foreignpolicy--2020-10-02--No, Biden Will Not End Trade Wars

No, Biden Will Not End Trade Wars

No , Biden Will Not End Trade Wars If Democratic candidate Joe Biden becomes president next January , mending U.S. trade relations won ’ t be anywhere near the top of his to-do list .
He has stated unequivocally that he would not enter into any new trade agreements “ until we ’ ve made major investments here at home , in our workers and our communities.
” Don ’ t expect a Biden-led United States to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia , restart talks on a new agreement with the European Union , or pursue trade deals elsewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the world , four years of being pummeled with tariffs and sanctions by President Donald Trump make better trade relations a priority .
How deftly Biden handles that tug of war will determine whether the United States regains some of its tattered leadership over the international economic order—or stands by while the world further deteriorates into tit-for-tat trade wars .
From a U.S. domestic perspective , Biden ’ s priorities are certainly right .
Lack of investment in workforce retraining , access to education , and critical infrastructure—as well as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long way to explaining why Americans soured on trade .
Former President Barack Obama , after running as a trade skeptic in 2008 , fell in line with his predecessors in pursuing an ambitious agenda to expand trade , especially with Asia , despite growing evidence that imports from China were destroying U.S. manufacturing jobs .
Discontent over trade helped Trump win the 2016 election in critical industrial states like Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania .
This year , the Democrats are determined not to make the same mistake .
Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” plainly states that “ the goal of every decision about trade must be to build the American middle class , create jobs , raise wages , and strengthen communities.
” These are exactly the kinds of protectionist practices that past trade agreements have sought to contain .
But the world can not afford to wait for the many months—or years—that it would take the new administration to roll out its domestic policies , and the additional years for them to show effects .
After four years of Trump , the international trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the urgent priorities include fixing a broken World Trade Organization ( WTO ) , building a stronger alliance to confront China economically , and resolving growing differences with Europe over taxation of and privacy regulations for digital companies , and avoiding a spiral of new trade conflicts over the use of border taxes to punish carbon-hungry industries .
A Biden administration can not just plead with the rest of the world to stand still while the United States gets its domestic house in order .
If anything , Biden ’ s plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the short run .
That ’ s because his showcase economic proposals include preferential treatment for U.S.-made goods , a long list of subsidies to domestic industries , and a ban on foreign companies from government procurement .
These are exactly the kinds of protectionist practices that past trade agreements have sought to contain because they wall off home markets from foreign competition , are widely abused by governments and corporations , and often lead to a spiral of retaliation by other countries .
For example , Biden wants a $ 400 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on U.S.-made infrastructure and clean energy technology .
That would cut out many highly competitive European and Asian suppliers .
Polls suggest this is extremely popular : A new survey by Trade Vistas found that 75 percent of Americans support Buy American policies , with 40 percent believing they would create “ a large number of jobs.
” Biden has been unequivocal in pledging that the government “ will not purchase anything that is not made in America.
” To that end , he has promised to close loopholes in the Depression-era Buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ tens of billions of dollars each year going to support foreign jobs and bolster foreign industries.
” What Biden calls loopholes , however , include long-standing commitments made by the United States and other countries under WTO rules , as well as U.S. obligations under trade agreements with Canada , Mexico , Korea , Australia , and many other nations .
Biden is also offering a cascade of government subsidies to industry , shattering what little is left of international commitments under the WTO and various trade deals to restrain such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showering U.S. corporations with federal support to repatriate critical supply chains in sectors such as medical equipment , semiconductors , and communications technology—an issue on which there is little daylight between Democrats and Republicans .
A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate calls for $ 25 billion in government aid to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States .
All this promises an escalating subsidies war , not just with China but with close U.S. allies as well .
Such proposals marry Trump ’ s hard line on China with a longstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , Biden is promising little respite in the trade war with China , which has caught many U.S. trading partners in the middle .
Trump might have hoped to use the election campaign to paint Biden as soft on China , but Biden has matched him soundbite for soundbite , calling out China for its “ assault on American creativity ” through intellectual property theft , cyberattacks , and unfair subsidies .
In addition to calling for tougher trade enforcement , Democratic U.S .
Senators unveiled a $ 350 billion spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear and present threat China poses to our economic prosperity and national security.
” Such proposals are the Democrats ’ own version of “ America first , ” marrying Trump ’ s hard line on China with a longstanding Democratic wish list of domestic economic programs—mainly subsidies to favored sectors , companies , and initiatives .
Some might still be under the illusion that a Biden-led United States would go back to being its old self on trade—the mostly benevolent hegemon dedicated to preserving and expanding the rules-based trading order , even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain U.S. industries and workers .
But they are coming around to realizing there is no going back to a pre-Trump era of free trade .
And after four years of Trump , U.S. allies are likely to be willing to give a Democratic administration some room to deal with domestic challenges .
Europeans , Canadians , Australians , and other allies are likely to be patient in order to avoid having to choose between trading with China and trading with the United States , especially given how little China has done to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Beijing has engaged in what the Financial Times journalist Jamil Anderlini calls punishment diplomacy , using economic weapons to bully countries that dare to criticize the President Xi Jinping government over human rights , Hong Kong , or the coronavirus .
Countries on the receiving end of such treatment will be more than happy to embrace a reengaged United States , even if they won ’ t get all their wishes fulfilled on trade .
To keep allies and trading partners happy , a fairly short list of goodwill gestures from Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work to preserve and revitalize the World Trade Organization .
While it ’ s true that the Obama administration shared the Trump administration ’ s concerns over the WTO ’ s inability to constrain China and overreach by the organization ’ s Appellate Body , a Biden administration should commit itself to saving the institution through serious reform rather than destroying it , as Trump has been working to do .
Second , a new administration should renounce tariff wars with allies .
With Europe , that means not just lifting Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but finally negotiating an end to the long-running dispute over aircraft subsidies for Airbus and Boeing , which is set to escalate yet again after the WTO ’ s recent authorization of $ 4 billion in European tariffs on U.S. goods .
With Canada and Mexico , that means adhering to the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement , which Biden considers an improvement over NAFTA , without threatening new tariffs as Trump has done against Canada over aluminum and Mexico over migrant flows .
Finally , Biden will need to deliver on his promise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a common trade policy toward China .
This should include developing , together with allies , a resilient supply chain for medical equipment and technology , rather than insisting that the United States must make everything at home .
Liberalizing trade would deepen rifts with the increasingly powerful left wing of the Democratic Party .
Democratic presidential candidates have a history of campaigning as trade skeptics and governing as trade liberalizers .
But Biden certainly recognizes the dangers of that course : An about-face on trade would deepen rifts with the increasingly powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make Biden and the party vulnerable to Trump ’ s Republican successors .
Biden will therefore have to find the sweet spot—let ’ s call it an “ America mostly first ” trade policy—by also recognizing international commitments and the importance of economic leadership to U.S. power and global stability .
In a 2011 Task Force I co-directed at the Council on Foreign Relations , we called for such a pro-America trade policy focusing on spreading the benefits of trade to more Americans , while also strengthening the rules-based trading system against abuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ failure in 2016 to find that middle ground on trade left the field wide open for Trump .
Biden should seize the opportunity to take it back .

If Democratic candidate Joe Biden becomes president next January, mending U.S. trade relations won’t be anywhere near the top of his to-do list. He has stated unequivocally that he would not enter into any new trade agreements “ until we’ve made major investments here at home , in our workers and our communities.” Don’t expect a Biden-led United States to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia, restart talks on a new agreement with the European Union, or pursue trade deals elsewhere anytime soon—if ever.
If Democratic candidate Joe Biden becomes president next January, mending U.S. trade relations won’t be anywhere near the top of his to-do list. He has stated unequivocally that he would not enter into any new trade agreements “until we’ve made major investments here at home, in our workers and our communities.” Don’t expect a Biden-led United States to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia, restart talks on a new agreement with the European Union, or pursue trade deals elsewhere anytime soon—if ever.
But for the rest of the world, four years of being pummeled with tariffs and sanctions by President Donald Trump make better trade relations a priority. How deftly Biden handles that tug of war will determine whether the United States regains some of its tattered leadership over the international economic order—or stands by while the world further deteriorates into tit-for-tat trade wars.
From a U.S. domestic perspective, Biden’s priorities are certainly right. Lack of investment in workforce retraining, access to education, and critical infrastructure—as well as a tax code that favors shedding workers—goes a long way to explaining why Americans soured on trade. Former President Barack Obama, after running as a trade skeptic in 2008, fell in line with his predecessors in pursuing an ambitious agenda to expand trade, especially with Asia, despite growing evidence that imports from China were destroying U.S. manufacturing jobs. Discontent over trade helped Trump win the 2016 election in critical industrial states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. This year, the Democrats are determined not to make the same mistake. Biden’s plan to “build back better” plainly states that “the goal of every decision about trade must be to build the American middle class, create jobs, raise wages, and strengthen communities.”
These are exactly the kinds of protectionist practices that past trade agreements have sought to contain.
But the world cannot afford to wait for the many months—or years—that it would take the new administration to roll out its domestic policies, and the additional years for them to show effects. After four years of Trump, the international trade system is collapsing. A short list of the urgent priorities include fixing a broken World Trade Organization (WTO), building a stronger alliance to confront China economically, and resolving growing differences with Europe over taxation of and privacy regulations for digital companies, and avoiding a spiral of new trade conflicts over the use of border taxes to punish carbon-hungry industries. A Biden administration cannot just plead with the rest of the world to stand still while the United States gets its domestic house in order.
If anything, Biden’s plans would likely make trade conflicts worse—at least in the short run. That’s because his showcase economic proposals include preferential treatment for U.S.-made goods, a long list of subsidies to domestic industries, and a ban on foreign companies from government procurement. These are exactly the kinds of protectionist practices that past trade agreements have sought to contain because they wall off home markets from foreign competition, are widely abused by governments and corporations, and often lead to a spiral of retaliation by other countries.
For example, Biden wants a $400 billion “Buy American” scheme focused on U.S.-made infrastructure and clean energy technology. That would cut out many highly competitive European and Asian suppliers. Polls suggest this is extremely popular: A new survey by Trade Vistas found that 75 percent of Americans support Buy American policies, with 40 percent believing they would create “a large number of jobs.” Biden has been unequivocal in pledging that the government “will not purchase anything that is not made in America.” To that end, he has promised to close loopholes in the Depression-era Buy American Act, which he says result in “tens of billions of dollars each year going to support foreign jobs and bolster foreign industries.” What Biden calls loopholes, however, include long-standing commitments made by the United States and other countries under WTO rules, as well as U.S. obligations under trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, Korea, Australia, and many other nations.
Biden is also offering a cascade of government subsidies to industry, shattering what little is left of international commitments under the WTO and various trade deals to restrain such supports. The Biden plan calls for showering U.S. corporations with federal support to repatriate critical supply chains in sectors such as medical equipment, semiconductors, and communications technology—an issue on which there is little daylight between Democrats and Republicans. A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate calls for $25 billion in government aid to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States. All this promises an escalating subsidies war, not just with China but with close U.S. allies as well.
Such proposals marry Trump’s hard line on China with a longstanding Democratic wish list of domestic economic programs.
Finally, Biden is promising little respite in the trade war with China, which has caught many U.S. trading partners in the middle. Trump might have hoped to use the election campaign to paint Biden as soft on China, but Biden has matched him soundbite for soundbite, calling out China for its “assault on American creativity” through intellectual property theft, cyberattacks, and unfair subsidies. In addition to calling for tougher trade enforcement, Democratic U.S. Senators unveiled a $350 billion spending plan last month “to confront the clear and present threat China poses to our economic prosperity and national security.” Such proposals are the Democrats’ own version of “America first,” marrying Trump’s hard line on China with a longstanding Democratic wish list of domestic economic programs—mainly subsidies to favored sectors, companies, and initiatives.
Some might still be under the illusion that a Biden-led United States would go back to being its old self on trade—the mostly benevolent hegemon dedicated to preserving and expanding the rules-based trading order, even when that sometimes led to economic harm to certain U.S. industries and workers. But they are coming around to realizing there is no going back to a pre-Trump era of free trade. And after four years of Trump, U.S. allies are likely to be willing to give a Democratic administration some room to deal with domestic challenges.
Europeans, Canadians, Australians, and other allies are likely to be patient in order to avoid having to choose between trading with China and trading with the United States, especially given how little China has done to win new friends. On the contrary: Beijing has engaged in what the Financial Times journalist Jamil Anderlini calls punishment diplomacy, using economic weapons to bully countries that dare to criticize the President Xi Jinping government over human rights, Hong Kong, or the coronavirus. Countries on the receiving end of such treatment will be more than happy to embrace a reengaged United States, even if they won’t get all their wishes fulfilled on trade.
To keep allies and trading partners happy, a fairly short list of goodwill gestures from Biden might suffice. First, Biden should work to preserve and revitalize the World Trade Organization. While it’s true that the Obama administration shared the Trump administration’s concerns over the WTO’s inability to constrain China and overreach by the organization’s Appellate Body, a Biden administration should commit itself to saving the institution through serious reform rather than destroying it, as Trump has been working to do. Second, a new administration should renounce tariff wars with allies. With Europe, that means not just lifting Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, but finally negotiating an end to the long-running dispute over aircraft subsidies for Airbus and Boeing, which is set to escalate yet again after the WTO’s recent authorization of $4 billion in European tariffs on U.S. goods. With Canada and Mexico, that means adhering to the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which Biden considers an improvement over NAFTA, without threatening new tariffs as Trump has done against Canada over aluminum and Mexico over migrant flows. Finally, Biden will need to deliver on his promise to work closely with allies—early and consistently—on a common trade policy toward China. This should include developing, together with allies, a resilient supply chain for medical equipment and technology, rather than insisting that the United States must make everything at home.
Liberalizing trade would deepen rifts with the increasingly powerful left wing of the Democratic Party.
Democratic presidential candidates have a history of campaigning as trade skeptics and governing as trade liberalizers. But Biden certainly recognizes the dangers of that course: An about-face on trade would deepen rifts with the increasingly powerful left wing of the Democratic Party and make Biden and the party vulnerable to Trump’s Republican successors. Biden will therefore have to find the sweet spot—let’s call it an “America mostly first” trade policy—by also recognizing international commitments and the importance of economic leadership to U.S. power and global stability. In a 2011 Task Force I co-directed at the Council on Foreign Relations, we called for such a pro-America trade policy focusing on spreading the benefits of trade to more Americans, while also strengthening the rules-based trading system against abuses, especially by China. The Democrats’ failure in 2016 to find that middle ground on trade left the field wide open for Trump. Biden should seize the opportunity to take it back.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-02--Only State-of-the-Art Medicine—and Luck—Can Save Trump Now

Despite his 74 years and overweight frame , Trump has always tried to portray himself as vigorous , healthy , and even athletic .
While depicting his thinner 77-year-old opponent Joe Biden as doddering , slow , and senile , Trump has tried to give the impression that he is Biden ’ s junior by far , more than the three chronological years that separate them .
He has similarly , and repeatedly , depicted the COVID-19 risk as somebody else ’ s problem .
Older people with heart conditions might have to be concerned—certainly not Trump .
On Sept. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly mask-free crowd in Swanton , Ohio , and beamed , “ Wow , this is a big crowd .
This is a big crowd.
” The crowd roared .
And Trump brushed off concern about masks and COVID-19 , saying : “ It affects elderly people .
Elderly people with heart problems .
If they have other problems , that ’ s what it really affects .
That ’ s it .
… But it affects virtually nobody .
It ’ s an amazing thing.
” The federal government defines “ seniors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , retirement , and tax purposes , as individuals over 65 years of age , which clearly puts Trump in the category he dismissed in Swanton as “ virtually nobody.
” Does he suffer from any underlying conditions , other than his weight , that may put him at additional risk ?
We don ’ t really know , because in his constant struggle to appear youthful , covering up his thinning hair and playing record-breaking hours of presidential golf , Trump has made sure that no genuine medical work-up reaches the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wild-haired , colorful figure who looks more like a hippie than a board-certified gastroenterologist—in August 2016 certified , “ His health is excellent , especially his mental health.
” And in a December 2015 statement he said was dictated to him by a Trump aide and written hastily while a limousine waited outside , he wrote that then-candidate Trump ’ s physical strength and stamina were “ extraordinary.
” Former White House physician Ronny Jackson , who is now the Republican Party ’ s candidate for the 13th Congressional District in Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s attention in 2017 .
White House staff and Trump campaign officials have raised funds for his shot at a congressional seat and advised his campaign .
Back in January 2018 , Jackson , then a U.S. Navy rear admiral , conducted the first and only official medical examination of the president at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center .
In a press conference following Trump ’ s checkup , Jackson said his patient had “ incredible genes , ” performed beautifully on a cognitive test , “ and claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diet over the past 20 years , he could have lived to be 200 , ” according to the New York Times .
Shortly after that , Trump nominated Jackson to head the Department of Veterans Affairs—a move that was foiled by allegations that the Navy doctor had handed out medicines to officers without medical indications .
Over the years , Trump and his staff have let slip tidbits of his real health status .
He reportedly takes Propecia to fight hair loss , daily aspirin to prevent heart attacks , the cholesterol-lowering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the antibiotic tetracycline to deal with the colorful rosacea blotches that occasionally appear on his cheeks .
According to the White House physician ’ s office , Trump is also taking supplements of zinc , vitamin D , melatonin to combat insomnia , and the histamine-blocker famotidine .
None of this is particularly remarkable for an older , overweight American man—except that Trump goes to great lengths to not be labeled as such .
This year , concerns have been raised about incidents of Trump ’ s slurred speech and apparent trouble walking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious difficulty descending a ramp following a speech to West Point cadets .
During the speech , he struggled to hold and drink from a glass of water .
In a June 14 tweet , Trump said the ramp was “ very slippery , ” and in a subsequent speech , with much fanfare , he showed a cheering crowd that he was able to hold a glass of water with one hand .
Eleven months ago ( Nov 2019 ) President Trump made a surprise , unscheduled visit to Walter Reed ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two days .
Trump ’ s doctor , Sean Conley , declined to reveal the reason for the two-day medical visit , though he pointedly dismissed the President underwent tests for cardiac or neurologic conditions .
In November 2019 , an anonymous alleged White House staffer wrote in a book titled A Warning : “ I am not qualified to diagnose the president ’ s mental acuity .
All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness .
He stumbles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily irritated , and has trouble synthesizing information , not occasionally but with regularity .
Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.
” Combined , these pieces of evidence suggest that Trump may have some of the underlying health conditions that put COVID-19 patients at risk for severe outcomes .
If current reports are accurate and the president has already displayed symptoms of fatigue and breathing difficulties , he may soon become too ill to do his job , as was the case with British Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends put it while she struggled at home with the virus , “ It feels like an elephant is sitting on my chest.
” In the coming days , the severity of Trump ’ s illness will become more apparent , including whether—like Johnson—he requires respiratory support .
More worrying , from the point of view of Trump ’ s role as commander in chief , is increasing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can infect the brain and cause cognitive dysfunctions , including hallucinations , severe headaches , dizziness , and impaired judgment .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very long , including confusion , delirium , senility , and permanent brain damage .
These , and other brain-associated symptoms , may persist for months .
Assuming the president is willing to undergo state-of-the-art treatment—forgoing the hydroxychloroquine , forsythia , bleach , and other alleged treatments he has in the past espoused—he may ask Anthony Fauci and his staff at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to consult on his case .
Based on the latest scientific findings , they might urge a blood test to determine whether Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of severe COVID-19 cases—whose DNA programs antibodies that attack type I interferons , molecules now known to be crucial to the body ’ s ability to fight off the virus .
According to the White House , the President was transported to Walter Reed Friday afternoon , and underwent an infusion treatment with monoclonal antibodies , made by Regeneron – a targeted immunological treatment that has not yet been approved by the FDA .
If he wishes to take advantage of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ’ s emergency use authorization for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blood products from COVID-19 survivors , he should start that treatment immediately , as clinical evidence points to whatever benefits it may provide as occurring in the earliest stages of the disease .
Given his alleged cholesterol issues and the possibility that slurred speech and walking/balance issues are related to an underlying heart condition , Trump ’ s physicians should pay close attention to his cardiac performance .
There is increasing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks and destroys heart muscle cells and causes longer-term heart problems and blood clotting throughout the body , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections .
Another controversial treatment , the Ebola drug remdesivir , may help stave off severe outcomes—but like plasma therapy , its benefits are greatest if taken immediately .
Physicians in the United Kingdom routinely now give a cheap steroid , dexamethasone , to COVID-19 patients to control dangerous overreactions against the virus on the part of patients ’ immune systems .
And , of course , Fauci or any other qualified physician would advise the president to get more sleep than usual and remain in bed .
Given the great lengths Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true 74 years and hide his medical history from public scrutiny , it is difficult to predict how his body will manage the virus .
From a public health point of view , he clearly must remain in strict quarantine for a minimum of two weeks after he is symptom-free , in order to protect others from his contagion .
Medically , he may prove that , as he said months ago , “ it ’ s just like the flu , ” recovering in a few days .
But given what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and age , Trump may face a tough battle with the coronavirus .
At a minimum , both for his personal health and the safety of others , Trump can no longer hold mass campaign rallies .
The scheduled Oct. 15 debate against Biden , planned for Miami , should be canceled .
The Oct. 22 Nashville debate may also need to be reconsidered , possibly moved to a virtual format .
Vice President Mike Pence ’ s schedule should be reassessed , keeping him close to the White House , where , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly , he may be called on to assume Oval Office duties .
Someone introduced the virus into the White House circle , possibly exhibiting a failure to quarantine , wear masks and practice social distancing .
It ’ s worth noting that in addition to the President and First Lady , four people who attended the small , mostly mask-free September 26 ceremony in the White House Rose Garden have tested positive .
All were seated in the front three rows at the gathering , during which Judge Amy Coney Barrett was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
In addition , three reporters who covered the event today tested positive , bringing the total to nine people , linked to a small , tightly-knit assemblage .
While many commentators and internet afficionados have greeted news of the president and first lady ’ s illness with sarcasm and smirks about Trump shunning masks and downplaying the COVID-19 crisis , this disease has created a time of reckoning for the nation .
There is nothing amusing or sarcasm-inviting about an ailing president of the United States , especially when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a viral enemy as serious as SARS-CoV-2 .

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump are infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the dangerous disease COVID-19. Some of the president’s staff and individuals he has met recently have also tested positive for the virus, and results on a long list of White House and campaign staff are pending. Trump was taken to Walter Reed Military Medical Center Friday afternoon, where he will remain, White House officials say, for a few days. But what awaits him—and the country he still leads—as he deals with this virus?
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump are infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the dangerous disease COVID-19. Some of the president’s staff and individuals he has met recently have also tested positive for the virus, and results on a long list of White House and campaign staff are pending. Trump was taken to Walter Reed Military Medical Center Friday afternoon, where he will remain, White House officials say, for a few days. But what awaits him—and the country he still leads—as he deals with this virus?
Despite his 74 years and overweight frame, Trump has always tried to portray himself as vigorous, healthy, and even athletic. While depicting his thinner 77-year-old opponent Joe Biden as doddering, slow, and senile, Trump has tried to give the impression that he is Biden’s junior by far, more than the three chronological years that separate them.
He has similarly, and repeatedly, depicted the COVID-19 risk as somebody else’s problem. Older people with heart conditions might have to be concerned—certainly not Trump.
On Sept. 21, Trump looked out over a mostly mask-free crowd in Swanton, Ohio, and beamed, “Wow, this is a big crowd. This is a big crowd.” The crowd roared. And Trump brushed off concern about masks and COVID-19, saying: “It affects elderly people. Elderly people with heart problems. If they have other problems, that’s what it really affects. That’s it. … But it affects virtually nobody. It’s an amazing thing.”
The federal government defines “seniors and elderly,” for most medical, retirement, and tax purposes, as individuals over 65 years of age, which clearly puts Trump in the category he dismissed in Swanton as “virtually nobody.” Does he suffer from any underlying conditions, other than his weight, that may put him at additional risk? We don’t really know, because in his constant struggle to appear youthful, covering up his thinning hair and playing record-breaking hours of presidential golf, Trump has made sure that no genuine medical work-up reaches the public.
His Manhattan physician, Harold Bornstein—a wild-haired, colorful figure who looks more like a hippie than a board-certified gastroenterologist—in August 2016 certified, “His health is excellent, especially his mental health.” And in a December 2015 statement he said was dictated to him by a Trump aide and written hastily while a limousine waited outside, he wrote that then-candidate Trump’s physical strength and stamina were “extraordinary.”
Former White House physician Ronny Jackson, who is now the Republican Party’s candidate for the 13th Congressional District in Texas, has benefited tremendously since coming to the president’s attention in 2017. White House staff and Trump campaign officials have raised funds for his shot at a congressional seat and advised his campaign. Back in January 2018, Jackson, then a U.S. Navy rear admiral, conducted the first and only official medical examination of the president at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. In a press conference following Trump’s checkup, Jackson said his patient had “incredible genes,” performed beautifully on a cognitive test, “and claimed that if he had adhered to a better diet over the past 20 years, he could have lived to be 200,” according to the New York Times. Shortly after that, Trump nominated Jackson to head the Department of Veterans Affairs—a move that was foiled by allegations that the Navy doctor had handed out medicines to officers without medical indications.
Over the years, Trump and his staff have let slip tidbits of his real health status. He reportedly takes Propecia to fight hair loss, daily aspirin to prevent heart attacks, the cholesterol-lowering statin Crestor, and regular doses of the antibiotic tetracycline to deal with the colorful rosacea blotches that occasionally appear on his cheeks. According to the White House physician’s office, Trump is also taking supplements of zinc, vitamin D, melatonin to combat insomnia, and the histamine-blocker famotidine. None of this is particularly remarkable for an older, overweight American man—except that Trump goes to great lengths to not be labeled as such.
This year, concerns have been raised about incidents of Trump’s slurred speech and apparent trouble walking. In June, the president had obvious difficulty descending a ramp following a speech to West Point cadets. During the speech, he struggled to hold and drink from a glass of water. In a June 14 tweet, Trump said the ramp was “very slippery,” and in a subsequent speech, with much fanfare, he showed a cheering crowd that he was able to hold a glass of water with one hand.
Eleven months ago (Nov 2019) President Trump made a surprise, unscheduled visit to Walter Reed’s hospital, where he remained for two days. Trump’s doctor, Sean Conley, declined to reveal the reason for the two-day medical visit, though he pointedly dismissed the President underwent tests for cardiac or neurologic conditions.
In November 2019, an anonymous alleged White House staffer wrote in a book titled A Warning: “I am not qualified to diagnose the president’s mental acuity. All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness. He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity. Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.”
Combined, these pieces of evidence suggest that Trump may have some of the underlying health conditions that put COVID-19 patients at risk for severe outcomes.
If current reports are accurate and the president has already displayed symptoms of fatigue and breathing difficulties, he may soon become too ill to do his job, as was the case with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. As one of my friends put it while she struggled at home with the virus, “It feels like an elephant is sitting on my chest.” In the coming days, the severity of Trump’s illness will become more apparent, including whether—like Johnson—he requires respiratory support.
More worrying, from the point of view of Trump’s role as commander in chief, is increasing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can infect the brain and cause cognitive dysfunctions, including hallucinations, severe headaches, dizziness, and impaired judgment. The list of neurological symptoms connected with COVID-19 is very long, including confusion, delirium, senility, and permanent brain damage. These, and other brain-associated symptoms, may persist for months.
Assuming the president is willing to undergo state-of-the-art treatment—forgoing the hydroxychloroquine, forsythia, bleach, and other alleged treatments he has in the past espoused—he may ask Anthony Fauci and his staff at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to consult on his case. Based on the latest scientific findings, they might urge a blood test to determine whether Trump is part of a genetic minority—14 percent of severe COVID-19 cases—whose DNA programs antibodies that attack type I interferons, molecules now known to be crucial to the body’s ability to fight off the virus.
According to the White House, the President was transported to Walter Reed Friday afternoon, and underwent an infusion treatment with monoclonal antibodies, made by Regeneron – a targeted immunological treatment that has not yet been approved by the FDA.
If he wishes to take advantage of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma therapy, receiving possibly beneficial blood products from COVID-19 survivors, he should start that treatment immediately, as clinical evidence points to whatever benefits it may provide as occurring in the earliest stages of the disease. Given his alleged cholesterol issues and the possibility that slurred speech and walking/balance issues are related to an underlying heart condition, Trump’s physicians should pay close attention to his cardiac performance. There is increasing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks and destroys heart muscle cells and causes longer-term heart problems and blood clotting throughout the body, even in people who had apparently asymptomatic infections. Another controversial treatment, the Ebola drug remdesivir, may help stave off severe outcomes—but like plasma therapy, its benefits are greatest if taken immediately. Physicians in the United Kingdom routinely now give a cheap steroid, dexamethasone, to COVID-19 patients to control dangerous overreactions against the virus on the part of patients’ immune systems. And, of course, Fauci or any other qualified physician would advise the president to get more sleep than usual and remain in bed.
Given the great lengths Trump has gone to appear younger than his true 74 years and hide his medical history from public scrutiny, it is difficult to predict how his body will manage the virus. From a public health point of view, he clearly must remain in strict quarantine for a minimum of two weeks after he is symptom-free, in order to protect others from his contagion. Medically, he may prove that, as he said months ago, “it’s just like the flu,” recovering in a few days. But given what is known about his health, weight, and age, Trump may face a tough battle with the coronavirus.
At a minimum, both for his personal health and the safety of others, Trump can no longer hold mass campaign rallies. The scheduled Oct. 15 debate against Biden, planned for Miami, should be canceled. The Oct. 22 Nashville debate may also need to be reconsidered, possibly moved to a virtual format. Vice President Mike Pence’s schedule should be reassessed, keeping him close to the White House, where, should the president’s condition worsen significantly, he may be called on to assume Oval Office duties.
Someone introduced the virus into the White House circle, possibly exhibiting a failure to quarantine, wear masks and practice social distancing. It’s worth noting that in addition to the President and First Lady, four people who attended the small, mostly mask-free September 26 ceremony in the White House Rose Garden have tested positive. All were seated in the front three rows at the gathering, during which Judge Amy Coney Barrett was formally nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, three reporters who covered the event today tested positive, bringing the total to nine people, linked to a small, tightly-knit assemblage.
While many commentators and internet afficionados have greeted news of the president and first lady’s illness with sarcasm and smirks about Trump shunning masks and downplaying the COVID-19 crisis, this disease has created a time of reckoning for the nation. There is nothing amusing or sarcasm-inviting about an ailing president of the United States, especially when he is a man of high-risk health facing a viral enemy as serious as SARS-CoV-2.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-02--Africa Is Losing $90 Billion Annually to Illicit Finance

Welcome to While You Weren ’ t Looking , Foreign Policy ’ s weekly newsletter focused on non-coronavirus news .
Here ’ s what we ’ re watching this week : Africa is losing 3.7 percent of its GDP to illicit financial flows , an Amnesty International report details “ hellish conditions ” for Ethiopian migrants stranded in Saudi prisons , and a proxy war is brewing in the Caucasus as Armenia and Azerbaijan fight over disputed territory .
If you would like to receive While You Weren ’ t Looking in your inbox on Fridays , please sign up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flows out of Africa each year through illegal and corrupt practices , according to a report released this week by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ( UNCTAD ) .
The money lost annually through illicit financial flows is equivalent to 3.7 percent of Africa ’ s collective GDP—and almost as much as the continent receives in development assistance and foreign direct investment annually .
“ Illicit financial flows rob Africa and its people of their prospects , undermining transparency and accountability and eroding trust in African institutions , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flows—money that is illegally generated , used , or transferred abroad—deprive countries of capital and tax revenues that could be invested by governments in other public spending .
The U.N. report found that countries with high levels of illicit capital flight also had drastically reduced spending on health care and education .
Women and girls are disproportionately affected by the stolen money as they are the primary beneficiaries from such investment .
If illicit financial flows out of Africa were curbed altogether—a highly unlikely prospect given the complexity of the problem—it could reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual funding gap required for African countries to meet their Sustainable Development Goals , according to the U.N. Extractive industries such as gold , diamond , and platinum supply chains are particularly vulnerable to illicit finance : In 2015 , they accounted for an estimated $ 40 billion in illegal outflows , according to the report .
Tax evasion often motivates illicit capital flows and is often enabled by tax havens in some of the world ’ s wealthier countries .
In 2014 , Africa lost an estimated $ 9.6 billion to tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continent ’ s total tax revenue .
“ In many ways addressing illicit financial flows is a matter of ethics , and civil society organizations , whistleblowers , and investigative journalists have played a critical role in revealing the magnitude of [ these flows ] and the mechanisms that support them in Africa and beyond , ” said Paul Akiwumi , the UNCTAD director for Africa and least developed countries .
The report comes just after the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists , BuzzFeed News , and 108 media organizations around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance based on thousands of leaked documents from the U.S. Treasury ’ s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network .
The 16-month investigation revealed that some of the world ’ s biggest banks moved more than $ 2 trillion in payments that they believed to be suspicious over an 18-year period , enabling kleptocrats , crooked tycoons , and drug cartels to launder their cash and dodge the taxman .
“ Hellish conditions.
” Thousands of Ethiopian migrant workers are being held in squalid prisons in Saudi Arabia after they were expelled from neighboring Yemen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a report released on Friday by Amnesty International .
The detainees including pregnant women and children .
Detainees interviewed by Amnesty described being held in overcrowded cells with inadequate access to health care , food , and water .
Several had experienced or witnessed others beaten or electrocuted by guards for complaining about the conditions .
Ethiopian State Minister Tsion Teklu told The Associated Press that as many as 16,000 Ethiopians could be held in Saudi prisons , adding that the foreign ministry was working to repatriate 300 people each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 150,000 migrants arrived at ports in Yemen , most seeking to cross the border into Saudi Arabia in search of work as laborers , housekeepers , or drivers .
The migration route has been described as one of the most dangerous in the world .
Before the pandemic , some 10,000 Ethiopians were deported from Saudi Arabia each month .
A shortage of quarantine space has hamstrung Ethiopia ’ s efforts to repatriate its citizens from Saudi Arabia .
Proxy war in the Caucasus .
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had traveled to disputed Nagorno-Karabakh , where fighting erupted between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Sunday .
This week , Armenia accused Turkey of dispatching Syrian mercenaries to fight alongside its ally Azerbaijan .
Skirmishes between Azerbaijan and Armenia have occurred periodically over the years , but this time the localized conflict risks drawing in Russia and Turkey , already at loggerheads in Syria and Libya .
While Moscow has sold weapons to both sides of the conflict , Armenia has close military ties to Russia and is part of a Russian-led military alliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s James Palmer explains how the collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed the brutal conflict .
Maduro looks to crypto .
In a speech this week , embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro floated the idea of using cryptocurrencies to skirt U.S. sanctions .
The announcement came as Maduro unveiled a new anti-sanctions bill , which will examine the possibility of using cryptocurrencies in both foreign and domestic trade .
In 2018 , the Venezuelan government became the first in the world to launch a cryptocurrency , the oil-backed petro , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is not available outside Venezuela , and cryptocurrencies have numerous problems that have so far made them highly inefficient for trade purposes .
Also this week : An Iranian tanker carrying much-needed oil arrived in Venezuelan waters on Monday as the two countries have teamed up to undermine their mutual foe , the United States .
The shared experience of punishing U.S. sanctions has only driven the regimes together .
Tehran is now sharing its lessons in resilience with Caracas , as Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and Francisco Rodríguez wrote in Foreign Policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is experiencing the worst fires in a decade , according to satellite data gathered by the Brazilian space research agency INPE .
September saw a 61 percent increase in the number of hot spots compared with the same month last year , as satellites detected 32,017 fires in the rainforest , which plays a vital role in preventing climate change .
In a rare mention of foreign policy in Tuesday ’ s presidential debate , Democratic nominee Joe Biden said countries should join together to give $ 20 billion to Brazil to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic consequences if the destruction continued .
Blue Homeland .
As Turkey becomes increasingly assertive in the Mediterranean , facing off against Greece and Cyprus over undersea energy reserves , Turkish officials have dusted off an irredentist maritime doctrine known as Blue Homeland developed more than a decade ago by Adm. Cem Gurdeniz .
Ankara ’ s embrace of the doctrine is likely to fuel tensions between Turkey and its NATO allies .
The Washington Post interviewed Gurdeniz , who after eight years in retirement has suddenly found himself in Turkey ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this week .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to newsletters @ foreignpolicy.com .

Welcome to While You Weren’t Looking, Foreign Policy’s weekly newsletter focused on non-coronavirus news.
Welcome to While You Weren’t Looking, Foreign Policy’s weekly newsletter focused on non-coronavirus news.
Here’s what we’re watching this week: Africa is losing 3.7 percent of its GDP to illicit financial flows, an Amnesty International report details “hellish conditions” for Ethiopian migrants stranded in Saudi prisons, and a proxy war is brewing in the Caucasus as Armenia and Azerbaijan fight over disputed territory.
If you would like to receive While You Weren’t Looking in your inbox on Fridays, please sign up here.
Africa’s $90 Billion Problem
An estimated $90 billion flows out of Africa each year through illegal and corrupt practices, according to a report released this week by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The money lost annually through illicit financial flows is equivalent to 3.7 percent of Africa’s collective GDP—and almost as much as the continent receives in development assistance and foreign direct investment annually.
“Illicit financial flows rob Africa and its people of their prospects, undermining transparency and accountability and eroding trust in African institutions,” said UNCTAD Secretary-General Mukhisa Kituyi.
Illicit capital flows—money that is illegally generated, used, or transferred abroad—deprive countries of capital and tax revenues that could be invested by governments in other public spending. The U.N. report found that countries with high levels of illicit capital flight also had drastically reduced spending on health care and education. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by the stolen money as they are the primary beneficiaries from such investment.
If illicit financial flows out of Africa were curbed altogether—a highly unlikely prospect given the complexity of the problem—it could reduce by almost half the $200 billion annual funding gap required for African countries to meet their Sustainable Development Goals, according to the U.N.
Extractive industries such as gold, diamond, and platinum supply chains are particularly vulnerable to illicit finance: In 2015, they accounted for an estimated $40 billion in illegal outflows, according to the report. Tax evasion often motivates illicit capital flows and is often enabled by tax havens in some of the world’s wealthier countries. In 2014, Africa lost an estimated $9.6 billion to tax havens, or 2.5 percent of the continent’s total tax revenue.
“In many ways addressing illicit financial flows is a matter of ethics, and civil society organizations, whistleblowers, and investigative journalists have played a critical role in revealing the magnitude of [these flows] and the mechanisms that support them in Africa and beyond,” said Paul Akiwumi, the UNCTAD director for Africa and least developed countries.
The report comes just after the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, BuzzFeed News, and 108 media organizations around the world published a mammoth investigation on global illicit finance based on thousands of leaked documents from the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
The 16-month investigation revealed that some of the world’s biggest banks moved more than $2 trillion in payments that they believed to be suspicious over an 18-year period, enabling kleptocrats, crooked tycoons, and drug cartels to launder their cash and dodge the taxman.
What We’re Following
“Hellish conditions.” Thousands of Ethiopian migrant workers are being held in squalid prisons in Saudi Arabia after they were expelled from neighboring Yemen at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a report released on Friday by Amnesty International. The detainees including pregnant women and children.
Detainees interviewed by Amnesty described being held in overcrowded cells with inadequate access to health care, food, and water. Several had experienced or witnessed others beaten or electrocuted by guards for complaining about the conditions. Ethiopian State Minister Tsion Teklu told The Associated Press that as many as 16,000 Ethiopians could be held in Saudi prisons, adding that the foreign ministry was working to repatriate 300 people each week.
Last year, an estimated 150,000 migrants arrived at ports in Yemen, most seeking to cross the border into Saudi Arabia in search of work as laborers, housekeepers, or drivers. The migration route has been described as one of the most dangerous in the world. Before the pandemic, some 10,000 Ethiopians were deported from Saudi Arabia each month. A shortage of quarantine space has hamstrung Ethiopia’s efforts to repatriate its citizens from Saudi Arabia.
Proxy war in the Caucasus. French President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday that he had evidence that militants from Syria had traveled to disputed Nagorno-Karabakh, where fighting erupted between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Sunday. This week, Armenia accused Turkey of dispatching Syrian mercenaries to fight alongside its ally Azerbaijan.
Skirmishes between Azerbaijan and Armenia have occurred periodically over the years, but this time the localized conflict risks drawing in Russia and Turkey, already at loggerheads in Syria and Libya. While Moscow has sold weapons to both sides of the conflict, Armenia has close military ties to Russia and is part of a Russian-led military alliance of former Soviet states.
Foreign Policy’s James Palmer explains how the collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed the brutal conflict.
Maduro looks to crypto. In a speech this week, embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro floated the idea of using cryptocurrencies to skirt U.S. sanctions. The announcement came as Maduro unveiled a new anti-sanctions bill, which will examine the possibility of using cryptocurrencies in both foreign and domestic trade. In 2018, the Venezuelan government became the first in the world to launch a cryptocurrency, the oil-backed petro, as a way to evade sanctions.
However, it is not available outside Venezuela, and cryptocurrencies have numerous problems that have so far made them highly inefficient for trade purposes.
Also this week: An Iranian tanker carrying much-needed oil arrived in Venezuelan waters on Monday as the two countries have teamed up to undermine their mutual foe, the United States. The shared experience of punishing U.S. sanctions has only driven the regimes together. Tehran is now sharing its lessons in resilience with Caracas, as Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and Francisco Rodríguez wrote in Foreign Policy.
Keep an Eye On
The burning Amazon. The Amazon rainforest is experiencing the worst fires in a decade, according to satellite data gathered by the Brazilian space research agency INPE. September saw a 61 percent increase in the number of hot spots compared with the same month last year, as satellites detected 32,017 fires in the rainforest, which plays a vital role in preventing climate change.
In a rare mention of foreign policy in Tuesday’s presidential debate, Democratic nominee Joe Biden said countries should join together to give $20 billion to Brazil to stop deforestation of the Amazon, warning of economic consequences if the destruction continued.
Foreign Policy Recommends
Blue Homeland. As Turkey becomes increasingly assertive in the Mediterranean, facing off against Greece and Cyprus over undersea energy reserves, Turkish officials have dusted off an irredentist maritime doctrine known as Blue Homeland developed more than a decade ago by Adm. Cem Gurdeniz. Ankara’s embrace of the doctrine is likely to fuel tensions between Turkey and its NATO allies.
The Washington Post interviewed Gurdeniz, who after eight years in retirement has suddenly found himself in Turkey’s national spotlight.
That’s it for this week.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to newsletters@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-02--Where Are the Trump Loyalists?

Where Are the Trump Loyalists?

Where Are the Trump Loyalists ?
Now that the United States has lived through almost four years of chaos and controversies generated by President Donald Trump , it ’ s easy to forget that the original scandal that launched the Russia investigation was the result of actions taken by then-candidate Trump ’ s team of notably junior foreign-policy advisors .
Had inexperienced “ experts ” such as George Papadopoulos and Carter Page not ranked among the campaign ’ s highest-profile national security figures , it ’ s unlikely the FBI and then-special counsel Robert Mueller would ever have launched their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more experience and better judgment had been involved from the start , it ’ s unlikely they would have entertained entreaties from shadowy Russian figures—contacts that set off the initial alarms at the FBI .
It shouldn ’ t be surprising that a reality TV star known more for his business failures than any foreign-policy insights had trouble attracting the nation ’ s best diplomatic , military , and intelligence thinkers early on .
His chief national security aide during the 2016 campaign , retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn , had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Defense Intelligence Agency two years earlier , and had then embarked on an odd project to cozy up to Russian President Vladimir Putin , accepting tens of thousands of dollars to speak in Russia and attending a dinner with the Russian leader .
Flynn lasted just three weeks as Trump ’ s national security advisor before being ousted for lying about his contacts with Russia ’ s ambassador to the United States .
Far more surprising—as highlighted by a recently published letter that serves as an unintentional indictment of Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s security—is that after almost four years in the White House , the president still hasn ’ t managed to win the loyalty of more respected foreign-policy professionals .
On Oct. 1 , the president ’ s reelection campaign released a list of 66 “ former Republican national security and senior officials ” who have endorsed Trump ’ s reelection .
The move seemed like an attempt to counter another recently published list , this one featuring twice as many Republicans endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s presidential bid .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually accomplished was to confirm the fact that , despite being an incumbent who ’ s controlled the nation ’ s foreign policy and military for years , he still has strikingly few well-credentialed supporters .
Looking closely at the list reveals it to be perhaps the most unimpressive list of endorsements ever assembled by a presidential candidate—let alone by a member of the party traditionally respected for its national security acumen .
The list should be embarrassing for the president for three separate but related reasons .
First , take the endorsers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is a stretch ; the list of 66 former elected officials , government advisors , and military leaders is made up entirely of minor figures—such as a former acting deputy assistant secretary of state , Amanda Milius ; a former U.S. ambassador to Barbados , Mary Dawkins ; and a onetime deputy press secretary to Sen. John McCain , John Deming—and has-beens such as former California Gov .
Pete Wilson , who hasn ’ t held office in the 21st century , and the founder of the Heritage Foundation , Ed Feulner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he once served on an advisory committee on public diplomacy .
Only one three-star general , former Air Force chief Thomas McInerney , who retired from the military in 1994 , appears on the list ; there are no four-stars .
The individuals mentioned are hardly the country ’ s leading foreign , defense , or intelligence experts .
Credentials ( or lack thereof ) aside , the individuals mentioned are hardly the country ’ s leading foreign , defense , or intelligence experts .
Indeed , many of them seem never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to national security at all .
The first column of the list—which would normally feature the biggest names—includes a former Mississippi governor and a former Republican National Committee chair , Haley Barbour .
Also included are a former member of an obscure advisory committee for the Department of Education , as well as Ed Meese , President Ronald Reagan ’ s attorney general , who at a time when Senate confirmations were still relatively bipartisan earned himself the distinction of being the most opposed nominee since the 1920s .
He was also an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation by former Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox of “ lack of ethical sensitivity ” and “ blindness to abuse of position.
” The letter ’ s next page features Bob Barr , a former congressman who once accidentally fired a gun at a fundraiser and is best known for helping manage President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment in the House , as well as for having allowed himself to be photographed “ licking whipped cream from the chests of two buxom women , ” according to a local newspaper account .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another former congressman probably best known for his anti-Islam remarks , who was forced to retire from the military after staging a mock execution of an Iraqi policeman .
Beyond the quality of the names , the list also highlights the routine sloppiness of the Trump campaign and White House .
The text of the letter is riddled with errors and formatting mistakes—as are so many of the administration ’ s communications .
Traditionally , presidential administrations strive to ensure their messages are precise and accurate , well-checked and well-sourced .
But reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an operation that tweets and talks about “ Air Force Once , ” the “ United Sates , ” and the “ Marine Core.
” In addition to the extraneous commas , odd spacing , and random indentations in Thursday ’ s letter , some notable typos include listing one official as “ Former Ty McCoy , ” misspelling a legal counsel as “ council , ” inconsistencies in how the names of House of Representatives and the Senate are listed , and a reference to one person who supposedly worked at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Some voters might be inclined to excuse such slip-ups as the hurried work of busy people .
In this case , however , the many errors underscore a larger truth : Hardly anyone in charge of the federal government seems to be paying proper attention .
The letter appears not to have been subjected to any review process , which also points to the absence of competent , careful leaders in the White House who should have insisted on one .
In a normal campaign or administration , staffers would be fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( When I worked as a press aide on Howard Dean ’ s presidential campaign in 2003 , Joe Trippi , the campaign manager , would literally crumple up my work and throw it back at me when I made mistakes in drafts . )
Given the way this White House manages to do things like misspell “ separation ” in an executive order about an extremely fraught topic—its family separation policy—it ’ s hard to avoid the conclusion that the people in charge don ’ t actually care that much .
Such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of national security and foreign policy , where precision and accuracy really matter .
For example , when , in May 2018 , the White House issued news release used the wrong verb tense to characterize Iran ’ s nuclear program , it seemed to announce the bombshell news that Iran “ has ” a robust nuclear weapons program .
( What the White House actually meant to say is that Iran had “ had ” one . )
The final troubling element of the Trump list is who ’ s not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent endorsers are former staffers—such as former Deputy National Security Advisor K.T .
McFarland ( who withdrew from being considered for an ambassadorship after being challenged for her own role in the Russia scandal ) and Trump ’ s criminal defense attorney Rudy Giuliani—all of the president ’ s most important national security aides are absent .
Nowhere in the letter will you find mention of former National Security Advisors H.R .
McMaster or John Bolton , former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , or former Defense Secretary James Mattis .
The list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other four-star general besides Mattis who worked in the administration : John Kelly , who served as homeland security secretary before becoming White House chief of staff .
Far from endorsing Trump , all of those big names have publicly questioned his leadership .
On the same day that the Trump campaign published its list of supporters , McMaster went on MSNBC to accuse Trump of “ aiding and abetting ” Russia .
Other recent critics include the vice president ’ s former national security advisor and the former chief of staff at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes these dissenters so important is that , unlike Trump ’ s public supporters , they worked the most closely with the president and thus had the best opportunity to judge his fitness to direct the intelligence community , the military , and U.S. foreign policy .
If this group is consistently telling Americans to vote for the other guy—and it is—perhaps voters should heed the call .

Now that the United States has lived through almost four years of chaos and controversies generated by President Donald Trump, it’s easy to forget that the original scandal that launched the Russia investigation was the result of actions taken by then-candidate Trump’s team of notably junior foreign-policy advisors. Had inexperienced “experts” such as George Papadopoulos and Carter Page not ranked among the campaign’s highest-profile national security figures, it’s unlikely the FBI and then-special counsel Robert Mueller would ever have launched their investigations. After all, if people with more experience and better judgment had been involved from the start, it’s unlikely they would have entertained entreaties from shadowy Russian figures—contacts that set off the initial alarms at the FBI.
Now that the United States has lived through almost four years of chaos and controversies generated by President Donald Trump, it’s easy to forget that the original scandal that launched the Russia investigation was the result of actions taken by then-candidate Trump’s team of notably junior foreign-policy advisors. Had inexperienced “experts” such as George Papadopoulos and Carter Page not ranked among the campaign’s highest-profile national security figures, it’s unlikely the FBI and then-special counsel Robert Mueller would ever have launched their investigations. After all, if people with more experience and better judgment had been involved from the start, it’s unlikely they would have entertained entreaties from shadowy Russian figures—contacts that set off the initial alarms at the FBI.
It shouldn’t be surprising that a reality TV star known more for his business failures than any foreign-policy insights had trouble attracting the nation’s best diplomatic, military, and intelligence thinkers early on. His chief national security aide during the 2016 campaign, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, had been fired by President Barack Obama as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency two years earlier, and had then embarked on an odd project to cozy up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, accepting tens of thousands of dollars to speak in Russia and attending a dinner with the Russian leader. Flynn lasted just three weeks as Trump’s national security advisor before being ousted for lying about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.
Far more surprising—as highlighted by a recently published letter that serves as an unintentional indictment of Donald Trump’s management of the nation’s security—is that after almost four years in the White House, the president still hasn’t managed to win the loyalty of more respected foreign-policy professionals.
On Oct. 1, the president’s reelection campaign released a list of 66 “former Republican national security and senior officials” who have endorsed Trump’s reelection. The move seemed like an attempt to counter another recently published list, this one featuring twice as many Republicans endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential bid. But the only thing Trump’s list actually accomplished was to confirm the fact that, despite being an incumbent who’s controlled the nation’s foreign policy and military for years, he still has strikingly few well-credentialed supporters.
Looking closely at the list reveals it to be perhaps the most unimpressive list of endorsements ever assembled by a presidential candidate—let alone by a member of the party traditionally respected for its national security acumen.
The list should be embarrassing for the president for three separate but related reasons. First, take the endorsers themselves. To call them “senior” is a stretch; the list of 66 former elected officials, government advisors, and military leaders is made up entirely of minor figures—such as a former acting deputy assistant secretary of state, Amanda Milius; a former U.S. ambassador to Barbados, Mary Dawkins; and a onetime deputy press secretary to Sen. John McCain, John Deming—and has-beens such as former California Gov. Pete Wilson, who hasn’t held office in the 21st century, and the founder of the Heritage Foundation, Ed Feulner, whose supposed national security credentials are that he once served on an advisory committee on public diplomacy. Only one three-star general, former Air Force chief Thomas McInerney, who retired from the military in 1994, appears on the list; there are no four-stars.
The individuals mentioned are hardly the country’s leading foreign, defense, or intelligence experts.
Credentials (or lack thereof) aside, the individuals mentioned are hardly the country’s leading foreign, defense, or intelligence experts. Indeed, many of them seem never to have had any kind of connection to national security at all. The first column of the list—which would normally feature the biggest names—includes a former Mississippi governor and a former Republican National Committee chair, Haley Barbour. Also included are a former member of an obscure advisory committee for the Department of Education, as well as Ed Meese, President Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, who at a time when Senate confirmations were still relatively bipartisan earned himself the distinction of being the most opposed nominee since the 1920s. He was also an Iran-Contra participant who was accused during an investigation by former Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox of “lack of ethical sensitivity” and “blindness to abuse of position.”
The letter’s next page features Bob Barr, a former congressman who once accidentally fired a gun at a fundraiser and is best known for helping manage President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the House, as well as for having allowed himself to be photographed “licking whipped cream from the chests of two buxom women,” according to a local newspaper account. The second page also features Allen West, another former congressman probably best known for his anti-Islam remarks, who was forced to retire from the military after staging a mock execution of an Iraqi policeman.
Beyond the quality of the names, the list also highlights the routine sloppiness of the Trump campaign and White House. The text of the letter is riddled with errors and formatting mistakes—as are so many of the administration’s communications. Traditionally, presidential administrations strive to ensure their messages are precise and accurate, well-checked and well-sourced. But reporters covering this White House have gotten used to an operation that tweets and talks about “Air Force Once,” the “United Sates,” and the “Marine Core.”
In addition to the extraneous commas, odd spacing, and random indentations in Thursday’s letter, some notable typos include listing one official as “Former Ty McCoy,” misspelling a legal counsel as “council,” inconsistencies in how the names of House of Representatives and the Senate are listed, and a reference to one person who supposedly worked at something called the “National Security Coun.”
Some voters might be inclined to excuse such slip-ups as the hurried work of busy people. In this case, however, the many errors underscore a larger truth: Hardly anyone in charge of the federal government seems to be paying proper attention. The letter appears not to have been subjected to any review process, which also points to the absence of competent, careful leaders in the White House who should have insisted on one. In a normal campaign or administration, staffers would be fired for publishing a list like this. (When I worked as a press aide on Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2003, Joe Trippi, the campaign manager, would literally crumple up my work and throw it back at me when I made mistakes in drafts.) Given the way this White House manages to do things like misspell “separation” in an executive order about an extremely fraught topic—its family separation policy—it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the people in charge don’t actually care that much.
Such mistakes are especially dangerous in the realms of national security and foreign policy, where precision and accuracy really matter. For example, when, in May 2018, the White House issued news release used the wrong verb tense to characterize Iran’s nuclear program, it seemed to announce the bombshell news that Iran “has” a robust nuclear weapons program. (What the White House actually meant to say is that Iran had “had” one.)
The final troubling element of the Trump list is who’s not on it. While many of the most prominent endorsers are former staffers—such as former Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland (who withdrew from being considered for an ambassadorship after being challenged for her own role in the Russia scandal) and Trump’s criminal defense attorney Rudy Giuliani—all of the president’s most important national security aides are absent. Nowhere in the letter will you find mention of former National Security Advisors H.R. McMaster or John Bolton, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, or former Defense Secretary James Mattis. The list of missing names also includes the one other four-star general besides Mattis who worked in the administration: John Kelly, who served as homeland security secretary before becoming White House chief of staff.
Far from endorsing Trump, all of those big names have publicly questioned his leadership. On the same day that the Trump campaign published its list of supporters, McMaster went on MSNBC to accuse Trump of “aiding and abetting” Russia. Other recent critics include the vice president’s former national security advisor and the former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security.
What makes these dissenters so important is that, unlike Trump’s public supporters, they worked the most closely with the president and thus had the best opportunity to judge his fitness to direct the intelligence community, the military, and U.S. foreign policy. If this group is consistently telling Americans to vote for the other guy—and it is—perhaps voters should heed the call.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-02--Document of the Week: The Birth of the Televised Presidential Debate Was a Sober Affair. Then Came T

Document of the Week: The Birth of the Televised Presidential Debate Was a Sober Affair. Then Came Trump.

Document of the Week : The Birth of the Televised Presidential Debate Was a Sober Affair .
Then Came Trump .
President Donald Trump ’ s boorish performance in the first—and possibly last—U.S .
presidential debate this year , which was marked by serial interruptions , insults , and little actual debating , has many questioning the value of future televised presidential exchanges .
The debate—which was moderated by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Tuesday—went so far off the rails that the presidential debates commission is now mulling whether to impose some new rules , like cutting off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s remarks .
It also showed how far the United States has come as a country since the nation first began broadcasting presidential debates in September 1960 , when then-Sen. John F. Kennedy took on then-Vice President Richard Nixon .
The televised performance—the transcript of which we are highlighting as our Document of the Week—was a master class in political restraint and decorum .
The two candidates never interrupted each other , hurled a single personal insult , or questioned each other ’ s mental fitness or loyalty to the nation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a liar or clown , as Biden called Trump .
And Nixon never accused Kennedy of being a closet extremist or socialist , as Trump frequently refers to Biden .
They debated the minutiae of policy differences on the economy , health care , Social Security , and the need to maintain America ’ s military , economic , and political edge over its foreign adversaries .
Nixon repeatedly agreed with Kennedy on many of the goals for advancing the country ’ s economic and political well-being , but he differed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate also differed in a critical way : It placed U.S. foreign policy at the center of the discussion .
Like the Trump-Biden debate , the Kennedy-Nixon debate was supposed to be restricted “ to internal or domestic American matters , ” according to the moderator , Howard K. Smith .
But it was impossible to ignore the Soviet Union—whose Premier Nikita Khrushchev happened to be visiting New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly debate .
In his opening remarks , Kennedy expressed alarm over the Soviet Union ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce more electric power than the United States by 1975 and warning that it might one day threaten America ’ s dominance .
“ We discuss tonight domestic issues , but I would not want that to be any implication to be given that this does not involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival , ” Kennedy said .
“ Mr .
Khrushchev is in New York , and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world because of the productive power of the Soviet Union itself .
… I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.
” Kennedy said the United States needed to invest more energy and money at home in strengthening the American economy to compete with the Soviet Union , as well as Communist China , on the world stage .
“ I want people in Latin America and Africa and Asia to start to look to America ; to see how we ’ re doing things ; to wonder what the resident of the United States is doing ; and not to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Communists.
” “ If the United States fails , then the whole cause of freedom fails , ” he said .
Nixon concurred .
“ The things that Senator Kennedy has said many of us can agree with , ” Nixon said .
“ There is no question but that we can not discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position .
There is no question but that this nation can not stand still ; because we are in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the men in the Kremlin , but the men in Peking.
” For his own part , Nixon cited the role he played in foreign policy under the Eisenhower administration to underscore his experience on matters of state .
Asked by one of the four television journalists on the panel—all white men—what policies he had ever convinced President Dwight D. Eisenhower to enact , he turned to his foreign travels .
“ After my first trip abroad … I strongly recommended that we increase our exchange programs particularly as they related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor field and in the information field .
After my trip to South America , I made recommendations that a separate inter-American lending agency be set up .
… After my trip abroad to Hungary I made some recommendations with regard to the Hungarian refugee situation which were adopted , not only by the president but some of them were enacted into law by the Congress.
” Certainly mild stuff if you compare it to Nixon ’ s later role as president in brokering a strategic American economic relationship with China , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But then-Vice President Nixon still had a long way to go to prove his foreign-policy bona fides .
Shortly before the debate , a reporter had asked Eisenhower to name a major idea of Nixon ’ s that he adopted .
Eisenhower answered : “ If you give me a week , I might think of one .
”

President Donald Trump’s boorish performance in the first—and possibly last—U.S. presidential debate this year, which was marked by serial interruptions, insults, and little actual debating, has many questioning the value of future televised presidential exchanges. The debate—which was moderated by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Tuesday—went so far off the rails that the presidential debates commission is now mulling whether to impose some new rules, like cutting off the mic if the candidates interrupt their rival’s remarks.
President Donald Trump’s boorish performance in the first—and possibly last—U.S. presidential debate this year, which was marked by serial interruptions, insults, and little actual debating, has many questioning the value of future televised presidential exchanges. The debate—which was moderated by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Tuesday—went so far off the rails that the presidential debates commission is now mulling whether to impose some new rules, like cutting off the mic if the candidates interrupt their rival’s remarks.
It also showed how far the United States has come as a country since the nation first began broadcasting presidential debates in September 1960, when then-Sen. John F. Kennedy took on then-Vice President Richard Nixon. The televised performance—the transcript of which we are highlighting as our Document of the Week—was a master class in political restraint and decorum.
The two candidates never interrupted each other, hurled a single personal insult, or questioned each other’s mental fitness or loyalty to the nation. Kennedy didn’t refer to Nixon as a liar or clown, as Biden called Trump. And Nixon never accused Kennedy of being a closet extremist or socialist, as Trump frequently refers to Biden.
They debated the minutiae of policy differences on the economy, health care, Social Security, and the need to maintain America’s military, economic, and political edge over its foreign adversaries. Nixon repeatedly agreed with Kennedy on many of the goals for advancing the country’s economic and political well-being, but he differed on the means for achieving them.
But the debate also differed in a critical way: It placed U.S. foreign policy at the center of the discussion. Like the Trump-Biden debate, the Kennedy-Nixon debate was supposed to be restricted “to internal or domestic American matters,” according to the moderator, Howard K. Smith. But it was impossible to ignore the Soviet Union—whose Premier Nikita Khrushchev happened to be visiting New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly debate.
In his opening remarks, Kennedy expressed alarm over the Soviet Union’s economic advances, noting that it could produce more electric power than the United States by 1975 and warning that it might one day threaten America’s dominance.
“We discuss tonight domestic issues, but I would not want that to be any implication to be given that this does not involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival,” Kennedy said. “Mr. Khrushchev is in New York, and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world because of the productive power of the Soviet Union itself. … I’m not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.”
Kennedy said the United States needed to invest more energy and money at home in strengthening the American economy to compete with the Soviet Union, as well as Communist China, on the world stage. “I want people in Latin America and Africa and Asia to start to look to America; to see how we’re doing things; to wonder what the resident of the United States is doing; and not to look at Khrushchev, or look at the Chinese Communists.”
“If the United States fails, then the whole cause of freedom fails,” he said.
Nixon concurred. “The things that Senator Kennedy has said many of us can agree with,” Nixon said. “There is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. There is no question but that this nation cannot stand still; because we are in a deadly competition, a competition not only with the men in the Kremlin, but the men in Peking.”
For his own part, Nixon cited the role he played in foreign policy under the Eisenhower administration to underscore his experience on matters of state. Asked by one of the four television journalists on the panel—all white men—what policies he had ever convinced President Dwight D. Eisenhower to enact, he turned to his foreign travels.
“After my first trip abroad … I strongly recommended that we increase our exchange programs particularly as they related to exchange of persons of leaders in the labor field and in the information field. After my trip to South America, I made recommendations that a separate inter-American lending agency be set up. … After my trip abroad to Hungary I made some recommendations with regard to the Hungarian refugee situation which were adopted, not only by the president but some of them were enacted into law by the Congress.”
Certainly mild stuff if you compare it to Nixon’s later role as president in brokering a strategic American economic relationship with China, which Trump is now seeking to dismantle. But then-Vice President Nixon still had a long way to go to prove his foreign-policy bona fides. Shortly before the debate, a reporter had asked Eisenhower to name a major idea of Nixon’s that he adopted. Eisenhower answered: “If you give me a week, I might think of one.”