MSNBC Host Claims Karoline Leavitt Looked 'Ashen, Almost Frightened' After Putin Summit
mediaite.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 8:27:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
MSNBC host Antonia Hilton claimed Saturday that President Donald Trump's aides appeared "frightened" by their experience at the Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin.
"A lot of the press corps that was there, they reported in the minutes and hours after the presser that they saw members of the administration, like Karoline Leavitt, look ashen, almost frightened after what they had seen behind closed doors. What did that indicate to you?" she asked former Russian ambassador Michael McFaul.
"Well, first, we should all be glad that we did not go to Alaska, because I was in Helsinki with you. And I was in Geneva when President [Joe] Biden met. They traveled a long ways for nothing in return."
McFaul continued:
But that suggests to me that this was a bigger disaster than they're leading on. To your point, they're trying to spin it, although they're not even trying to spin it. That's a really interesting thing. When I worked at the White House and we would have meetings like this, I was the SAO -- the senior administration official -- that would call up journalists, that would call The New York Times to say, "This is what was discussed," to push it this way. They're not even attempting to do that because they know they don't have anything to work with.
Earlier in the interview, McFaul claimed Trump has yet to get anything useful out of Putin.
"I was trying to think of a time with all of this engagement, with all this friendship and the clapping when he comes up that President Trump has done, both in his first term and now in his second term, is there one tangible thing that the American people have gotten out of all of that? Are we more secure? Are we wealthier? Are we defending our values better?" McFaul asked.
"I can't think of one deliverable, as we used to say in the State Department, that we've achieved from that strategy. So I hope he changes his strategy because this strategy is not working."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent discussion surrounding President Donald Trump's Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin, highlighted by MSNBC host Antonia Hilton and former Ambassador Michael McFaul, underscores significant concerns about U.S. foreign policy, global diplomacy, and the implications of power dynamics in international relations. Hilton's observation that Trump aides, including Karoline Leavitt, appeared "ashen" and "almost frightened" post-summit raises questions about the nature of these high-stakes diplomatic encounters and their impact on American interests. In a historical context, this moment invites a broader examination of how U.S. administrations have traditionally navigated relations with Russia and the implications of those interactions for domestic and international stability.
Historically, U.S.-Russia relations have oscillated between periods of confrontation and attempts at cooperation. From the Cold War's pervasive ideological battle to the more recent attempts at diplomatic engagement, the stakes have always involved not just national security but also the moral and ethical standards by which foreign policy is conducted. Trump's approach, which McFaul critically describes as lacking any tangible benefits for the American people, resonates with a long-standing critique of realpolitik that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term strategic interests. The fear exhibited by Trump's aides suggests a deeper anxiety about the efficacy and morality of engaging with a leader like Putin, who has been widely condemned for his authoritarian governance and aggressive foreign policy.
The assertion that Trump's summitry yields no discernible benefits for the American public highlights an ongoing struggle within U.S. governance: the disconnect between elite political maneuvering and the aspirations of everyday citizens. This is particularly poignant in a moment where the American public is grappling with a multitude of crises—economic inequality, systemic racism, and climate change. The idea that high-level summits can transpire without substantive outcomes evokes a broader critique of how political leaders often engage in symbolic gestures rather than actionable policies that directly uplift the populace. As McFaul points out, the lack of tangible results from Trump's interactions with Putin suggests a failure to engage in diplomacy that prioritizes democratic values, economic security, and human rights.
Moreover, the discussion around Trump's foreign policy raises critical questions about accountability and oversight in U.S. governance. The absence of effective communication from the Trump administration about the nature of these diplomatic encounters points to a troubling trend of opacity that undermines democratic principles. During times of heightened global uncertainty, transparency in decision-making is essential for fostering trust between the government and the governed. This lack of transparent reporting, as noted by McFaul, could reflect a broader pattern of governance that prioritizes image over substance, leaving citizens in the dark regarding the implications of foreign policy decisions.
As we navigate the complexities of modern geopolitics, it is crucial to interrogate not only the actions of leaders but also the systems that allow for such diplomatic engagements to take place without public scrutiny. The disquiet felt by Trump's aides in the wake of the Alaska summit serves as a reminder of the multifaceted layers of diplomacy—where personal fears, national interests, and ethical considerations converge. In discussing these realities, it is imperative for citizens and policymakers alike to advocate for a foreign policy grounded in principles of justice, equity, and accountability, ensuring that future engagements with global leaders prioritize the welfare of the American people, as well as the integrity of democratic ideals.
The recent remarks by MSNBC host Antonia Hilton regarding the unsettling demeanor of Trump aides following the summit with Vladimir Putin underscore a recurring theme in international relations: the implications of leadership choices on national security and diplomatic efficacy. The sight of Karoline Leavitt appearing “ashen, almost frightened” is emblematic of a deeper malaise within the Trump administration's foreign policy strategy, especially concerning Russia. The disquiet among aides reflects not only personal apprehensions but also the broader anxiety about a lack of concrete achievements in U.S.-Russia relations, raising critical questions about the efficacy and direction of American diplomacy. Such scenarios prompt us to investigate the historical patterns of U.S.-Russia relations and the potential paths forward for a more productive engagement with Moscow.
Historically, U.S.-Russia relations have been fraught with tension, marked by periods of both hostility and cooperation. From the Cold War to recent allegations of interference in U.S. elections, the relationship has often been defined by suspicion and rivalry. Trump's overtures towards Putin, characterized by personal rapport rather than strategic engagement, have frequently been criticized for yielding little tangible benefit for the United States or its allies. As Michael McFaul pointed out, the absence of any “deliverables” from these interactions poses an existential question about the effectiveness of such diplomacy. The lack of a coherent strategy raises significant concerns about the risks associated with an increasingly assertive Russia, and the implications for U.S. security and global stability.
So, what can Americans do in response to these developments? First, it is imperative to advocate for a foreign policy that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and multilateralism. Engaging in grassroots organizing and dialogue can amplify calls for a re-evaluation of our diplomatic strategy towards Russia. This can be achieved through town hall meetings, community discussions, and social media campaigns that prioritize informed debate about foreign policy. Engaging citizens in these conversations not only fosters a better understanding of complex geopolitical issues but also empowers them to demand accountability from their representatives. A well-informed electorate is essential for sustaining a diplomatic approach that prioritizes national security and global cooperation.
Furthermore, there is a compelling need for citizens to engage with their local and national representatives, urging them to support policies that prioritize human rights and democratic values in U.S. foreign policy. This includes challenging any inclination to normalize authoritarian behavior or overlook human rights abuses in favor of short-term political gains. By insisting on a principled approach to diplomacy, Americans can help reshape the narrative around U.S.-Russia relations, moving away from fear-driven engagement to a framework that champions democracy, rule of law, and respect for international norms.
Finally, educating ourselves and others about the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations is crucial for fostering informed discourse. Resources such as documentaries, books, and lectures can enhance understanding of the complexities involved in international diplomacy. By cultivating a well-informed public, we can better equip ourselves to challenge regressive narratives and advocate for a foreign policy that is not only strategic but also ethical. The more we understand about the past, the better positioned we are to influence the future.
In conclusion, the palpable fear exhibited by Trump aides following the Alaska summit with Putin is a reflection of broader insecurities related to U.S. foreign policy. By pushing for transparency, accountability, and a principled approach to international relations, Americans can contribute to a more secure and cooperative global environment. Through education, advocacy, and informed engagement, we can challenge ineffective foreign policy strategies and work towards a diplomatic landscape that reflects our values and priorities as a nation.
The article highlights concerns regarding the effectiveness of diplomatic engagements between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as the apparent anxiety among Trump's aides following their encounters. This situation raises important questions about the U.S. foreign policy approach towards Russia and the broader implications for international relations. Here are some actionable steps that individuals can take to engage with this issue:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others**: Stay informed about U.S.-Russia relations, the implications of foreign policy decisions, and the potential impacts on global security and democracy. Share insights with friends, family, and colleagues to foster discussions.
2. **Engage with Local and National Representatives**: Contact your elected officials to express your concerns about U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy. Advocating for transparency and accountability in international dealings is crucial.
3. **Support Organizations Focused on Diplomacy and Peace**: Contribute to or volunteer with organizations that promote peaceful diplomatic solutions and hold governments accountable for their foreign policy actions.
### Exact Actions to Take
1. **Write to Elected Officials**: - **Who to Contact**: Your U.S. Senators and House Representative. - **Example Format for Letters/Emails**: - Subject: Concern Over U.S. Foreign Policy with Russia - Body: ``` Dear [Senator/Representative Name],
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent diplomatic engagements between the United States and Russia, particularly under the previous administration. The apparent lack of tangible outcomes from these interactions raises significant issues regarding our national security and international credibility.
I urge you to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes constructive diplomacy, transparency, and accountability in our dealings with foreign leaders. It is essential that we work towards building a world that values peace and security for all.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
- **Contact Information**: - Find your representatives' contact information via [congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/). - Example U.S. Senators: - **Senator Chuck Schumer**: schumer.senate.gov/contact - **Senator Mitch McConnell**: mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactform - Example U.S. House Representative: Find via the same link as above.
2. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition for Transparency in Foreign Policy**: - Find and sign petitions on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org that advocate for accountability and strategic re-evaluation of U.S. foreign policy. - Example Petition: "Demand Transparency in U.S. Diplomacy with Russia" - Search for related petitions and add your signature.
3. **Participate in Local Activism**: - Join local advocacy groups or attend town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy issues. - Engage in community forums that focus on international relations to elevate the conversation around U.S. diplomacy.
4. **Use Social Media for Awareness**: - Share articles, insights, and personal opinions on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram to raise awareness about the importance of effective foreign policy. - Tag relevant officials or organizations to amplify your message.
5. **Attend Educational Events**: - Look for webinars, lectures, or panel discussions hosted by universities or think tanks that focus on international relations and diplomacy. - Participate actively and share what you learn with your network.
By taking these individual actions, we can collectively influence the discourse around U.S. foreign policy, advocate for a more effective and transparent approach, and ultimately contribute to a more secure and equitable global environment.