Tag: Donald Trump

  • Trump Defends Economic Policies in NBC Interview, Blames Biden for Weaknesses

    Trump Defends Economic Policies in NBC Interview, Blames Biden for Weaknesses

    Washington, D.C. – Former President Donald Trump claimed credit for the U.S. economy’s strengths while blaming President Joe Biden for its struggles in a wide-ranging interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Kristen Welker that aired Sunday.

    “I think the good parts are the ‘Trump economy’ and the bad parts are the ‘Biden economy’ because he’s done a terrible job,” Trump said.

    The remarks come as economic concerns weigh heavily on Americans. A CNN/SSRS poll released Monday found that 66% of respondents feel pessimistic (29%) or afraid (37%) about the economy, with just 34% expressing optimism. Additionally, 69% believe a recession in the next year is at least somewhat likely, including 32% who say it is “very likely.”

    Trump Takes Credit for Lower Costs, Defends Tariffs
    Trump asserted that his policies have helped reduce costs, though inflation remains a concern. “I was able to get down the costs. But even that, it takes a while to get them down. But we got them down good,” he said.

    However, Consumer Price Index data shows grocery prices in March 2025 were 2.41% higher than the previous year—the steepest annual increase since August 2023.

    When pressed about stock market volatility following his sweeping tariff announcements, Trump dismissed concerns, pointing to recent gains. “I’ve only just been here for a little more than three months. But the stock market, look at what’s happened in the last short period of time,” he said, referencing a recent rally.

    The S&P 500 closed Friday at 5,686.67, down 6% since Trump took office. However, it surged 9.5% on April 9—its best single-day performance in nearly 17 years—after Trump paused tariffs on most nations.

    “I don’t want anything to go down, but sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” Trump said, downplaying market fluctuations.

    Tariffs Could Be Permanent, Small Businesses Left Out
    Trump defended his aggressive trade policies, including a 145% tariff on Chinese imports and a universal 10% tariff during a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs. When asked if some tariffs could become permanent, he refused to rule it out.

    “No, I wouldn’t do that. Because if somebody thought they were going to come off the table, why would they build in the United States?” he said.

    While major corporations—particularly automakers—have received tariff delays and partial reimbursements, Trump offered no relief for small businesses, stating, “They’re not going to need it.”

    Recession Fears Grow as Trump Dismisses Concerns
    Economists have raised alarms about a potential downturn, with JPMorgan estimating a 60% chance of recession, up from 40%, and Goldman Sachs pegging it at 45%.

    Trump dismissed these worries, saying, “Everything’s OK. This is a transition period. I think we’re going to do fantastically.”

    Pressed on whether a recession could occur, he conceded, “Anything can happen.”

    As prices rise due to tariffs, Trump suggested consumers may need to adjust their spending habits. “The tariffs are going to make us rich. We’re going to be a very rich country,” he said.

    With economic uncertainty looming, Trump’s policies remain a focal point of debate as businesses and voters assess their impact.

  • China Imposes a 125% Tariff on U.S. Imports

    China Imposes a 125% Tariff on U.S. Imports

    On Friday, China announced its intention to increase the tariffs on American goods to 125 percent, from the previous 84 percent. This escalation in trade tensions is a response to the third round of retaliatory measures between the United States and China, which has become an ongoing trade war between the two global superpowers.

    The announcement by the State Council, China’s executive branch, followed clarification by Trump administration officials on Thursday that Chinese goods imported into the United States now incur a minimum tariff rate of 145 percent.

    China indicated that its newly implemented tariffs would commence on Saturday.

    Over the past two weeks, the world’s two superpowers have engaged in a rapid-fire tit-for-tat that has erected progressively higher barriers to trade, causing global market fluctuations and threatening economies worldwide.

    This week, President Trump reversed course on the reciprocal tariffs he had imposed on numerous countries but did not halt the escalating levies on China. Instead, he raised the import taxes to 125 percent, following Beijing’s decision to tax American goods at 84 percent.

    This ongoing retaliation has compelled American and Chinese companies that rely on each other to abruptly reduce orders and anticipate a potential détente.

    Amidst the uncertainty, the White House clarified on Thursday that tariffs on Chinese imports were now set at a minimum of 145 percent. Additional sector-specific tariffs have been imposed on imports of automobiles, steel, aluminum, and other goods that have been subject to levies since Mr. Trump’s first presidency.

    On Friday, China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, addressed tariffs publicly for the first time since Washington and Beijing commenced their escalating confrontation.

    “There are no beneficiaries in a tariff war, and opposing the global community will only lead to self-isolation,” he asserted.

    A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce stated during a news conference on Friday that the Trump administration’s approach to China was a “numbers game devoid of practical economic relevance.” The spokesperson further characterized the situation as “foolish.”

    Initially, China refrained from retaliating with force. However, as President Trump persisted in imposing tariffs, China reciprocated by imposing equivalent levies.

  • Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Plan to End TPS for Venezuelans

    Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Plan to End TPS for Venezuelans

    A U.S. federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants, ruling that the move is likely unlawful.

    In a nationwide injunction issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s plan to terminate TPS, a designation that allows immigrants from crisis-stricken countries to remain in the United States. The court order ensures that protections remain in place while legal proceedings continue.

    Judge Chen, in a 78-page ruling, stated that the plaintiffs—led by the National TPS Alliance—demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in proving that Noem’s actions were “unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.” He further warned that revoking TPS could cause “irreparable harm” to hundreds of thousands of individuals, disrupt families and livelihoods, and result in significant economic losses and public safety concerns across the United States.

    “At the same time, the government has failed to identify any real countervailing harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelan beneficiaries,” Chen wrote.

    Legal Battle Over TPS for Venezuelans

    The Trump administration had argued that TPS protections for Venezuelans were no longer justified, citing improvements in Venezuela’s economy, public health, and crime rates. However, advocates and legal experts challenged this claim, emphasizing ongoing humanitarian concerns under the leadership of Nicolás Maduro.

    TPS for Venezuelans was first granted in 2021 under the Biden administration in response to what officials called a “severe humanitarian emergency.” The status was initially set for 18 months but was later extended until October 2026. According to court filings, approximately 600,000 Venezuelan immigrants have benefited from the designation.

    In February, Noem announced that the administration would strip legal status from 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants, with additional revocations set for September. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also planned to terminate the humanitarian parole program known as CHNV, which has provided temporary legal status to over 530,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

    Reactions and Next Steps

    Jose Palma, coordinator of the National TPS Alliance, hailed the court ruling as a victory for TPS holders. “We will continue this fight with unwavering resolve, not only to protect the future of 350,000 Venezuelans but to defend all TPS holders in this country,” Palma said in a statement.

    The lawsuit, filed in March, argues that Noem lacks the legal authority to revoke TPS and accuses the administration of racial bias in its immigration policies.

    The DHS has not yet responded to requests for comment. The case is expected to continue through the courts, with broader implications for immigration policy under the Trump administration.

  • Trump Escalates Economic Threat with New Tariffs on Russian Oil Amid Stalled Ukraine Peace Efforts

    Trump Escalates Economic Threat with New Tariffs on Russian Oil Amid Stalled Ukraine Peace Efforts

    In a bold move signaling a hardening stance toward Moscow, former President Donald Trump has threatened to impose sweeping secondary tariffs of 25% to 50% on all Russian oil imports if negotiations to secure a Ukraine cease-fire collapse, according to an exclusive NBC News report. The announcement, made during a March 30 phone interview, underscores Trump’s intent to leverage economic pressure to compel Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the protracted conflict, which has entered its third year with no resolution in sight.

    A Conditional Ultimatum
    Trump outlined that the tariffs—targeting nations purchasing Russian oil—would be enacted within a month if he determines Moscow is obstructing peace efforts or bears responsibility for failed negotiations. “If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault, those buying Russian oil won’t do business in the U.S. without facing steep costs,” Trump stated, emphasizing the immediacy of the measure. The policy, akin to secondary sanctions, aims to isolate Russia’s energy sector by penalizing third-party buyers, a tactic previously used against Iran and Venezuela.

    Tensions with Putin and Zelenskyy
    The remarks follow heightened friction between Trump and Putin, particularly after the Russian leader dismissed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, advocating for interim governance in Kyiv to facilitate new elections—a move critics argue would destabilize Ukraine’s sovereignty. Trump, who has frequently criticized Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership, labeling him a “dictator” for extending martial law and delaying elections, reiterated calls for Ukraine to hold fresh polls. “This war is ridiculous, and it’s time for leadership that prioritizes peace,” Trump said, though he withheld explicit endorsement of Putin’s proposal.

    Diplomatic Maneuvers and Deadlines
    The threat arrives amid a flurry of diplomatic activity. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, following a surprise March 29 meeting with Trump in Florida, urged the U.S. to set an April 20 deadline for a cease-fire, aligning with Easter and Trump’s early tenure momentum. “Deadlines create urgency,” Stubb remarked, highlighting the symbolic and strategic timing. The two leaders reportedly discussed bolstering U.S.-Finnish ties, with Finland’s recent NATO membership adding weight to the dialogue.

    Global Economic Implications
    Analysts warn that the proposed tariffs could roil global energy markets, potentially spiking oil prices and straining U.S. relations with allies reliant on Russian exports, such as India and China. Secondary sanctions, while impactful, risk fracturing international coalitions against Russia. “This approach could backfire, pushing Moscow closer to Beijing and testing NATO unity,” cautioned energy strategist Maria Kovac. However, Trump allies argue the threat demonstrates resolve: “It’s about forcing Putin to the table,” said former advisor John Bolton.

    Putin’s Calculus and Trump’s Relationship
    Despite Trump’s assertion of a “very good relationship” with Putin, tensions are palpable. The Russian president has yet to respond publicly, but state media has dismissed the tariffs as “empty threats.” Trump, meanwhile, remains confident in his rapport: “Anger dissipates quickly if [Putin] does the right thing,” he noted, hinting at backchannel negotiations.

    Political Reactions and Future Steps
    The proposal has ignited debate in Washington, with Democrats accusing Trump of politicizing foreign policy, while some Republicans praise the aggressive posture. Ukrainian officials have remained cautiously silent, though prior Trump critiques of aid to Kyiv have stirred unease. As the April 20 deadline looms, the international community watches closely, aware that Trump’s tariff threat could redefine both the Ukraine conflict and U.S.-Russia economic relations.

    With the war’s toll mounting, Trump’s tariff gambit marks a high-stakes escalation, blending economic coercion with diplomatic brinkmanship. Whether this pressure catalyzes peace or deepens divisions remains uncertain, but the move undeniably shifts the geopolitical chessboard, testing alliances and adversaries alike in a bid to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict in decades.

  • Trump’s Show of Support for Musk and Tesla Sparks Ethical Debate Amid Growing Backlash

    Trump’s Show of Support for Musk and Tesla Sparks Ethical Debate Amid Growing Backlash

    WASHINGTON – A fleet of Tesla vehicles transformed the White House South Lawn into an impromptu showroom last week as former President Donald Trump showcased his latest endorsement: a crimson Tesla Model S. “I want the same color,” Trump declared, admiring the car before climbing inside. The spectacle, however, was less about a presidential purchase than a calculated effort to shield Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, from intensifying criticism over Musk’s controversial role in Trump’s government overhaul.

    Musk, who chairs the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has spearheaded the dismantling of federal agencies, resulting in tens of thousands of federal job cuts—some later reinstated by courts. This aggressive downsizing, paired with Musk’s polarizing public persona, has fueled nationwide protests. Tesla dealerships have faced arson, vandalism, and vehicles branded with red X’s, while some owners sport bumper stickers reading, “I Bought This Before We Knew Elon Was Crazy!”

    Ethical Lines Blurred
    Trump’s overt support for Tesla—including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s public urging of Americans to buy Tesla stock—has ignited legal and ethical concerns. Critics argue the administration is improperly propping up a company led by a key political ally. Musk’s dual roles as a government official and CEO of firms like Tesla and SpaceX, which hold billions in federal contracts, further muddy the waters.

    “This is unprecedented,” said Richard Painter, former White House ethics counsel under George W. Bush. “You cannot use your official position to promote a private company. That’s a clear ethics violation.” Painter emphasized that while past administrations have advocated for industries, such as Biden’s 2021 push for electric vehicles (EVs), none have singled out a specific corporation as Trump has with Tesla.

    A Political Lightning Rod
    The administration’s defense of Musk escalated this week. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced charges against three individuals accused of firebombing Tesla properties, vowing to prosecute “domestic terrorism” targeting the company. Meanwhile, White House spokesman Kush Desai lambasted Democrats like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 vice presidential nominee, for reveling in Tesla’s stock slump, which has dropped over 40% this year.

    Trump’s allies counter that President Joe Biden also leveraged the White House to promote EVs, hosting Ford, GM, and Stellantis executives in 2021. Yet Biden’s event focused on industry-wide goals, excluding Tesla—a snub Musk reportedly resented before switching his party affiliation to Republican.

    Investor Jitters and Brand Crisis
    Despite Trump’s endorsement, analysts say the political theatrics may backfire. “Tesla’s transformation into a political symbol is toxic for investors,” said Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives. While Tesla shares briefly rose 5% after Lutnick’s remarks, they closed lower for the ninth consecutive week. Ives warns that Trump’s staged support fails to address Tesla’s core challenges, including Musk’s divisive reputation and competition in the EV market.

    “There’s only one person who can fix it,” Ives stressed in an interview. “It’s not Trump. It’s not Lutnick. It’s Musk.” He argued that Musk must refocus on Tesla, stepping back from his role at DOGE to repair the company’s tarnished image. “He’s not a politician—he’s CEO of Tesla, as well as a lot of other ventures. And he needs to make sure that the brand damage doesn’t become permanent.”

    As debates over ethics and favoritism swirl, the saga underscores the risks of intertwining corporate and political interests. For Tesla, the road to recovery may require more than a presidential photo

  • Ex-SecDefs Revolt: Mattis, Austin, and Three Others Demand Senate Block President Trump’s Joint Chiefs Chairman Nominee Over Firing of CQ Brown

    Ex-SecDefs Revolt: Mattis, Austin, and Three Others Demand Senate Block President Trump’s Joint Chiefs Chairman Nominee Over Firing of CQ Brown

    Former Protection Secretaries Condemn Trump’s Dismissal of Joint Chiefs Chair, Urge Congressional Motion

    5 former U.S. Secretaries of Protection have issued a joint letter condemning President Donald Trump’s abrupt dismissal of Normal Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Workers and urging Congress to dam the affirmation of his substitute, retired Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine. The signatories embody officers spanning 4 presidential administrations: William Perry (Clinton), Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel (Obama), James Mattis (Trump), and Lloyd Austin (Biden).

    Of their letter, launched publicly on February 27, 2025, the previous Pentagon leaders warned that Trump’s elimination of Brown and different senior navy officers—together with pending dismissals of the Military, Navy, and Air Power Choose Advocates Normal—appeared politically motivated and risked destabilizing the navy’s nonpartisan ethos. They referred to as for rapid congressional hearings to scrutinize the firings and halt affirmation of Caine till the administration offers justification.

    Key Issues from the Letter
    The previous officers argued that Trump’s actions lacked transparency, noting Brown had served lower than two years of his four-year time period. They accused the administration of in search of to “politicize the navy” and circumvent authorized safeguards designed to insulate management from partisan interference. The letter emphasised potential penalties, together with eroded belief within the armed forces and reluctance amongst service members to “communicate reality to energy.”

    Quoting George Washington’s warning towards militarizing politics, the signatories urged Congress to uphold its oversight position, stating: “We’re not asking members of Congress to do us a favor; we’re asking them to do their jobs.”

    Trump’s Nomination and Authorized Hurdles
    Trump introduced Brown’s substitute by way of Fact Social on February 21, praising Caine as a “warfighter” who “delivered” the speedy defeat of ISIS throughout Trump’s first time period. Nevertheless, Caine’s nomination faces a authorized barrier: federal legislation requires the Joint Chiefs Chair to have served in prime roles equivalent to a service chief or combatant commander. Caine, a retired three-star basic, doesn’t meet these standards, necessitating a presidential waiver.

    Caine’s background contains particular operations management in Iraq, a CIA liaison position, and private-sector ventures. His navy accolades embody the Distinguished Flying Cross and Bronze Star.

    Extra Management Shakeups
    Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed additional deliberate dismissals, together with Navy Chief Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Air Power Vice Chief Gen. James Slife, whereas soliciting nominees for the Choose Advocate Normal posts. Hegseth acknowledged the overhaul goals to refocus the navy on “deterring, preventing, and profitable wars.”

    Reactions and Implications
    The letter underscores deepening tensions between Trump and navy management, echoing previous clashes throughout his first time period. Critics worry the turnover might speed up politicization inside the ranks, whereas Trump’s allies body the adjustments as essential to align the Pentagon together with his “America First” agenda.

    Congressional Democrats have pledged to problem the waiver for Caine, whereas Senate Republicans face strain to uphold or reject the administration’s stance. The result might set a precedent for navy management appointments and congressional oversight in politically polarized climates.

    Textual content of Trump’s Fact Social Announcement (excerpt):
    “Normal Caine is a nationwide safety skilled who stated he might defeat ISIS shortly—and he did. Sleepy Joe Biden handed him over, however not anymore! Along with Secretary Hegseth, we’ll restore peace by power.”

    Parts of the DOD’s assertion on Caine:
    “Lt. Gen. Caine’s profession spans three many years of distinguished service, together with fight operations and joint particular operations command roles. His management embodies the warfighter ethos essential to fashionable protection challenges.”

    The Senate Armed Providers Committee is predicted to schedule hearings on Caine’s nomination within the coming weeks.