community so he can have an informed POV to make policy. Why doesn’t he go down to Del Rio, Texas, to see what’s going on?"

Doocy was referring to the surge of illegal immigration in recent days in Del Rio, where thousands of migrants who crossed from Mexico are awaiting processing at the International Bridge.

"Well first of all, Peter, I think the situation at the border is the result of a broken system," Psaki replied. "And the president certainly relies on his experience. So whether it was the work he did to address root causes as vice president, his efforts when he was in the Senate to support comprehensive immigration reform. … He uses all of his experiences to inform how he governs, how he approaches challenges."

"Has Joe Biden ever been to the border? It’s a question that needs to be answered by the president, who is presiding over the most disastrous border crisis in decades," Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement following the press briefing. 

 White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki dismissed a question from Peter Doocy on why American businesses with 100 or more employees are required to vaccinate workers but migrants at the southern border are not required to vaccinate.

"Our objective is to get as many people vaccinated as humanly possible," Psaki told Doocy when asked why illegal immigrants are not being vaccinated but American workers will be forced to under President Biden’s mandate. "The president’s announcement yesterday was an effort to empower businesses to give businesses the tools to protect their workforces. That’s exactly what we did."

Doocy then pressed Psaki again saying, "Vaccines are required for "people at a business with more than 100 people. It is not a requirement for migrants at the border. Why?"

"That’s correct," Psaki responded. 

About 30% of immigrants held at federal detention facilities are refusing to be vaccinated, and they have the option to refuse.

Meanwhile, more than 18% of migrant families who recently crossed the border tested positive for COVID before being released by Border Patrol. Another 20% of unaccompanied minors tested positive for the virus.

Biden's new rules for employers with over 100 employees will be issued through the Labor Department, the president said. The president also threatened hefty fines for employers that fail to comply with the mandate.

"We have the tools to combat the virus if we come together to use those tools," Biden said.