Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      US-Brazil Tariffs: What to Know About Trump’s History With Bolsonaro

      by

      The fight is rooted in years of political history between President Trump and the last two presidents of Brazil.The Western Hemisphere’s two largest nations appear headed for a full-blown trade war — with a twist.President Trump on Wednesday pledged to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian imports. His rationale wasn’t entirely economic — the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil — but political. Mr. Trump said Brazil was carrying out a “witch hunt” against his political ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for attempting a coup.A few hours later, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil said his government would respond with its own tariffs on U.S. imports. “Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage,” he said in a statement.Brazil is weighing tariffs on specific American products or sectors, according to a senior Brazilian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closed meetings. Seeking to minimize any jolt to Brazil’s economy, the government does not plan to apply broad-based tariffs on all American products, the official said.The feud is the latest in a long-running saga involving Mr. Trump, Mr. Bolsonaro and Mr. Lula, and it shows how Mr. Trump is using tariffs to settle scores against his political enemies.Here’s what you need to know:What did Trump threaten, and why?What products does Brazil export to the U.S.?What is Trump’s history with Bolsonaro and Lula?What is the case against Bolsonaro?What happens next?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Officials Take Steps to Target Comey and Brennan, Who Investigated Trump

      by

      It is unclear whether moves targeting the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan will lead to charges.The Trump administration appears to be targeting officials who oversaw the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s connections to Russia, examining the actions of the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan, according to people familiar with the situation.John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director and a harsh critic of his Democratic-appointed predecessors, has made a criminal referral of Mr. Brennan to the F.B.I., accusing him of lying to Congress, officials said. The bureau is also scrutinizing Mr. Comey for his role in the Russia investigation, other officials said, although the exact basis for any inquiry remains unclear.Even if it is unclear whether the moves will lead to charges, they are among the most significant indications that President Trump’s appointees intend to follow through on his campaign to exact retribution against his perceived enemies. That includes people leading the investigation into what he has repeatedly denounced as the “Russia hoax” nine years ago and officials involved in two failed federal prosecutions of Mr. Trump during the Biden years.This all comes at a precarious moment for the appointed leadership of federal law enforcement agencies. Since Monday, Trump supporters on the far right have lashed out at Attorney General Pam Bondi and F.B.I. brass for closing the investigation into the death of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Those same allies have called for aggressive investigations of Trump investigators.C.I.A. and F.B.I. officials declined to comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman wrote in a statement that it did not comment on “ongoing investigations.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Treats Tariffs More as a Form of Power Than as a Trade Tool

      by

      Instead of viewing tariffs as part of a broader trade policy, President Trump sees them as a valuable weapon he can wield on the world stage.President Trump’s allies often describe him as a 40-year devotee of tariffs who, stymied by his first-term advisers, is finally able to put his long-held economic theory into practice.But while Mr. Trump spoke about tariffs off and on before becoming a presidential candidate, he usually described his broader grievance about trade in terms of other countries or companies “ripping off” the United States. It is since Mr. Trump became a candidate in 2015 that he has talked about tariffs in earnest, describing them as a tool that he could easily deploy to rebalance the country’s economic footing.“We are going to have 10 percent to 20 percent tariffs on foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years, we are going to charge them 10 percent to 20 percent to come in and take advantage of our country because that is what they have been doing,” Mr. Trump said in August 2024, one of many comments he made in that race emphasizing he would impose sweeping tariffs if he won, far beyond those in his first term.Mr. Trump’s latest retreat this week from his own self-imposed tariff deadlines underscores the challenge he has faced in treating tariffs as a quick-fix — a tool that he asserts will bring in lots of money for the country while swiftly resetting trade relationships.A review of Mr. Trump’s comments about tariffs over the decades shows he has often been fairly vague on the topic, and only more recently came to describe them as the centerpiece of his approach to trade.Far more frequent and durable has been Mr. Trump’s repeated refrain that other countries are turning the United States into “suckers.” His references to tariffs often came as part of his description of a feeling of national injury that became common as the country’s manufacturing base began eroding. That attentiveness to trade as an issue, even absent a cohesive policy plan, helped Mr. Trump win in 2016.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Crypto Lobbying Won Over Trump

      by

      Just over a year ago, while sitting around a table in an ornate meeting room at Mar-a-Lago, David Bailey and a group of top Bitcoin executives made a pitch to Donald J. Trump.They were looking for a savior.For years, cryptocurrency companies had endured a sweeping crackdown in Washington — a cascade of lawsuits, regulatory attacks and prosecutions that threatened the industry’s survival.Mr. Trump wasn’t an obvious sympathizer. He had once dismissed Bitcoin as a “scam.” But he welcomed the executives into his private club in Florida because the industry had suddenly gotten his attention. Mr. Bailey was mobilizing crypto investors to vote for Mr. Trump and had called on his colleagues to raise $100 million for the election effort.At Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Bailey brought along representatives of several large Bitcoin mining firms — an energy-guzzling sector that has drawn noise complaints and environmental concerns. They pitched Mr. Trump on the economic benefits of Bitcoin, before pivoting to a bold request: Could Mr. Trump write a supportive post on his social media site?The proposed language was included at the bottom of a bullet-pointed meeting agenda, according to a copy reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Trump said he would “consider it,” Mr. Bailey, who runs the digital currency firm BTC Inc., recalled in an interview. “We had no idea if that was going to happen.”That night, Mr. Trump fired off a Truth Social post containing the exact message proposed by the executives: “We want all the remaining Bitcoin to be MADE IN THE USA!!! It will help us be ENERGY DOMINANT!!!”

      .css-m0b4as{max-width:600px;margin:0 auto;display:block;}.css-m0b4as:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none !important;text-decoration:none !important;}.nytapp-vi-homepage .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-m0b4as{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}}.css-1eu3oi1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-npk1al{padding-left:10px;}.css-61i2mm{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.75rem;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03rem;letter-spacing:0.03rem;display:block;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :not(:first-child){margin-top:0.25rem;}.container-margin .css-4z4bzs{margin-top:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:10px;}.css-10r0njy{width:70px;height:70px;background-color:#d9e1e3;border-radius:4px;width:81px;height:81px;}.css-wwq616{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:2px;font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:5px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;margin-bottom:0;display:block;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;}}.css-1qudybh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;line-height:1rem;font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.1875rem;display:block;margin-top:2px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}}.css-89khpe{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);padding-bottom:10px;}.css-m0b4as{max-width:600px;margin:0 auto;display:block;}.css-m0b4as:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none !important;text-decoration:none !important;}.nytapp-vi-homepage .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .container-margin-none .css-m0b4as{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-m0b4as,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-m0b4as{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}}.css-1eu3oi1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-npk1al{padding-left:10px;}.css-61i2mm{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.75rem;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03rem;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03rem;letter-spacing:0.03rem;display:block;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :not(:first-child){margin-top:0.25rem;}.container-margin .css-4z4bzs{margin-top:20px;}.css-4z4bzs > :last-child{margin-bottom:10px;}.css-10r0njy{width:70px;height:70px;background-color:#d9e1e3;border-radius:4px;width:81px;height:81px;}.css-wwq616{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:2px;font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;margin-bottom:5px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;margin-bottom:0;display:block;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-wwq616,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-wwq616{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-wwq616{font-size:1rem;line-height:1rem;}}.css-1qudybh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;line-height:1rem;font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;}}.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.1875rem;display:block;margin-top:2px;}@media (min-width:740px){.nytapp-vi-homepage .css-1qudybh,.NYTApp #programming-list .css-1qudybh{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.1875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1qudybh{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}}.css-89khpe{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;padding-bottom:20px;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);padding-bottom:10px;}Key Players Trying to Sway Trump on CryptoDavid BaileyChief executive of BTC Inc.David SacksSilicon Valley venture capitalist and White House crypto czarBrad GarlinghouseChief executive of RippleStuart AlderotyChief legal officer of RippleCharles HoskinsonFounder of Input OutputPaul ManafortFormer Trump campaign chairmanBill ZankerLongtime Trump business partnerTracy Hoyos-LópezBitcoin advocate and former prosecutorBrian BallardMajor Trump-fundraiser and lobbyistReince PriebusFormer White House chief of staffEric TrumpThe president’s middle sonWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Musk’s Third Party Starts With a Good Idea

      by

      Elon Musk has finally done something predictable (for a gazillionaire with a political itch, that is): He says he’s launching a third party devoted to the cause of deficit reduction. Instead of the quadrennial dream of No Labels, in which high-minded donors put up the money for an imaginary white knight who never materializes, we may get the “America Party,” in which the world’s richest man puts his fortune behind, he says, “extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield.”If you parse Musk’s postings and re-postings, that seems to mean a third party strategy that targets a handful of close Senate and House seats, trying to create a legislative faction that exerts control over both bodies by preventing anything from passing without their crucial votes.Credit where due: This is a somewhat better plan than just backing a doomed third-party presidential bid in 2028. The most compelling suggestion for would-be third partyers during Joe Biden’s presidency was that they should persuade a clutch of discontented senators to caucus as independents, creating a potent Joe Manchin-Mitt Romney-Lisa Murkowski-Susan Collins-Kyrsten Sinema bloc. Musk’s concentrated-force idea, presumably, would be an attempt to create this kind of bloc from scratch, discovering the next Murkowskis and Manchins and making it possible for them to fund and win a race without an R or D beside their name.Before the travails of DOGE, I would have said that it was a mistake to automatically bet against Musk; now it seems safer to just acknowledge up front that this plan is unlikely to work out, and that Musk will probably find it too difficult to seriously pursue.But in the spirit of possibility, and because the House-and-Senate plan is an advance on most third-party fantasias, let’s consider the things that would need to happen for Musk to succeed.First, the America Party couldn’t just target the tightest swing states. You’ll notice that of the independent-minded senators and former senators listed above, only Sinema comes from a hotly contested state. That’s because under polarized conditions, a true swing state is usually the place where both parties make the strongest efforts at persuasion, where the stakes of each election seem highest and the fear of the other party’s rule is sharpest among partisans on either side.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      What Happened in Trade Talks Between Japan and the U.S.

      by

      Tokyo had expected smooth tariff negotiations but is experiencing whiplash, becoming a central target of President Trump’s trade frustrations.Earlier this year, Japan’s relationship with the United States seemed to be on solid footing.Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba met with President Trump at the White House in February and pledged to significantly boost investment in the United States. The two leaders talked about their “unwavering commitment” to what some U.S. diplomats have called the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none.Those ties appeared to count for something when the Trump administration announced so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of trading partners on April 2. Sure, the 24 percent rate handed to Japan from the top buyer of its goods was a blow. But Japan was the first major trade partner invited to Washington to negotiate those tariffs away.Now, Japan is dealing with diplomatic whiplash.On Monday, Mr. Trump delayed until Aug. 1 tariffs that were supposed to take effect on Wednesday for dozens of countries. Japan was among a subset of countries, along with a neighbor, South Korea, that received letters directing them to change what the White House called unfair trade policies.The announcement that Japan would be targeted with a new 25 percent tariff came after a week in which Mr. Trump repeatedly lashed out at the country, an ally, for its unwillingness to buy American cars and rice. He characterized Japan as “spoiled” and indicated that a trade deal was unlikely.On Tuesday, Mr. Ishiba said Japanese government officials had engaged in “earnest and sincere discussions” with counterparts in the United States. He called the U.S. announcement “deeply regrettable.”The international cargo terminal at the port in Tokyo.Kazuhiro Nogi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Grip That Race and Identity Have on My Students

      by

      In the spring of 2023, in a cramped classroom in the Hudson Valley, I taught an undergraduate seminar on the courage to think about race in unconventional ways. It revolved around reading books by Frederick Douglass, James Weldon Johnson and Albert Murray. These minds had shaped and refined my thinking about the idea of America, the fundamentally mongrel populations that inhabit it, as well as the yet-to-be-perfected flesh-and-blood nation of the future we might one day bring forth in unison.Early in the semester, as I waxed exuberant about the unifying possibilities of the 2008 election, I was met by a conference table ringed with blank stares. For my clever and earnest students, I realized, the earth-shattering political achievements of the beleaguered but still unfolding present were nothing but the vaguest rumor of an abstract history.“Professor,” a diligent young woman from Queens who described herself as Latina and applied a no-nonsense activist lens and corresponding vocabulary to most engagements with the world, voiced what all her classmates must have been thinking. “I was 4 years old in 2008. I don’t know what you’re talking about!”Their experience of this country, and themselves, couldn’t have differed more from my own, or from many of the 19th- and 20th-century authors on our syllabus. I assigned these writers because they had so courageously laid the intellectual and moral framework that a figure like Barack Obama would one day harness.I am old enough now to appreciate that there can be only one politician in your lifetime who can truly move you to dream. I feel lucky to have had that experience through Mr. Obama. My students that semester — white, Latino and Asian teens and 20-somethings whose political views had been forged in relation to the reactionary populism of Donald Trump and through a certain skepticism of the American idea itself — had yet to encounter such an inspirational figure. Race pessimism, even a kind of mass learned helplessness, was instead the weather that enveloped them.When my friend Coleman Hughes guest-lectured on his case for colorblindness, several of them were visibly unnerved, suggesting that the idea itself was a form of anti-Blackness. Most maintained that one could no more “retire” from race, as Adrian Piper — another of the authors we wrestled with — aspired to do, than one could teleport up from the classroom.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Book Review: ‘2024,’ by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf

      by

      “2024,” a campaign book by three seasoned political journalists, immerses readers in the chaos and ironies of the race for the White House.2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac ArnsdorfIn “2024,” the latest 400-page dispatch from last year’s presidential contest, the authors, a trio of veteran journalists from different august papers — Josh Dawsey (The Wall Street Journal), Tyler Pager (The New York Times) and Isaac Arnsdorf (The Washington Post) — write that “there was a view popular among some political insiders that this election had been over before it was started.”The authors end up arguing that things were not so fated, but reading what they have to report, I couldn’t help feeling those political insiders had a point. In this account, Biden’s operation resembles its candidate: listless, semi-coherent, sleepwalking toward calamity. It exists for its own sake, impervious to outside input, pushed along by inertia alone. The Trump campaign — at least after his first indictment provides a burst of energy and purpose — appears driven, disciplined, capable of evaluating trade-offs and making tough decisions. Trump seems to want to win; Biden just wants to survive.Things do change when Kamala Harris enters the fray. She gives Trump a run for his money, but her campaign is held back from the start by the slow-moving disaster that made it necessary in the first place.“2024” is a well-paced, thorough and often (darkly) humorous account of the two-year campaign season that began when Donald Trump announced he was running for president again — at a Mar-a-Lago launch so disorganized and halfhearted, the authors write, that even sycophantic Trump allies admitted it was “a dud.”It is also perhaps the smelliest campaign book I can recall. Trump reflects on his future over fried shrimp and tartar sauce. A Biden aide picks at eggs and bacon in a lonely hotel restaurant. At a desultory Trump news conference in the summer of 2024, packages of sausage and gallons of milk are laid out as props to highlight rising food prices; flies circle the meat “spoiling in the August sun.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More