Financial markets were not pleased with President Trump's announcement Thursday that he will impose new, gradually increasing tariffs on all Mexican imports "until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our country, STOP." Plenty of conservatives were unhappy, too. The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano and Jack Spencer, for example, said the tariffs are "the wrong policy" to address the border "crisis" and would "punish our citizens." Phillip Klein at The Washington Examiner called it "mindbogglingly stupid on so many levels."
White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said Trump is imposing the tariffs, starting at 5 percent and rising to 25 percent, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives presidents authority to regulate commerce during a national emergency. Republican leaders in the House and Senate were largely supportive of the tariffs, he added.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was not supportive. "Trade policy and border security are separate issues," he said in a statement. "This is a misuse of presidential tariff authority and counter to congressional intent. Following through on this threat would seriously jeopardize passage of USMCA, a central campaign pledge of President Trump's and what could be a big victory for the country."
The White House has just started the process toward possible ratification of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), an update to NAFTA, earlier Thursday, and ratification is uncertain in the House. At the Examiner, Klein agreed that slapping tariffs on Mexican goods will "surely disrupt" the USMCA ratification process, and he listed four other objections, including that the tariffs amount to "a tax increase of up to 25 percent on American families and businesses purchasing any products from Mexico, one of the U.S.'s leading trade partners."
"Congress should immediately intercede to block this reckless policy by reclaiming its traditional power over tariffs," Klein concludes. "House Democrats should pass something and force Senate Republicans to either rebuke Trump's policy, or answer for their cowardice." Grassley? Peter Weber
President Trump now has three chances to keep his financial records a secret.
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear Trump's appeal of three cases that involve subpoenas for his financial records, giving no explanation for the decision. Oral arguments for the separate cases are likely slated for March, with a decision expected at the end of June.
In three separate cases, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, the House Oversight Committee, and the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees requested Trump's financial records from his banks and other businesses he worked with. Trump's lawyers sued to block those subpoenas, but in each case, courts ruled against them. So they appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court, first getting stays on the rulings to block the records' immediate release to the oversight committee, and then getting the whole case accepted Friday.
Previous judges have noted that past presidents released their tax returns to the public, and Trump's lawyers subsequently argued that the subpoenas are not a legitimate legislative inquiry. Kathryn Krawczyk
President Trump has at least three Jewish friends. He just asks them all the same questions.
On at least four occasions over the past few months, Trump has pulled out a story where he's purportedly asking a friend which of his administration's moves have been bigger for the Jewish people. The friend always gives the same answer — but Trump changes the name of who he's talking to each time, The Washington Post reports.
"Charlie, let me ask you what’s bigger for the Jewish people," Trump recalled asking Charles Kushner, the disgraced real estate developer and father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, at a Hanukkah event on Wednesday. "Giving the embassy to Jerusalem" and recognizing it as Israel's capital or supporting Israel's sovereignty in the disputed Golan Heights. "Neither," Kushner apparently replied. "The biggest thing of all is what you did by ending the Iran nuclear catastrophe."
Yet just a few hours earlier, Trump told nearly the same story, this time involving the even shiftier New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. A few days earlier, it was Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson who Trump asked about Israeli accomplishments. And back in September, it was a nondescript "people" who told him they loved his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
Read the full accounts or watch them mashed up side-by-side at The Washington Post. Kathryn Krawczyk
Mitch McConnell has declared himself judge, jury, and White House coordinator in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.
As the House Judiciary Committee continued to debate its articles of impeachment against President Trump on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a shocking statement: He'll be working "in total coordination" with the White House counsel's office on impeachment. That doesn't mesh well with senators' roles as impartial jurors in an impeachment trial, and it unsurprisingly caught Democrats' attention.
"Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel," McConnell said of impeachment in his Thursday segment with Fox News' Sean Hannity. "There will be no difference between the president's position and our position in how to handle this." Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) quickly brought up McConnell's comments as Thursday's impeachment debate continued, translating them to mean "the jury — Senate Republicans — are going to coordinate with the defendant — Donald Trump — on how exactly the kangaroo court is going to be run."
The next morning, other Judiciary Democrats took a stab at McConnell's comments. "I think it is outrageous for the chief juror who is organizing the trial to be coordinating with the defendant," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told CNN. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) went further, saying because McConnell is "working hand in hand with the White House, with the president's attorney," he should "recuse himself" from the trial. Kathryn Krawczyk