(complications requiring hospital admission have occurred in 0.3-0.9% of cases). Even if remote mifepristone were unavailable, doctors could still prescribe misoprostol, approved for treating ulcers and whose use for abortion is hard to restrict. Results from clinical studies vary, but misoprostol seems only marginally less effective at ending a pregnancy. It is, however, more likely to cause side-effects, such as pain and bleeding. The White House could do more. Todd Blanche, the nominee for attorney- general, has agreed to consider enforcing the Comstock Act, an old anti- obscenity law, to ban the posting of any abortifacients. But the administration may not act. The “big surprise about Trump 2.0,” observes Ms Donley, “is that it seems like he actually meant what he said on the campaign trail”, that he would leave abortion policy to states. This has disappointed many anti-abortion advocates, who have vowed to back candidates who want more forceful action. Having failed to choke off supply, parts of the anti-abortion movement are turning to demand. “The woman is now the only actor here,” says Mark Corral, an anti-abortion activist in South Carolina. “Who else are you going to hold accountable?” Richard Cash, a Republican state senator there, would ban abortion from conception; women who abort would face up to two years in prison. His proposal cleared the state’s Senate health committee and will come up for a broader vote next year. He would prefer to treat abortion as homicide, carrying the death penalty, but he acknowledges that is politically infeasible for now. “A law without a penalty is just a suggestion,” he explains. Other radical ideas are gaining traction, even if they are further from the finish line. Abortion “abolitionists” are advocating for “equal protection” bills to give a fetus the same constitutional rights as a person under the 14th Amendment. According to the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, an advocacy group, in 2024 ten such bills were introduced in eight states, backed by 58 lawmakers. This year that rose to 16 bills in 13 states with 130 sponsors. In Oklahoma and Idaho, a third of state senators signed on. In June, Texas Republicans adopted language in their official party platform to give fetuses equal-protection rights, and called for repealing provisions giving immunity from prosecution for abortions.
As politicians debate new laws, a few prosecutors are testing the limits of existing ones. In January, a woman in Kentucky who took abortion pills and buried her fetus was charged with homicide, abuse of a corpse and evidence tampering. Two months later, prosecutors charged a Georgia woman who miscarried in hospital with murder, citing an account that she told nurses she took mifepristone. According to Pregnancy Justice, a non-profit, nine women have faced charges of this sort since Roe was overturned. Some cases have been dropped; others are still pending. The rise of abolitionism has exposed a generational divide. For decades, pro- lifers built their movement around the idea of “loving them both”, the mother and unborn baby. Those advocates now argue that criminalising women would squander their political progress. “It would cause us to lose ground with voters,” says Amy O’Donnell of Texas Alliance for Life, one of the state’s largest anti-abortion groups. Bradley Pierce, the abolitionists’ most influential activist, reckons Christians are hungry for something that works. “We need to love our pre-born neighbours more than we love a seat at the table,” he says. “And we need to fear God more than we fear the Democrats.”■ Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com/united-states/2026/07/29/the-anti-abortion-crusades-new- fight
Donald Trump is warming to Volodymyr Zelensky The man with “no cards” plays a deft hand Jul 30th 2026 It was not long ago that America’s relationship with Ukraine seemed irreversibly shattered. But on July 28th the Senate voted, 86 to 12, to advance a bill that would impose sanctions on Russia and let the president place steep tariffs on the main importers of its oil and gas. “This piece of legislation may have more effect than anything that’s done on the battlefield,” exulted James Risch, a Republican senator, somewhat implausibly. He credited Donald Trump for the vote’s success. It is the latest example of thawing relations between American and Ukrainian leaders. Hours before the vote, Mr Trump hosted Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. “The meeting went very well!”, the president later posted on Truth Social. It is a remarkable turnaround since their bust-up
in the Oval Office last year, which was preceded by Mr Trump calling the Ukrainian president a “dictator”. Mr Trump’s warming to Mr Zelensky owes much to Ukraine’s military prowess, as well as his frustration with Russia. The death of Lindsey Graham, a senator and champion of Ukraine whose funeral in Washington took place on the day of Mr Zelensky’s meeting, also seems to have tipped some Republicans off the fence. Since the war began in February 2022, America has provided over $130bn in direct aid to Ukraine, including $74bn in military equipment and support, according to figures from the Kiel Institute, a think-tank. But in Mr Trump’s second term, there has been no significant legislation or authorisation of help for Ukraine. Though a chunk of aid appropriated during Joe Biden’s presidency remains in the pipeline, Trump officials have already twice paused deliveries of weapons temporarily. Mr Trump’s newfound friendliness towards Mr Zelensky, according to those watching from the Capitol, seems to reflect growing respect for Ukraine’s military capabilities. Mr Trump has been wowed by Ukraine’s long-range drone strikes, which have reached deep inside Russia. “It’s an escalation, but it’s also an escalation that can help lead to an end,” Mr Trump mused at NATO’s summit in Ankara on July 8th. Ukraine’s ability to build many of its own weapons, and thus reduce its dependency on America, has also helped. The relationship “feels stronger at the moment because the Ukrainians are, in many ways, driving their own success”, points out Heather Conley of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. Eager to learn from Ukraine’s drone whizzes, America has recently stepped up defence-industrial co-operation. That includes setting up a new factory in America that will churn out drones built from Ukrainian blueprints. Mr Zelensky, for his part, lobbied Mr Trump for more Patriot air-defence interceptors. The two sides have agreed on a licensing deal, though it could take years for production to begin. It is no coincidence that Mr Trump’s new friendliness towards Ukraine coincides with decidedly chillier relations with Russia. “I think he is beginning to realise, or has already realised, that Putin just lies to him,” says Kurt Volker, a former special representative for Ukraine during the president’s first term. Laura Loomer, an influential MAGA activist and
former critic of Ukraine, recently visited the country and now admits she was “bamboozled by Russian propaganda”. Ms Loomer is urging Mr Trump to back Ukraine. If the meeting in Washington was a success, the next steps in Ukraine are murkier. Ukraine faces the prospect of a rough winter as Russian missiles and drones continue to pound its cities. Peace negotiations are moribund. Two of Mr Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, are expected to travel to Kyiv soon for the first time to revive talks, but the chance of progress is slim. Senate Republicans hope that the sanctions bill will bring Russia back to the negotiating table, but there are obstacles here, too. The bill still faces a vote in the House, where scepticism of Ukraine is stronger among Republicans and where Democrats fear it will give the mercurial Mr Trump even greater power over tariffs. Indeed even if Congress passes the bill, Mr Trump may be wary of imposing tariffs that could raise Americans’ prices at the pump. Nevertheless, for a man who was once told by Mr Trump that he had “no cards”, Mr Zelensky appears to have played a deft hand in Washington. ■ Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com/united-states/2026/07/30/donald-trump-is-warming-to- volodymyr-zelensky
How to turn solutions into problems Lessons from a fight over a bridge between America and Canada Jul 30th 2026 In hockey, to achieve a Gordie Howe hat-trick is to score a goal, record an assist and get into a fight, all in a single game. Over some 14 years, Canada and America endured a similar combination of glory, co-operation and conflict in building a bridge named after the Canadian legend. The fight happened to break out when Donald Trump entered the arena. Earlier this year the president lambasted Canada and threatened to block the bridge, delaying it by months. It is one of myriad fights that Mr Trump has picked in his second term, exerting pressure on everything from universities to law firms to trading partners such as Canada that, until recently, would have been considered America’s closest allies. The Gordie Howe opened, at last, on July 27th. But, a year and a half into Mr Trump’s campaign of