Tag: china
As Trump's Power Wanes, Canadians Are Not Alone In Calling His Bluff

As Trump's Power Wanes, Canadians Are Not Alone In Calling His Bluff

Oh good, another war. This time a trade war with Canada and for no other reason than ... what? To give Donald Trump a new stage for big-league bullying? To divert attention from the Jeffrey Epstein files? Who knows. Whatever. Trying to humiliate our closest ally does not serve American interests, ya think?

I say "trying" because Trump's powers are much diminished. Canadians are calling Trump's bluff, as are other countries and even some formerly supine Republican lawmakers. And it's getting harder to ignore the loose screws rattling around his head.

We won't go into the particulars of this latest trade dispute. Canada as well as the United States appeared to have thrown in last-minute demands. And Trump's new tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods affect only about 5% of Canada's exports to the U.S.

The bigger story here is the willingness of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to defend his nation's honor even at a cost to his economy.

Moments after the tariffs went into effect, Trump recycled a golden oldie of abuse by posting on Truth Social, "Canada wants the benefits of being a State, without being one!!! They have also charged our great farmers, for many years, massive amounts of Tariffs. No More!!!"

About our great farmers, Trump has just lowered taxes on foreign beef in an obvious attempt to cut prices for steaks and hamburgers before the midterm elections. The higher prices were a godsend to American cattle ranchers already coping with wildfires, droughts and restrictions on shipments of young Mexican cattle to be fattened in U.S. feedlots.

"You don't put America first by putting U.S. cattle producers last," U.S. Cattlemen's Association President Justin Tupper said in response.

Trump keeps saying that the U.S. doesn't need Canadian products. But guess what his new round of tariffs doesn't include? Canadian oil or gas.

Talk of turning Canada into a state is perhaps Trump's most hostile assault on Canadian pride. Trump had referred to former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Gov. Trudeau. (He's quite the card.) He called the border between our two countries "an artificially drawn line" and said he would use "economic force" to make a takeover happen.

While visiting the Oval Office last year, Carney said that Canada "is not for sale" and "won't be for sale ever." Trump responded, "Never say never."

Over the weekend, Trump's first vice president, Mike Pence, provided a dose of sobriety. "American consumers pay American tariffs," he said. "My hope is, for the sake of American families and for the sake of the American economy, that what we're looking at here is negotiation and not confrontation in a trade war."

Though Trump's tantrums should fly over the northern border like bad weather systems that will pass, the abuse has long-term effects that have already come back to bite us. Against Trump's wishes, Canada is now doing its separate deals with China. He has threatened a 100 percent tariff on Canada over that.

A recent Angus Reid survey of Canadians found that more than 75 percent wanted Carney to hold his ground, even as 90 percent worried about economic costs. The Canadian pollster has also found that 79 percent of Americans still liked Canadians. But even if Canadians don't think Americans dislike them, the fact remains that the voters elected Trump twice.

Trump just said he'll tack 50% tariffs on vehicles and parts from Canada. A silver lining is that Trump's broadsides have become so unhinged, the prospects of his Republican enablers retaining that much power after November are much reduced.

Trump may be seeming more temporary, but in the meantime, we have another war, a ridiculous trade war.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Darline Graham

'I Don't Speak Politician'! Nor Does Lindsey's Sister Speak Foreign Policy

Sen. Darline Graham, Republican of South Carolina, was appointed to serve out her late brother Lindsey's term and was endorsed by President Donald Trump in the Republican primary for the full six-year term. Hers is a test in many respects: a test of President Trump's reach, as well as a test of the value (or stigma) voters attach to experience versus a new face (Sen. Graham is running against Rep. Ralph Norman in Tuesday's Republican runoff; Norman is a five-term member of Congress who has on occasion clashed with Trump).

Perhaps the pivotal moment in the campaign came last week, when Sen. Graham stumbled badly on a straightforward foreign policy question:

"Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States and if so, why or how?"

That's not a tough one. The answer is yes. Lindsey Graham could go on for hours on that one. His sister didn't even know enough to say yes. And she told everyone that.

Her answer: Foreign policy is "not my thing. She is, she stated, "not that informed on national security."

She isn't. The obvious question: what is she doing in the United States Senate?

She is there for one reason alone. Who she's related to. Sometimes, that works out just fine. Lindy Boggs, the legendary Louisiana congresswoman, stepped into the shoes of her late husband Hale Boggs when he was killed in a plane crash and became one of the most powerful and effective House members. And sometimes voters just won't buy it, as they did recently in not voting for JFK's charismatic grandson, notwithstanding the widespread affection and sympathy for his family.

George Will wrote a famous column years ago about how when you've got a plumbing problem, what you want is an experienced plumber who knows how to fix it. Why is politics so different? At a time of grave danger worldwide, can we really afford leaders who don't understand international realities?

After the debate, Graham's opponent responded strongly on social media: "South Carolina deserves a Senator who UNDERSTANDS Foreign Policy." An ad, showing her struggling to answer the question, will no doubt follow.

For her part, Graham went on Fox to try to defend herself. "I don't speak politician — I was just honest. Of course Taiwan is our friend. But I think people in South Carolina are more worried about boys in girls' sports."

Do voters want their leaders to be open about their ignorance? Yes, of course, Taiwan is our friend, but China complicates that friendship in ways that challenge our relationships with both countries. A Senator needs to know more than a sixth grader.

And consider Graham's defense. Do folks in South Carolina really feel more threatened by trans girls playing sports than they do by China?

They have absolutely no reason to. South Carolina enacted its Save Women's Sports Act in 2022, barring students assigned male at birth from competing on female-designated teams at public elementary, secondary and postsecondary schools (and certain private schools competing against them).

In other words, South Carolina has already protected itself from a largely non-existent problem. When the issue was being considered in 2021, South Carolina High School League Commissioner Jerome Singleton testified that since the waiver procedure began in 2016, only four transgender students, two girls and two boys, statewide had requested permission to compete according to their gender identity; by the time the bill was passed the following spring, the League had approved one transgender female. One trans girl on a sports team.

Me? I'd be more afraid of China.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.


That's not a tough one. The answer is yes. Lindsey Graham could go on for hours on that one. His sister didn't even know enough to say yes. And she told everyone that.

Her answer: Foreign policy is "not my thing. She is, she stated, "not that informed on national security."

She isn't. The obvious question: what is she doing in the United States Senate?

She is there for one reason alone. Who she's related to. Sometimes, that works out just fine. Lindy Boggs, the legendary Louisiana congresswoman, stepped into the shoes of her late husband Hale Boggs when he was killed in a plane crash and became one of the most powerful and effective House members. And sometimes voters just won't buy it, as they did recently in not voting for JFK's charismatic grandson, notwithstanding the widespread affection and sympathy for his family.

George Will wrote a famous column years ago about how when you've got a plumbing problem, what you want is an experienced plumber who knows how to fix it. Why is politics so different? At a time of grave danger worldwide, can we really afford leaders who don't understand international realities?

After the debate, Graham's opponent responded strongly on social media: "South Carolina deserves a Senator who UNDERSTANDS Foreign Policy." An ad, showing her struggling to answer the question, will no doubt follow.

For her part, Graham went on Fox to try to defend herself. "I don't speak politician — I was just honest. Of course Taiwan is our friend. But I think people in South Carolina are more worried about boys in girls' sports."

Do voters want their leaders to be open about their ignorance? Yes, of course, Taiwan is our friend, but China complicates that friendship in ways that challenge our relationships with both countries. A Senator needs to know more than a sixth grader.

And consider Graham's defense. Do folks in South Carolina really feel more threatened by trans girls playing sports than they do by China?

They have absolutely no reason to. South Carolina enacted its Save Women's Sports Act in 2022, barring students assigned male at birth from competing on female-designated teams at public elementary, secondary and postsecondary schools (and certain private schools competing against them).

In other words, South Carolina has already protected itself from a largely non-existent problem. When the issue was being considered in 2021, South Carolina High School League Commissioner Jerome Singleton testified that since the waiver procedure began in 2016, only four transgender students, two girls and two boys, statewide had requested permission to compete according to their gender identity; by the time the bill was passed the following spring, the League had approved one transgender female. One trans girl on a sports team.

Me? I'd be more afraid of China.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Kyle Glenn at Unsplash

Explore Morepowered byHeadlines PlusArticle thumbnailLashing Out, by Susan EstrichArticle thumbnailStill Stuck In Trump's Cul-de-Sac, by Joe ConasonArticle thumbnailPresidential Chutzpah, by Susan EstrichArticle thumbnailWashington Politics, by Susan Estrich | Creators SyndicateHeadlines Plus article thumbnailTrump's Approval Rating: Latest Polls Tracked Headlines PlusHeadlines Plus article thumbnailTrump Approval Hits New Low Amid Iran Conflict Headlines Plus

Trump Foreign Policy Follies: South Korea Goes To The Shakedown Shack

Trump Foreign Policy Follies: South Korea Goes To The Shakedown Shack

President Trump’s latest move to downgrade U.S. involvement in long-planned military exercises with South Korea should make one thing very clear if it was not already. Under Donald Trump, the United States cannot be viewed as a reliable ally by anyone, except for Israel.

Trump has zero respect for the commitments of prior administrations or even treaty obligations. He doesn’t even care about his own commitments, as Canada and Mexico have discovered, as he freely ignores the trade agreement he negotiated in his first term. He does whatever he feels like.

For this reason, one can hope that South Korea was not surprised by Trump’s decision to downsize the joint military exercises with South Korea, as he announced his renewed friendship with Kim Jong Un. For folks with poor memories, Trump has repeatedly touted the “love letter” that the North Korean dictator sent him. He even stole the letter from the White House when he left office in 2021. (The letter is the property of the U.S. government, not Donald Trump.)

The story gets worse. Trump complained that South Korea refused to join the war that he and Israel started with Iran, even though he said he really didn’t need its help. Trump also again claimed the war was to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon, even though no one in the world, except Trump, seems to think the country is anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon.

The irony of this gets even worse when we consider that Trump’s friend, Kim Jong Un, actually does have nuclear weapons, and likely has the means to deliver them to the United States. The Clinton administration had a multi-nation agreement designed to keep North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, which George W. Bush then abandoned.

There were efforts at a new agreement under Obama, but Trump quickly abandoned these after getting the love letter from Kim. This undoubtedly continues to be a great source of laughter in Pyongyang.

In addition to downgrading the military exercises, Trump also wants more money from South Korea for its defense assistance. On top of seriously overestimating the number of U.S. troops in the country (39,000 in Trump’s head, compared to 28,500 in reality), Trump apparently still has no understanding of the idea of collective defense.

If Trump wants to be able to project force against China, which may not be a good idea, but something he seems to want to do, then having an ally like South Korea is incredibly valuable. Just as the base in Bahrain, which Iran destroyed, was crucial for supporting Trump’s attack on Iran, the bases potentially provided by Korea would be of huge value in a military conflict. But this is a point that is likely too complicated for Donald Trump and his Fox News host Defense Secretary to understand.

Anyhow, the key takeaway for South Korea and the rest of the world is that the United States under Donald Trump cannot be counted on as an ally. And it would be very foolish for any country to view it as one.

Also, when it comes to trade, Trump’s commitments are absolutely meaningless. South Korea pledged $350 billion in investment in the United States in exchange for a modest reduction in the tariff rate that Trump imposed on imports from their country. Given the fact that Trump could raise his tariffs any time he feels like it, South Korea would be wise to keep its investment as a pledge. Only a fool would give something real in exchange for a Donald Trump promise.

Whatever tariff Trump ends up charging on our imports from South Korea is likely to have more to do with how he feels on a given day than any agreement between the two countries. As he continually tells the world, Trump does not care about his commitments. That’s the way he did business and the way he runs the country.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.


Hannity Goes Quiet On Iran War As Trump's 'Massive Attack' Evaporates

Hannity Goes Quiet On Iran War As Trump's 'Massive Attack' Evaporates

Fox News host Sean Hannity all but stopped talking about Iran on his primetime show in recent weeks, after President Donald Trump called off further escalations in his six-month-long war. It’s a remarkable shift for Hannity, who is the network figure closest to the president and whose repeated calls for U.S. military action against Iran apparently helped sway Trump’s final decision to launch hostilities in February.

Hannity declared at the top of his July 23 broadcast that the “gloves” were “about to come off” and the U.S. would soon be “launching a massive attack on Iran,” citing comments Trump made to Axios that day.

“We're talking about bridges, power plants, airports, roadways, checkpoints, Kharg Island, the nuclear site at Pickaxe Mountain, everything now on the table,” Hannity exclaimed. Introducing correspondent Kevin Corke for a report, the host commended: “Kevin, remember the scene in Gladiator? ‘At my command, unleash hell.’ That's what it sounds like to me.”

"Before Epic Fury, I was warning Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, because there were reports that a jet, probably with a lot of money on it, [was] waiting to take him to Vladimir Putin's Russia,” he later added. “I would advise the heads of the IRGC similarly, maybe they want to get on a jet themselves and do it pretty quickly. Just a guess. What do I know? I'm just a little old talk show host. I'm, you know, just guessing.”

“Good guess,” Corke replied.

It was not a good guess: Two days later, Trump reportedly “set aside” the escalation plans due to fears about diminished U.S. munitions stockpiles and the potential for a widening war.

Hannity’s war is such a debacle he’s stopped talking about it

Hannity’s only extensive discussion of the Iran war on his Fox show since that July 23 broadcast came during an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he aired on July 28, according to a review of the Nexis database. Since then, he’s offered nothing more than a few stray comments.

There’s been plenty of news about the Iran war for Hannity to discuss since then — it just all makes him look bad.

The following week, Trump again threatened a massive attack before again backing down on August 1, this time publicly citing concerns from Persian Gulf states and claiming to have the “perimeters of a deal” with Iran that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

But no deal has since materialized, and while Trump and Iranian leaders trade public demands for war reparations, Iranian and Omani negotiators are closing in on an agreement that would impose transit fees for passage through the strait, leading the Gulf states to reportedly conclude “that Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz will become permanent, disrupting their oil and gas exports and global energy supplies indefinitely” — and that further escalations to the war would be worse.

Meanwhile, experts reportedly fear China or Russia could seek to take advantage of the depletion of U.S. missile supplies caused by the war.

Amidst this omnishambles for U.S. strategic interests, Hannity has been all but silent about the war he encouraged Trump to launch.

One explanation for Hannity’s reticence to defend Trump’s war could be that he is beginning to fear its potential blowback for the GOP’s midterm hopes. GOP strategist Matt Towery warned that the war is creating a headwind for the party in a Monday interview on Hannity’s radio show (where the host has discussed the war somewhat more frequently than he has on Fox).

“This thing has got to conclude because every week we go by that the president says well, we're going to bomb the hell out of them and destroy them, and then two weeks — two days later, we hear well, we're in talks, and then the Iranians pulled the rug out from under him — it weakens the president in the eyes of his supporters,” Towery told Hannity’s radio listeners on Monday. “And so it's time to put up or go home, in my opinion. That's just my advice.”

“The president … has to be able to put Iran aside and say, ‘look, we dealt with it’ one way or another,” Towery later added. “If we go into these midterms with Iran still hanging over everybody's head, I don't think — there'd be a lot of states that would be lost and unnecessarily so because the president's record has been obscured by all this.”

It’s also possible that the situation has become so bleak, and the president’s leadership so shaky, that even Hannity is having trouble defending it. After all, Hannity sold the war to his viewers — and to Trump — on the grounds that it would be a quick and easy response to an existential threat, with no regard for the likelihood that Iran would respond by closing the Strait of Hormuz.

It might also be awkward for Hannity to explain to his audience why the war seems no closer to being finished in August than it did when he told his radio audience on March 30, “It's going to be on the verge of wrapping up no later than three weeks from today is my prediction.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World