Donald Trump Isolated, Vulnerable After Key Aide Hope Hicks' Departure - NDTV

Donald Trump Isolated, Vulnerable After Key Aide Hope Hicks' Departure

He may find that being president -- a difficult task at the best of times -- may be impossible alone.

World | Agence France-Presse | Updated: March 02, 2018 05:52 IST

by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored

Top 30 Home Loans Online. Compare Rates From 3.69% p.a. Interest & Comparison* (Lendi)

Make waves with a conference in New Zealand. (Tourism New Zealand)

Donald Trump Isolated, Vulnerable After Key Aide Hope Hicks' Departure

Hope Hicks was a rare outsider invited inside the Trump clan (file)

WASHINGTON: The shock departure of Donald Trump's top aide Hope Hicks from the White House has rattled an already demoralized staff and left the US president dangerously isolated.

There is, as Barack Obama once said, "a certain loneliness to the job" of being America's president.

Abraham Lincoln, no doubt, felt it when his son Willie died -- his wife beset with grief, his cabinet quarreling and the nation engaged in an great civil war.

Richard Nixon certainly felt it amid the invasion of Cambodia, when he sat alone in the White House at 4:00 am with Rachmaninoff blaring, and then made a mumbling pre-dawn visit to the Lincoln Memorial.

And Trump must feel it now, as his administration bleeds trusted staff and lurches from crisis to crisis.

There have been many high-profile departures from Trump's revolving-door White House, from pivotal figures like chief of staff Reince Priebus to Omarosa Manigault-Newman, whose job was never clear and impact was scarcely felt.

But Hope Hicks' exit is different.

Hicks spent three years with Trump -- a long time in Trumpworld -- but even before that, she earned the family's trust by working for the president's daughter Ivanka.

She was a rare outsider invited inside the clan.

In the White House, there was no problem big or small that the 29-year-old former model, whom Trump affectionately called "Hopey," could not handle.

Others who played a similar role, like physically imposing bodyguard Keith Schiller -- whom Trump trusted enough to hand-deliver the letter firing then FBI director James Comey -- have also departed.

Both Hicks and Schiller understood the 71-year-old president's habits. They knew when he needed a Diet Coke, when to press him and when to let him vent.

Looking around the West Wing, Trump now sees few faces he really trusts.

Few Team Trump originals left

Even his close family, like scandal-enmeshed son-in-law Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka, seem like they are not long for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Kushner has been stripped of his top secret clearance and his future as Middle East peace envoy is in serious doubt.

Trump's public appearances with wife Melania have been few and far between and notably cool since it emerged that his lawyer paid a porn star $130,000 in supposed hush money.

The only "original" left in the inner circle is Trump's tweeting partner and one-time caddy Dan Scavino. He is the White House's director of social media -- and constantly at the president's side.

Beyond the narrowing inner circle, Trump has approached his broader political court like Lord Palmerston on steroids -- living by the British statesman's dictum that "there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests."

He has repeatedly lashed out at Attorney General Jeff Sessions who, as a senator, opened the door for official in Washington to back his controversial presidential bid.

He denounced his former chief strategist and eminence grise as "Sloppy Steve Bannon," ridiculing him publicly because he "cried when he got fired and begged for his job."

Would-be allies are realizing when backed into a corner, Trump has almost always chosen fight over flight, whether that is the prudent strategy or not.

'Morale is terrible'

Not even Trump's interests are permanent.

Republicans around the White House Cabinet Room on Wednesday, at a meeting on gun control, exchanged knowing looks as the president displayed only the very slightest grasp of the subject.

That smugness turned to bewilderment as he shattered long-standing party opposition to gun control and threatened to strip people of weapons without due process.

On Thursday, he repeated the performance, undoing decades of Republican orthodoxy on trade and announcing sanctions that could prompt a trade war with China and Europe.

The decision was reportedly made without the knowledge of supposedly key aides like chief economic advisor Gary Cohn and chief of staff John Kelly.

Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, on Thursday joked darkly about how he got the job: "I did something wrong and God punished me, I guess."

This type of drama has left the president with few friends and many enemies as he confronts scandals and crises too numerous to list.

All the while, the drumbeat of Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election reverberates along the corridors of the White House.

"The morale inside the White House," former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said, "the morale is terrible."

"I predict more departures," he said.

As a former reality TV star, Trump may feel the burden and the inherent loneliness of the Oval Office less acutely than his predecessors.

He is, after all, the only modern president who never walked down the street to grab a cup of coffee, or went for drinks with friends before he entered the White House.

But loneliness is one thing -- political isolation is a different matter altogether.

COMMENTSTrump may yet find that being president -- a difficult task at the best of times -- may be impossible alone.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Why Italy's Election Is Such a Mess - Bloomberg

Why Italy's Election Is Such a Mess

An interview with Hans Noel, a political scientist based in Florence.

By

March 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+11

Familiar divisions. Photographer: Michele Spatari/NurPhoto via Getty Images

No one knows what will happen when Italy votes on March 5. Polling is inconclusive, and the electoral rules are brand-new. In an attempt to make some sense of the mess of parties and coalitions competing for power, I reached out (over email) to Hans Noel, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University and author of “Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America,” a study of coalition-building and elections. He is spending the year as faculty-in-residence at Villa Le Balze in Florence.

JONATHAN BERNSTEIN: Is Italy likely to come out of this election with any stable government at all?

HANS NOEL: As you know, I’m out of the prediction business, but no. Italy is very likely to come out of this election without a stable government at all. The problem is that there will be three factions with about a third of the vote. The center-right, a coalition that is itself divided roughly in half between Forza Italia and Lega, is likely to come in first, but they will need a coalition partner. The Five-Star Movement, which likely to be the single biggest party, but behind the center-right coalition, has generally said they don’t want to join with the other parties at all. It’s hard to see them align with anyone. The center-left coalition, led by the Partito Democratico, will be the smallest, but they are also the most centrist.

So one likely outcome is a coalition between the PD and Forza Italia (and some minor parties), perhaps led by the current PM, Gentiloni. That is, a continuation of the existing caretaker government. A grand coalition like that one probably won’t last long. FI and PD just have goals that are too different. Other grand coalitions would seem just as unstable. Any coalition with the M5S seems very hard to predict, since their platform keeps shifting.

JB: That would seem to make it difficult for anyone trying to guess what kinds of policies, especially economic policies, to expect going forward. If it is a grand coalition including the PD, does that mean a continuation of the status quo on Europe and other economic policy for as long as the coalition lasts?

HN: Definitely hard to predict. One stabilizing force is that even Forza Italia is more moderate on Europe than most of its coalition. So if PD and FI are in the coalition, they may put the brakes on any kind of reduced relationship with Europe, under whatever nickname we’d give it. The Lega and (probably) M5S would like to see less deference to Europe, as they see it. But unless it’s a coalition of those two (not out of the question), then someone will likely hold them back for the time being.

Some are suggesting that an unstable grand coalition will lead to new elections very soon. If another election is on the horizon, then major policy change will probably be on hold.

JB: What about the possibility that instead of a centrist coalition, the outcome could be a full return of Silvio Berlusconi, perhaps in a coalition with the far right? Is that plausible, and if so, what are the policy implications?

HN: This is definitely plausible.

Part of what makes forecasting tricky is that Italy has a new electoral system. The best estimates I have seen suggest that the center-right will come up just short of being able to form a coalition. But they will be the closet.

Berlusconi’s Forza Italia is running in a pre-electoral coalition with the far-right Lega (Also in the coalition is the centrist Noi Con Italia, Us With Italy, and the far-right Fratelli d’Italia, or Brothers of Italy). Who leads this coalition depends a little on whether the Lega or FI come in first. But Berlusconi is himself barred from holding office. He’s campaigning as if he’s the candidate, but if they form a government, someone else needs to run it. The most likely choice, although far from assured, is Antonio Tajani. Tajani is the current president of the European Parliament, so he’s probably not going to lead the effort to dismantle Italy’s relationship with Europe. The Lega leader, Salvini, would like to do that, though, and he’d plausibly be a leader of such a coalition, or could make enough of a case to extract some policy or portfolio concessions.

On economic policy, you would be more likely to see less internal tension and thus support for free-market policies and lower taxes.

JB: Taking a step back: What’s the underlying cause of all this instability? Is it a reflection of underlying divisions within the Italian electorate? A consequence of flawed constitutional design? Or is something else going on?

HN: It’s hard to say, but there are several possibilities. One is just the multidimensional nature of polarization in the Italian party system. I don’t think the Italian electorate is all the more divided than the U.S. electorate is. But with the ability for the system to reflect all the potential divides, we ended up with three major poles instead of two. The M5S is an anti-system party that is sort of a marriage of the Trump and Sanders supporters of 2016. They dislike the mainstream parties of the right and the left, and the feeling is mutual. But the left and right division itself remains significant. In a less proportional system, these divisions might be forced to form large governing coalitions.

Of course, parliamentary systems have long been able to deal with smaller parties. Coalition governments are common. And even when things get complicated, as they are in Germany right now, they can usually work out an arrangement. The real issue is how much disdain the mainstream parties have for the likely largest party, the insurgent M5S.

Italy also has a second factor, which is the constitutional requirements for a government. The government needs support from both chambers of parliament. The reform referendum from two years ago was supposed to help streamline things, but it failed.

But some of what is happening is unique to this new electoral system. The previous system had a first-place bonus that would have assured a majority for someone. But the current reform was implemented, presumably out of fear that M5S would win that bonus this time. Denying them a majority comes at the price of denying anyone a majority. So the irony is that this system, which might work just fine with a different constellation of parties, was implemented because of the outsider faction that makes things so complicated.

Trump steel tariffs: Trading partners threaten retaliation - BBC News

2/3/2018

Trump steel tariffs: Trading partners threaten retaliation

Trump on new tariffs: 'We haven't been treated fairly'

The main trading partners of the US have reacted angrily after President Donald Trump announced plans to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.

Canada and the EU said they would bring forward their own countermeasures to the steep new tariffs.

Mexico, China and Brazil have also said they are weighing up retaliatory steps.

Mr Trump tweeted that the US had been "decimated by unfair trade and bad policy". He said steel imports would face a 25% tariff and aluminium 10%.

However, critics argue that the tariffs would fail to protect American jobs and would ultimately put up prices for consumers.

The news sent shares in Asia down on Friday, with Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 losing more than 2% by mid-morning.

Shares in Japan's car-making giant Toyota were down more than 2% and Nippon Steel stocks down more than 4%.

Toyota said the US decision would "adversely impact automakers, the automotive supplier community and consumers".

President Trump ordered an investigation into the industry last April under a clause of a 1962 law, which grants the White House authority to restrict imports in the face of a national security threat.

The Commerce Department report found that imports were harming the domestic steel and aluminium industries, and could affect the defence industry, the Washington Post reported.

The decision on imposing tariffs rests with the President and does not need Congressional approval.

Steel tariffs: what impact will they really have?

What would China do in a US trade war?

Where Trump stands on world trade

What has the political reaction been?

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the tariffs would put thousands of European jobs at risk.

"We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures," he said. "The EU will react firmly and commensurately to defend our interests."

European steel factories, like this one in Germany, could be hit by the US tariffs

In Canada, the largest supplier of steel and aluminium to the US, trade minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said any tariffs would be "unacceptable".

Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland said Canada would take "responsive measures" if restrictions were imposed but did not give details.

In other reaction:

Brazil, also a large steel exporter to the US, threatened "multilateral or bilateral" action to protect its interests

Australia's trade minister Steven Ciobo said the imposition of such tariffs would distort trade "and ultimately... lead to a loss of jobs"

Germany's steel industry federation, WV Stahl, said the US measures violated the rules of the World Trade Organization and would have a major impact on Germany's steel market

How has China reacted?

The country which produces more than half the world's steel gave no immediate official response but there had already been indications it would consider some sort of retaliation.

Li Xinchuang, vice-secretary-general of the China Iron and Steel Association, said the impact on China would not be big, adding: "Nothing can be done about Trump. We are already numb to him."

Little Chinese steel directly reaches US ports, Reuters news agency notes, because of previous anti-dumping duties, designed to prevent countries from selling their products at prices deemed unfairly low.

But US steel industry executives say Chinese steel is still widely shipped to the US through third countries.

President Xi Jinping's top economic adviser, Liu He, met the Trump administration on Thursday for "frank and constructive" talks, a White House official said.

How did other markets respond?

In South Korea, America's third largest source of steel, shares in steelmaking giant Posco were down more than 3.5%. The benchmark Kospi index was down close to 1.5%.

In China, investors seemed less concerned about the new tariffs. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index was down 1.7%, while the Shanghai Composite was down 0.7%.

In Australia, the benchmark S&P/ASX 200 index had lost 1% by midday trade, dragged down by losses in commodities. Stocks in mining giant BHP Billiton were down more than 1.5%.

What did Trump say?

Mr Trump pledged to rebuild the US steel and aluminium industries which he said had suffered "disgraceful" treatment from other countries, in particular China, for decades.

"When our country can't make aluminium and steel... you almost don't have much of a country," he said.

"We need great steel makers, great aluminium makers for defence."

The US is reliant on steel imports from more than 100 nations

Mr Trump's announcement was slightly delayed amid reports of disagreement among his aides.

More than a dozen metals executives, including representatives from US Steel Corp and Arcelor Mittal, stood alongside him as he made the announcement.

During his presidential campaign, Mr Trump said that foreign countries were "dumping vast amounts of steel all over the United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and steel companies".

Since taking office he has said cheap imports from China are harming the viability of industry in the US.

What shape is the US steel industry in?

The US imports four times more steel than it exports and is reliant on steel from more than 100 nations.

The US Department of Energy says the steel industry is recovering after a slump following the 2008 financial crisis.

But it is an industry significantly weaker than it was at the turn of the millennium. In 2000 the US produced 112m tons of steel - a figure that had fallen to 86.5m tons in 2016.

In 2000, 135,000 people were employed in the industry - a figure that fell to 83,600 in 2016.

Why would Putin want to nuke Florida? - BBC News

Why would Putin want to nuke Florida?

1 March 2018

An animated video was shown at President Putin's annual address

President Putin has unveiled Russia's new stockpile of "invincible" nuclear weapons, with a video graphic appearing to show missiles raining on Florida.

But why would the Kremlin want to target the Sunshine State in the event of an atomic war?

Florida is home to tourist attractions such as Walt Disney World and the Everglades National Park.

But it also has high-profile targets including President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

A spokesman for the US Defence Department said the Pentagon was "not surprised" by Mr Putin's rhetoric.

"The American people should rest assured that we are fully prepared," said Dana White from the Pentagon, downplaying the Russian threat.

Vladimir Putin is up for re-election on March 18

Mr Putin's video shows a brief animation of multiple nuclear warheads heading for the Panhandle.

There are several nuclear bunkers at President Trump's Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, where he has spent a number of weekends since taking office.

The cereal heiress who built Mar-a-Lago in 1927 had three of them installed during the Korean War.

There is another bomb shelter at Mr Trump's golf course a few miles away in West Palm Beach (under the second hole, according to Esquire).

Another bunker was created for President John F Kennedy not far from Mar-a-Lago.

It is located on Peanut Island, a 10-minute journey from a Palm Beach house where Kennedy often stayed.

Yet no bunker, however brilliantly assembled, will survive a direct hit, say experts.

Another military target could be US Central Command, which is headquartered at MacDill Air Base in Tampa.

Known as Centcom, it is responsible for the operational theatre spanning parts of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa.

Where might Trump go in a nuclear attack?

Trump and the nuclear codes

Trump's longstanding nuclear fixation

America's iconic war machine

But analysts say that Florida is unlikely to be a prime target in the event of nuclear armageddon.

Matthew Kroenig, in his book The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy, writes that Russia's priority would be to blunt US retaliatory capability.

Moscow would probably target US nuclear silos at Malstrom Air Force Base in Montana, Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, the home of US Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska, and Warren Air Force Base, which straddles the borders of Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska, he says.

The Kremlin would also aim to wipe out America's two strategic submarine bases in Bangor, Washington, and King's Bay, Georgia, along with about 70 other US military bases around the country, Kroenig writes.

And it would fire two missiles at each of the 131 most populous US cities "to destroy industrial capability and inflict massive destruction", with a bullseye on the command and control centre of Washington DC.

Mark Fitzpatrick, from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the BBC: "This isn't a warfighting strategy, to have a video of attacking Florida.

"This is a message. The symbolism is in the video itself. It's a rhetorical flourish."