G7: Fact checking Trump's tweets about trade
By Andrew Walker
BBC World Service economics correspondent
11 June 2018
Trump constantly worries about the trade deficit - should we?
President Donald Trump has lashed out at his partners in the G7 group of leading rich economies following a summit in Canada.
He wrote some highly critical tweets which appear to be a response to comments from the host, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who said that Canada would respond to new tariffs - taxes on imports - imposed by the US on steel and aluminium.
President Trump's tweets complained about the defence spending of US allies (too low in his view) and the trade barriers they impose (too high).
He also reminded the world that he is considering extra tariffs on imports of cars.
So does he have a point?
On trade he mentioned the possibility of further tariffs on "automobiles flooding the US market ".
It is certainly true that the US imports more cars than it exports. Last year, the US exported 52 billion dollars' worth of passenger cars but imported more than three times that amount.
It's also true that the US tariff on imported cars is relatively low - 2.5% compared to the EU's 10%, although Japan's are zero.
But it's often possible to pick particular products to make a point about how unfair a particular country is.
In the case of the US, you could take its tariffs of 25% on light vans.
To get a better indication of how much a country protects its own industry it makes more sense to look at average tariffs. There are several ways of calculating an average but the general picture that emerges is that the US has tariffs that are among the lowest. Other rich countries do tend to have slightly higher averages, though not by very much.
If we pick out agriculture, then the developed countries, including the US, do generally have higher tariffs than for industrial goods.
For farm trade the US averages are lower than other rich countries by a more significant margin.
President Trump in one of his latest tweets complained about Canada's 270% tariff on dairy imports. Canada does indeed have a highly regulated and protected dairy sector and one of the tariffs (on a specific type of dairy product) listed in the World Trade Organization database is indeed precisely that. There are others that are in the same very high range.
Dairy wars: Why is Trump threatening Canada over milk?
But the levels of tariffs that countries impose are to a large extent the outcome of negotiated agreements - globally within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or between smaller groups of countries with trade deals such as the US, Canada and Mexico in the North American Trade Agreement (Nafta).
That is why President Trump often criticises previous administrations over the trade deals they have done.
He also often uses trade imbalances as evidence to demonstrate his view that the US is treated unfairly.
It is indeed true that the US has a deficit with the rest of the world - it imports more than it exports, to the tune of about half a trillion dollars. President Trump gave a larger figure of $800 billion, which is the deficit for goods only. It's partly offset by a surplus in services.
In any event most economists take the view that the trade balance is driven by savings and investment rather than trade policies. If a country saves less than it invests, it will have a trade deficit.
Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMP
Report
In another tweet, President Trump complained about the EU and Canada imposing what he called "non-monetary trade barriers against the US".
All countries have them, usually known as non-tariff barriers, or NTBs. There is a wide range. They include regulatory restrictions for safety or environmental reasons, labelling rules and restrictions on who can provide certain services.
Compared with tariffs, NTBs are much harder to quantify and compare.
There is often a perfectly good reason for the rules, but they can also make it more difficult for suppliers in other countries and it is possible that in some cases that is the aim.
To take some examples of NTBs in agriculture and food - and there are examples in many other areas too - US farm groups often complain that their products are excluded from the EU market by rules limiting the use of genetically modified crops, hormones in cattle and the now famous issue of chicken washed with chlorine.
The US also has its own regulatory barriers, including for example restrictions on some offal and on cheese made from unpasteurized milk. Haggis and many European cheeses are excluded by these rules.
On defence, President Trump wrote "....the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO".
The US accounts for more than two thirds of all defence spending by Nato members. In terms of total defence spending, Nato has a guideline for its members - 2% of national income or GDP. The US is one of only six countries that meet the target (the UK is another).
Calling that "close to the entire cost" is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but there is no question that the US does carry far more than its share of the financial burden.
He gave specific figures for the US (4% of GDP) and Germany (1%). The figures are correct but rounded to the nearest whole number. According to Nato the figures for 2017 are 3.58% for the US and 1.22% for Germany. That's a large gap, although rounding the numbers makes it look even bigger.
These figures refer to all defence spending. Spending on Nato's own costs is allocated in line with national GDP. The US pays 22.1% and Germany 14.8%.
But this is a very small share of defence spending. It makes more sense to focus on total budgets in this area. A Nato official put it like this:
"These national figures can be considered indirect contributions to NATO, because Allied armed forces contribute to our collective security."
Saturday, July 7, 2018
US-China trade row: What has happened so far? - BBC News
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?
21 June 2018
Donald Trump campaigned for election on a promise to make trade fairer for the US, and his push to do so has him fighting with some of America's oldest trading partners.
He has already imposed - or threatened to impose - taxes on imports from China, Mexico, Canada and the EU, to encourage consumers to buy American products.
Those countries have all promised to retaliate, sparking fears of an all-out trade war.
Mr Trump's hard line on trade, which saw him withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact (TPP) last year, marks a striking change from the free trade policies that have governed the exchange of goods for decades.
Here's what's gone on so far.
Trump takes on China
In January, the US slapped controversial tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, which was seen as Trump's most significant trade move since his decision to pull the US out of the TPP and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).
After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, Mr Trump then said in June he would impose tariffs - or import taxes - on $50bn-worth (£38bn) of Chinese goods. The first tariffs are due to come into effect on 6 July.
Media captionWhat are tariffs and how do they affect us?
Mr Trump said this would stop the "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China" and protect jobs.
What is a trade war and why should I worry?
Tariffs, in theory, will make US-made products cheaper than imported ones, so encourage consumers to buy American. That will then boost local businesses and support the national economy.
Businesses will have pay a 25% additional tax on certain Chinese products they import - including aircraft tyres and commercial dishwashers.
China did not take the news laying down. It retaliated in kind, saying it too would collect a 25% levy on $50bn worth of US goods, also starting on 6 July. Taxes will be charged on imports of agricultural products, cars and marine products from the US, to name a few.
Upping the stakes, Mr Trump then threatened to slap a 10% levy on an additional $200bn of Chinese goods if China "refuses to change its practices". He ordered his staff to identify a list of Chinese goods to be taxed.
China said it would respond with measures of a "corresponding number and quality" if the US issued the list.
Is its beef only with China?
No.
The US has already started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
US businesses have to pay a 25% tax when they import steel from those places and a 10% levy to buy aluminium from them.
The EU, Mexico and Canada were all outraged and vowed to fight back.
The EU said it would enact retaliatory tariffs on some €2.8bn (£2.5bn) worth of US goods including jeans, motorbikes and bourbon whiskey. These are due to come into effect on 22 June.
Canada is planning countermeasures on C$16.6bn ($12.5bn; £9.5bn) worth of US goods from 1 July. It will slap a 25% tax on some US steel products and it plans a 10% levy on varied items including yoghurt, whiskeys and coffee.
Mexico has also released a list of products on which it will impose tariffs, including pork and cheese. Businesses will also have to pay a 25% duty to import some American steel products.
Who has been worst affected so far?
Given that the US buys nearly four times as much from China as it sells to them, China is limited on how far it can retaliate through trade.
There is some media speculation it could opt for alternatives measures, including taking action against US companies in China and devaluing its currency to fight back. A lower-value yuan would make it cheaper for foreigners to buy Chinese exports abroad, somewhat offsetting the upward pressure on prices caused by the US levies.
Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?
While the impact of the growing trade spat on the US and China economies is expected to be small, analysts are concerned about its escalation.
This is already hurting stock markets.
"The direct impact of the Trump administration's 25% tariff on Chinese goods will actually be somewhat limited, but the risk of subsequent tit-for-tat retaliation on both sides is no small matter," Japanese financial services group Nomura said in a research note.
Companies are also getting worried. Carmaker Daimler has said it expects earnings from car sales to be "slightly below the previous year", because the tax will make their cars more expensive for consumers in China, a key market.
There are also concerns that smaller countries further down the supply chain could be caught out.
According to the Economist, 30% of the value of the goods China exports to America originates from third-party countries
Japan, it says, is the country that exports most to firms in China that export onwards to America.
21 June 2018
Donald Trump campaigned for election on a promise to make trade fairer for the US, and his push to do so has him fighting with some of America's oldest trading partners.
He has already imposed - or threatened to impose - taxes on imports from China, Mexico, Canada and the EU, to encourage consumers to buy American products.
Those countries have all promised to retaliate, sparking fears of an all-out trade war.
Mr Trump's hard line on trade, which saw him withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact (TPP) last year, marks a striking change from the free trade policies that have governed the exchange of goods for decades.
Here's what's gone on so far.
Trump takes on China
In January, the US slapped controversial tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, which was seen as Trump's most significant trade move since his decision to pull the US out of the TPP and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).
After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, Mr Trump then said in June he would impose tariffs - or import taxes - on $50bn-worth (£38bn) of Chinese goods. The first tariffs are due to come into effect on 6 July.
Media captionWhat are tariffs and how do they affect us?
Mr Trump said this would stop the "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China" and protect jobs.
What is a trade war and why should I worry?
Tariffs, in theory, will make US-made products cheaper than imported ones, so encourage consumers to buy American. That will then boost local businesses and support the national economy.
Businesses will have pay a 25% additional tax on certain Chinese products they import - including aircraft tyres and commercial dishwashers.
China did not take the news laying down. It retaliated in kind, saying it too would collect a 25% levy on $50bn worth of US goods, also starting on 6 July. Taxes will be charged on imports of agricultural products, cars and marine products from the US, to name a few.
Upping the stakes, Mr Trump then threatened to slap a 10% levy on an additional $200bn of Chinese goods if China "refuses to change its practices". He ordered his staff to identify a list of Chinese goods to be taxed.
China said it would respond with measures of a "corresponding number and quality" if the US issued the list.
Is its beef only with China?
No.
The US has already started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
US businesses have to pay a 25% tax when they import steel from those places and a 10% levy to buy aluminium from them.
The EU, Mexico and Canada were all outraged and vowed to fight back.
The EU said it would enact retaliatory tariffs on some €2.8bn (£2.5bn) worth of US goods including jeans, motorbikes and bourbon whiskey. These are due to come into effect on 22 June.
Canada is planning countermeasures on C$16.6bn ($12.5bn; £9.5bn) worth of US goods from 1 July. It will slap a 25% tax on some US steel products and it plans a 10% levy on varied items including yoghurt, whiskeys and coffee.
Mexico has also released a list of products on which it will impose tariffs, including pork and cheese. Businesses will also have to pay a 25% duty to import some American steel products.
Who has been worst affected so far?
Given that the US buys nearly four times as much from China as it sells to them, China is limited on how far it can retaliate through trade.
There is some media speculation it could opt for alternatives measures, including taking action against US companies in China and devaluing its currency to fight back. A lower-value yuan would make it cheaper for foreigners to buy Chinese exports abroad, somewhat offsetting the upward pressure on prices caused by the US levies.
Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?
While the impact of the growing trade spat on the US and China economies is expected to be small, analysts are concerned about its escalation.
This is already hurting stock markets.
"The direct impact of the Trump administration's 25% tariff on Chinese goods will actually be somewhat limited, but the risk of subsequent tit-for-tat retaliation on both sides is no small matter," Japanese financial services group Nomura said in a research note.
Companies are also getting worried. Carmaker Daimler has said it expects earnings from car sales to be "slightly below the previous year", because the tax will make their cars more expensive for consumers in China, a key market.
There are also concerns that smaller countries further down the supply chain could be caught out.
According to the Economist, 30% of the value of the goods China exports to America originates from third-party countries
Japan, it says, is the country that exports most to firms in China that export onwards to America.
The 'conservative' resistance continues against Trump, the man delivering all the conservative results - Fox News
July 6, 2018
The 'conservative' resistance continues against Trump, the man delivering all the conservative results
Lauren DeBellis Appell By Lauren DeBellis Appell | Fox News
Trump wraps up interview process for SCOTUS nominee
President Trump to announce his Supreme Court pick on July 9th. John Roberts reports from the White House.
If President Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy is anything like Justice Neil Gorsuch – the president’s first nominee – America will be getting another great justice.
President Trump is scheduled to announce his nominee Monday. The announcement should solidify conservative support for the president – making the already-marginalized Never Trump faction of the Republican Party irrelevant.
For many conservatives, an important reason they voted for Donald Trump was because they believed he would nominate a solidly conservative justice to the Supreme Court.
Exit polls in that last presidential election showed 1 out of 5 voters cited the Supreme Court as “the most important factor” in deciding their vote – and 57 percent of these voters said they cast their ballots for candidate Trump.
We didn’t have a crystal ball, or any kind of political record to predict what President Trump would do. But we had his word and a list of potential Supreme Court nominees he said he would pick from.
Many of us took a chance that Trump wasn’t selling us down the river – and he didn’t disappoint. As one of his first acts as president, he gave us Neil Gorsuch.
Yet now there are still professed conservatives opposing a Trump presidency, even to the point where they’re openly hoping for Democrats to win control of Congress in the November midterm elections.
The irony is that these self-proclaimed "principled conservatives” can relate more to the far-left liberal crowd with their “resist movement” than to the conservative base they claim to want to protect.
In just over 17 months, President Trump has cut taxes and rolled back regulations. This has led to the lowest unemployment rate for African-Americans since records have been kept, the lowest recorded unemployment rate for Hispanics, and the lowest unemployment rate for women in two decades.
These are the practical results of conservative principles when put into action. Not to mention that President Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords and out of the Iran nuclear deal.
Let’s also not forget that one year ago North Korea was firing missiles over Japan, testing atomic bombs and threatening the United States. Today, prospects for peace and security along the Pacific Rim are real, because this president – unlike his predecessors in both parties – took a different approach.
Does anyone doubt if any of the other candidates in the pool of Republican presidential contenders had been elected – and had this much success in this short amount of time – these same Never Trumpers would be working for the president rather than against him?
Yet the “conservative” resistance continues against the man delivering all the conservative results, and their whining grows staler by the minute.
With every promise President Trump keeps to conservatives who took a chance on him, the background noise from the GOP Never Trumpers sounds increasingly muffled – as it should, because the Never Trumpers are like ostriches with their heads buried beneath the ground.
The longer the Never Trumpers choose to dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge that President Trump is making good on everything he said he’d do, the more credibility they lose.
We’ve heard the Trump haters in the GOP say they don’t like him because he’s – take your pick – not conservative enough (which is utter nonsense at this point); not a politician; or not “presidential” enough.
Perhaps these Never Trumpers are plagued with short-term memories, because some previous Republican nominees could hardly be considered conservative or, in some cases, presidential.
President Trump is unconventional, for sure – and that’s exactly why the American people elected him. He is an outside-the-box, entrepreneurial politician who shakes up business as usual –and delivers results.
If President Trump is re-elected, it’s likely he could have a third – and maybe even a fourth – Supreme Court seat to fill. Conservatives saw this in 2016 when they went to the polls, and that’s why many voted based on this issue and didn’t hesitate to cast ballots for Trump. They knew what was at stake.
Following his nomination to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch said: “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers, rather than those the law demands.”
This kind of deference to the rule of law and the Constitution is exactly what conservatives were hoping for in a Supreme Court nominee when they voted for President Trump. Conservatives want justices who fairly apply the law and don’t make it up from the bench, and who protect our freedoms.
The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. Justice Gorsuch understands that. As the names that have been floated as potential Supreme Court nominees seem to indicate, President Trump appears to understand that as well.
If those 57 percent “Supreme Court issue” voters had chosen to jump on the Never Trump bandwagon within the GOP, simply because they didn’t like the guy, we’d be looking at a Supreme Court being stacked with judicial activists who’d chip away at our freedom by rewriting the Constitution into whatever suits their political whims.
If the GOP Never Trump crowd truly wants to stand up for conservative principles they should stand with the president. He’s standing with us.
Lauren DeBellis Appell, a freelance writer in Fairfax, Virginia, was deputy press secretary for then-Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in his successful 2000 re-election campaign, as well as assistant communications director for the Senate Republican Policy Committee (2001-2003).
The 'conservative' resistance continues against Trump, the man delivering all the conservative results
Lauren DeBellis Appell By Lauren DeBellis Appell | Fox News
Trump wraps up interview process for SCOTUS nominee
President Trump to announce his Supreme Court pick on July 9th. John Roberts reports from the White House.
If President Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy is anything like Justice Neil Gorsuch – the president’s first nominee – America will be getting another great justice.
President Trump is scheduled to announce his nominee Monday. The announcement should solidify conservative support for the president – making the already-marginalized Never Trump faction of the Republican Party irrelevant.
For many conservatives, an important reason they voted for Donald Trump was because they believed he would nominate a solidly conservative justice to the Supreme Court.
Exit polls in that last presidential election showed 1 out of 5 voters cited the Supreme Court as “the most important factor” in deciding their vote – and 57 percent of these voters said they cast their ballots for candidate Trump.
We didn’t have a crystal ball, or any kind of political record to predict what President Trump would do. But we had his word and a list of potential Supreme Court nominees he said he would pick from.
Many of us took a chance that Trump wasn’t selling us down the river – and he didn’t disappoint. As one of his first acts as president, he gave us Neil Gorsuch.
Yet now there are still professed conservatives opposing a Trump presidency, even to the point where they’re openly hoping for Democrats to win control of Congress in the November midterm elections.
The irony is that these self-proclaimed "principled conservatives” can relate more to the far-left liberal crowd with their “resist movement” than to the conservative base they claim to want to protect.
In just over 17 months, President Trump has cut taxes and rolled back regulations. This has led to the lowest unemployment rate for African-Americans since records have been kept, the lowest recorded unemployment rate for Hispanics, and the lowest unemployment rate for women in two decades.
These are the practical results of conservative principles when put into action. Not to mention that President Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords and out of the Iran nuclear deal.
Let’s also not forget that one year ago North Korea was firing missiles over Japan, testing atomic bombs and threatening the United States. Today, prospects for peace and security along the Pacific Rim are real, because this president – unlike his predecessors in both parties – took a different approach.
Does anyone doubt if any of the other candidates in the pool of Republican presidential contenders had been elected – and had this much success in this short amount of time – these same Never Trumpers would be working for the president rather than against him?
Yet the “conservative” resistance continues against the man delivering all the conservative results, and their whining grows staler by the minute.
With every promise President Trump keeps to conservatives who took a chance on him, the background noise from the GOP Never Trumpers sounds increasingly muffled – as it should, because the Never Trumpers are like ostriches with their heads buried beneath the ground.
The longer the Never Trumpers choose to dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge that President Trump is making good on everything he said he’d do, the more credibility they lose.
We’ve heard the Trump haters in the GOP say they don’t like him because he’s – take your pick – not conservative enough (which is utter nonsense at this point); not a politician; or not “presidential” enough.
Perhaps these Never Trumpers are plagued with short-term memories, because some previous Republican nominees could hardly be considered conservative or, in some cases, presidential.
President Trump is unconventional, for sure – and that’s exactly why the American people elected him. He is an outside-the-box, entrepreneurial politician who shakes up business as usual –and delivers results.
If President Trump is re-elected, it’s likely he could have a third – and maybe even a fourth – Supreme Court seat to fill. Conservatives saw this in 2016 when they went to the polls, and that’s why many voted based on this issue and didn’t hesitate to cast ballots for Trump. They knew what was at stake.
Following his nomination to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch said: “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers, rather than those the law demands.”
This kind of deference to the rule of law and the Constitution is exactly what conservatives were hoping for in a Supreme Court nominee when they voted for President Trump. Conservatives want justices who fairly apply the law and don’t make it up from the bench, and who protect our freedoms.
The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. Justice Gorsuch understands that. As the names that have been floated as potential Supreme Court nominees seem to indicate, President Trump appears to understand that as well.
If those 57 percent “Supreme Court issue” voters had chosen to jump on the Never Trump bandwagon within the GOP, simply because they didn’t like the guy, we’d be looking at a Supreme Court being stacked with judicial activists who’d chip away at our freedom by rewriting the Constitution into whatever suits their political whims.
If the GOP Never Trump crowd truly wants to stand up for conservative principles they should stand with the president. He’s standing with us.
Lauren DeBellis Appell, a freelance writer in Fairfax, Virginia, was deputy press secretary for then-Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in his successful 2000 re-election campaign, as well as assistant communications director for the Senate Republican Policy Committee (2001-2003).
Sex and relationships expert explains what he thinks is going on with Melania Trump - Independent
July 6, 2018
Sex and relationships expert explains what he thinks is going on with Melania Trump
Posted 5 months ago by Mimi Launder in people
UPVOTE
Throughout US history, the first couple at least attempted to make a show of happy families.
But, in a presidency of many firsts, Donald Trump's wife Melania has been spotted grinning the moment her husband looks away, appearing to slap his hand away and, more recently, apparently ignoring him.
University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz, a sex and relationships expert, thinks the evidence speaks for itself, he explained to Los Angeles Times.
These people are under constant scrutiny. Has anyone ever seen a loving gesture between them?
Recent weeks have put the President and First Lady's relationship under particularly stringent scrutiny.
Donald Trump was alleged to have had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford - a charge he denies.
In the wake of the scandal, Melania cancelled plans to travel with her husband to the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, amid reports she had been sleeping at a Washington DC hotel.
On Friday, the First Lady travelled alone Andrews Air Force Base rather than with her husband, citing a scheduling issue.
HT Los Angeles Times
Sex and relationships expert explains what he thinks is going on with Melania Trump
Posted 5 months ago by Mimi Launder in people
UPVOTE
Throughout US history, the first couple at least attempted to make a show of happy families.
But, in a presidency of many firsts, Donald Trump's wife Melania has been spotted grinning the moment her husband looks away, appearing to slap his hand away and, more recently, apparently ignoring him.
University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz, a sex and relationships expert, thinks the evidence speaks for itself, he explained to Los Angeles Times.
These people are under constant scrutiny. Has anyone ever seen a loving gesture between them?
Recent weeks have put the President and First Lady's relationship under particularly stringent scrutiny.
Donald Trump was alleged to have had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford - a charge he denies.
In the wake of the scandal, Melania cancelled plans to travel with her husband to the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, amid reports she had been sleeping at a Washington DC hotel.
On Friday, the First Lady travelled alone Andrews Air Force Base rather than with her husband, citing a scheduling issue.
HT Los Angeles Times
Trump wants Warren to prove her Native American heritage. Could she? - MSNBC News
Fact check: Trump wants Warren to prove her Native American heritage. Could she?
The Democratic senator has said she stands by stories about her ancestors she was told as a child. Here's what we know, and what we don't.
by Jane C. Timm / Jul.07.2018 / 12:52 AM ET / Updated 1:23 AM ET
President Donald Trump escalated a familiar attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren Thursday night, mocking the Massachusetts Democrat and leading potential 2020 rival for her claim of Native American heritage.
He revived his nickname for her — "the fake Pocahontas" — and told the crowd at his Montana campaign rally that should the two find themselves on a debate stage, he would challenge her to submit to genetic testing to prove that she has Native American ancestors.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
JUL.06.201802:44
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian," he said. "I have a feeling she will say no."
Warren immediately shot back: "While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas," she wrote on Twitter, a reference to the migrant children who have been separated from their parents at the southern border because of a Trump administration policy.
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma
Hey, @realDonaldTrump: While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas & you are too incompetent to reunite them in time to meet a court order. Maybe you should focus on fixing the lives you're destroying.
9:52 AM - Jul 6, 2018
Still, Warren has come under frequent fire — from Trump and others — for her still-unproven claims of Native American heritage.
Here's what we know about her ancestry, what experts say and what a DNA test would show.
HOW DID THE DEBATE OVER WARREN'S HERITAGE START?
Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma, land that was once Indian Territory, reportedly listed herself in a directory as a minority professor for nine years (from 1986 to 1995) before eventually landing a job at Harvard.
During Warren's hotly contested Senate bid in Massachusetts in 2012, The Boston Herald uncovered a 1996 student newspaper article quoting a Harvard Law School spokesman who boasted that Warren, who was a professor, was Native American. Her campaign scrambled and failed to offer conclusive proof for the claim, which Warren said stemmed from stories her mother told her as a child.
"Being Native American is part of who our family is and I'm glad to tell anyone about that. I am just very proud of it," Warren told reporters at the time.
In a campaign ad, Warren said she had never asked her mom for documentation that her family was part-Cherokee and part-Delaware, but that it was the reason her parents had to elope.
WHAT DO HER CRITICS SAY?
Political rivals over the years have attempted to paint Warren as a liar and an opportunist.
"Elizabeth Warren said she was a Native American, a person of color," then-Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said of Warren during one 2012 debate. "As you can see, she's not."
Warren defends Native American references: 'It's a part of me'
MAR.12.201802:06
After Warren emerged as a harsh Trump critic during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump took to calling her "Pocahontas," the name of a storied Native American woman.
"She used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud. I know it. Other people who work with her know it. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud," the president told NBC News during his presidential bid.
Native American leaders have said the "Pocahontas" nickname is culturally insensitive and racist. Warren herself called it a slur.
WOULD A DNA TEST PROVE HER CLAIMS?
Probably not, and Warren said on NBC News' "Meet the Press" in a March interview she will not take one.
DNA tests are not widely accepted as proof of tribal citizenship — in part because the DNA could not show a specific tribe, only some genetic markers from Native people — and are more unreliable for Native Americans than for large ancestral regions like Asia or Africa.
“The reality is she could take a DNA test and have Native ancestry and have it not show up because it depends on which branches of the family tree it’s in and how far back,” Smolenyak said. “That test is very good for finding stuff out going back five, six generations. If you have one great-great-great-great-grant-great grandmother, it’s not going to show.”
WHAT DO HISTORIANS AND GENEALOGISTS SAY?
Native Americans are still the second-largest minority group in Oklahoma, according to the 2010 Census, and tales of Native ancestry are common, experts said.
"My family has a narrative that we're Choctaw, but we don’t have any proof of that," Larry O'Dell, the Oklahoma Historical Society's director of special projects and development, said when asked about tracing Native heritage. "My boss and I were talking earlier, and he has the same kind of narrative. It's just sort of the way it is in Oklahoma."
Independent genealogist Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, who has traced former first lady Michelle Obama's family back to slaves and former President Barack Obama's ancestors to Ireland, said one of the biggest myths in genealogy is how many families believe their ancestor was a Cherokee princess.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
Thai diver dies amid cave rescue of trapped soccer team
"It's always Cherokee, and it's always a princess," she said.
More than 819,000 people told the 2010 Census they are at least part Cherokee, despite the nation’s three federally recognized Cherokee tribes only having half as many members.
Laura Martin, a deputy director for the Oklahoma Historical Society's research division, said 98 percent of visitors to their library are hunting down ties to Native American heritage. But in order to obtain documentation that's registered by tribes or the U.S. government, ancestors must be listed on historical registers like the Dawes Rolls, which the federal government used to distribute communal tribal land to individual Indians who enrolled between 1898–1906.
"We can help you find federal Census records, marriage records, death records, things like that, but if they did not sign up [on official documents], it kind of ends there," Martin said.
DID HER SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITY STATUS HELP HER CAREER?
Warren has adamantly insisted that she never used her heritage to get ahead, and there’s no evidence that it was a deciding factor in her employment at Harvard.
"That's totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong," the Harvard Law School professor who recruited her for the position, Charles Fried, told The Associated Press in 2012. "I presented her case to the faculty. I did not mention her Native American connection because I did not know about it.”
Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, reportedly donated to her Senate campaign.
SO, IS WARREN ACTUALLY NATIVE AMERICAN?
There is no documented proof that Warren is descended from Native Americans.
Warren has not provided any. Genealogists who have investigated her history have found her relatives to be listed as white in historical documents like the Census and do not appear in the Indian documents typically used to verify claims of Native American ancestry, like the Dawes Rolls.
The New England Historic Genealogical Society initially said they had proof that she was 1/32nd Native American, only to later backtrack and say they did not have definitive proof. They declined to comment for this story.
Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes traced Warren's maternal family back four generations to the turn of the 19th century; the records listed all members as white. She could not find Warren’s family in any of the 45 Indian records and documents she reviewed for a detailed report.
Trump calls Warren
NOV.28.201706:48
This doesn't mean that Warren is not Native American — some Native Americans were not listed in the Dawes Rolls, for instance, or her ancestors could be from well before those records — but it does mean that there is no evidence that she is, either.
Accordingly, she would not be eligible for citizenship in Indian tribes like Cherokee Nation, as they commonly require a direct ancestor to be listed on those records.
"The fact that it hasn’t been substantiated doesn't 100 percent mean it won't be substantiated," Smolenyak told NBC News, six years after she first started looking into Warren's family. "But … you would have hoped for some proof within this time frame."
Warren, in a speech this year to a Native American group, addressed the controversy and said she stands by the stories she was told as a child.
"I get why some people think there's hay to be made here. You won’t find my family members on any rolls, and I'm not enrolled in a tribe," she said. But, she added, "my parents were real people."
The Democratic senator has said she stands by stories about her ancestors she was told as a child. Here's what we know, and what we don't.
by Jane C. Timm / Jul.07.2018 / 12:52 AM ET / Updated 1:23 AM ET
President Donald Trump escalated a familiar attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren Thursday night, mocking the Massachusetts Democrat and leading potential 2020 rival for her claim of Native American heritage.
He revived his nickname for her — "the fake Pocahontas" — and told the crowd at his Montana campaign rally that should the two find themselves on a debate stage, he would challenge her to submit to genetic testing to prove that she has Native American ancestors.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
JUL.06.201802:44
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian," he said. "I have a feeling she will say no."
Warren immediately shot back: "While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas," she wrote on Twitter, a reference to the migrant children who have been separated from their parents at the southern border because of a Trump administration policy.
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma
Hey, @realDonaldTrump: While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas & you are too incompetent to reunite them in time to meet a court order. Maybe you should focus on fixing the lives you're destroying.
9:52 AM - Jul 6, 2018
Still, Warren has come under frequent fire — from Trump and others — for her still-unproven claims of Native American heritage.
Here's what we know about her ancestry, what experts say and what a DNA test would show.
HOW DID THE DEBATE OVER WARREN'S HERITAGE START?
Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma, land that was once Indian Territory, reportedly listed herself in a directory as a minority professor for nine years (from 1986 to 1995) before eventually landing a job at Harvard.
During Warren's hotly contested Senate bid in Massachusetts in 2012, The Boston Herald uncovered a 1996 student newspaper article quoting a Harvard Law School spokesman who boasted that Warren, who was a professor, was Native American. Her campaign scrambled and failed to offer conclusive proof for the claim, which Warren said stemmed from stories her mother told her as a child.
"Being Native American is part of who our family is and I'm glad to tell anyone about that. I am just very proud of it," Warren told reporters at the time.
In a campaign ad, Warren said she had never asked her mom for documentation that her family was part-Cherokee and part-Delaware, but that it was the reason her parents had to elope.
WHAT DO HER CRITICS SAY?
Political rivals over the years have attempted to paint Warren as a liar and an opportunist.
"Elizabeth Warren said she was a Native American, a person of color," then-Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said of Warren during one 2012 debate. "As you can see, she's not."
Warren defends Native American references: 'It's a part of me'
MAR.12.201802:06
After Warren emerged as a harsh Trump critic during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump took to calling her "Pocahontas," the name of a storied Native American woman.
"She used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud. I know it. Other people who work with her know it. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud," the president told NBC News during his presidential bid.
Native American leaders have said the "Pocahontas" nickname is culturally insensitive and racist. Warren herself called it a slur.
WOULD A DNA TEST PROVE HER CLAIMS?
Probably not, and Warren said on NBC News' "Meet the Press" in a March interview she will not take one.
DNA tests are not widely accepted as proof of tribal citizenship — in part because the DNA could not show a specific tribe, only some genetic markers from Native people — and are more unreliable for Native Americans than for large ancestral regions like Asia or Africa.
“The reality is she could take a DNA test and have Native ancestry and have it not show up because it depends on which branches of the family tree it’s in and how far back,” Smolenyak said. “That test is very good for finding stuff out going back five, six generations. If you have one great-great-great-great-grant-great grandmother, it’s not going to show.”
WHAT DO HISTORIANS AND GENEALOGISTS SAY?
Native Americans are still the second-largest minority group in Oklahoma, according to the 2010 Census, and tales of Native ancestry are common, experts said.
"My family has a narrative that we're Choctaw, but we don’t have any proof of that," Larry O'Dell, the Oklahoma Historical Society's director of special projects and development, said when asked about tracing Native heritage. "My boss and I were talking earlier, and he has the same kind of narrative. It's just sort of the way it is in Oklahoma."
Independent genealogist Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, who has traced former first lady Michelle Obama's family back to slaves and former President Barack Obama's ancestors to Ireland, said one of the biggest myths in genealogy is how many families believe their ancestor was a Cherokee princess.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
Thai diver dies amid cave rescue of trapped soccer team
"It's always Cherokee, and it's always a princess," she said.
More than 819,000 people told the 2010 Census they are at least part Cherokee, despite the nation’s three federally recognized Cherokee tribes only having half as many members.
Laura Martin, a deputy director for the Oklahoma Historical Society's research division, said 98 percent of visitors to their library are hunting down ties to Native American heritage. But in order to obtain documentation that's registered by tribes or the U.S. government, ancestors must be listed on historical registers like the Dawes Rolls, which the federal government used to distribute communal tribal land to individual Indians who enrolled between 1898–1906.
"We can help you find federal Census records, marriage records, death records, things like that, but if they did not sign up [on official documents], it kind of ends there," Martin said.
DID HER SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITY STATUS HELP HER CAREER?
Warren has adamantly insisted that she never used her heritage to get ahead, and there’s no evidence that it was a deciding factor in her employment at Harvard.
"That's totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong," the Harvard Law School professor who recruited her for the position, Charles Fried, told The Associated Press in 2012. "I presented her case to the faculty. I did not mention her Native American connection because I did not know about it.”
Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, reportedly donated to her Senate campaign.
SO, IS WARREN ACTUALLY NATIVE AMERICAN?
There is no documented proof that Warren is descended from Native Americans.
Warren has not provided any. Genealogists who have investigated her history have found her relatives to be listed as white in historical documents like the Census and do not appear in the Indian documents typically used to verify claims of Native American ancestry, like the Dawes Rolls.
The New England Historic Genealogical Society initially said they had proof that she was 1/32nd Native American, only to later backtrack and say they did not have definitive proof. They declined to comment for this story.
Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes traced Warren's maternal family back four generations to the turn of the 19th century; the records listed all members as white. She could not find Warren’s family in any of the 45 Indian records and documents she reviewed for a detailed report.
Trump calls Warren
NOV.28.201706:48
This doesn't mean that Warren is not Native American — some Native Americans were not listed in the Dawes Rolls, for instance, or her ancestors could be from well before those records — but it does mean that there is no evidence that she is, either.
Accordingly, she would not be eligible for citizenship in Indian tribes like Cherokee Nation, as they commonly require a direct ancestor to be listed on those records.
"The fact that it hasn’t been substantiated doesn't 100 percent mean it won't be substantiated," Smolenyak told NBC News, six years after she first started looking into Warren's family. "But … you would have hoped for some proof within this time frame."
Warren, in a speech this year to a Native American group, addressed the controversy and said she stands by the stories she was told as a child.
"I get why some people think there's hay to be made here. You won’t find my family members on any rolls, and I'm not enrolled in a tribe," she said. But, she added, "my parents were real people."
Woman behind Trudeau groping allegations stands by account - BBC News
Woman behind Trudeau groping allegations stands by account
7 July 2018
Mr Trudeau says he remembers the event, but does not recall any "negative interactions"
The woman who accused Canadian PM Justin Trudeau 18 years ago of groping her says she stands by her account.
She released a statement on Friday to CBC News, her first public comment on the allegations that resurfaced over a month ago.
She said the incident, described in August 2000 in an editorial in a local newspaper "did occur, as reported".
Mr Trudeau has denied any wrongdoing, saying he is confident he did "not act inappropriately".
The woman was a journalist at the time and covering an event attended by Mr Trudeau.
The editorial and its allegations resurfaced after a blogger posted an image of the article on Twitter in June.
Warren Kinsella
✔
@kinsellawarren
Um, what? #cdnpoli #loc #MeToo
9:25 AM - Jun 7, 2018
The event in Creston, British Columbia, was held to raise money for an avalanche safety charity with which Mr Trudeau was involved.
Days afterwards, an unsigned editorial appeared in a local paper, accusing him of "groping" a young female reporter.
Mr Trudeau first responded to the nearly 20-year-old incident on 1 July when questioned by journalists.
Trudeau denies groping allegations
Trudeau defends asylum seeker policy
Trudeau faces PC 'peoplekind' backlash
The prime minister said he did not recall any "negative interactions" at the event, though he said he remembered the day in Creston well.
On Thursday, the prime minister offered a more detailed response.
"I have been reflecting very carefully on what I remember," he said. "I feel I am confident I did not act inappropriately."
Mr Trudeau said if he apologised at the time it was because he must have sensed the woman in question felt differently about their interaction.
"The same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next," he said.
Published in the Creston Valley Advance newspaper, the piece accused Mr Trudeau of "inappropriately handling" the reporter, who felt "blatantly disrespected" by the actions, which were not described.
According to the editorial, Mr Trudeau apologised for his behaviour and said: "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."
Mr Trudeau, the son of one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers, Pierre Trudeau, was a 28-year-old teacher at the time of the event.
He became involved with the charity Avalanche Foundation after his brother Michel died in an avalanche in 1998.
In her statement, the woman - who has not been named - confirmed Mr Trudeau did issue an apology to her on the day after the festival, as was published in the editorial.
"I did not pursue the incident at the time and will not be pursuing the incident further," she said.
"Beyond this statement, I will not be providing any further details or information. The debate, if it continues, will continue without my involvement."
7 July 2018
Mr Trudeau says he remembers the event, but does not recall any "negative interactions"
The woman who accused Canadian PM Justin Trudeau 18 years ago of groping her says she stands by her account.
She released a statement on Friday to CBC News, her first public comment on the allegations that resurfaced over a month ago.
She said the incident, described in August 2000 in an editorial in a local newspaper "did occur, as reported".
Mr Trudeau has denied any wrongdoing, saying he is confident he did "not act inappropriately".
The woman was a journalist at the time and covering an event attended by Mr Trudeau.
The editorial and its allegations resurfaced after a blogger posted an image of the article on Twitter in June.
Warren Kinsella
✔
@kinsellawarren
Um, what? #cdnpoli #loc #MeToo
9:25 AM - Jun 7, 2018
The event in Creston, British Columbia, was held to raise money for an avalanche safety charity with which Mr Trudeau was involved.
Days afterwards, an unsigned editorial appeared in a local paper, accusing him of "groping" a young female reporter.
Mr Trudeau first responded to the nearly 20-year-old incident on 1 July when questioned by journalists.
Trudeau denies groping allegations
Trudeau defends asylum seeker policy
Trudeau faces PC 'peoplekind' backlash
The prime minister said he did not recall any "negative interactions" at the event, though he said he remembered the day in Creston well.
On Thursday, the prime minister offered a more detailed response.
"I have been reflecting very carefully on what I remember," he said. "I feel I am confident I did not act inappropriately."
Mr Trudeau said if he apologised at the time it was because he must have sensed the woman in question felt differently about their interaction.
"The same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next," he said.
Published in the Creston Valley Advance newspaper, the piece accused Mr Trudeau of "inappropriately handling" the reporter, who felt "blatantly disrespected" by the actions, which were not described.
According to the editorial, Mr Trudeau apologised for his behaviour and said: "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."
Mr Trudeau, the son of one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers, Pierre Trudeau, was a 28-year-old teacher at the time of the event.
He became involved with the charity Avalanche Foundation after his brother Michel died in an avalanche in 1998.
In her statement, the woman - who has not been named - confirmed Mr Trudeau did issue an apology to her on the day after the festival, as was published in the editorial.
"I did not pursue the incident at the time and will not be pursuing the incident further," she said.
"Beyond this statement, I will not be providing any further details or information. The debate, if it continues, will continue without my involvement."
China and Russia hit back at Trump tariffs - BBC News
China and Russia hit back at Trump tariffs
6 July 2018
US lobsters are among goods subject to Chinese retaliatory tariffs
China has hit back after US tariffs on Chinese goods came into effect and President Donald Trump threatened to impose more.
China's commerce ministry said it had lodged a new complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Meanwhile, Russia has announced extra duties on US imports in retaliation for earlier US steel tariffs.
Beijing has accused the US of starting the "largest trade war in economic history".
US tariffs on $34bn (£25.7bn) of Chinese goods came into effect on Friday.
China retaliated by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products - including cars, soya beans and lobsters - also worth a total of $34bn.
Russia is introducing extra duties on a range of products imported from the US that can be replaced by locally made equivalents.
They include road-building equipment, products for the oil and gas industry, and tools used in mining.
Media captionWhy the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
Mr Trump has already imposed tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, and started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
The US tariffs imposed so far would affect the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and account for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley.
What is President Trump threatening?
The US president said America might target Chinese goods worth $500bn - the total value of Chinese imports in 2017.
The White House had previously said it would consult on tariffs on another $16bn of products, which Mr Trump has suggested could come into effect later this month.
Mr Trump said: "You have another 16 [billion dollars] in two weeks, and then, as you know, we have $200bn in abeyance and then after the $200bn, we have $300bn in abeyance. OK? So we have 50 plus 200 plus almost 300."
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Donald Trump says US tariffs will protect US jobs
The American tariffs are the result of Mr Trump's attempt to protect US jobs and stop what he calls "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China".
A conflicted administration
By Tara McKelvey, White House reporter
Behind the trade war, there is conflict within the Trump administration. Hardliners such as Peter Navarro, a trade policy adviser, says the US is defending itself against an "aggressive" China. Meanwhile, some of the officials who previously worked for the Obama administration - known as "holdovers" - are hoping to tamp down the US-China conflict.
The tension between these factions is occasionally on display in the West Wing. I've seen two hardliners struggle over a podium, vying for a chance to broadcast Trump's harsh message on economic issues, while the holdovers sit quietly at the side of the room.
This reflects a larger division in the White House: Trump and his closest aides are trying to bring about radical change, while those who support a more cautious approach find themselves sitting in silence.
What do China and Russia say?
"Trade war is never a solution," said Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. "China would never start a trade war, but if any party resorts to an increase of tariffs then China will take measures in response to protect development interests."
The government-run English language China Daily newspaper said: "The Trump administration is behaving like a gang of hoodlums with its shakedown of other countries, particularly China."
Russia says US tariffs on steel and aluminium, introduced in March, will cost its companies more than half a billion dollars.
Will there be a full-scale trade war?
Analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecast only a modest escalation in the US-China battle, adding: "However, we can't rule out a full-blown, recession-inducing 'trade war'."
Rob Carnell, chief Asia economist at ING, said: "This is not economic Armageddon. We will not have to hunt our food with pointy sticks.
"But it is applying the brakes to a global economy that has less durable momentum than appears to be the case."
Carmaker BMW said it could not absorb all of the 25% tariff on the cars it exports to China from a plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina and would have to raise prices.
The new tariffs had little impact on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite closed 0.5% higher, but ended the week 3.5% lower - its seventh consecutive week of losses.
Tokyo closed 1.1% higher and European markets were up more than 1% in morning trading before turning negative on Friday afternoon.
6 July 2018
US lobsters are among goods subject to Chinese retaliatory tariffs
China has hit back after US tariffs on Chinese goods came into effect and President Donald Trump threatened to impose more.
China's commerce ministry said it had lodged a new complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Meanwhile, Russia has announced extra duties on US imports in retaliation for earlier US steel tariffs.
Beijing has accused the US of starting the "largest trade war in economic history".
US tariffs on $34bn (£25.7bn) of Chinese goods came into effect on Friday.
China retaliated by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products - including cars, soya beans and lobsters - also worth a total of $34bn.
Russia is introducing extra duties on a range of products imported from the US that can be replaced by locally made equivalents.
They include road-building equipment, products for the oil and gas industry, and tools used in mining.
Media captionWhy the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
Mr Trump has already imposed tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, and started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
The US tariffs imposed so far would affect the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and account for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley.
What is President Trump threatening?
The US president said America might target Chinese goods worth $500bn - the total value of Chinese imports in 2017.
The White House had previously said it would consult on tariffs on another $16bn of products, which Mr Trump has suggested could come into effect later this month.
Mr Trump said: "You have another 16 [billion dollars] in two weeks, and then, as you know, we have $200bn in abeyance and then after the $200bn, we have $300bn in abeyance. OK? So we have 50 plus 200 plus almost 300."
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Donald Trump says US tariffs will protect US jobs
The American tariffs are the result of Mr Trump's attempt to protect US jobs and stop what he calls "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China".
A conflicted administration
By Tara McKelvey, White House reporter
Behind the trade war, there is conflict within the Trump administration. Hardliners such as Peter Navarro, a trade policy adviser, says the US is defending itself against an "aggressive" China. Meanwhile, some of the officials who previously worked for the Obama administration - known as "holdovers" - are hoping to tamp down the US-China conflict.
The tension between these factions is occasionally on display in the West Wing. I've seen two hardliners struggle over a podium, vying for a chance to broadcast Trump's harsh message on economic issues, while the holdovers sit quietly at the side of the room.
This reflects a larger division in the White House: Trump and his closest aides are trying to bring about radical change, while those who support a more cautious approach find themselves sitting in silence.
What do China and Russia say?
"Trade war is never a solution," said Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. "China would never start a trade war, but if any party resorts to an increase of tariffs then China will take measures in response to protect development interests."
The government-run English language China Daily newspaper said: "The Trump administration is behaving like a gang of hoodlums with its shakedown of other countries, particularly China."
Russia says US tariffs on steel and aluminium, introduced in March, will cost its companies more than half a billion dollars.
Will there be a full-scale trade war?
Analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecast only a modest escalation in the US-China battle, adding: "However, we can't rule out a full-blown, recession-inducing 'trade war'."
Rob Carnell, chief Asia economist at ING, said: "This is not economic Armageddon. We will not have to hunt our food with pointy sticks.
"But it is applying the brakes to a global economy that has less durable momentum than appears to be the case."
Carmaker BMW said it could not absorb all of the 25% tariff on the cars it exports to China from a plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina and would have to raise prices.
The new tariffs had little impact on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite closed 0.5% higher, but ended the week 3.5% lower - its seventh consecutive week of losses.
Tokyo closed 1.1% higher and European markets were up more than 1% in morning trading before turning negative on Friday afternoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
