President Donald Trump called off his meeting in Budapest, Hungary, with Russian President Vladimir Putin because he didn’t see enough progress toward peace — although a future summit hasn’t been ruled out, according to the White House. 

While Trump and Putin spoke over the phone Oct. 16, plans for the meeting were scrapped after Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Tuesday.

Trump ‘feels as though, unfortunately, from the Russian side as of late, he has not seen enough interest in enough action in terms of moving the ball forward toward peace,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. ‘And so a meeting between these two leaders is not completely off the table. I think the president and the entire administration hopes that one day that can happen again, but we want to make sure that there’s a tangible positive outcome out of that meeting, and that it’s a good use of the president’s time.’ 

Trump also has signaled in recent days that his patience has worn thin with Russia, and his administration slapped stringent sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies Wednesday. 

Specifically, the sanctions freeze all U.S.-linked assets from the two companies and bar U.S. citizens from engaging in any business with them. 

In response, Putin called the sanctions an ‘unfriendly act,’ and warned that global oil prices could increase as a result. However, he also said that the sanctions would not majorly impact Moscow’s economy. 

While Trump routinely has said in recent months that he has pleasant conversations with Putin, he’s also voiced frustration at the lack of progress made as he’s sought to mediate an end to the conflict. Trump also said Tuesday that he didn’t want to have a ‘wasted meeting’ with Putin in Hungary. 

‘The president wants to see action, not just talk,’ Leavitt said. ‘And I think the president is extremely motivated by the success of his peace deal in the Middle East to get things done, and he wants this war to come to an end. He’s been saying it now for nine months, being in office, and he’s grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress from both sides of this war.’ 

Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Friday, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte Wednesday to address ongoing negotiations to end the conflict. 

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters the meeting with Putin ‘didn’t feel right,’ and explained why he wasn’t interested in arming Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles like he’d previously suggested he might. 

‘There is a tremendous learning curve with the Tomahawk. It’s a very powerful weapon, very accurate weapon,’ Trump said Wednesday. ‘And maybe that’s what makes it so complex. But it will take a year. It takes a year of intense training to learn how to use it, and we know how to use it. And we’re not going to be teaching other people. It will be just too far out into the future.’

Meanwhile, Trump has voiced skepticism recently about whether Ukraine can win against Russia.

‘They could still win it. I don’t think they will, but they could still win it,’ Trump told reporters Monday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Two federal judges admitted that members of their staff used artificial intelligence to prepare court orders over the summer that contained errors.

The admissions, which came from U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey and U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi, came in response to an inquiry by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Grassley described the recent court orders as ‘error-ridden.’

In letters released by Grassley’s office on Thursday, the judges said the rulings in the cases, which were not connected, did not go through their chambers’ usual review processes before they were released.

The judges both said they have since adopted measures to improve how rulings are reviewed before they are posted.

Neals said in his letter that a June 30 draft decision in a securities lawsuit ‘was released in error – human error – and withdrawn as soon as it was brought to the attention of my chambers.’

The judge said a law school intern used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to perform legal research without authorization or disclosure that he also said was contrary to the chamber’s policy and relevant law school policy.

‘My chamber’s policy prohibits the use of GenAI in the legal research for, or drafting of, opinions or orders,’ Neals wrote. ‘In the past, my policy was communicated verbally to chamber’s staff, including interns. That is no longer the case. I now have a written unequivocal policy that applies to all law clerks and interns.’

Wingate said in his letter that a law clerk used Perplexity ‘as a foundational drafting assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket,’ adding that releasing the July 20 draft decision ‘was a lapse in human oversight.’

‘This was a mistake. I have taken steps in my chambers to ensure this mistake will not happen again,’ the judge wrote.

Wingate had removed and replaced the original order in the civil rights lawsuit, declining at the time to give an explanation but saying it contained ‘clerical errors.’

Grassley had requested that the judges explain whether AI was used in the decisions after lawyers in the respective cases raised concerns about factual inaccuracies and other serious errors.

‘Honesty is always the best policy. I commend Judges Wingate and Neals for acknowledging their mistakes and I’m glad to hear they’re working to make sure this doesn’t happen again,’ Grassley said in a statement.

‘Each federal judge, and the judiciary as an institution, has an obligation to ensure the use of generative AI does not violate litigants’ rights or prevent fair treatment under the law,’ the senator continued. ‘The judicial branch needs to develop more decisive, meaningful and permanent AI policies and guidelines. We can’t allow laziness, apathy or overreliance on artificial assistance to upend the Judiciary’s commitment to integrity and factual accuracy. As always, my oversight will continue.’

Lawyers have also faced scrutiny from judges across the country over accusations of AI misuse in court filings. In response, judges have issued fines or other sanctions in several cases over the past few years.

Reuters contributed to this report.