Presidential Learning Curve: How Trump Eat The Humble Pie
Being the president of the United States is not an easy job, as Donald Trump has quickly learned.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal this week, the former businessman said he’d had to adapt from his deal-making background to the presidency.
“The magnitude of everything is so big, and also the decisions are so big. You know, you’re talking about life and death,” he said.
In his first few months, the candidate who offered simple and clear solutions on the campaign trail has had to deal with some complicated obstacles – and row back on promises.
North Korea’s nuclear threat ‘not so easy’
In that interview with the Wall Street Journal, the president revealed that during his first talk with China’s President, Xi Jinping, he discovered China could not simply deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea.
“After listening for 10 minutes, I realised it’s not so easy,” the president said. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea. But it’s not what you would think”.
That exchange has raised eyebrows in some quarters.
Vox writer Zack Beauchamp observed: “Trump thought China could fix North Korea until the Chinese president politely informed him that North Korea is in fact complicated.” That amounted to “basic facts… he could have Googled”, Beauchamp added.
The same interview revealed that Mr Trump will not label China a currency manipulator, as he had promised, and had offered to make concessions on trade – another issue he has been vocal about – in exchange for help with North Korea.
Healthcare Is ‘So Complicated’
The Affordable Care Act – or Obamacare – was one of Trump’s major campaign issues.
“On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare,” a statement from the campaign in early 2016 said.
That did not happen.
In his own words, Mr Trump explains his doomed effort to repeal Obamacare
It took until March – two months after inauguration day – to bring a bill to the Republican-controlled Congress, where it was was rejected by Trump’s own party.
He could not get the votes from Republicans, and withdrew the bill at the last minute.
“It’s an unbelievably complex subject” the president said in late February.
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated,” he added.
‘Getting Along’ With Russia
During the campaign, Mr Trump repeatedly said he wanted to forge a better relationship with Russia.
He also tweeting that “both countries will, perhaps, work together” to solve global problems once he was president.
As late as November last year, after his election victory, he told the New York Times: “I would love to be able to get along with Russia and I think they’d like to be able to get along with us. It’s in our mutual interest.”
But the diplomatic reality has proved much more difficult.
Media captionRex Tillerson: relations are “at a low point”
Mr Trump has launched military action against Russia’s ally, Syria, and the US ambassador to the United Nations accused the Kremlin of sheltering Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
A week later, Trump told the media: “right now, we’re not getting along with Russia at all. We may be at an all-time low in terms of a relationship with Russia. This has built for a long period of time.”
The Wall (Or Fence)
Donald Trump’s border wall was one of his most high-profile promises. He rejected the idea of using fencing, and insisted he would build a real wall from border to border – and make Mexico pay for it.
Mexico, perhaps unsurprisingly, refused to pay for the wall, which is estimated to cost anywhere from $10bn – $25bn.
In signing an order to start the process, Mr Trump accepted that US taxpayers will have to cover the initial funding – but says the money will be somehow recouped from Mexicans.
Quite apart from the political difficulties, there’s another problem – an engineering one.
Mr Trump insisted, repeatedly, that he was not promising a border fence, but a “impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall.”
But the border runs for some 1,900 miles (3,100 km), over mountains, valleys, and rivers.
The bidding process is still in motion, and Trump has said costs will go “way down” once he turns his attention to it.
But on the sidelines, the administration’s top immigration official, John Kelly, has been saying something different.
“It’s unlikely that we will build a wall or physical barrier from sea to shining sea,” he said in April.
Nato Problem
Mr Trump’s complaints about the Nato military alliance being “obsolete” caused much concern following his election victory.
He questioned Nato’s purpose, while repeatedly saying that the US was paying an unfair share – all of which alarmed the other allies.
But Trump’s new defence secretary, James Mattis, moved to calm worries after his appointment, calling Nato the “fundamental bedrock” of co-operation.
Media captionTrump changes mind over Nato
The president himself seemed to follow suit in April, when he hosted Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House.
He declared that a renewed focus on fighting terrorism, as he saw it, meant Nato was no longer “obsolete” – but he still hoped other countries would contribute more.
Change Of Mind
On top of the learning curve Trump has faced in his new role as president, there are some campaign promises he simply rowed back on between winning the election and his inauguration day.
Chants of “lock her up” at his rallies were encouraged by his promise to prosecute Hilary Clinton – a policy quietly dropped to let Mrs Clinton “heal”.
Policies on torture, climate change, gay marriage, deportation, and the banning of Muslim migrants were all softened and changed in the months leading up to his presidency.
But there is one clear area where Trump’s shift in approach based on new information has paid off politically – his approval of strikes in Syria.
How has Donald Trump’s position on Syria changed?
Four years ago, when military strikes against President Assad were considered by Obama’s administration, Trump criticised interventionist foreign policy.
“Forget Syria and make America great again!” he tweeted.
But when children were caught up in a chemical weapons attack, he ordered a missile strike on a Syrian government airfield – a move applauded by politicians across the US political divide.
Trumplomacy Hits Russian Wall
Reminder: that’s when lawmakers questioned whether Rex Tillerson’s history of doing business deals with Russia would make him too cosy with the Kremlin to represent US interests as America’s top diplomat.
Fast forward to Mr Tillerson’s reception on Wednesday by his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.
Mr Lavrov levelled a litany of complaints about the “extremely ambiguous and contradictory” policy talk in Washington and “unlawful” US strikes in Syria.
Then he twisted the knife a bit, pointedly noting that many key State Department posts have yet to be filled by the new administration and “hence it is not easy to quickly receive clarification on current and future issues”.
His brusque tone was triggered by harsh US rhetoric against Russia for its continued support ofthe Syrian regime after the chemical weapons attack last week, dished out in no small measure by the secretary of state.
Mr Lavrov also turned his pique on members of the State Department press corps who shouted questions. “Who brought you up?” he asked one of my intrepid colleagues. “Who gave you your manners?”
His spokeswoman Maria Zakharova followed up with a Facebook post that described American journalists “screaming ‘Mr Lavrov Mr Lavrov’ angrily from all sides”.
“The mansion shuddered, its century-old firmaments do not remember such a ‘bazaar’,” she wrote.
That’s not quite the press event I remember. But there are two issues behind this dramatic put-down.
In the background is the disappointed retreat of Russia’s euphoric reception of Donald Trump’s election victory. It brought expectations of a relationship reset, perhaps a grand bargain that would lead to lifting the sanctions imposed over Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine.
Trump’s top officials eventually burst that bubble, making clear the US would hold the line on Ukraine.
Then the roiling controversy over alleged Russian interference in the presidential election turned Moscow into a toxic subject in Washington.
Still, Mr Tillerson’s trip was much anticipated, with Mr Lavrov joking he would teach his inexperienced counterpart how to dance on the diplomatic stage.
In the foreground is the US military strike on a Syrian airbase in response to the chemical attack. That signalled a U-turn by Mr Trump, according to one TV show host, Dmitry Kiselyov: “He is clearly no longer the man whom so many people used to like.”
“The honeymoon between Moscow and Washington ended in Syria abruptly,” opined another, Irada Zeynalova. “Trump has moved over to the dark side.”
The strike rattled the Russians, who wondered if this was the opening salvo in a Trump strategy to unseat their ally. No, it turns out.
But the pivot to blaming Russia was also an unpleasant surprise. US officials ratcheted up pressure for Moscow to stop supporting a “murderous regime”.
And Mr Tillerson called them out for failing to guarantee the agreement to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, struck in 2013. He also twisted the knife a bit, suggesting they had been “incompetent” or even “outmanoeuvred” by the Syrians.
Did he overplay his hand and trigger a backlash? – because President Vladimir Putin did dig in on support for the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Was he making the most of America’s military leverage to put Moscow on notice?
Or is he among friends?
By the end of the day and after a meeting between Mr Tillerson and Mr Putin, Mr Lavrov was sounding less combative.
“They have a working relationship,” said a US official.
But the two were as far apart on Syria and other contentious issues as when they started out.
“This is the beginning of the beginning” of fixing the relationship, said the official. As for a possible meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Trump: “I don’t think we’re there yet.”
Which means I will hold on to my Trump matryoshka doll as a souvenir of this trip. There’s no guarantee they’ll still be on the shelves next time I return.
Trump Sends Dollar To Five-month Low After Saying The Currency Is Getting Too Strong
In an interview, the President said that the dollar’s strength was ‘partially’ his fault ‘because people have confidence in me’
The dollar also slipped against the pound and the Swiss franc and the yield on the 10-year US Treasury note fell to its lowest level in nearly five months Thomson Reuters
The US dollar slipped to a five-month low against Japan’s yen after Donald Trump said the currency was getting “too strong” and that he would prefer the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates capped.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the President said that the dollar’s strength was “partially” his fault “because people have confidence in me”, but he said that it was starting to hurt.
“Look, there’s some very good things about a strong dollar, but usually speaking the best thing about it is that it sounds good,” he told the paper.
“It’s very, very hard to compete when you have a strong dollar and other countries are devaluing their currency,” he said.
Currency investors responded by selling the greenback. Late Wednesday it slipped to its lowest in five months against the yen. It’s frequently benchmarked against the Japanese currency, which had already been rising because it is frequently valued as a safe haven during times of geopolitical tension or market uncertainty.
Twitter: @realDonaldTrump
- I have great confidence that China will properly deal with North Korea. If they are unable to do so, the U.S., with its allies, will! U.S.A.
- Things will work out fine between the U.S.A. and Russia. At the right time everyone will come to their senses & there will be lasting peace!
- Jobs are returning, illegal immigration is plummeting, law, order and justice are being restored. We are truly making America great again!
“•If China decides to help, that would be great,” Trump wrote Tuesday. “If not, we will solve the problem without them!”
- “We will hold the U.S. wholly accountable for the catastrophic consequences to be entailed by its outrageous actions,”