U.S. President Donald Trump said Sunday that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to an "energy ceasefire," but offered no details on its terms.

Trump's brief social media post said only that the ceasefire took effect immediately and that both sides had agreed to it. "Do not break it!" he wrote. Neither Moscow nor Kyiv immediately commented on the announcement, and The White House did not immediately clarify the president's post or add detail.

His announcement came as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an interview aired Sunday, said Ukraine was ready to stop striking Russian refineries if Moscow halted attacks on Ukraine's energy system, and asked Trump to press the Kremlin to agree.

"We are asking President Trump, (to) give them (a) signal, not (to) attack energy infrastructure of Ukraine," he told ABC's "This Week."

Trump spars with Zelenskyy

Trump said Saturday it was time for Ukraine to get a new president, suggesting Zelenskyy has not done enough to end the war and blaming him for high diesel prices in the U.S.

Zelenskyy said in response to Trump's comments that Ukraine could hold elections if Russia agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. "Give us two months, 60 days off. Total ceasefire, 60 days, and we will organize elections," he said, adding that Ukraine would be ready to accept whatever choice its people made.

"With all respect to President Trump, it's up to our society, up to our people to choose one or another leader," he said. Zelenskyy added that holding a vote during the war would be unlawful and that Ukraine would need security guarantees to allow people to vote safely.

Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, and the Ukrainian Constitution bars elections while it remains in force. Beyond the legal barrier, a nationwide vote would be vulnerable to Russian missile and drone attacks, and organizing one is widely seen as logistically impossible, with roughly a fifth of the country under occupation, millions of Ukrainians displaced abroad and soldiers on the front line. Zelenskyy's term formally expired in May 2024, but the constitution allows him to remain in office until a new president is sworn in.

The exchange came as Kyiv pressed its campaign against infrastructure deep inside Russia, with a drone attack on Sunday shutting down a data center run by Russian technology giant Yandex, the third strike on the company's facilities in four days. Russia and Ukraine are locked in a long-range aerial war while their armies remain largely deadlocked on the front line.

The U.S. president, who on Friday struck a deal with Putin to buy diesel from Russia in an attempt to address high fuel prices ahead of U.S. midterm elections, has been urging Zelenskyy for weeks to stop strikes on Russian energy infrastructure.

He has sought to blame record U.S. diesel prices on Ukraine rather than the U.S.-led war in Iran, which has driven up world energy prices. Ukrainian and European officials reacted to the diesel deal with dismay, saying it will help pay for Russia's war effort.

Ukrainian strike on Russian data center triggers outages

The Ukrainian drone attack on the Yandex data center in the city of Vladimir, east of Moscow, caused outages across the company's services, leaving users in dozens of Russian cities and in Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia unable to order taxis or access banking services, according to Russian independent news outlet Astra.

"As a result of the drone attack, the infrastructure of Yandex's data center in Vladimir was damaged. Operations at the data center have been completely halted. There were no injuries," said the Yandex Cloud Telegram channel, which provides operational updates on service availability.

In Moscow, residents described disruption to everyday tasks. Pavel Belyavskiy, a driver for Yandex Taxi, said it was unclear whether orders were coming through at all, and that on several rides he had to cancel after waiting a long time because he could not reach the passenger.

"I'd press the 'call' button to contact them, but nothing happens," he said, "There's nothing I can do, so I'm just forced to cancel."

Igor Mann said he went to check the status of an order on the Yandex Market shopping platform but the page was unavailable, and connecting through a VPN did not help. "Nothing worked," he said.

Another Moscow resident, Eduard Malyavko, said the outages had "direct impact" and weren't just about "convenience."

"It's also about work," he said, adding that they also affected "healthcare, and everything else."

On Thursday, a drone attack took a Yandex data center offline in the Ryazan region, southeast of Moscow. A day later, Ukrainian drones hit the company's major data center in the Kaluga region, southwest of Moscow, partly putting it out of action, Yandex said.

Yandex, often described as Russia's Google, runs the country's most popular search engine and a wide range of digital services, and is heavily involved in Russia's artificial intelligence development.

A close ally of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro long described by U.S. officials as the ousted leader’s frontman pleaded guilty Tuesday to a single count of money laundering tied to an alleged bribery conspiracy to win lucrative government contracts in the South American country.

As part of the plea deal, Alex Saab agreed to cooperate in continuing federal investigations, paving the way for his eventual cooperation against his former protector. He also agreed to forfeit $195 million in criminal proceeds from the corruption scheme.

Saab, 54, was deported in May by Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodriguez to the U.S., which has been targeting the Colombian-born businessman for more than a decade.

The money laundering offense carries a maximum 20-year penalty but prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence at the low end of the recommended range and seek additional reductions should his cooperation prove substantial. Saab was previously charged during the first Trump administration in 2019 and then arrested during a refueling stop in Cape Verde on what the Venezuelan government described as a high-level humanitarian mission to Iran.

But President Joe Biden pardoned Saab in 2023 in exchange for the release of several imprisoned Americans in Venezuela. The deal, part of a failed effort by the Biden White House to lure Maduro into holding a free presidential election, was harshly criticized by Republicans and federal law enforcement officials, who immediately began investigating Saab for other alleged crimes not covered by the narrowly tailored pardon.

“This case sends a clear message: Political connections, wealth and proximity to a corrupt regime will not put anyone beyond the reach of American justice,” said Jason A. Reding Quiñones, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, who attended Tuesday’s proceedings along with more than a dozen federal agents.

The new indictment centers on contracts for the so-called CLAP program set up by Maduro to provide staples — rice, corn flour, cooking oil — to poor Venezuelans at a time of rampant hyperinflation and a crumbling currency. Saab amassed a fortune through Venezuelan government contracts but became even more valuable to Maduro as U.S. sanctions forced Venezuela to conduct much of its oil sales and foreign trade outside of Western financial institutions.

Before taking over the sprawling Justice Department investigation into foes of President Donald Trump, Joe diGenova decried the lack of progress in bringing indictments.

Five months later, diGenova has left his position without charging a single case, clouding the future of an investigation that has animated right-wing commentators eager to prove an ill-defined theory of a “deep state” conspiracy to take down the Republican president.

Justice Department officials are pressing forward despite diGenova’s departure, with a flurry of subpoenas to former law enforcement and intelligence officials expected to yield grand jury testimony in the weeks ahead at the Fort Pierce, Florida, home court of a favored Trump-appointed federal judge.

Yet whether anyone ultimately will be charged, and for what, remains an open question. Investigators face not only legal hurdles and personnel upheaval but an impatient White House after more than a year of fits and starts.

The investigation known familiarly as the “grand conspiracy” case is the clearest example yet of the Trump administration’s efforts to leverage law enforcement powers to enact retribution on the president’s adversaries. The tumult that has defined the probe exposes a familiar gap between White House demands for speedy action and the Justice Department’s ability to craft the president’s litany of grievances into a prosecutable case.

The investigation has always been a tough task, aiming to knit together separate FBI probes of Trump — including related to Russian election interference and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida — into a coherent narrative of a government conspiracy. Prior efforts to investigate the investigators have failed to uncover the kind of criminal misconduct the conspiracy probe aims to prove.

“The idea of connecting all those different investigations into one single conspiracy, there’s no basis for that,” retired federal prosecutor Randall Eliason said. “Then, maybe more importantly, there’s no basis for an allegation that any one of them was actually a criminal act against Trump. They’ve all been verified and upheld in one way or another.”

If the mandate is unusual, so, too, was the person picked to lead it. DiGenova, who’s 81, was a top prosecutor in President Ronald Reagan’s administration but had been out of government for decades. He made headlines in 2020 after he said a cybersecurity official who attested to the legitimacy of the election Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden should be “drawn and quartered.” DiGenova apologized after being sued.

A prominent booster of the theory that Trump was victimized by a “deep state” conspiracy, diGenova was appointed in April shortly after Trump ousted Pam Bondi as attorney general after she struggled to prosecute his foes.

The appointment was heralded by Trump allies who regard the probe as a long-awaited reckoning for former officials they believe wronged the president. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who took the reins of the department after Bondi’s firing, also trumpeted diGenova’s arrival, writing on social media: “Welcome to the fight, Joe!”

By Sept. 10, diGenova was gone amid Trump administration frustration with the pace and management of the probe. His parting comments suggested he didn’t see a pathway for imminent indictments. “If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem,” he told the New York Post.

DiGenova told The Associated Press those comments were taken out of context, adding: “There’s plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time to get there, and some people want to get there a little faster than others — and you can’t do that.”

DiGenova was sworn in days after a career national security prosecutor, Maria Medetis Long, was removed from the investigative team after conveying concerns about an investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan.

The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority didn't decide the legality of Trump's order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

While the emergency order is not final, it does have the potential to create chaos around voting across the country, with Trump often questioning the integrity of elections and the nation's highest court again the possible arbiter of a political controversy.

“The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the majority wrote in an unsigned order.

The three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the rule “lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James foreshadowed more legal fights ahead, calling the decision a “painful setback” but vowing it would “not be the final word.”

The court's order opens a path for the administration to begin action to restrict mail voting, but it also could lead to further litigation that could freeze the federal government again.

“This is just the first inning of a very fast nine-inning game,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University.

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.

Trump's executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. New requirements released Friday would forbid the Postal Service from sending mail ballots from any state that does not comply with Trump's order.

A Postal Service spokesperson did not immediately respond messages seeking comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.