Americas

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Mexican president offer differing accounts of migration talks amid tariff threats

      by

      US president-elect Donald Trump declared a win on stopping illegal immigration through Mexico on Wednesday after talking with Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum. But Sheinbaum suggested Mexico was already doing its part and would not close its borders.The two spoke just days after Trump threatened to impose sweeping new tariffs on Canada and Mexico as part of his effort to crack down on illegal immigration and drugs.Trump said Sheinbaum “agreed to stop migration through Mexico.” Sheinbaum indicated separately on social media that she told Trump that Mexico is already “taking care of” migrant caravans, calling it an “excellent conversation.”“We reiterate that Mexico’s position is not to close borders but to build bridges between governments and between peoples,” Sheinbaum added.While the state of the proposed tariffs remained unclear, Trump said in a post on his Truth Social account that this was “effectively closing our southern border.” He called it a “very productive conversation.”The exchange between the two leaders appeared to confirm for Trump the value of threatening to disrupt trade with import taxes. His initial social media post moved financial markets and gave him a response he was quick to describe as a win. Even if the proposed tariffs fail to materialise, Trump can tell supporters that the mere possibility of them is an effective policy tool and continue to rely on tariff threats.Sheinbaum wrote on social media that the leaders “discussed Mexico’s strategy on migration issues, and I told him the caravans are not reaching the northern [US] border, because Mexico is taking care of them.”“We also talked about reinforcing cooperation on security issues, within the framework of our sovereignty, and the campaign we are carrying out to prevent fentanyl consumption,” she said.Illegal migration across the Mexico border is down in part because the Biden administration secured some stepped-up cooperation from Mexico – the sort Trump seems to be celebrating.Arrivals at the US-Mexico border have dropped 40% from an all-time high in December. US officials mostly credit Mexican vigilance around rail yards and highway checkpoints.Driven by mounting pressure from the US to block migrants going north, in the past few years Mexican authorities have turned to rounding them up across the country and sending them to southern Mexico, in a strategy seen by experts as an attempt to wear migrants out until they give up.Neither side clarified the status of the tariffs. But their implementation could fuel higher prices and slow economic growth, potentially blowing up the trade agreement among the US, Canada and Mexico that was finalized in 2020 during Trump’s previous time in the White House.Trump on Monday said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the country from Canada and Mexico as one of his first executive orders upon taking office on 20 January. He also proposed an additional 10% tariff on China tied to its exporting of materials used in the production of fentanyl.In announcing his plans, he railed against the flow of fentanyl and migrants crossing into the US illegally, even though southern border apprehensions have been hovering near four-year lows.On Wednesday, Trump also posted that he plans a large scale ad campaign to explain “how bad fentanyl is for people to use,” predicting it would educate people on “how really bad the horror of this drug is.”The dangerously powerful opioid was developed to treat intense pain from ailments like cancer but has increasingly been mixed with other drugs in the illicit drug supply.Through September, the United States has imported $378.9bn in goods from Mexico, $322.2bn from China and $309.3bn from Canada. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Canada leaders agree to unite against Trump tariff threat amid reports of retaliatory measures

      by

      Canada’s federal government and the premiers of the 10 provinces have agreed to work together against a threat by US president-elect Donald Trump to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian imports, with one official saying the country was already examining possible retaliatory measures.“We agreed that we need to be smart, strong and united in meeting this challenge,” deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters on Wednesday after a virtual meeting with the premiers called by the prime minister, Justin Trudeau.Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico if the countries do not stop what he called the flow of drugs and migrants across southern and northern borders. He said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the US from Canada and Mexico as one of his first executive orders.Canada is already examining possible retaliatory tariffs on certain items from the United States should president-elect Donald Trump follow through on his threat, the Associated Press reported, citing a senior official.Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that”.The Canadian official said Canada was preparing for every eventuality and has started thinking about what items to target with tariffs in retaliation. The official stressed no decision has been made and spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorised to speak publicly.The pledge to impose tariffs on Canada would drive up fuel prices for Americans as it would upend decades-old oil trade from its top crude supplier, analysts said on Wednesday, with Canadian oil imports not exempt under a free-trade deal from the levies.Even as surging oil output to record highs has made the US the world’s largest producer in recent years, more than a fifth of the oil processed by US refiners is imported from Canada.In the landlocked US midwest, where refineries process 70% of Canadian crude imports, consumers could see pump prices jump by 30 cents per gallon or more, or about 10%, based on current prices, GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan said.Cheaper gasoline was among Trump’s priorities during his re-election campaign as he sought to connect with consumers frustrated by sky-high fuel prices in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war in Gaza and other supply disruptions.When Trump imposed higher tariffs during his first term in office, other countries responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own. Canada, for instance, announced billions of new duties in 2018 against the US in a tit-for-tat response to new taxes on Canadian steel and aluminium.Many of the US products were chosen for their political rather than economic impact. For example, Canada imports $3m worth of yoghurt from the US annually and most comes from one plant in Wisconsin, home state of then-House speaker Paul Ryan. That product was hit with a 10% duty.Another product on the list was whiskey, which comes from Tennessee and Kentucky, the latter of which is the home state of then-Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell.Trump made the tariff threats on Monday while railing against illegal migrants, even though the numbers at Canadian border pale in comparison with the southern border. The US Border Patrol made 56,530 arrests at the Mexican border in the month of October – and 23,721 arrests at the Canadian one between October 2023 and September 2024.Canadian officials say lumping Canada in with Mexico is unfair but say they are happy to work with the Trump administration to lower the numbers arriving from Canada. The Canadians are also worried about an influx north if Trump follows through with his plan for mass deportations.Trump also railed about fentanyl from Mexico and Canada, even though seizures from the Canadian border pale in comparison to the Mexican border. US customs agents seized 43lb (19.5kg) of fentanyl at the Canadian border last fiscal year, compared with 21,100lb (9,570kg) at the Mexican border.Canadian officials argue their country is not the problem and that tariffs will have severe implications for both countries.Canada is the top export destination for 36 US states. Nearly $3.6bn (US$2.7bn) worth of goods and services cross the border each day. About 60% of US crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of US electricity imports are from Canada. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminium and uranium to the US and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager for and investing in for national security.“Canada is essential to the United States’ domestic energy supply,” Freeland said.America’s top oil trade groups, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers group and the American Petroleum Institute, said imposing the tariffs would be a mistake – exposing a rare moment of discord between the industry and Trump.“Across-the-board trade policies that could inflate the cost of imports, reduce accessible supplies of oil feedstocks and products, or provoke retaliatory tariffs have potential to impact consumers and undercut our advantage as the world’s leading maker of liquid fuels,” AFPM said on Tuesday.With Associated Press and Reuters More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Mexico president vows to retaliate with own tariffs against Trump’s tax threat

      by

      Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has rebuked Donald Trump’s threat to impose steep tariffs on Mexico, arguing the plan would do nothing to halt the flow of migrants or drugs bound for the US border, and vowing that Mexico would hit back with tariffs of its own.“One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses,” Sheinbaum said, warning that tariffs would cause inflation and job losses in both countries. “What sense is there?”Sheinbaum’s comments came after Trump said on Monday that, as one of his first actions as president, he would impose a 25% tax on all imports from Mexico and Canada in an effort to stop the flow of migrants and narcotics into the United States.“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social page.It is unclear if the president-elect’s proposal would even be legal or possible, given that the three countries share a free trade agreement known as the USMCA that was negotiated during his previous term in the White House.But as analysts pointed out, Trump has never been one to abide by the rules.“Did we really think that Trump was going to become more institutional or more formal?” said Valeria Moy, a Mexican economist and director general of IMCO, a public policy analysis firm. “The Trump that the United States and the world will have, at least in the signs he’s given, is a Trump that will be more dictatorial, tougher, more emboldened.”Even if they are legally questionable, the tariffs could provide Trump with a quick win upon taking office in January, said Viri Ríos, a Mexican public policy expert.“I don’t rule out that he would implement them temporarily to give a result to his electoral base, which would be happy to see that Donald Trump is being consistent with his campaign promises,” she said. “But from that to this being a long term strategy, it seems to me that it would not be good for the United States itself.”Mexico is the United States’s top trade partner as of September, representing 15.8% of total trade. According to Ríos, a 25% tariff on Mexican goods would cost the US economy $125bn over 10 years, while costing its GDP between 0.5 and 0.74%.With such steep tariffs, US companies importing Mexican goods would undoubtedly have to raise their prices.“The main victim will be the American consumer, because at the end of the day, tariffs are more or less reflected in prices,” said Moy.That could end up costing Trump politically, given the role consumer prices played in his election win.“One of the main reasons why Trump’s campaign was successful, was that people felt that inflation had increased during Biden’s last term,” said Ríos. “So I think he’s playing with fire.”Analysts also questioned whether Trump’s plan would even have its desired impact, given that the flow of drugs to the US is driven by American demand, not by the flow of goods.“It’s a bit like scapegoating,” said Ríos. “The key to this problem isn’t in Mexico, it’s in the United States.”Ultimately, analysts viewed Trump’s proposal as a threat to force Mexico on to the negotiating table and implement policies on migration and security that could have some meaningful impact on the flow of drugs and migrants to the United States.“We’ve already seen this [from Trump] – first you threaten, then you negotiate,” said Moy. “He’s using it as a threat to sit down and negotiate and say ‘Ok, you, president of Mexico … What are you going to do to contain the flow of migrants and what are you going to do in terms of security? What are you going to do to prevent fentanyl from passing from Mexico to the United States? And if you don’t do it, I’ll put tariffs on you.’” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s tariff threat sets stage for bitter global trade war

      by

      Donald Trump’s threat to impose steep tariffs on goods imported into the US has set the stage for a bitter global trade war, according to trade experts and economists, with consumers and companies warned to brace for steep costs.The president-elect announced on Monday night that he intended to hit Canada, Mexico and China with tariffs on all their exports to the US – until they reduce migration and the flow of drugs into the country.As officials in the three countries scrambled to respond, Keith Rockwell, a former director at the World Trade Organization, predicted that Trump’s move could spark a trade war. “The United States exports hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods to these countries,” he said. “Anyone who expects that they will stand pat and not retaliate has not been paying attention.”China promptly suggested that both sides would lose from an escalation in economic tensions. “No one will win a trade war or a tariff war,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson at the Chinese embassy in Washington, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s deputy prime minister, and Dominic LeBlanc, its public safety minister, touted the country’s “balanced and mutually beneficial” economic ties with the US.Hours after Trump issued the announcements on Truth Social, his social media platform, economists at ING released research that estimated his broader campaign proposals on trade – including a universal tariff of between 10% and 20% on all goods imported from overseas, and a 60% tariff on all goods from China – could cost each US consumer up to $2,400 each year.“This potential increase in consumer costs and inflation could have widespread economic implications, particularly in an economy where consumer spending accounts for 70% of all activity,” James Knightley of ING said.It is unclear whether Trump, who has described “tariff” as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”, will follow through on this plan. Tariffs – levies paid for by the company importing foreign goods – are not popular with voters, even Trump’s voters. A Harris poll conducted for the Guardian found 69% of people believe they will increase the prices they pay.And while he threatened universal tariffs while campaigning for the White House, this proposal – a 25% duty on all goods from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% duty on China, on top of existing duties – is more targeted.“Trump’s statements clearly herald the dawn of a new era of US trade protectionism that will sweep many US trading partners into its ambit,” said Eswar Prasad, former head of the IMF’s China division. “Such tariffs will have a disruptive effect on US as well as international trade, as countries around the world jockey to soften the blow of US tariffs on their own economies and try to find ways to evade the tariffs.”On the campaign trail, Trump and his allies claimed such measures would help strengthen the US economy and “make America wealthy again”. Many economists took a different view, warning that sweeping tariffs would increase the price of goods for US consumers, and risk prompting other nations to retaliate, hitting US businesses exporting goods to the world.But in his announcements on Tuesday, Trump did not focus on the economic benefits has claimed tariffs would bring. Instead, he blamed Mexico and Canada for “ridiculous Open Borders” he alleged were prompting an immigration crisis, and China for “the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl” arriving in the US – and pledged to impose tariffs on these countries until they addressed his concerns.“Trump apparently sees tariffs as a tool with broad uses in tackling a variety of malign external factors that have adverse effects on the US economy, society and national security,” noted Prasad, now a professor of trade policy at Cornell University.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who endorsed Trump, wrote on X that the president-elect “is going to use tariffs as a weapon to achieve economic and political outcomes which are in the best interest of America”, in a bid to deliver on his “America First” policy strategy.Making such announcements on social media “is a great way for Trump to effect foreign policy changes even before he takes office”, Ackman claimed.As Trump builds out his broader trade strategy, Rockwell, formerly of the WTO, said a 10% universal tariff would me “more manageable” than 20%. “But if you raise it 20%, that creates a different dynamic,” he said. “You’re going to see much, much less demand for these products coming in.“There will also be, without any doubt, retaliation,” he added. European officials “have got their list drawn up”, he said. “It’s the most closely guarded secret in Brussels, but it’s drawn up.”Countries will hit back with tariffs on “political pinch points”, Rockwell predicted. Under the last Trump administration, the European Union targeted US exports including Harley-Davidson bikes, Levi’s jeans and Kentucky bourbon. More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in UK Politics

      Republican senator falsely accuses Biden and Harris of masterminding Chagos deal to ‘appease’ UN and China

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyFrom reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference.CloseRead moreA Republican senator who is a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump has falsely accused President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris of being behind the British government’s decision to turn over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands — including the location of a key military base — to Mauritius despite the deal’s origins under the previous Conservative-led government.Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana used time for debate over a trio of Democratic-authored resolutions to cut off certain kinds of arms to Israel to rail against the agreement that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s government reached with Mauritius over the status of the archipelago in October.In remarks delivered from the Senate floor, Kennedy — who is not related to the famous family that has produced multiple Democratic officeholders since the 1960s — described the pending agreement as a “crisis” that he was only recently alerted to.Kennedy accused Biden and Harris of “giving away” the important British-American military base on Diego Garcia, one of the islands that will be turned over to Mauritian authorities once the agreement is completed, albeit with a 99-year lease that guarantees continued American control of the island.“Here’s what President Biden is doing and Vice President Harris, they say, we need to … grant independence to the Chagos islands, but not let the people of the Chagos islands run their country. We need to give the Chagos islands back to Mauritius,” he said.A US Air Force B-1B bomber takes off from the Diego Garcia military base on a strike mission against Afghanistan in Diego Garcia in 2001 More

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in UK Politics

      Boris Johnson ‘fired’ from Channel 4’s US election coverage after being branded ‘cheap’ for book plug

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyFrom reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference.CloseRead moreCloseBoris Johnson was “fired” from Channel 4’s US election coverage after being criticised for plugging his book.The former prime minister was booked to commentate on the results of the presidential race alongside Republican supporter and reality TV star Caitlyn Jenner, and Stormy Daniels, the woman at the centre of Mr Trump’s hush money trial.But, after repeatedly shoe-horning in references to his memoirUnleashed, host Krishnan Guru-Murthy said Mr Johnson had been “fired for banging on about his book too much”.Just minutes into America Decides: US Presidential Election, Mr Guru-Murthy had told Mr Johnson to “put it away” and “stop it, enough” as he twice referenced his new book and attempted to hold it up to viewers.Guru-Murthy described the former prime minister’s actions as “so cheap”. Mr Johnson hit back, saying: “There’s absolutely nothing you can do to stop me… I’m allowed to plug my book.” Eventually, Channel 4 replaced the former PM with Michael Cohen, Mr Trump’s former lawyer. It remains unclear if Mr Johnson’s exit was planned.Elsewhere on the show, Mr Johnson was grilled by Ms Daniels about whether he still considers Mr Trump a friend. Mr Johnson revealed he had spoken to Mr Trump “quite recently”.Co-host Emily Maitlis challenged Mr Johnson after the exchange in which Ms Daniels spoke of her court case and asked Mr Johnson if he had children. Donald Trump claimed victory on Wednesday morning More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Zombie-like’: the US trade agreement that still haunts Democrats

      by

      More than 30 years have passed since President Bill Clinton persuaded Congress to ratify the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and yet the trade agreement still infuriates many voters and hangs over Kamala Harris’s – and the Democrats’ – chances in this year’s elections.Zombie-like, Nafta just keeps coming back, decades after many Democrats believe it should have died. At the Republican convention, Donald Trump attacked Nafta, calling it “the worst trade agreement ever”. In speech after speech, Nafta is a topic Trump turns to as he seeks to woo the voters in the pivotal blue-collar communities of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – many of whom remain angry about the job losses it caused.There were early warning signs. “A lot of people were saying Nafta was going to be a disaster economically,” said David Bonior, a former Democratic congressman from Michigan who led the congressional fight to defeat Clinton’s push for Nafta. “I could see it was going to be a disaster politically, too.”Nafta acted like a slow-motion poison for Democrats. After Congress ratified it in 1993, year by year more factories closed and more jobs disappeared as manufacturers moved operations to Mexico to take advantage of that country’s lower wages. The Economic Policy Institute, a progressive thinktank, estimates that the US lost 682,000 jobs due to Nafta, which largely eliminated tariffs between the US, Mexico and Canada.“It’s a lingering issue in Michigan,” said Ron Bieber, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, the US’s largest federation of unions. “Everyone knows someone here in Michigan who lost their job due to Nafta. The door was cracked open to outsourcing before Nafta, but Nafta threw the door open after it was passed.”JJ Jewell, who works at a Ford axle plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan, was born two years before Nafta was ratified. The trade pact has been part of the background of his life, he says. Jewell said he often discussed trade problems with other auto workers, even when they didn’t directly discuss Nafta. “It’s an issue,” he said. “Nafta helped expedite the loss of jobs from our country to a country where wages are cheaper. I have friends, family members, neighbors who lost their jobs as a direct result of Nafta. It still affects things decades later.”While Trump talks tough on trade and protecting factory jobs, Jewell said that Trump, while president, fell badly short in his vows to bring back manufacturing jobs. “It’s empty promises,” he said.Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO, the country’s main labor federation, agreed, saying that Trump’s tough words on trade have done little for workers. “This is an example of Trump’s rhetoric not matching reality,” Shuler said. “He talks a good game, but there’s no action to back it up. When he had the ability to make a difference, when he was president, he went to different places and pretended to be a savior, and you followed up and you saw that those plants closed and jobs were moved to Mexico. He did nothing to fix it.”Seeing all the lingering discontent about Nafta, many Democrats say it’s unfair for Trump and others to blame their party for the agreement. The idea for Nafta arose under Ronald Reagan, they say, and George HW Bush negotiated the deal, both Republicans. More Republicans in Congress voted to ratify Nafta than Democrats. The vast majority of Senate Republicans also voted for it, while most Democratic senators voted against ratification.Still, Bonior said that Clinton and his administration “get the blame because their top guy was for it”, he said. “Clinton was instrumental in making it happen.”Many workers who lost jobs due to Nafta were able to find other jobs, said Bonior, but their pay was 20% less on average. “Lifestyles were enormously downgraded in my district,” said Bonior, who served as House majority whip. “Clinton bought into Nafta, but a lot of working-class people saw that as a betrayal.”On Nafta, Clinton won strong backing from economists and corporate America. Brushing aside labor’s warnings that Nafta would speed the loss of jobs to Mexico, nearly 300 economists on the right and the left, including several Nobel Prize winners, signed a pro-Nafta letter, saying: “The assertions that Nafta will spur an exodus of US jobs to Mexico are without basis.”Many economists argued that Nafta would increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the US because the nation had a higher-skilled, more productive workforce than Mexico and would thus, in theory, gain factory jobs in an expanded free-trade zone. Pro-Nafta forces also argued that the closer economic integration of the US, Mexico and Canada would create a North American powerhouse to counter China’s fast-growing economic power.Jeff Faux, a former president of the Economic Policy Institute, said many economists failed to realize something important that was happening when Nafta was negotiated: “The US was losing its manufacturing base. It was deindustrializing.”Faux, one of the most outspoken economists against Nafta, said Clinton embraced Nafta because he was eager to present himself as a different type of Democrat and “was trying to ingratiate himself with the business community”. “Clinton saw Nafta as an opportunity to present himself as not just another liberal Democrat,” Faux said. “It was the beginning of the notion that came to dominate the Democratic party that its future is not in working people, that it’s in professionals, in women, in minorities and various ethnic groups. They wanted to put together a new coalition, and labor would be a thing of the past.”Michael Podhorzer, a former AFL-CIO political director, said many blue-collar workers remain angry about Nafta because it was such a departure from President Franklin Roosevelt’s emphatically pro-worker Democratic party. Podhorzer said: “Nafta is the catchall for a series of things that Democrats did that showed they had a greater concern for business interests and a kind of insensitivity to the consequences that accelerating deindustrialization would have on people’s lives.”Trump was shrewd to seize on Nafta, he said: “It’s a way for him to sort of wave a flag, but it doesn’t actually mean he’s on the workers’ side. It channels pretty effectively the frustration that many Americans feel in seeing their jobs go offshore or to Mexico or seeing their communities hollowed out or seeing fewer economics prospects for their kids.”In the view of many labor leaders and workers, the Democrats doubled down on misguided trade policy when Clinton successfully pushed Congress in 2000 to approve normal trade relations with China. That move encouraged many US corporations to outsource operations to lower-wage China, with one study finding that the country lost 2m jobs, including 985,000 factory jobs, because of the normalized trade relations with China. The number of factories in the US also declined by 45,000 from 1997 to 2008, with many workers blaming Nafta and the China trade deal.What’s more, many unions faulted Barack Obama for pushing for another free trade agreement: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a pact with 12 Pacific Rim countries. TPP’s supporters said the deal would increase US exports and build a powerful economic bloc to counter China. TPP was signed in 2016 under Obama’s presidency, but soon after Trump became president, he withdrew the US from TPP, preventing it from taking force.“Obama wasn’t great shakes on trade either,” Bonior said. “A lot of working people said they had enough. They decided we’re not going to be with the Democrats any more, and Trump came along and filled the void. That was very smart for Trump to do.”In a 2016 campaign appearance in Pittsburgh, Trump made a major speech on trade that denounced Nafta and cited several Economic Policy Institute studies that criticized the trade pact. Lawrence Mishel, who was the institute’s president at the time, said: “Trump never really explained what he would do about Nafta or trade. He ended his speech with a call for deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, which was far more pro-Chamber of Commerce than pro-worker.”While Joe Biden voted to ratify Nafta when he was a senator, labor leaders say the president’s current pro-worker stance on trade shows that he recognizes his Nafta vote was a mistake. For Bonior, it might be too little too late.“Biden has been very good on working-class issues. Biden is trying to make up for his vote on Nafta,” Bonior said. “But a lot of working-class people are turned off so much to the Democrats that they’re not hearing of the things Biden and Harris have done for them. They’re not listening. They’re gone. I don’t know if we’ll ever get them back.“They’re to some degree mesmerized by Trump even though Trump has never been for working people,” Bonior continued. “Those plants he said he would restore – he never did any of that.”Many union leaders slam Trump for a speech he gave in Youngstown in which he told thousands of workers that he would bring back all the factory jobs that Ohio had lost. “They’re all coming back,” he said. They didn’t. And when General Motors closed its huge assembly plant in nearby Lordstown, Ohio, in 2019, Trump did little to stop the plant closing or bring back the lost jobs.“He said all those jobs would be coming back, and then he did nothing,” said Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers (UAW). “The auto industry abandoned Lordstown, and Trump did nothing.”When Trump was running for president in 2016, he vowed to renegotiate Nafta, and he followed through, reaching a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2018. Labor leaders had attacked Nafta not only for encouraging companies to move factory jobs to Mexico and but also for failing to effectively protect Mexican workers whose employers had violated their right to unionize or other rights.Union leaders agree that USMCA created a stronger mechanism to crack down on labor violations by Mexican companies, although the Trump administration negotiated that improved enforcement mechanism only after the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and House Democrats demanded that Trump go further in the negotiations. But under USMCA, often called “Nafta 2.0”, US companies have continued moving manufacturing operations to Mexico.Even though USMCA made only minor changes to Nafta, Trump called it, “the best trade deal ever made”. For her part, Harris was one of 10 senators to vote against USMCA, saying it didn’t improve Nafta sufficiently.Faux said many workers applaud Trump on trade because “he did something” about it by renegotiating Nafta, while “the Democrats did nothing”.Labor leaders have differing views of USMCA. David McCall, president of the Pittsburgh-based United Steelworkers, said: “I think Nafta 2.0 was helpful. It’s gotten some better labor protections.”But the UAW’s Fain was merciless in attacking USMCA. “I like to call it Trump’s Nafta,” Fain said. “Trump’s Nafta only made problems worse. Trump’s Nafta only gave the billionaires more profits. Trump’s Nafta only killed more American jobs. Trump’s Nafta only shipped more work to Mexico.”Both Harris and Trump say they will renegotiate USMCA if elected. Trump also says he will protect factory jobs by imposing a 20% tariff on all imports, but the Steelworkers’ McCall says that’s a terrible idea. “I don’t think the solution to the problem is to have tariffs for the sake of having tariffs,” McCall said. “That’s protection. I think trade is a good thing. It’s an economic stimulator.” He said the US should use tariffs not in a blunderbuss way, but to “punish cheaters or countries that dump their various products”.McCall said the Biden-Harris administration had had a far better strategy for protecting factory jobs. “It’s the first time in generations that we’ve had an industrial policy in this country,” he said, praising three important laws passed under Biden: the infrastructure law, the green energy law and the Chips Act to encourage semiconductor production. McCall said those laws, along with Biden’s targeted tariffs “against countries that cheat”, give the US “an opportunity to be the most productive producers of many products”.While many blue-collar workers like Trump’s views on trade, McCall said: “He’s not a friend of unions or labor. For Trump it’s all about him, not about the person that’s working on the job: the steelworker, the electrical worker, the teamster or the UAW member.” More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Trump campaign files complaint over ‘foreign interference’ by ‘far-left’ Labour Party in US election

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyThis election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.CloseRead moreCloseDonald Trump’s presidential campaign has accused Sir Keir Starmer’s “far-left” Labour Party of interfering in the US election.The Trump-Vance campaign filed a complaint with the US Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Labour of illegal foreign campaign donations.In a statement, the campaign’s co-manager Susie Wiles campaign claimed: “The far-left Labour Party has inspired Kamala’s dangerously liberal policies and rhetoric.“In recent weeks, they have recruited and sent party members to campaign for Kamala in critical battleground states, attempting to influence our election.”The complaint referenced a Washington Post report that suggested “strategists linked to Britain’s Labour Party have been offering advice to Kamala Harris about how to earn back disaffected voters and run a winning campaign from the center left”.The Trump campaign has accused Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party of interfering in the US presidential election More