Analysis

The Homeland Security Funding Crisis: How Two Deaths in Minneapolis Sparked America’s Latest Government Shutdown

Published

1 week ago

February 15, 2026

A standoff over immigration reform leaves critical agencies unfunded as the political fallout from fatal shootings in Minnesota reverberates through Washington

At 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security became the latest casualty in America’s increasingly dysfunctional budget process—but this shutdown tells a story that extends far beyond partisan gridlock. It’s a reckoning over the limits of federal power, the price of aggressive immigration enforcement, and what happens when smartphone videos collide with official narratives in the social media age.

The immediate trigger: Two fatal shootings in Minneapolis that transformed a routine funding debate into an existential battle over how the United States polices its borders—and its own citizens.

Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot dead by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on January 7. Seventeen days later, Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, was killed by Border Patrol agents while filming their operations with his smartphone. Both were U.S. citizens. Both incidents were captured on video. And both contradicted the federal government’s initial explanations.

Now, as DHS’s baseline funding expires, Senate Democrats have drawn a line: no more money for Homeland Security without binding reforms to immigration enforcement operations. Republicans, meanwhile, argue that Democrats are weaponizing the appropriations process to hobble President Trump’s signature immigration agenda.

The result is a partial government shutdown affecting one of America’s largest federal departments—but with a peculiar twist that reveals both the dysfunction and the strategic calculations at play.

The Shutdown That Isn’t: Understanding DHS’s Funding Paradox

Unlike the record-breaking 43-day government shutdown that paralyzed Washington from October through mid-November 2025, this impasse affects only the Department of Homeland Security. The other eleven appropriations bills funding the rest of the federal government sailed through Congress at the end of January.

But even calling it a “DHS shutdown” overstates the impact on the administration’s most controversial operations. Thanks to last summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)—a sweeping Republican reconciliation package—ICE and Customs and Border Protection have already secured $165 billion in multi-year funding. That includes $75 billion specifically for ICE and $65 billion for CBP, enough to carry Trump’s mass deportation campaign through the end of his term.

As House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, bluntly put it: “The things they want to shut down aren’t going to shut down. ICE is fully funded. The Border Patrol is fully funded.”

So who actually suffers from a DHS funding lapse? Not immigration agents conducting raids. Instead, it’s the 95% of Transportation Security Administration officers who must work without pay at airport security checkpoints. It’s the 56,000 Coast Guard personnel—the only armed force housed within DHS—who will continue drug interdiction and search-and-rescue missions while their paychecks stop. It’s FEMA workers attempting to coordinate disaster relief while furloughed or unpaid.

According to DHS’s contingency plan, approximately 92% of the department’s 272,000 employees are deemed “essential” and must report to work. Only 8% will be furloughed. The irony is stark: The shutdown punishes agencies that have nothing to do with the Minneapolis killings while leaving immigration enforcement essentially untouched.

The Minneapolis Crucible: How Bystander Videos Became Political Weapons

The path to this shutdown began with Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s massive immigration enforcement operation that deployed 2,000 federal agents to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in early January. The scale was unprecedented—the largest single-city immigration sweep in U.S. history—and the tactics quickly drew scrutiny.

Masked agents conducting what Minneapolis residents described as paramilitary-style raids. Reports of intimidation, racial profiling, and disproportionate force. Then, on January 7, came the first death.

Renée Good was sitting in her SUV, stopped sideways in the street, when ICE agent Jonathan Ross circled her vehicle on foot. After other agents approached and ordered her out while reaching through her window, Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward—away from Ross, according to bystander video. Ross, standing at the front-left of the vehicle, fired three shots as her car turned away from him, killing her.

Federal officials immediately claimed Ross acted in self-defense, that Good had weaponized her vehicle to run him over, and that the agent was hospitalized with serious injuries. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, having reviewed the bystander footage, offered a different assessment: “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly that is bullshit. To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis.”

The video went viral. A Quinnipiac poll found 82% of registered voters had seen footage of Good’s shooting by mid-January—an extraordinary level of public awareness that turned a local tragedy into a national flashpoint.

Then came Alex Pretti.

On January 24, the 37-year-old nurse was filming Border Patrol agents in the Whittier neighborhood when he witnessed an agent shove a woman to the ground. Pretti stepped between them. The agent pepper-sprayed both Pretti and the woman, then multiple agents wrestled Pretti to the ground. One removed Pretti’s legally carried firearm from his holster. Then, as Pretti lay on the ground surrounded by at least six agents, two officers—later identified by ProPublica as Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez—fired at least ten shots, killing him.

Within hours, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called Pretti a “domestic terrorist.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller labeled him a “would-be assassin” who intended to “massacre” officers. The official statement claimed Pretti had “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “violently resisted” attempts to disarm him.

Multiple bystander videos told a different story. They showed Pretti filming with his phone—not wielding a weapon. They showed an agent disarming him before he was shot. They showed, as NPR carefully documented, a narrative that “contradict[ed] the accounts of federal officials.”

“Once again DHS has come out with a predetermined narrative that contradicts everything we saw with our own eyes,” said Minnesota Representative Kelly Morrison, a Democrat. “Two 37-year-old Minnesotans are now dead, a poet and a nurse, for what?”

Democrats’ Demands: Ten Reforms That Became a Funding Firewall

The killings galvanized Senate Democrats in a way that previous immigration controversies had not. On February 4, party leaders released a formal list of ten demands that would need to be “cemented into law” before they would vote to fund DHS:

Key Democratic Reform Proposals:

Ban ICE and CBP agents from wearing masks to conceal their identities during operations
Mandate body cameras for all immigration enforcement agents in the field
Prohibit roving patrols and warrantless searches
End immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” including schools, churches, and hospitals
Strengthen use-of-force policies and de-escalation training
Ban racial profiling in immigration operations
Increase transparency and public accountability for officer-involved shootings
Allow state and local law enforcement access to crime scenes involving federal agents
Provide congressional oversight of DHS’s internal investigations
Ensure cooperation with state prosecutors investigating federal agents

Some reforms, like body cameras, have attracted bipartisan support. Trump himself sent border czar Tom Homan to replace the Minneapolis Border Patrol commander, and DHS announced it was acquiring body cameras—meeting one Democratic demand without legislation.

But Republicans have balked at most other changes, particularly the mask prohibition. They argue that allowing agents to be filmed and identified puts them at risk of harassment, doxing, and targeted violence from immigration advocates and criminal organizations. Some Republicans have countered with their own demands, including measures to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The fundamental impasse, however, is philosophical: Democrats see federal agents operating with insufficient oversight and accountability. Republicans see attempts to handcuff law enforcement during a crisis they believe requires maximum operational flexibility.

The Economic Ripple Effects: From Airport Delays to Disaster Response

While ICE operations continue unimpeded, the shutdown’s collateral damage is already materializing across sectors that have nothing to do with immigration.

Transportation Security and Travel Industry Impact

TSA acting administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill warned that forcing 95% of the agency’s screeners to work without pay creates “a cascading negative impact on the American economy.” History supports her concern: During the October-November shutdown, approximately 1,100 TSA officers quit—a 25% increase over the same period in 2024. As the current shutdown extends, similar attrition is expected.

Higher callout rates due to financial stress typically force TSA to close security lanes, extending wait times and causing flight delays or cancellations. The timing could prove particularly problematic: February’s light travel season offers some buffer, but spring break traffic begins in March. Major events like the World Cup and America’s 250th anniversary celebrations later this year will place extraordinary demands on an already strained system.

Fortunately, air traffic controllers work for the Federal Aviation Administration under the Department of Transportation, which has full-year funding, so basic flight operations remain unaffected.

Coast Guard Operations Under Strain

Vice Admiral Thomas Allan, the Coast Guard’s acting vice commandant, testified that the service would “suspend all missions except those for national security or the protection of life and property.” While law enforcement, national defense, and emergency response continue, training, maintenance, and long-term capability development cease.

All 56,000 active duty, reserve, and civilian Coast Guard personnel face working without pay—a particularly acute problem for enlisted sailors who often live paycheck to paycheck. During the previous shutdown, some Coast Guard families relied on food banks. The service, often called “America’s forgotten military branch,” finds itself once again bearing the cost of political dysfunction that has nothing to do with its mission.

FEMA and Disaster Preparedness

Gregg Phillips, associate administrator of FEMA’s Office of Response and Recovery, warned Congress that furloughing many FEMA workers would hamper the agency’s ability to “coordinate effectively with state, local, tribal, and territorial partners.” He called the prospect of crippling FEMA’s operations “[coming] at the expense of the American people.”

FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund currently holds roughly $7 billion from prior appropriations, enough to respond to immediate emergencies. But if the shutdown extends beyond a month, or if a catastrophic disaster strikes, the agency’s capacity could be severely compromised. With hurricane season approaching and the agency still processing a backlog of claims from 2025’s devastating storms, the timing could hardly be worse.

Cybersecurity in the Crosshairs

Perhaps most concerning from a national security perspective: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will largely suspend operations. CISA helps state and local governments monitor their networks and defend against cyber threats—work that becomes especially critical as foreign adversaries probe American infrastructure and the 2026 midterm elections approach.

“When the government shuts down, our adversaries do not,” CISA leader Madhu Gottumukkala testified. Only functions essential for immediate safety—like 24/7 operation centers monitoring for imminent threats—continue. Threat assessments, security training, stakeholder engagement, and special event planning all cease.

The Political Calculus: What Each Side Stands to Gain or Lose

This shutdown represents a fundamental shift in how Democrats approach immigration politics. For years, the party largely avoided confrontations over immigration enforcement, wary of appearing soft on border security. The Minneapolis killings changed that calculation.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has framed the standoff as a moral imperative rather than a political gamble. “Our caucus is passionate about this,” he told reporters. “If you sat in on our caucus meetings, you’d see how strongly people feel.”

Public opinion polling suggests Democrats may have chosen their battle wisely. The Quinnipiac survey showing 82% awareness of Good’s shooting indicates unprecedented public engagement with immigration enforcement tactics. Multiple polls show majority support for body cameras and increased oversight—though opinions diverge sharply along partisan lines when questions reference Trump or ICE specifically.

For Republicans, the political optics are complicated. They can credibly argue that Democrats are holding disaster relief and airport security hostage over immigration disputes. “What they’re doing is hurting TSA agents, hurting air traffic controllers that would get a pay raise, keeping men and women from the Coast Guard from getting paid, making sure we can’t fully fund FEMA,” Chairman Cole said.

But Republicans also face pressure from their base to resist any constraints on Trump’s immigration agenda. The former president has made mass deportation central to his political identity, and any perceived retreat risks intraparty backlash.

The Trump administration has walked a careful line. In a memo directing DHS to execute shutdown plans, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought emphasized that the administration “is currently engaged in good faith negotiations with Congress to address recently raised concerns.” Trump himself has been characteristically ambiguous, saying Democrats have “gone crazy” while acknowledging “we’re talking.”

What Comes Next: Three Scenarios for Resolution

As Congress remains out of session until at least February 23—with members instructed to remain available if a deal emerges—three potential paths forward have taken shape:

Scenario 1: Comprehensive Reform Deal Senate Republicans and Democrats reach agreement on a subset of reforms—likely body cameras, enhanced training, and limited restrictions on sensitive location enforcement—in exchange for Democratic votes for full-year DHS funding. This would require both sides to claim partial victory while accepting significant compromises. Probability: Moderate, but would likely take weeks to negotiate details.

Scenario 2: Split Appropriations Some Democrats, including Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro, have suggested separating non-immigration agencies like TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard into their own funding bill, allowing those to pass while keeping ICE and CBP under continuing resolution pending reform negotiations. Republicans have strongly resisted this approach, viewing it as an attempt to defund immigration enforcement through the back door. Probability: Low unless public pressure over TSA disruptions becomes overwhelming.

Scenario 3: Short-Term Extension with Promises Republicans offer a brief continuing resolution (two to four weeks) with non-binding commitments to implement some reforms administratively, betting that Democrats will eventually accept a face-saving compromise rather than prolonged shutdown. Democrats blocked a two-week extension on February 13, but might accept a longer period with stronger commitments as public pressure mounts. Probability: Increasing if the shutdown extends past ten days.

The wild card: public reaction to travel disruptions. If spring break travelers face significant delays due to TSA understaffing, or if a major disaster strikes requiring robust FEMA response, political pressure for resolution will intensify dramatically. Conversely, if February’s light travel season passes without major disruption, both sides may feel emboldened to hold firm.

The Broader Context: Shutdowns as the New Normal

This marks the third partial or full government shutdown in the past six months—a frequency unprecedented in modern American governance. The October-November 2025 impasse lasted 43 days, setting a new record. A four-day partial shutdown earlier in February preceded this one.

Budget analysts warn that treating shutdowns as routine political tools carries serious long-term costs beyond immediate disruptions. Federal agencies lose institutional knowledge as experienced employees flee to private sector stability. Contractors cancel projects, unable to sustain uncertainty. America’s credit rating faces pressure when global markets question whether the government can perform basic functions like funding itself.

The peculiar structure of this shutdown—where immigration enforcement continues while seemingly unrelated agencies suffer—underscores how America’s appropriations process has become decoupled from rational policymaking. The OBBBA’s multi-year funding for ICE and CBP was designed to insulate Trump’s immigration agenda from exactly this kind of congressional leverage. But Democrats have discovered they can still inflict political pain, even if they cannot directly defund the operations they oppose.

The Human Cost Beyond Politics

Lost in the strategic maneuvering are the human consequences radiating from Minneapolis to Washington and back.

In Minnesota, the families of Renée Good and Alex Pretti continue seeking answers and accountability while federal investigators maintain control of evidence and refuse to cooperate with state authorities. Despite court orders to preserve evidence, tensions between federal and local law enforcement have reached crisis levels. Governor Tim Walz has called the federal government’s handling of investigations—including “closing the crime scene, sweeping away the evidence, defying a court order”—an “inflection point in America.”

In Washington, hundreds of thousands of federal workers face the prospect of working without pay for an indeterminate period. Coast Guard families who barely recovered from the last shutdown’s financial strain brace for another round of uncertainty. TSA screeners who received $10,000 bonuses after the previous shutdown wonder if they’ll qualify again—or if political will for such compensation has evaporated.

And across America, travelers, disaster victims, and citizens relying on government services navigate the consequences of a political system increasingly unable to perform its most basic function: funding the government.

Looking Ahead: What This Means for American Governance

The DHS shutdown crystallizes several troubling trends in American politics:

The Fragmentation of Appropriations: By funding some agencies but not others, Congress has created a tiered system where political priorities determine which parts of government function. This sets dangerous precedents for future battles.

Smartphones as Accountability Tools: The ubiquity of video recording has fundamentally altered the power dynamic between armed federal agents and the public. When official narratives contradict viral footage, trust in institutions erodes—but transparency also becomes harder to avoid.

The Weaponization of Funding: Both parties now view government funding as leverage for unrelated policy goals. This transformation of appropriations from technocratic necessity to political hostage-taking undermines governance itself.

Midterm Election Preview: The issues at stake—immigration enforcement, federal overreach, public safety, accountability—will dominate the November 2026 midterms. How voters respond to the Minneapolis killings and this shutdown will shape campaigns nationwide.

As Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged when dismissing colleagues for recess, the situation remains fluid: “I have let people know to be available to get back here if there’s some sort of deal they strike to vote on it.”

Until then, America watches another chapter unfold in the ongoing crisis of governability—where two deaths in Minneapolis have exposed the fault lines not just of immigration policy, but of democracy itself when institutions lose the capacity to resolve disputes through deliberation rather than dysfunction.

Stay Informed

As this situation continues to develop, the impacts on travel, disaster response, and national security will become clearer. For updates on DHS funding negotiations, congressional actions, and practical information about how the shutdown affects government services, follow our continuing coverage.

The resolution of this crisis—whether through comprehensive reform, political compromise, or public pressure—will set precedents that extend far beyond homeland security funding. At stake is nothing less than the question of how America balances enforcement power with accountability, and whether its political system retains the capacity to govern during moments of genuine crisis.

This story will be updated as negotiations continue and new developments emerge.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

China Tightens Financial Oversight: D-SIB Expansion Signals Intensified Property Crisis Response

Don't Miss

How to Make Pakistan’s Budget 2026-27 Debt-Proof and Surplus: Well-Researched and Expert Recommendations

Click to comment

Analysis

UOB Q4 2025 Earnings: Bad-Debt Formation Slows as Buffers for Greater China and US Exposure Hold Firm

Published

32 minutes ago

February 24, 2026

Abdul Rahman

The global banking environment, still navigating the aftershocks of US-China trade tensions, elevated interest rates, and a battered commercial real estate sector, United Overseas Bank’s Q4 2025 earnings briefing offered something increasingly rare: measured reassurance. The Singapore lender’s leadership told analysts and investors on Monday that provisions set aside for its most closely watched exposures—Greater China and US commercial real estate—remain more than sufficient, even as the broader sector braces for a prolonged period of uncertainty.

For investors who have spent the better part of two years watching regional bank balance sheets with a mix of hope and dread, that message carries real weight.

Slowing Bad-Debt Formation: A Quiet but Meaningful Shift

Perhaps the most encouraging signal from UOB’s Q4 briefing was the deceleration in new non-performing asset (NPA) formation. The bank recorded S$599 million in new NPA formation in Q4 2025, a meaningful improvement from the S$838 million logged in Q3. That’s a quarter-on-quarter decline of roughly 29%—not a dramatic reversal, but in the language of credit risk, a deceleration of that magnitude deserves attention.

To put it plainly: bad debts are still forming, but they’re forming more slowly. In credit cycle terms, this is often the first sign that the worst may be passing.

Group CFO Leong Yung Chee, speaking at the briefing alongside Deputy Chairman and CEO Wee Ee Cheong, characterised pre-emptive provisions for commercial real estate “hot spots” in Greater China and the United States as adequate buffers against potential future bad debts. That language—pre-emptive—is telling. UOB did not wait for losses to crystallise before building reserves. It anticipated stress and prepared for it. As Bloomberg has reported, Singapore banks have faced persistent scrutiny over their Hong Kong and China property loan exposures, making this kind of forward provisioning strategically critical.

Adequate Buffers for High-Risk Exposures

The headlines around UOB’s Greater China and US portfolios have not always been comfortable reading. But the numbers presented Monday suggest the bank has managed these concentrations with discipline.

On US commercial real estate, the CFO confirmed that problematic loans account for approximately 1% of UOB’s local US portfolio—a figure that, in the context of what has unfolded in American office and retail property markets since 2022, is remarkably contained. For context, several mid-tier US regional banks have seen CRE stress levels multiples higher, contributing to a string of failures and near-misses that Reuters has documented extensively.

For Greater China, the bank’s pre-emptive provisioning strategy has been running since the early tremors in China’s property sector became impossible to ignore. With Chinese developer defaults and Hong Kong office vacancies still elevated, UOB’s conservative stance now looks prescient rather than overcautious.

Key Metrics at a Glance:

Metric	Q4 2024	Q3 2025	Q4 2025
New NPA Formation	—	S$838M	S$599M
Allowances for Credit & Other Losses	S$227M	—	S$113M
NPL Ratio	—	1.5%	1.5%
Credit Cost Guidance	—	25–30 bps	25–30 bps (maintained)

The halving of allowances for credit and other losses—from S$227 million a year earlier to S$113 million in Q4 2025—reflects lower specific allowances, a signal that the bank is not being forced into emergency provisioning on newly distressed assets. That’s a meaningful distinction.

Stable NPL Ratio and an Unchanged Credit Outlook

UOB’s non-performing loan (NPL) ratio held steady at 1.5% in Q4, unchanged from the prior quarter. Stability here is underrated. In an environment where several global banks have seen NPL ratios creep upward under the combined weight of higher-for-longer interest rates and slowing trade volumes, a flat 1.5% is a credible result.

The bank also maintained its credit cost guidance at 25 to 30 basis points for the period ahead—a range that signals neither complacency nor alarm. It reflects an institution that has stress-tested its books honestly and arrived at a considered, defensible estimate of forward losses.

How UOB Compares to Its Singapore Peers

UOB does not operate in a vacuum. Singapore’s banking sector—anchored by the “Big Three” of DBS, OCBC, and UOB—is among the most closely watched in Asia, and cross-peer comparison matters to both investors and regulators.

DBS Group, Singapore’s largest bank, reported a 10% drop in Q4 net profit, weighed down by rising allowances and fee income headwinds. That result rattled some investors, though DBS management attributed a portion of the provision build to proactive risk management rather than asset deterioration. OCBC, meanwhile, has been expected to report relatively stable net interest margins (NIMs) as its asset-liability mix has benefited from the elevated rate environment—though NIM compression risk remains live as global central banks edge toward easing cycles.

Against this backdrop, UOB’s Q4 print reads as the more cautiously optimistic of the three. It has neither DBS’s sharp profit dip nor the NIM sensitivity questions surrounding OCBC. What it does have is a provisioning track record that appears, at least for now, to have gotten ahead of the curve.

Broader Economic Implications for ASEAN Banking

The UOB briefing is not just a story about one bank. It is a data point in a much larger narrative about how ASEAN’s financial institutions are navigating a world reshaped by US-China strategic competition, deglobalization pressures, and the slow unwinding of the post-pandemic rate cycle.

The Financial Times and The Economist have both noted that Southeast Asian banks occupy a peculiar geopolitical sweet spot—exposed to both the Chinese economic sphere and the dollar-denominated global financial system, and therefore vulnerable to friction in both directions. UOB, with its pan-ASEAN franchise spanning Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam, is particularly exposed to trade flow disruptions. If US tariffs on Chinese goods accelerate supply chain reshuffling into Southeast Asia, UOB could benefit from the financing boom that tends to accompany such relocations. If, however, the tariff regime suppresses regional growth broadly, credit quality across its ASEAN book faces pressure.

The credit cost guidance range of 25 to 30 basis points implicitly acknowledges this dual-sided risk. It is conservative enough to absorb a modest deterioration in the macro environment, but not so elevated as to suggest the bank sees a crisis on the horizon.

Conclusion: Resilience Maintained, Vigilance Required

UOB’s Q4 2025 earnings briefing delivered what its leadership likely hoped for: a credible narrative of stability without complacency. The slowdown in NPA formation, the adequacy of Greater China and US CRE buffers, the unchanged NPL ratio, and the maintained credit cost guidance all tell a story of an institution that managed its risks carefully through a turbulent year.

But the story is not finished. US commercial real estate faces structural challenges that are unlikely to be resolved within a single business cycle. Greater China’s property sector remains in a drawn-out adjustment. And the geopolitical environment—US-China trade friction, rate uncertainty, ASEAN growth volatility—continues to generate tail risks that no provision buffer can fully insulate against.

What Monday’s briefing demonstrated is that UOB entered 2026 with its balance sheet integrity intact and its risk management credibility undamaged. For the Singapore banking sector resilience in Q4 2025, that may be the most important headline of all.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

Volodymyr Zelenskyy Says Ukraine War is at the ‘Beginning of the End’: Why He’s Urging Trump to See Through Russia’s Peace ‘Games’

Published

5 hours ago

February 24, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Four years ago today, the world held its breath as Russian armor rolled toward Kyiv, expecting a sovereign nation’s rapid collapse. Today, on February 24, 2026, the geopolitical narrative has fundamentally shifted from sheer survival to the brutal, complex mechanics of a resolution. Standing in Independence Square near a makeshift memorial of flags honoring fallen soldiers, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy cast a profound look toward the future. But it was his candid, newly published Financial Times Zelenskyy interview that sent immediate ripples through the corridors of power in Washington, Brussels, and Moscow. The Ukraine war end is no longer a distant abstraction. We are, in his exact words, at the “beginning of the end.”

However, this final chapter is fraught with diplomatic landmines. As the world digests the latest Ukraine war updates, Zelenskyy’s core message wasn’t just directed at his weary citizens or European allies; it was a targeted, urgent plea to U.S. President Donald Trump. His goal? To ensure Washington doesn’t fall for the Russia games Trump might be tempted to entertain in his quest for a historic diplomatic victory.

“The Beginning of the End”: Decoding Zelenskyy’s Strategy

In international diplomacy, vocabulary is everything. By declaring the conflict is at the “beginning of the end,” Zelenskyy is signaling a transition from indefinite attrition to the tactical positioning that precedes an armistice. He is acknowledging the realities of a war-weary globe while firmly attempting to dictate the terms of the endgame.

In his extensive interview, Zelenskyy clarified that the “beginning of the end” does not equate to an immediate surrender or a hasty territorial compromise. Instead, it marks the phase where military stalemates force genuine structural negotiations. The recent trilateral Geneva negotiations on February 18, 2026, underscored this shift. Zelenskyy described the talks as arduous, noting that while political consensus remains out of reach, tangible progress was achieved on military de-escalation protocols.

“Putin is this war. He is the cause of its beginning and the obstacle to its end. And it is Russia that must be put in its place so that there is real peace.” — Volodymyr Zelenskyy, February 24, 2026

Seeing Through Putin’s “Games”: A Warning to Washington

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has undeniably accelerated the push for a negotiated settlement. Following the highly scrutinized Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage, Alaska, in late 2025, anxiety has permeated Kyiv. The underlying fear is that Washington might broker a transactional deal over Ukraine’s head, exchanging Ukrainian sovereignty for a perceived geopolitical win against the backdrop of rising U.S.-China tensions.

Zelenskyy’s challenge to the U.S. President is blunt: come to Kyiv. “Only by coming to Ukraine and seeing with one’s own eyes our life and our struggle… can one understand what this war is really about,” Zelenskyy stated during his anniversary address.

He explicitly warned that Trump Russia Ukraine tripartite dynamics are being actively manipulated by Moscow. During Putin peace talks, the Kremlin’s proposals are not olive branches but tactical Trojan horses—designed to weaken Kyiv’s negotiating position and exploit the new U.S. administration’s desire for a swift resolution. “The Russians are playing games,” Zelenskyy noted, stressing that the Kremlin has no serious, good-faith intention of ending the war unless forced by overwhelming leverage.

[Map of the current line of contact in Eastern Ukraine and proposed ceasefire monitoring zones]

The Mechanics of Peace: Security Guarantees and Ceasefire Monitoring

A ceasefire without enforcement is merely a tactical pause for rearmament—a painful lesson Ukraine learned between 2014 and 2022. This is the crux of the current diplomatic deadlock. However, the February 18 Geneva talks highlighted that military pragmatism is slowly taking shape.

Crucially, the sides have reportedly resolved the logistical framework for monitoring a prospective ceasefire, which would include direct US participation ceasefire oversight. This represents a massive geopolitical pivot, particularly given the Trump administration’s historical reluctance to commit American resources abroad, though it stops short of deploying U.S. combat troops.

To prevent a future invasion, Kyiv is demanding ironclad Ukraine ceasefire guarantees before any guns fall silent. As analyzed by foreign policy experts at The Washington Post, vague promises will not suffice.

Proposed Security Frameworks vs. Historical Precedents

Framework	Core Mechanism	Deterrence Level	Sticking Points in 2026 Negotiations
NATO Membership	Article 5 Mutual Defense	Absolute	Russia’s ultimate red line; lingering U.S./German hesitation.
“Coalition of the Willing”	Bilateral defense pacts (UK, France, Germany)	High	Robust, but lacks a unified, legally binding U.S. enforcement mandate.
U.S.-Monitored Ceasefire	Armed/unarmed monitors along the Line of Contact	Moderate	Highly vulnerable to domestic political shifts in Washington; “mission creep” fears.
Budapest Memorandum 2.0	Diplomatic assurances & promises	Low	Wholly rejected by Kyiv due to the catastrophic failures of 2014 and 2022.

The Economic Battlefield: Tariffs, Sanctions, and EU Accession

You cannot divorce the geopolitical reality of the conflict’s resolution from the ongoing global macroeconomic shifts. As of February 2026, the international economy is digesting President Trump’s newly implemented 10% global tariff, creating a complex web of leverage and friction among Western allies.

For Ukraine, the endgame is not merely about drawing lines on a map; it is about securing the economic viability required to rebuild its shattered infrastructure and advance its European Union accession. According to insights from The New York Times, Western aid must now transition from emergency military provisions to long-term economic reconstruction capital.

[Chart illustrating the comparative economic contraction and recovery projections of Russia and Ukraine from 2022 to 2026]

Russia, meanwhile, continues to operate a hyper-militarized war economy. While Moscow projects resilience, the structural rot is becoming impossible to hide. The Bloomberg commodities index reflects how Western sanctions have forced Russia to pivot its energy exports to Asian markets at steep discounts, fundamentally restructuring the global energy grid and slashing the Kremlin’s long-term revenue streams.

The Economic Attrition of the War (2022–2026)

Economic Metric	Ukraine	Russia	Global Macro Fallout
GDP Impact	Stabilizing with EU/US aid, but fundamentally altered.	Masked by unsustainable state war production; civilian sector starved.	Lingering supply chain shifts; restructuring of global defense budgets.
Energy Exports	Near-total loss of transit revenue; grid heavily damaged.	Forced pivot to Asia at heavy discounts; loss of premium European market.	Accelerated European transition to renewables and U.S. LNG.
Labor Force	Severe strain due to mobilization and refugee displacement.	Mass exodus of tech/skilled labor; severe labor shortages across industries.	European demographic shifts due to integration of Ukrainian refugees.

Expert Analysis: The Realities of Global Geopolitics in 2026

When we analyze the Zelenskyy beginning of the end statement through the lens of geopolitics 2026, it is clear this is a calculated narrative pivot. As international relations researchers at The Economist note, Zelenskyy is preemptively framing the narrative. By calling out Russia’s “games” publicly, he is boxing the Trump administration into a corner where any concession to Putin looks like American weakness rather than diplomatic pragmatism.

Europe, meanwhile, is stepping up. The “coalition of the willing”—spearheaded by the UK, France, and a re-arming Germany—recognizes that the continent can no longer rely solely on the American security umbrella. If the U.S. forces a bitter peace, Europe will be left dealing with the fallout of an emboldened, revanchist Russia on its borders.

Conclusion: Forging a Durable Peace

The fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion is a somber reminder of the staggering human cost of this conflict. As Zelenskyy urges Trump to visit Independence Square and witness the “sea of pain” firsthand, the message is unmistakable: peace cannot be signed on a spreadsheet or dictated from a summit in Alaska. It must be forged in reality, backed by unshakeable security guarantees, and grounded in the acknowledgment that rewarding aggression only guarantees future wars.

The “beginning of the end” is here. The question now is whether the Western alliance, led by a highly transactional U.S. administration, has the strategic patience to ensure that the end results in a lasting, just peace—or merely a countdown to the next conflict.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

Trump’s 2026 State of the Union: Navigating Low Polls, Shutdowns, and Divisions in a Fractured America

Published

9 hours ago

February 24, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Explore President Trump’s upcoming 2026 SOTU address amid record-low approval and political turmoil—insights on the US economy, immigration, and foreign policy shifts.

A year after reclaiming the White House in a historic political comeback, President Donald Trump will step up to the House rostrum on Tuesday at 9 p.m. ET to deliver his State of the Union address. The political climate he faces, however, is one of unusual fragility. Midway between his inauguration and the critical November midterm elections, this 2026 SOTU preview reveals a commander-in-chief confronting a partial government shutdown, rare judicial rebukes, and deep fractures within his own coalition.

When Trump last addressed Congress in March 2025, his approval rating hovered near a career high, buoyed by the momentum of his return to power. Today, he faces an electorate thoroughly fatigued by persistent inflation and systemic gridlock. Tuesday’s address is intended to showcase a leader who has unapologetically reshaped the federal government. Yet, as the Trump State of the Union amid low polls approaches, the spectacle will inevitably be weighed against the stark economic and political realities defining his second act.

Sagging Polls and Economic Realities

Historically, Trump has leveraged economic metrics as his strongest political shield. But the US economy under Trump 2026 presents a complicated picture for international economist researchers and everyday voters alike. According to recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, while the stock market has seen notable rallies, 2025 marked the slowest year for job and economic growth since the pandemic-induced recession of 2020.

A recent Gallup tracking poll places his overall approval rating near record lows. Furthermore, roughly two-thirds of Americans currently describe the nation’s economy as “poor”—a sentiment that mirrors the frustrations felt during the latter half of the Biden administration. Grocery, housing, and utility costs remain stubbornly high. Analysts at The Economist note that the US labor market has settled into a stagnant “low-hire, low-fire” equilibrium, heavily exacerbated by sweeping trade restrictions.

Economic & Polling Indicator	March 2025 (Inauguration Era)	February 2026 (Current)
Overall Approval Rating	48%	39%
Immigration Handling Approval	51%	38%
GDP Growth (Quarterly)	4.4% (Q3 ’25)	1.4% (Q4 ’25 Advance)
Economic Sentiment (“Poor”)	45%	66%

Trump has vehemently defended his record, insisting last week that he has “won” on affordability. In his address, he is widely expected to blame his predecessor, Joe Biden, for lingering systemic economic pain while claiming unilateral credit for recent Wall Street highs.

Immigration Backlash and Shutdown Stalemate

Adding to the drama of the evening, Tuesday will mark the first time in modern US history that a president delivers the annual joint address amid a funding lapse. The partial government shutdown, now in its second week, centers entirely on the Department of Homeland Security.

Funding for DHS remains frozen as Democratic lawmakers demand stringent guardrails on the administration’s sweeping immigration crackdown. The standoff reached a boiling point following the deaths of two American citizens by federal agents during border protests in January. This tragic incident sparked nationwide outrage and eroded what was once a core political advantage for the President. An AP-NORC poll recently revealed that approval of Trump’s handling of immigration has plummeted to just 38%. The political capital he once commanded on border security is now deeply contested territory.

The Supreme Court Rebuke and Congressional Dynamics

Trump will be speaking to a Republican-led Congress that he has frequently bypassed. While he secured the passage of his signature tax legislation last summer—dubbed the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which combined corporate tax cuts and immigration enforcement funding with deep reductions to Medicaid—he has largely governed via executive order.

This aggressive use of executive authority recently hit a massive judicial roadblock. Last week, the Supreme Court struck down many of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, a central pillar of his economic agenda. In a pointed majority opinion, Trump-nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch warned against the “permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man.”

This ruling has massive implications for global trade. Financial analysts at The Financial Times suggest that the removal of these tariffs could ease some inflationary pressures, though Trump has already vowed to pursue alternative legal mechanisms to keep import taxes active, promising prolonged uncertainty for international markets.

Simultaneously, Trump’s coalition is showing signs of fraying:

Demographic Shifts: Americans under 45 have sharply turned against the administration.
Latino Voters: A demographic that shifted rightward in 2024 has seen steep drops in approval following January’s border violence.
Intra-Party Apathy: Nearly three in 10 Republicans report that the administration is failing to focus on the country’s most pressing structural problems.

Trump Foreign Policy Shifts and Global Tensions

Foreign policy is expected to feature heavily in the address, highlighting one of the most unpredictable evolutions of his second term. Candidate Trump campaigned heavily on an “America First” platform, promising to extract the US from costly foreign entanglements. However, Trump foreign policy shifts over the last twelve months have alarmed both critics and isolationist allies.

The administration has dramatically expanded US military involvement abroad. Operations have ranged from seizing Venezuela’s president and bolstering forces around Iran to authorizing a lethal campaign of strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels—operations that have resulted in scores of casualties. For global observers and defense analysts at The Washington Post, this muscular, interventionist approach contradicts his earlier populist rhetoric, creating unease among voters who favored a pullback from global policing.

What to Expect: A Trump Midterm Rally Speech

Despite the mounting pressures, Trump is unlikely to strike a chastened or conciliatory tone. Observers should expect a classic Trump midterm rally speech.

“It’s going to be a long speech because we have a lot to talk about,” Trump teased on Monday.

Key themes to watch for include:

Defending the First Year: Aggressive framing of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” and an insistence that manufacturing is successfully reshoring.
Attacking the Courts and Democrats: Expect pointed rhetoric regarding the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling and the ongoing DHS shutdown.
Political Theater: Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has urged his caucus to maintain a “strong, determined and dignified presence,” but several progressive members have already announced plans to boycott the speech in silent protest. For details on streaming the event, see our guide on How to Watch Trump’s State of the Union.

Conclusion: A Test of Presidential Leverage

For a president who has built a global brand on dominance and disruption, Tuesday’s State of the Union represents a profoundly different kind of test. The visual of Trump speaking from the dais while parts of his own government remain shuttered and his signature tariffs sit dismantled by his own judicial appointees is a potent symbol of his current vulnerability.

The core question for international markets and domestic voters alike is no longer whether Trump can shock the system, but whether he can stabilize it. To regain his footing ahead of the November midterms, he must persuade a highly skeptical public that his combative priorities align with their economic needs—and prove that his second act in the White House is anchored by strategy rather than adrift in grievance.