It’s worth diving a bit deeper into the tensions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelenskyy. The back-and-forth between the two men came just hours after the U.S. diplomatic team, led by Mr. Rubio and White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, left open the possibility that the U.S. will support a peace deal that permanently gives Ukrainian territory to Russia. It’s understandable why Mr. Zelenskyy would bristle at that suggestion. 

But we should note the full context of Mr. Trump’s comments after that meeting: “Just a half-baked negotiator could’ve settled this years ago, I think, without the loss of land, very little land, without the loss of any lives and without the loss of cities that are just laying on their sides.” 

Those remarks could be interpreted to mean that the president believes Ukraine could still get all of its land back as part of a negotiated ceasefire. Or, depending on one’s perspective, he could be saying that Ukraine has lost its chance to do so and now will have to make painful territorial concessions to end the war. 

Don’t forget the history between these two leaders. After an infamous 2019 phone call between them over a blocked U.S. arms package, Mr. Trump was impeached by the House in 2020 for what critics say was an inappropriate push for Mr. Zelenskyy’s administration to investigate Biden family business dealings in Ukraine. Mr. Trump was acquitted by the Senate. 

One final note on this: Mr. Trump suggested that Ukraine ought to hold presidential elections, which have been indefinitely postponed as the Ukrainian government has imposed martial law throughout the conflict with Russia. Whether Kyiv should hold wartime elections is a very complex and sensitive political subject. The Threat Status weekly podcast delved into it last June in an exclusive interview with Anastasia Radina, head of the Ukrainian parliament’s Anti-Corruption Committee. 

Failure to combat the flow of illegal immigrants across the U.S. border with Mexico has a direct impact on U.S. national security and could lead to another major terrorist attack in this country.

Rep. August Pfluger, Texas Republican, made that case during a conversation with Mr. Taylor as part of the Threat Status Influencers video series. Mr. Pfluger, chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence, argued that Americans should be alarmed by the fact that individuals on terror watchlists were able to enter the U.S. through the porous border with Mexico during the Biden administration.

“It’s incredible to think that over 300 people could match the terror watchlists and get into this country,” he said. “It’s a crisis because 9/11 occurred with less than 20 people and there are at least 20 people [on terror watchlists] that are unaccounted for in the U.S. We can’t risk another incident like that in this country.”

In one of his first acts as president on Jan. 20, Mr. Trump signed an executive order designating Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Mr. Pfluger said that was a necessary step to give the federal government, including the U.S. military, the “authorities and resources” it needs to address the problem.

Mr. Trump’s dramatic actions to secure America’s southern border have quickly transformed the debate over illegal immigration, which soared during former President Biden’s four years in office. But the host of moves — including deploying more troops to the border and ending catch-and-release policies — have had another ripple effect.

The Washington Times’ Stephen Dinan reports that the prices paid by illegal immigrants to smuggling cartels have skyrocketed. One illegal immigrant from El Salvador told authorities he agreed to pay $17,000 to enter the U.S. by crossing the Rio Grande.

Mexican migrants, who usually pay the lowest rates, now shell out $10,000 apiece, though it often reaches figures as high as $16,000. Central American migrants regularly pay $16,000 to $17,000, though some tell Border Patrol agents that they were asked to pay $30,000. A Chinese couple said they paid $45,000 apiece.

The result: Border Patrol agents once detected more than 10,000 migrants rushing across the border daily. They now have regular days with fewer than 500 encounters, Mr. Dinan reports.

Sports have long bridged cultural and political divides here in the U.S. But they’re also capable of building bridges after years of war and deepening ties between former rivals in the decades that follow.

Asia Editor Andrew Salmon tackles that topic in a fascinating, in-depth dispatch from Tokyo about the role America’s “national pastime,” baseball, has played in forging bonds between the U.S. and Japan, including in the years immediately after World War II.

Today, amid potential trade wars, political divisions and other issues, baseball remains a link between the countries. The game arrived in Japan in 1859, not long after it was formalized as a sport here in the U.S.

The sport “has been a bridge between the U.S. and Japan, fostering connections that go beyond the game itself,” Marcus Holmes, a professor of security and diplomacy at the College of William & Mary, told Mr. Salmon.

Back to the Ukraine war: Threat Status contributor Clifford D. May makes the case that Mr. Trump’s approach, however controversial it may be, can indeed “lead to a reasonably good outcome” for both Ukraine and U.S. interests.

Mr. May, the founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues in a new column that some of the thorniest points of contention — such as when, or if, Ukraine should join NATO — can be left for talks down the road. For now, he writes, there seems to be room for a worthwhile agreement to halt the fighting.

“Ending Russia’s war against Ukraine, establishing an economic partnership between Ukraine and the U.S., and helping Ukraine build the deterrent capabilities it lacked three years ago would not count as the total victory to which Kyiv is entitled, nor the ignominious defeat Moscow deserves,” Mr. May writes. “It would be a reasonably good outcome for Ukraine, America and Trump 2.0.”

• Feb. 17-21 — International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) 2025, United Arab Emirates

• Feb. 19 — EU-U.S. Cooperation on Trade and Economic Security: A Conversation with Maros Sefcovic, American Enterprise Institute

• Feb. 20 — A Discussion of ‘Arabs and Israelis: From Oct. 7 to Peacemaking,’ Wilson Center

• Feb. 20 — Research Security Risks Posed by Foreign Nationals from Countries of Risk Working at the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

• Feb. 26 — 2025 Defense Software & Data Summit, Govini