The Paparazzi Staked Outside Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s D.C. Home - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — On a recent Monday morning, Ivanka Trump began her day as usual, with bad media coverage, a good get-up and a greeting at her front door by the paparazzi.

In the six seconds it took Ms. Trump to leave her home and climb into a black Secret Service car, a photographer for The Daily Mail, the British tabloid better known for covering the royal family and celebrity scandals, clicked away furiously behind a sidewalk barricade a few yards away.

Since 2017, when Ms. Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, moved to Kalorama, a luxe neighborhood for D.C. elites, paparazzi hired by The Daily Mail have staked out their teal-blue front door.

The photographers were there when Kim Kardashian West visited last year, after her meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office to discuss prison reform. “Keeping up with the Kushners!,” read The Daily Mail’s headline, trumpeting its “exclusive photos” of “Ivanka smiling at the window as she and Jared hosted Kim.”

They were there in March, the morning after Ms. Trump posted a widely mocked Twitter video in which she gushed about her sister-in-law Karlie Kloss’s star turn on “Project Runway.” “Rising above it? Ivanka flashes a bright smile as she steps out wearing a classy black suit and a $3,400 Chanel bag,” the headline read.

And they were there on a recent Friday to document Ms. Trump’s first “stylish summer ensemble” and her “bouncy blowout.”

“All I see of them is the veneer,” said Matthew D’Agostino, 45, a photographer from Baltimore who freelanced for The Daily Mail from 2017 until earlier this year. He described his former subjects as cordial. “When I was first shooting a lot, Jared once asked me, ‘Do you think that’s enough?’ and honestly, it was enough, so I said ‘Yeah, you’re right!’”

Mr. D’Agostino was one of about five photographers that the Daily Mail’s website, which is operated partly out of New York, pays to park outside the couple’s six-bedroom, $15,000-a-month colonial-style house and make like Steve Sands.

Image

The house that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner rent in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington.CreditGabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

They are there before 7 a.m. to catch Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner departing for work. After switching shifts midday, they are also there at 8 p.m., when the couple usually return home. This repeats itself most days, including weekends and holidays.

Neighbors don’t seem to mind or even take notice. That’s because Kalorama already has its share of high-profile officials, with as many black town cars and Chevy Suburbans idling on its leafy drives as one might see in gangster’s cortège.

The paparazzi stay sandwiched between the Secret Service detail guarding the Trump-Kushner residence and another detail guarding the Obamas, who live a block away. Across the street is the embassy of Guyana and the residence of the Jordanian ambassador.

Still, it’s a somniferous situation for the photographers, who camp out in their cars for hours at a time for a few seconds of activity.

To offset the tedium, Mr. D’Agostino began writing haikus in his boxy green Honda Element. “I call it paparazzaiku,” he said. “I don’t think I’m really good at it, but it’s a way of being creative when there’s a long stretch of time.”

A recent entry: “A passer-by sneers / parking cop waves a warning / under green streetlight.”

Image

Paparrazi hired by The Daily Mail photograph Ms. Trump regularly.CreditChip Somodevilla/Getty Images

American Royalty?

Although paparazzi flare-ups aren’t unheard-of in Washington (just ask Dick Morris, Monica Lewinsky and Hope Hicks), this sustained stakeout is very TMZ for the land of C-Span.

So why, two years in, is The Daily Mail still so invested in Ms. Trump, even as some polls find that her approval numbers have sunk, particularly among the millennial American women who make up a key demographic for the Daily Mail website?

Maybe the tabloid, which is besotted with Meghan Markle, thinks it has locked onto the closest thing Americans have to a princess. Centuries after the break from the Crown, is The Daily Mail tapping into a strand of Yankee D.N.A. that yearns for erstwhile royalty?

Whatever the reason, Ms. Trump seems to be getting good ratings — to put it in Trumpian terms.

The Daily Mail did not return requests for comment, but former staffers said it was part of a strategy to boost web traffic. The Daily Mail was founded in 1896 and its print paper remains focused on British readers. Its website (officially known as the Mail Online), however, was started in 2003 and, according to comScore, within a decade became one of the most highly trafficked news sites worldwide, thanks in part to a cascade of celebrity click bait and lurid crime stories.

Former staffers attested to Ms. Trump as a traffic driver, with clicks coming primarily from the United States. “It’s a classic Daily Mail guilty pleasure,” said Taylor Lorenz, the former head of social media for The Daily Mail, about the nonstop coverage of Ms. Trump’s comings and goings. “If those posts weren’t doing well, they wouldn’t be running them.”

Mr. D’Agostino had another theory. “The Daily Mail has carved out a niche,” he said, speculating that the real value of his photos was to feed the maw of search engines and the 24-hour news cycle, “so that if you’re looking for a story about Jared and Ivanka, you’re going to end up on The Daily Mail.”

Image

They keep tabs on her outfits and whether any celebrities show up for dinner. CreditNicholas Kamm/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

West Wing North

While tabloid coverage of the misadventures of presidents’ daughters is nothing new — the media had its fun with the Bush twins and their underage drinking, and Malia Obama at Lollapalooza — the rules are different for Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner.

Not only are they adults, with children of their own, but they also hold official titles in the White House.

The Daily Mail seems to prefer Executive Branch Barbie-style photos of Ms. Trump, like when she “bares her legs in a funky skirt” or flashes a “megawatt smile,” as their captions put it.

But Mr. Kushner sometimes gets the focus, too. “A downcast Jared returns home in the DC rain after dining with Trump and Pence as 800,000 federal workers face their second week without pay and the Democrats refuse to budge,” read a headline in December during the government shutdown.

After dark, Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner’s dining room functions as something of a West Wing North. Foreign diplomats have been photographed entering the home, and the chief executives of Walmart and General Motors have grazed there. It has become destination dining for Democrats too, including Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a presidential candidate.

However, those are precisely the photographs you’ll almost never see on The Daily Mail’s home page, since paparazzi shots of Sheldon Whitehouse or Dick Durbin don’t exactly scream “Click me!” (This being the publication that, as recently as 2015, was still referring to Jeff Bezos in group photo captions as an “other.”)

One exception was when Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin stopped by for dinner last year, wearing a gray polo shirt and bluejeans.

So how did Mr. Mnuchin make the cut? His choice of Bordeaux blend, apparently. The Daily Mail’s headline noted that he brought “a $22 bottle of wine — despite being worth $300 million.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/style/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-paparazzi-daily-mail.html

2019-06-01 10:17:24Z
52780305674640

Trump's Mexican tariffs expose administration rifts | TheHill - The Hill

President TrumpDonald John TrumpOcasio-Cortez returns to bartending in support of tipped workers: 'Still got it!' Trade wars have cost stock market trillion: Deutsche Bank analysis Dollar stores warn they will have to raise prices over tariffs MORE’s abrupt decision to impose sweeping tariffs on Mexico is exposing rifts within his administration on trade and immigration, two core issues he has repeatedly pledged to tackle but where he has struggled to gain ground.

The surprise Thursday night announcement marked a setback for U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert LighthizerRobert (Bob) Emmet LighthizerChinese, US negotiators fine-tuning details of trade agreement: report The Trump economy keeps roaring ahead Trump says no discussion of extending deadline in Chinese trade talks MORE, who argued the plan could threaten Trump’s North American trade agreement’s chances of congressional approval, according to three people familiar with the situation.

“Lighthizer tried to make his case once and failed,” said one industry source, who requested anonymity to describe discussions with the administration.

ADVERTISEMENT

A USTR spokesperson said in a statement that Lighthizer “supports the president and what the president is doing,” but did not specifically mention the new tariffs on Mexico.

Trump’s move was also a loss for business-friendly figures in the administration, such as Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinDemocratic senator threatens to block Treasury nominees over info on Trump's tax returns Consumer confidence rises in May despite new Trump tariffs To-do list piles up for Congress MORE and National Economic Council Director Larry KudlowLawrence (Larry) Alan KudlowMORE. Another industry source said Mnuchin, like Lighthizer, opposed the plan. Kudlow is reportedly away recovering from hip surgery.

A Treasury Department spokesperson said Mnuchin “supports the president’s position.”

Trump decided to threaten Mexico with tariffs on all of its imports as he grew increasingly frustrated with the number of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border, many of whom are seeking asylum, according to two people familiar with the situation.

“This is something the president has been bringing up for months and was kept at bay,” said the first industry source.

What, exactly, the breaking point was for Trump remained a subject of speculation in Washington, with some officials pointing to conservative media reports focused on major apprehensions of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Others noted he teased the move during a diatribe against special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerDemocratic lawmaker: 'The only thing I can get on TV to talk about' is impeachment Biden campaign: Impeachment 'may be unavoidable' now Chris Christie: Mueller 'contradicts' Barr's summary of his findings MORE and viewed it as an effort to change the subject.

Apprehensions at the southern border have risen exponentially since the early months of Trump’s presidency.

In April 2017, Trump’s third full month in office, the number of apprehensions at the southern border fell to its low point of 15,798, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The figure has spiraled to over 100,000 in both March and April, the two most recent months for which data is available. The April total — 109,144 — was the highest of Trump’s presidency.

The president’s threat is seen as a boost for advisers such as Peter Navarro and Stephen MillerStephen MillerTrump Citizenship and Immigration Services head out at agency Trump expected to tap Cuccinelli for new immigration post Acting DHS secretary threatened to quit after clashing with Miller: report MORE, who have championed protectionist trade policies and a hard line on immigration, respectively.

Miller for months has urged the administration to adopt more aggressive measures to curb the number of migrants entering the U.S., in part by engineering a purge at the Department of Homeland Security, and he vocally pushed the Mexico tariffs, according to a person familiar with the situation.

The tariffs were discussed in a meeting on immigration this week at the White House that was attended by the president, Miller and White House counsel Pat Cipolline, among others, according to the person. Lighthizer was not present.

Navarro was one of a handful of White House officials who appeared Friday on cable television to defend the plan, saying it should have come as no surprise given Trump’s insistence that Mexico do more to stop illegal migration.

“If you look at it from an investor’s point of view and a corporate point of view, what we have in Mexico is the export, one of their high exports, of illegal aliens. And it’s a criminal enterprise,” the trade adviser said on CNBC.

Sources in Trump’s circle don’t dispute these divisions. But they also contend that the issue also has to be viewed through the lens of the 2020 election campaign, where a continued hard line on immigration will be a central part of the president’s appeal.

“This is definitely a victory for Navarro and Stephen Miller, but this is also a victory for the campaign team, which can use this as another base issue,” said one GOP strategist with ties to the White House who asked for anonymity to speak candidly.

It throws a wrench into the administration’s biggest legislative priority: passage of Trump’s revision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been spearheaded by Lighthizer.

The top trade official had formed a solid working relationship with Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiTrump antagonizes both parties on trade Trump's surprise trade strategy threatens new NAFTA 20 percent of Americans can't define 'socialism' even as it's become the focus of 2020 MORE (D-Calif.) that many in the administration and on K Street believed was yielding progress toward pushing the agreement through Congress.

They now fear that Trump’s new tariffs, combined with the White House’s decision to  formally start the clock on the legislative process over Pelosi’s objections, could stymie that progress, with one industry source calling the moves “a one-two gut punch.”

Lighthizer was reportedly unenthusiastic about the decision to pressure Democrats on NAFTA, a strategy that is said to be favored by Vice President Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceTrump launching 2020 campaign on June 18 with Florida rally Trump announces tariffs on Mexico over immigration White House starts clock on approval for new NAFTA MORE’s team, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Republican National Committee, which is closely allied with the White House, and the House GOP Conference both blasted out press releases this week accusing Pelosi of dragging her feet on approving the agreement.

White House counselor Kellyanne ConwayKellyanne Elizabeth ConwayTrump campaign manager calls Amash 'Phony,' 'Grandstanding Swamp Creature' Kellyanne Conway: 'Amash can do what he wants' Kellyanne Conway dismisses Hatch Act violation: 'Let me know when the jail sentence starts' MORE downplayed those fears, telling reporters “we are fully confident that [the trade deal] could pass the House.”

Although Trump has pushed for tariffs on Mexico for months, administration officials and industry groups described a slapdash rollout that some believe helped contribute to the widespread backlash against the plan.

The White House issued a presidential statement and held a conference call for reporters after Trump announced the tariffs by tweet. But behind the scenes, there was a scramble to pull together the plan. Some key lawmakers, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyOvernight Energy: Trump allows use of ethanol gas in summer | Move to benefit farmers | Britain goes two weeks without using coal | EPA watchdog hands Pruitt probe findings to Congress Trump antagonizes both parties on trade Trump's surprise trade strategy threatens new NAFTA MORE (R-Iowa), were not briefed and major business associations were either not given a heads-up or told about it at the last minute.

Grassley, whose office said it found out about the tariffs on Twitter, called them “a misuse of presidential tariff authority” that could derail Trump’s NAFTA rewrite. That sentiment was echoed by business groups, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce saying it might even sue to stop the tariffs.

The administration has sought to assuage fears that the skirmish over tariffs could spiral out of control, especially if there is little Mexico can do in concrete terms to meet the Trump administration’s demands.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan has outlined three areas where progress could be made: tightening border security between Mexico and Guatemala; the Mexican government holding U.S. asylum-seekers on the southern side of the border while their claims are adjudicated; and tougher action against human traffickers and criminal gangs.

“Mexico should engage with us, and we wouldn’t have to take any additional steps,” White House press secretary Sarah HuckabeeSarah Elizabeth SandersLive coverage: House panel moves forward with Barr contempt vote Mueller's facts vs Trump's spin Trump says he was called 'the greatest hostage negotiator this country has ever had' MORE Sanders told reporters on Friday.

A person familiar with the process told The Hill that the new tariff move was “a graduated approach with an immediate exit-ramp if Mexico does the right thing.”

Trump has said that the tariffs would be introduced at a rate of 5 percent on June 10, and would then rise by 5 points at the beginning of each subsequent month, to a ceiling of 25 percent. The U.S. imported $346.5 billion in goods from Mexico in 2018, according to USTR, and the country recently became the U.S.’s largest trading partner. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/446423-trumps-mexican-tariffs-expose-administration-rifts

2019-06-01 10:15:00Z
52780305674640

Britain braces as Donald Trump marches into political mayhem - CNN

Theresa May last week became the second British prime minister to fall victim to Brexit. The governing Conservative party is engaged in a myopic fight over who will replace her. Voters are sick of the mess and are flocking to political movements on the extreme ends of the Brexit debate.

Ordinarily, a state visit from the sitting US President is a chance for the UK so show off to the world the "special relationship" it enjoys with America and Britain at its best. But the best outcome for the Trump state visit is that it passes with as little fuss as possible.

The chances of that seem slim. On Friday night, the Sun newspaper published an interview with the President in which he said that Boris Johnson, the current front-runner to replace May, would do a "very good job" as prime minister.

It was his second intervention in as many days. Earlier in the week, Trump said that Johnson was a "friend" for whom he had "a lot of respect." He said the same thing of the hard Brexiteer and Conservative Party nemesis, Nigel Farage. Trump even hinted that he might meet the pair while he's in London.

Officials would rather he didn't, and there's nothing on the official schedule so far. And while Farage would thrive from the attention, it's not at all clear that Johnson would benefit from a presidential one-on-one.

Under normal circumstances, someone hoping to be the next leader of a country would bite the hand off a US President offering an endorsement. But these are not normal circumstances and Donald Trump is not a normal President.

Johnson is often described as a British Trump. Both men have a history of saying controversial and sometimes offensive things in public (Johnson famously wrote a newspaper column last year saying that women wearing full Islamic face veils looked like letter boxes). Both have been accused of lying during political campaigns (something for which Johnson now faces a court hearing). And both have absolutely epic hairstyles.

However, the comparisons only work at this superficial level. Comparing Johnson's politics to Trump's populism is at best disingenuous and at worst a smear. The thing is, it's a smear that works.

Trump is not popular in the UK. Most Brits regard his style of politics as crass. His public comments about women and Muslims don't go down well. There is a sense of British fair play that tends to extend to the level of decency expected by those elected to power. This is especially true of Conservative party members. Think people drinking warm beer and watching cricket, not screaming "lock her up" at rallies.

Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London sums it up: "I think people in the US don't appreciate that Donald Trump is seen on all sides of British politics as a figure of fun and not someone to take too seriously. Any endorsement by him isn't likely to do a candidate any good -- and might do them some damage."

The problem for Johnson is that, in calling him a "friend", Trump has already given him something of an endorsement.

It's unlikely that Johnson feels the same. In 2015, when Johnson was mayor of London, Trump said that some areas of the British capital with large Muslim populations had become so radicalized "that police are afraid for their own lives." Johnson's riposte was that he wouldn't visit some parts of New York for the "real risk of meeting Donald Trump."

For Farage, the Trump connection plays differently.

His newly-formed Brexit Party finished in first place at last week's European elections. Broadly speaking, Farage's base is far more sympathetic to Trumpian politics than Johnson's. An endorsement from Trump could help Farage lock down that harder-line voter at a crucial moment in British politics. And Farage has the luxury of not needing to look outside of that pool of voters.

Unlike Farage, Johnson has to appeal to a far broader church if he is to succeed as leader. Many Conservatives voted to remain in the EU and remain ardently pro-European. As recently as October, liberal Conservatives grimaced at the idea of Johnson becoming prime minister. Today, many of them see him as their only option if they are to avoid electoral oblivion.

The success of the Brexit Party has spooked Conservatives. The longer Brexit remains unresolved, the more vulnerable they are. On Friday, the polling company YouGov published a survey of voters' general election intentions which placed both the governing Conservatives and opposition Labour behind the second-placed Brexit Party.

Brexit, as if anyone needed reminding, is the single most divisive issue in Britain today. Ahead of the Brexit Party in the YouGov survey were the Liberal Democrats, a party that campaigned in last week's European elections using the slogan "Bollocks to Brexit."

The UK's traditional two-party system has held for a long time, but it is creaking. Brexit has devastated the traditional dividing lines and rewritten the rules of politics. Neither of the main parties has even begun to work out how to address this new challenge.

And into this mayhem marches a US President with a proven track record of being wildly unhelpful to the British government. On his last visit, his opening gambit was to give an interview to the Sun newspaper in which he trashed Theresa May's handling of Brexit.

Last year, he publicly stated that the deal she had struck with the EU would prohibit the UK from being able to trade with the US.

Whether or not the President will meet with either Johnson or Farage is getting a lot of attention. As things stand, people working on the details of the trip do not officially expect either meeting to happen. But this is a president who marches to the beat of his own drum and loves attention -- good or bad.

It probably hasn't occurred to him that others would prefer that he kept his mouth shut.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/31/uk/trump-state-visit-luke-mcgee-analysis-intl-gbr/index.html

2019-06-01 09:54:46Z
52780307268988

Trump creates diplomatic headache for U.K. even before state visit - NBC News

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

SUBSCRIBE

June 1, 2019, 7:06 AM UTC / Updated June 1, 2019, 7:10 AM UTC

By Rachel Elbaum

LONDON — Britain and the U.S. may have a special relationship but President Donald Trump’s state visit will be a diplomatic balancing act for the U.K., where Trump is deeply unpopular.

Even before his arrival on British shores, the president caused a stir by wading into the contest to replace Theresa May as prime minister and criticising Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex.

Trump's trip comes as the U.K. is facing its most significant crisis since the Second World War.

It is currently in the midst of a long and messy divorce from the European Union, the economic and political bloc it has belonged to for more than 40 years.

That divorce has now brought down a second prime minister in less than three years.

May announced on May 24 that she will step down as prime minister and leader of her ruling Conservative party just days after the president's visit. Her party is now in the midst of a heated race to decide who will be its next leader — and the country's next prime minister.

In an interview Friday with the British tabloid The Sun, Trump said Boris Johnson — the divisive populist and ex-foreign secretary who is favorite to replace May — would make an "excellent" prime minister.

"I think Boris would do a very good job. I think he would be excellent," Trump said.

The president also referred to the American-born Duchess of Sussex as "nasty" over comments she made in 2016 threatening to move to Canada if Trump won the White House.

But he wished her well in her new life as a princess. "I am sure she will do excellently," he added.

The comments threatened to overshadow the build up to Trump's long-awaited state visit.

Trump is widely disliked in the U.K. He has a positive opinion rating of only 21 percent, according to YouGov, compared to 72 percent for former President Barack Obama.

But he told The Sun Friday that “I don’t imagine any U.S. president was ever closer to your great land.”

"Now I think I am really — I hope — I am really loved in the U.K.," he added. "I certainly love the U.K."

On Tuesday, the day after Trump’s arrival, thousands of people are expected to hit the streets of the capital to protest, like they did during his last visit in July.

It was a similar story for President George W. Bush, whose state visit came eight months after the invasion of Iraq.

Demonstrators protest against President Donald Trump's visit to the U.K. in July 2018.Yves Herman / Reuters file

Yet it’s precisely because of the U.K.'s Brexit mess that it needs this visit now more than ever.

With no Brexit deal in sight, and future trade ties with Europe now up in the air, a trade deal with the U.S. has become increasingly important.

“The cleaner the Brexit, the easier it is for the U.S. to strike a free trade deal with the U.K.,” said Leslie Vinjamuri, the head of the U.S. and Americas program at the Chatham House think tank.

“That plays into the hands of those who are pushing for a hard Brexit,” from the E.U. with no agreement setting out a framework for future relations.

On his last visit to the U.K., Trump didn’t hold back.

He blasted May over Brexit and warned that her plan could scuttle an American trade deal with the U.K. because Britain would remain too close with the E.U.

In his interview Friday Trump again criticized May's handling of Brexit, saying she "didn't give the European Union anything to lose" in negotiations.

“Any foreign intervention into something as sensitive as Brexit is tricky and likely to put people in a bad political position. People here will be very nervous on the extent to which they engage with it,” said Vinjamuri.

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama met Britain's Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, at Buckingham Palace, in May 2011 during their state visit.Reuters file

There are few precedents when it comes to presidential state visits. This is only the third for a U.S. president since the queen assumed the throne in 1952, with Bush receiving the honor in 2003 and Obama in 2011. The queen only hosts one or two state visits a year.

This trip will stand in stark contrast to Obama’s visit in particular.

Obama and his wife Michelle were welcomed by the queen, as well as the glamour couple of the time, Prince William and Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, who had married only a month earlier. Their Buckingham Palace banquet was filled with glitz and glamour and included former prime ministers as well as the mayor of London, and even actor Tom Hanks.

Ahead of Trump's arrival, however, some of the U.K.’s most senior politicians have said that the visit is a mistake and that they won’t attend the Queen’s uber-formal state dinner at Buckingham Palace.

Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to join the white tie event and said that May "should not be rolling out the red carpet for a state visit to honor a president who rips up vital international treaties, backs climate change denial and uses racist and misogynist rhetoric."

Corbyn, however, has been criticized for inviting members of Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in Parliament in 2009 and for calling the groups “friends.” Both groups are classified by the U.K. and U.S. as terrorist groups and have repeatedly called for the destruction of the State of Israel.

But he’s not the only political leader refusing to meet with the president.

Vince Cable, leader of the centrist Liberal Democrats, also turned down a seat at the dinner with Trump. And Mayor of London Sadiq Khan called May’s invitation “ill-judged” and called on her to revoke it in 2017 when it was first made.

Despite the objections to Trump's visit and the difficulty for U.K. politicians to head off any explosive comments the president may make, experts say that the close relationship between the two countries is bigger than their leaders.

“The government has made big attempt to say to people that however much you may find Trump objectionable you must distinguish the man from the office,” said the former Ambassador to the U.S. Christopher Meyer.

"This is a state visit, this is an honor for the whole of the U.S."

Rachel Elbaum

Rachel Elbaum is a London-based editor, producer and writer. 

Associated Press contributed.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/trump-creates-diplomatic-headache-u-k-even-state-visit-n1008221

2019-06-01 07:10:00Z
CAIiEPgbLeqDRGrVVDPMv9AqCz8qGQgEKhAIACoHCAowvIaCCzDnxf4CMP2F8gU

Trump’s Tariff Threat Sends Mexico, Lawmakers and Businesses Scrambling - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s threat to punish Mexico with tariffs until it restrains the flow of migrants across the southwestern border rattled financial markets on Friday and prompted pushback from the Mexican government, American businesses and Republican lawmakers, who accused Mr. Trump of overstepping his authority and pressed him to back down.

The president has made frequent use of tariffs to force trade concessions from other governments, including Mexico, Canada, China and Europe. But he raised the stakes on Thursday night by threatening to hit the United States’ ally and its largest trading partner with tariffs for issues related to immigration, not trade. Republican lawmakers, who have rarely challenged the president, objected to the move, saying tariffs were the wrong tool to try to address illegal immigration.

But Mr. Trump, who is invoking emergency powers to impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on all Mexican goods, showed no signs of relenting. He said on Friday that he would proceed with tariffs that could hurt American consumers and some of its biggest companies, including automakers, agricultural companies and retailers.

“Mexico makes a FORTUNE from the U.S., have for decades, they can easily fix this problem,” the president said on Twitter.

Stock prices slid on Friday, continuing a monthlong retreat, with the S&P 500 down more than 6 percent this month and the bond market flashing worrying signs of a global recession. Shares in General Motors and Ford each fell about 4 percent.

Mexico quickly dispatched its foreign minister to Washington on Friday to try to dissuade the president from imposing the levies and its president pleaded with Mr. Trump to find another way to address the issue. In a measured letter to Mr. Trump, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico said that he did not want confrontation and that his country was doing as much as possible to stem the flow of migrants “without violating human rights.”

Officials with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business group, said they were exploring the grounds on which they might mount a legal challenge.

Image

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico on Friday. In a letter to Mr. Trump, he said that Mexico was doing as much as possible to stem the flow of migrants “without violating human rights.”CreditHenry Romero/Reuters

“Given the gravity of the situation we have to explore all our options,” said Neil Bradley, the chief policy officer at the chamber.

The move capped a furious month of cross-border tariff threats that have rattled investors and raised economists’ concerns about a slowdown in global growth. Only three weeks ago, Mr. Trump increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods and started the process of taxing nearly everything China sends into the United States. The president has also threatened auto tariffs on Europe and Japan, setting a six-month deadline for those governments to reach a trade agreement with the United States.

Most economists have warned that large and sustained tariff increases, along with likely retaliation against American farmers and other exporters, will dampen global trade and drag on growth in the United States.

“We don’t know what straw will break the camel’s back here, but Trump is looking like he wants to try to find out,” Timothy Duy, an economist at the University of Oregon, wrote in a blog post on Friday.

Imposing tariffs on Mexican products would be particularly damaging given the tight integration of businesses across North America. Companies like General Motors, Ford and others have built their supply chains around the North American Free Trade Agreement, with borderless operations stretching across Canada, Mexico and the United States.

The United States imported about $347 billion of goods from Mexico last year, covering items ranging from cars, dishwashers, avocados and mangoes. If tariffs are fully put in place at 25 percent, it would be the equivalent of an $87 billion annual tax increase.

It could also effectively kill one of Mr. Trump’s primary policy goals — getting Congress to pass a revised North American trade pact. Democrats have already resisted Mr. Trump’s entreaties to pass the pact, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and the new tariff threat could be its death knell. The president’s move is quickly souring relations with Mexico, as well as the Republicans and business owners that are crucial to getting his North American trade deal passed into law.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, warned that following through with the tariffs “would seriously jeopardize passage of U.S.M.C.A., a central campaign pledge of President Trump’s and what could be a big victory for the country.”

Image

Asylum seekers at the United States-Mexico border on Friday.CreditGuillermo Arias/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

“I urge the president to consider other options,” he said.

The new threat of levies against Mexico comes less than two weeks after the administration agreed to lift its tariffs on Mexican and Canadian steel and aluminum, which both the administration and lawmakers greeted as a major step toward passing the revised pact into law.

“The White House will need to pass out neck braces if this trade policy whiplash continues for much longer,” said Kip Eideberg, a vice president at the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, which represents companies like Caterpillar and John Deere.

Administration officials acknowledged the incongruity of linking immigration with trade, but said the new tariffs should not have any effect on the passage of the revised trade deal.

“These are not tariffs as part of a trade dispute. These are tariffs as part of an immigration problem,” Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said in a call with reporters Thursday night. He added that passage of the trade deal was “absolutely not linked” to the tariffs threat.

“That is separate and apart from the U.S.M.C.A., which is a trade matter,” Mr. Mulvaney said. “The U.S.M.C.A. is a trade matter and completely separate,” he said.

However, Peter Navarro, a top adviser to Mr. Trump, suggested the issue was a matter of trade, saying on CNBC that the tariffs would punish Mexico’s “export” of “illegal immigrants.”

The tariffs are the latest threat by a president who has grown increasingly frustrated by the Mexican government’s inability to curb the flow of migrants, most of them Central Americans fleeing poverty and violence, who are entering the United States.

In March, Mr. Trump threatened to close the border entirely, but was talked down by advisers who said the disruption in the flow of goods and people could have severe consequences for the economy. In April, he threatened a 25 percent tariff on cars imported from Mexico if it did not take bigger steps to stop the border crossings.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/business/mexico-tariffs-donald-trump.html

2019-05-31 19:08:03Z
52780305674640

Kim Yong Chol's demotion would be very good news for America - Washington Examiner

Reports from a South Korean newspaper suggests that two of Kim Jong Un's top officials have been purged from his regime. If true, this would be welcome news for U.S. diplomacy.

Chosun Ilbo reports that North Korea has executed a lead negotiator responsible for discussions with the U.S., has sent Kim Yong Chol to a labor camp, and has told Kim's sister Kim Yo Jong to "lie low." It also asserts that a North Korean propaganda outlet, Rodong Sinmun, recently editorialized against traitors.

The U.S. State Department says it is investigating. But again, if this report is true, the first reaction should be one of guarded optimism for the U.S. After all, if Kim Yong Chol has been purged from the highest echelons of the regime, it would mean the departure of a key hardliner who had the North Korean leader's ear.

And there should be very little doubt that Kim Yong Chol is an archon of North Korean regime hardliners. Pushing his young boss to play for time and sanctions relief, Kim Yong Chol is an obstruction to President Trump's grand bargain. And up until this news, it was increasingly clear that the North Korean leader was holding to his adviser's bent. If, however, Kim Yong Chol has been sent away to the gulags, it comes at a crucial time. Kim Jong Un has repeatedly struck out those around him to consolidate his personal power at the heart of North Korean governance. Yet regime pressures in North Korea are now defined by the upcoming food crisis. If Kim cannot address that food crisis, either by an amelioration of U.S. sanctions under diplomacy, or via extorting the U.S., he is likely to launch new long range ballistic missile tests. Kim Yong Chol almost certainly would have advised a harder rather than softer line against America.

This flows into why I believe President Trump walked away from Kim Yong Un at the two leaders' most recent summit in Hanoi this February. Trump believes, with good reason, that Kim has not yet made up his mind as to whether to pursue a compromise. So if only for a moment, and if only contingent on Chosun Ilbo's report, this is good news.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kim-yong-chols-demotion-would-be-very-good-news-for-america

2019-05-31 16:16:00Z
52780306446645

Trump threatens tariffs on Mexico over immigration: Live updates - CNN

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dismissed any legal concerns with the President’s tariffs announcement.

Asked if there are concerns the action will get tied up in court, Sanders said:

“Not at all. The President has the legal authority to do this through IEEPA. In fact, that give him much broader authority than he’s taken on this front.”

For context: IEEPA is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which authorizes the President to regulate commerce after declaring a national emergency.

She continued, “This is a measured response to the authority that he has, there’s case law that supports it from precedent where this has been done in the past. And again, the President’s going to fulfill his duty, it would be nice if Congress would fulfill theirs.”

However: As CNN reported yesterday, privately, officials have conceded it’s not clear the White House has the legal authority to impose tariffs on this scale. They are concerned that, because of the scope, the mandate will potentially face legal challenges that could leave it tied up in the courts before June 10 even gets here. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-mexico-tariffs-immigration-2019/index.html

2019-05-31 16:12:00Z
52780305674640