Psychiatrists tell Congress Donald Trump is 'a clear and present danger' to the world - Independent

Psychiatrists tell Congress Donald Trump is 'a clear and present danger' to the world

'It no longer takes a psychiatrist to recognise the alarming patterns of impulsive, reckless, and narcissistic behaviour,' group claims

A group of psychiatrists has written to Congress to warn Donald Trump poses a "clear and present danger" to the world.

Among them is Dr Bandy Lee, of Yale University, who is also reportedly consulting with Democratic members of Congress on setting up an expert panel to give advice on the President's mental health.

She is concerned by Mr Trump's "dangerousness", Dr Lee told USA Today.

Trump accused of 'ruinous' sellout over plan to shrink national parks

The group's letter, sent to members of both parties, said: "It no longer takes a psychiatrist to recognise the alarming patterns of impulsive, reckless, and narcissistic behaviour — regardless of diagnosis — that, in the person of President Trump, put the world at risk.

"We now find ourselves in a clear and present danger, especially concerning North Korea and the President’s command of the US nuclear arsenal."

Trump calls for unity one day after 75-minute rant at Arizona rally

It comes after Democrats proposed creating an 11-member, cross-party Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity which would be responsible for examining the US president’s mental and physical health.

First tabled by Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, and now backed by more than two dozen members of the House, the bill would see Mr Trump or any other US president forced from the Oval Office is he or she is deemed to be mentally or physically unfit for the role.

Discussion of Mr Trump's fitness to lead has intensified in the days since his extraordinary address to supporters in Phoenix, Arizona.

The President blasted "damned dishonest" journalists and took aim at both the state's Republican senators in a rambling speech, having abandoned his teleprompters.

He also revisited his various statements in the wake of far-right violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, reading portions to prove he had condemned white supremacists and had been misrepresented by the media.

These Are the 12 Employers Who Have Laid Off the Most Workers This Year - TIME

These Are the 12 Employers Who Have Laid Off the Most Workers This Year Posted: 24 Aug 2017 11:08 AM PDT Layoffs just keep coming in the retail sector. A slew of chains and mall mainstays like Macy’s, J. Crew, and Sears have announced layoffs, bankruptcies, and store closures in the past few years, a phenomenon analysts are calling the “retail apocalypse.” The closures are so severe, in fact, that research from Credit Suisse found 20 to “25% of all U.S. malls will close by 2022.” But other industries have also been hard hit this year. According to Challenger, Gray and Christmas, an outplacement firm, the energy sector has lost some 255,000 jobs in 2017. Below are the 12 companies laying off the most workers, according to data pulled from Challenger, Gray and Christmas by 24/7 Wall St. The numbers take into account worldwide job losses announced in 2017 through the end of July. 12. The State Department Layoffs: 2,300 Number of employees: 69,000 Though it’s technically not a business, the State Department, headed by former Exxon exec Rex Tillerson, will slash 9% of its workforce, according to Bloomberg, in an effort to cut its budget. The layoffs will take place over two years, and some people will receive buyouts. 11. Lowe’s Cos. Layoffs: 2,400 Number of employees: 290,000 Lowe’s cut 2,400 managers in January, and Fortune reports it will likely cut hundreds more jobs before the year is up. 10. The Hershey Company Layoffs: 2,697 Number of employees: 18,000 Hershey is cutting thousands of jobs worldwide, reducing its workforce by 15%. Fortune reports other food manufacturers like Kellogg and General Mills are also cutting jobs. 9. General Motors Layoffs: 2,700 Number of employees: 225,000 While 24/7 Wall Street’s tally accounts for 2,700 job losses in Venezuela, the car maker has announced thousands more layoffs in the states. According to CNN Money, GM announced in May that it will cut around 300 jobsin its plant in Warren, Mich., and notes that “(t)his is the fifth time that GM has eliminated a shift of work at a U.S. plant since last November, eliminating a total of about 5,000 jobs.” 8. Dollar Express Layoffs: 2,800 Number of employees: 0 Dollar Express was sold to Dollar General earlier this year, and many of its stores were shuttered. 7. Weatherford International Layoffs: 3,000 (worldwide; also cut 9,000 jobs in 2016) Number of employees: 39,500 As energy prices decline, Weatherford International, an oil-field service company, said it would cut around 3,000 jobs worldwide and close facilities in an effort to downsize and reduce its debt burden. Next year, it plans to sell its land drilling rigs business in the Middle East and North Africa, according to Fuel Fix. 6. Wet Seal Inc. Layoffs: 3,000 Number of employees: 0 (the company filed for bankruptcy in 2015) The retailer announced it would close its remaining 171 stores across 42 states in January. Wet Seal originally filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2015, but was unable to find a buyer or raise emergency capital in the ensuing time. 5. The Limited Layoffs: 4,000 Number of employees: 0 (closed all of its stores but will continue to do business online) Another victim of the retail apocalypse, the Limited closed all of its brick-and-mortars, though its online shop is “coming soon.” 4. State Farm Layoffs: 4,200 Number of employees: 70,000 The largest home and auto insurer in the country announced it would shut 11 facilities and cut some 4,200 jobs after a “$7 billion annual underwriting loss last year on auto policies,” per the Insurance Journal. 3. HHGregg Layoffs: 5,000 Number of employees: 0 HHGregg began liquidating all of its stores this year after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, reports the IndyStar. 2. JC Penney Layoffs: 5,500 Number of employees: 106,000 Earlier this year, JC Penney announced it would shutter 130 to 140 stores and two distribution centers and layoff almost 6,000 workers, some of whom would be offered buyouts. The company expects the cuts to amount to $200 million in savings. 1. Macy’s Layoffs: 10,000 Number of employees: 158,000 The past few years have not been kind to this retail giant. Macy’s announced it would close 68 stores in year, affecting around 4,000 employees, as part of its effort to shutter 100 store fronts, or around 15% of its stores.

Samsung Heir Lee Jae-yong Jailed for Five Years for Corruption - TIME Business

Samsung Heir Lee Jae-yong Jailed for Five Years for Corruption Posted: 25 Aug 2017 01:13 AM PDT The billionaire heir-apparent to South Korean electronics giant Samsung has been jailed for five years as part of a whopping corruption scandal that also prompted the impeachment of the East Asian nation’s former President Park Geun-hye late last year Lee Jae-yong, 49, who effectively ran the world’s biggest cellphone maker in place of his ailing father, stood accused of bribery and embezzlement relating to payoffs to a confidante of Park who lobbied on the $250 billion company’s behalf. Lee was accused of giving $36 million to non-profits run by Choi Soon-sil, a family friend of Park, in return for political favors including helping to get a controversial merger approved than cemented his family’s control over the company at the expense of smaller investors. In defense, Lee claimed he was naively unsure of the inner workings of his own company, which he was forced to helm after his father, Lee Kun-hee, slipped into a coma following a heart attack in 2014. The younger Lee rejected the prosecution’s suggestion that he was in fact a master manipulator. “In retrospect I had a lot of shortcomings and didn’t take care of the things that needed to be taken care of, and that’s all my fault,” he told the court earlier this month. “It was my responsibility. I have no excuses.” The case has gripped South Korean society, which saw it as encapsulating the inordinate and venal sway the nation’s biggest family-controlled conglomerates — known as chaebol — hold over government and the economy. Samsung alone accounts for some 20% of national GDP. “[The severity of the sentence] is a little surprising given the way that the courts have previously handled chaebol officials with kid cloves, especially those from prominent families,” Professor Sean O’Malley, a political scientist at Dongseo University in Busan, tells TIME. “Politicians here often think because the family is so important to the economic structure of South Korea they should be treated more leniently.” South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who replaced Park in snap elections May 9 following the confirmation of her impeachment, has vowed to rein in the power of the chaebol. Although most candidates for South Korea’s top job make this promise, including the ill-fated Park, the Lee ruling is the surest sign yet that South Korea’s courts have taken note of the public mood. “I’m not sure the government of Moon Jae-in actually had much of a hand in this,” adds O’Malley. “This seems to be the court system simply following the constitution and administering the law.” Lee’s lawyer Song Wu-cheol told reporters after the ruling that an appeal will be launched shortly, though its almost certain that he will have to do so from detention, where he’s already lived since February. “We are confident the ruling will be overturned,” Song said. Lee’s conviction raises questions over the future of Samsung, which was already reeling from the public relations disaster of its fire-prone Galaxy Note 7 smartphone. The firm, which made $19 billion of profits last year, saw its share price tumble 1% after Lee’s jailing.

Here's a real bipartisan fix for Obamacare—in 4 steps - CNBC News

Here's a real bipartisan fix for Obamacare—in 4 steps

In September, Senate health committee chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and ranking member Patty Murray (D-WA) will attempt to find a way to shore up Obamacare.

Here's a four-step plan that can satisfy Democrats and Republicans and keep Obamacare going through 2018.

Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates

Published 10:05 AM ET Thu, 24 Aug 2017 | Updated 21 Hours Ago

When Congress returns in September, Senate health committee chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and ranking member Patty Murray (D-WA) will attempt to find a way to at least temporarily shore up the Obamacare individual health insurance markets.

First, they will try to guarantee the low-income cost sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies for at least a year in order to give participating insurers the confidence to charge rates that will often be 15% to 20% lower than they would otherwise have been. A good step that Democrats will have no trouble supporting.

But for there to be any chance that Republicans would support a stabilization bill, they will also have to get some concessions. The most likely concession to draw Republicans onside would be one that granted the marketplace more flexibility and a resulting better risk pool so that health plans could come up with better prices.

Opponents of this flexibility will argue that there is no free lunch. Plans with fewer benefits will cost less because they offer less.

Actually, not quite.

The fundamental problem with the Obamacare exchange health plan offerings is that they cost too much because too few healthy people have signed up––in turn because the plans are not attractive to them. Fewer benefits will mean lower cost. But if more attractive policies can be offered and healthier people sign up, the costs will also go down because more healthy people would be attracted to the pool. Actuaries I have talked to estimate that an efficient risk pool could lead to prices as much as 40% less than what we have now. Admittedly, such a reduction in cost might take a couple of years––insurers will want to see a better risk pool before cutting any rates.

But I will suggest there is also a way for Democrats to sign-on to a way to make the market more flexible and give the Republicans what they are looking for.

The Chrome and Iron Plan, an Alternative to the Individual Mandate, and Maine-Style Invisible Reinsurance

First, offer a Chrome Plan:

Continue to offer the Obamacare standard Bronze, Silver, and Gold Plans––with their current benefit mandates––as the baseline plans.

Allow insurers to offer an alternative plan––let's call it the Chrome Plan.

Give insurers the freedom to create any set of plan benefits they choose for their Chrome Plan––and let them create any number of Chrome Plan variations to offer their customers.

But, require any Chrome offering to provide overall benefits equal to at least the existing Obamacare 60% actuarial value Bronze Plan.

At point of sale, the insurer would be required to provide the consumer with a detailed comparison of benefits covered under the Chrome Plan they were interested in buying and the standard Obamacare mandated Bronze Plan––full disclosure.

Currently, the Obamacare Bronze Plan has a 60% actuarial value––the Silver Plan is 70% and the Gold Plan is 80%. But these plans must provide the set of Obamacare benefit mandates and are limited in the maximum deductibles and out-of-pocket costs they may charge customers.

Under my Chrome Plan, insurers would not be required to provide all of the mandated benefits––but their package would be required to have the same overall 60% actuarial value as the Bronze plan. The difference is that insurers would have the flexibility to mix and match the benefits a consumer wanted to buy so long as it achieved the same overall value.

Premium costs would not likely be cheaper than the existing Bronze plan in the short-term because the Chrome Plan would still be providing an overall benefit package equal to the same 60% actuarial value of the Obamacare benefit mandates. The only way to reduce short-term costs would be to either cut benefits or increase subsidies. But, people would be afforded the opportunity to buy the benefit package they valued.

Costs could be cheaper in the longer-term as more healthy consumers came into the market more satisfied with what they could buy therefore improving the risk pool and ultimately enabling health plans to reduce real premiums.

Second, offer an Iron Plan––a plan with a 50% actuarial value measured against Obamacare's standard plans. This would be a plan that had less benefits and therefore cost less and would allow insures to mix and match benefits so long as it complied with an overall 50% actuarial value. Again, require full consumer disclosure by comparing the benefit details of any Iron Plan to what was offered under the standard Obamacare Bronze Plan.

Undoubtedly, these Iron plans would be in the form of a very high deductible catastrophic design that also offered consumers access to the insurance company's substantial provider network discounts for first dollar costs––a significant advantage over consumers who now remain uninsured because they couldn't afford or didn't value the current options.

By offering this Chrome and Iron flexibility, health plans would have the freedom to experiment with various plan designs looking to find the market's sweet spot. Consumers would be protected from "junk" plans given the actuarial minimums and the requirement that carriers fully disclose these options compared to the standard Obamacare plans.

In the end, we would have much better competition and more options while people could buy––Gold Plans or Iron Plans––whatever they want.

Third, provide a more effective alternative to the universally unpopular individual mandate by repealing and replacing it. Instead of the current mandate and fine, allow consumers to buy or not buy insurance––no fines for not having coverage. Allow consumers to buy coverage whenever they please and receive coverage going forward for any accident or illness. Except when coverage is not purchased promptly at the time a consumer is first eligible, any preexisting condition would not be covered for six months. This suggestion differs from a recent Republican proposal that would not have allowed late enrollees to be covered for any prospective accidents or illness––entire families would have remained totally uncovered for a six-month penalty period.

Under this suggestion, a late enrolling individual or family would be able to immediately benefit from coverage going forward––coverage and network discounts. Only preexisting conditions would be subject to the six-month waiting period for coverage.

This alternative provision would do a better job of encouraging people to enroll than what we have today––and thereby contribute to a healthier and lower cost risk pool––without the dreaded financial penalties that have not been consistently enforced by either the Obama or the Trump administration.

Fourth, provide a relatively nominal amount of seed money to support state insurance commissioners and insurers to work collaboratively toward establishing self-supporting Maine-style reinsurance pools. These so-called "invisible" schemes enable states to provide high claim cost reinsurance by assessing the broader insured market in order to fund the cost of the highest claims in the individual market. By assessing the broader market, the pool could be self-supporting and insurers would be guaranteed that the payments would not be put at political risk, as the Obamacare reinsurance program ultimately was. And, such high risk pools would only support, rather than be part of a repeal of, the preexisting condition coverage guarantees that Obamacare finally assured.

Obamacare's problems are bigger than these four relatively minor changes could solve. But, just getting us to a place where insurers could experiment with market-based ideas in order to offer consumers more attractive products, where we had an effective incentive for people to participate without the dreaded mandate fines, and where high cost claims could be pooled and subsidized in a self-sustaining behind the scenes risk pool, could be a big steps in the right direction.

This commentary originally appeared on Robert Laszewski's Health Care Reform Blog.

Robert Laszewski, the president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, has 20 years of experience in the insurance industry, serving as a chief operating officer for nine of those years, before beginning his Washington, D.C. policy- and market-consulting business.

Cohn Says Trump Administration Must Do More to Condemn Hate Groups - Wall Street Journal

Cohn Says Trump Administration Must Do More to Condemn Hate Groups

White House economic policy director, who is Jewish, says he is ‘reluctant’ to leave his post despite outside pressure

By Nick Timiraos

Aug. 25, 2017 9:31 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Gary Cohn, the White House’s economic policy director, said the Trump administration must do more to condemn hate groups and he did not defend President Donald Trump’s response to violence at a white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., two weeks ago.

Mr. Cohn said he had come under “enormous pressure both to resign and to remain in my current position” but that he was “reluctant” to leave his post out of a patriotic duty. He addressed the Charlottesville controversy in an interview with the Financial Times published Friday.

Mr. Trump faced an intense backlash, including criticism from members of his own party, for what elected officials and business leaders said was a failure to provide moral leadership. After two days of clashes that culminated with a driver mowing down a crowd of counterprotesters, killing one woman, Mr. Trump initially blamed violence “on many sides.”

A few days later the president more explicitly condemned extremist groups. Then next day, Mr. Cohn stood beside Mr. Trump at a news conference in New York in which Mr. Trump’s defense of his initial comments seemed to walk back the more explicit condemnation. At the news conference, Mr. Trump said there had been “very fine people on both sides” of the rally organized by white nationalists.

“Citizens standing up for equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK,” said Mr. Cohn in the interview with the Financial Times. “I believe this administration can and must do better in consistently and unequivocally condemning these groups and do everything we can to heal the deep divisions that exist in our communities.”

Mr. Cohn said he had spoken several times with Mr. Trump on the matter. “I have not been bashful saying what I think,” he told the newspaper. The White House last week issued a statement denying rumors that Mr. Cohn would leave the administration over the president’s remarks.

Mr. Cohn, who is Jewish, said in the published interview he would not allow neo-Nazis chanting anti-Semitic slogans “to cause this Jew to leave his job.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who is also Jewish and who also stood with Mr. Trump at his news conference last week, has also come under pressure from various groups to resign. Mr. Mnuchin on Saturday issued a long statement strongly defending Mr. Trump’s response and rejecting any calls to leave the administration.

In addition to handling Mr. Trump’s push for a comprehensive tax bill and an infrastructure-spending program, Mr. Cohn’s National Economic Council is managing the search for the next Federal Reserve chairman. Mr. Cohn is a leading candidate for the post.

Mr. Cohn told the newspaper Mr. Trump would next week become heavily involved in the public salesmanship of the administration’s push to cut individual and corporate tax rates. It isn’t clear if the administration will offer its own plan, however.

Mr. Cohn said House and Senate committees would be in charge of drafting legislation within the next month, and the administration hopes to pass a bill the president can sign this year.

Trump Widens Rift With Congress as Critical Showdowns Loom - New York Times

Trump Widens Rift With Congress as Critical Showdowns Loom

WASHINGTON — President Trump has widened an extraordinary rift with his own party, as he threatened a government shutdown over his long-promised border wall and attacked key lawmakers whose votes he needs heading into a crucial legislative period.

The escalating tensions between the Republican president and the Republican Congress endanger delicate negotiations in the coming weeks to overhaul the tax system, keep the government running and avoid a costly default on the country’s debt. They are the clearest signs to date that the uncomfortable alliance between Mr. Trump, who won the presidency promising to “drain the swamp,” and Republican lawmakers who hoped to enact long-stalled conservative priorities, has begun to fray.

In a challenge to Republicans late Tuesday, Mr. Trump threatened to shut down the government in a matter of weeks if Congress did not fund the wall on the southern border that was a signature promise of his campaign for the White House.

“If we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall,” Mr. Trump told a raucous rally in Phoenix as his supporters chanted, “Build that wall!”

“The American people voted for immigration control — that’s one of the reasons I’m here,” he added. “One way or the other, we’re going to get that wall.”

Anne-Marie Hislop 4 minutes ago

So, let's see. The conservatives will rebel if the debt ceiling is raised, i.e., if money is approved to pay the debts we ALREADY have - to...

RM 40 minutes ago

Anyone who watched the numerous GOP primary debates should know by now that Trump was running as a Republican, but is not an organization...

Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma 2 hours ago

By threatening government shutdown in case the Congress fails to fund the Mexican wall Trump is simply stating the obvious as the government...

On Wednesday, he followed up on the threat by attacking Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Republican who has said he is skeptical of building a border wall between the United States and Mexico unless, as Mr. Trump promised, Mexico pays for it. Mr. Flake is one of two Republican senators up for re-election next year in a swing state, and the president has put his finger on the scale toward a primary challenger, Kelli Ward.

“Not a fan of Jeff Flake,” Mr. Trump said in a Twitter post. “Weak on crime & border!”

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

Phoenix crowd last night was amazing - a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border!

11:20 PM - Aug 23, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy

And amid a frosty period in his relationship with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, Mr. Trump questioned the Senate leader’s approach, faulting Republicans for failing to blow up longstanding Senate rules that make most legislation subject to a filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome.

“If Republican Senate doesn’t get rid of the Filibuster Rule & go to a simple majority, which the Dems would do, they are just wasting time!” Mr. Trump said on Twitter, suggesting a change that Mr. McConnell and other Senate Republican leaders have repeatedly rejected.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

If Republican Senate doesn't get rid of the Filibuster Rule & go to a simple majority, which the Dems would do, they are just wasting time!

11:50 PM - Aug 23, 2017

Mr. McConnell on Wednesday sought to play down the friction between himself and the president, issuing a statement in which he insisted that their common legislative priorities were on track.

“The president and I, and our teams, have been and continue to be in regular contact about our shared goals,” Mr. McConnell said. “We are working together to develop tax reform and infrastructure legislation so we can grow the economy and create jobs; to prevent a government default; to fund the government so we can advance our priorities in the short and long terms; to pass the defense authorization and defense appropriations bills so we can support our troops and help implement an effective strategy against ISIL; to provide relief from Obamacare; and to continue our progress for our nation’s veterans.”

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, echoed that statement and said the president and Mr. McConnell “will hold previously scheduled meetings following the August recess to discuss these critical items with members of the congressional leadership and the president’s cabinet.”

President Trump ordered the construction of a Mexican border wall in January. The contentious pledge to build a wall and force Mexico — or Congress — to pay for it has been a touchstone of his presidency. By ROBIN LINDSAY and MALACHY BROWNE on Publish Date January 25, 2017. Photo by John Moore/Getty Images. Watch in Times Video

But there is growing evidence of tensions that have erupted privately between the president and other senior Republicans as well. In a testy call this month, first reported by Politico, Mr. Trump vented angrily to Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, over Russia sanctions legislation he said would damage his presidency, according to a person familiar with the conversation. Mr. Corker insisted that he would not back down on the measure, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Mr. Trump’s threat on Tuesday of a shutdown introduced new uncertainty to the ambitious wish list. It sharpened a suggestion that Mr. Trump made early this year, in the wake of a budget agreement he grudgingly accepted even though it omitted money for the wall, that the United States needed “a good ‘shutdown’” this fall to force a partisan confrontation over federal spending.

Mr. Trump has asked Congress to allocate $1.6 billion this year toward building a wall along the roughly 1,900-mile border with Mexico. Currently, a mix of barriers — from chain-link fences and steel walling that keep people from crossing to steel beams to stop vehicles — stretch across about 650 miles of the border. So far, Congress has provided $341 million this year to repair and bolster the existing border barriers.

Overall, the Trump administration is seeking $3.6 billion for the border wall over the next two fiscal years. In the past, however, Mr. Trump has said there is no need for a wall along the entire border, which spans four states: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Congressional leaders distanced themselves from the president’s threat. Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin said on Wednesday in Oregon that no one wanted a dispute over the border wall to result in a lapse in government funding, adding that he did not believe that such a confrontation would be necessary.

White House officials said Mr. Trump’s words were not meant as a legislative directive or veto promise so much as a message to lawmakers, including Democrats who have previously supported spending on border fencing.

“Protecting our borders is only controversial if you are looking for reasons to obstruct a longstanding and bipartisan effort,” said John Czwartacki, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

Hard-line conservative nationalists such as Stephen K. Bannon, the chief strategist ousted from the White House last week, have counseled the president to take a hard line on wall funding to buck up his political base after the embarrassing defeat of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They have warned Mr. Trump that signing a funding bill that does not include substantial sums for the wall could enrage his core supporters.

On the other hand, Mr. Trump’s bare-knuckled tactics could alienate congressional Republicans when he can ill afford to lose their support.

The president wants to push through a tax overhaul by year’s end, but first Republicans must approve a budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 to trigger special procedures that would allow the package to pass the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of the 60 required for most legislation.

A budget resolution is always difficult, but it will probably become entangled in another divisive issue, the debt ceiling: The Treasury Department has estimated that the government will reach its borrowing limit sometime in October, at which point Congress will have to vote to increase the debt limit to avoid a default.

Most immediately, the government will run out of money on Oct. 1 unless Congress approves new government spending bills. But in that conflict, the president may have handed Senate Democrats the whip, while inoculating them from blame. They can now filibuster any spending bill that contains wall funding, forcing Republicans to strip out the money and challenge Mr. Trump to veto it.

“If the president pursues this path, against the wishes of both Republicans and Democrats, as well as the majority of the American people, he will be heading toward a government shutdown, which nobody will like and which won’t accomplish anything,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, said Mr. Trump’s threat had made it clear that he was willing to sow chaos in the service of his top policy priority. “The president said he will purposefully hurt American communities to force American taxpayers to fund an immoral, ineffective and expensive border wall,” she said.

Republicans privately vented their dismay at the president’s tactics and language — especially his political maneuvering against their colleagues. The contest between Mr. Flake and Ms. Ward appears to have become something of a proxy fight between the president and the majority leader.

“I would just say that I think it’s important that we all stay unified as Republicans to complete our agenda,” Mr. Ryan cautioned.

But Ms. Sanders signaled that the president was willing to stoke such disputes if he believed it served his purposes.

“I think everybody knows this president isn’t somebody who backs down,” she told reporters on Air Force One as Mr. Trump returned to Washington on Wednesday. “If he thinks we need to lean in a little, I’m sure we will.”

White House aides had urged Mr. Trump not to mention Mr. Flake by name at the rally in Phoenix, which he instead used to savage the news media as unpatriotic and “sick,” angrily defend his response to racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Va., and praise Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff whose aggressive immigration crackdowns led to a federal conviction for criminal contempt of court.

The president criticized Mr. Flake only obliquely in the speech — “Nobody knows who the hell he is,” Mr. Trump said — and waited until Wednesday morning to take aim at the senator by name on Twitter.

In an interview Wednesday on “The Brian Kilmeade Show” on Fox News Radio, Mr. Flake said, “I will continue to support the president and work with him when I think he’s right, and challenge him when I think he is going in the wrong direction.”

Mr. Trump appears to be in a fighting mood. Before his exit, Mr. Bannon repeatedly warned Mr. Trump and John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, that September could be the breaking point for the Trump presidency — “a total meat grinder,” Mr. Bannon told them.

Conservatives will object to raising the debt ceiling unless it contains some provisions to help rein in government spending — an unlikely scenario. Instead, Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell will have to rely on Democratic votes to pass the increase — and put the president in the awkward position of having to sign it despite repeatedly promising to tackle the country’s debt.

Mr. Bannon warned White House colleagues that that could send the conservative House Freedom Caucus into open revolt against the speaker. To placate them, Mr. Bannon counseled, the White House must extract wall funding at all costs.

Eileen Sullivan, Jeremy W. Peters and Jonathan Martin contributed reporting.