Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Stock market sends a message to Trump on Greenland

Published

on

Stock market sends a message to Trump on Greenland

DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — Investors appeared to have gotten through to President Donald Trump about the risk posed by his designs for Greenland with a message he wasn’t hearing from European leaders: Threatening allies with tariffs and land seizure isn’t exactly the type of policy that generates confidence in the global economy.

Trump on Wednesday backed off his threat to slap punishing tariffs on eight European allies for opposing his insistence on acquiring Greenland from longtime ally Denmark after the plan spooked Wall Street by sparking serious talk within NATO about a fundamental rupture to the transatlantic military alliance that’s been a linchpin of post-World War II security.

Markets had seen their biggest losses since October as Trump prepared to travel to DavosSwitzerland, to give a keynote address to leaders and the global elite at the World Economic Forum.

Trump grumbled about what he called a stock market “dip” with some annoyance during the speech, complaining the market gyrations happened despite the U.S. “giving NATO and European nations trillions and trillions of dollars in defense.”

But during that speech, he made his first abrupt shift in position for the day: He took off the table the option of using military force to take over Greenland.

“I won’t do that. OK?” Trump told the packed conference room.

Then, hours later, Trump announced he was retreating from the tariffs altogether after he said he had come to terms with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on a “framework” on Greenland that “gets us everything we needed to get” if the agreement is consummated.

Trump promptly took to financial network CNBC just before Wall Street trading ended for the day, boasting that the framework was “going to be a very good deal for the United States” and allies.

He downplayed the role that the jittery market played on his decision on tariffs. “No, we took that off because it looks like we have pretty much a concept of a deal,” Trump said.

Trump didn’t offer details on the terms of that framework. But the S&P 500 rallied 1.2% after his remarks, recovering about half the ground it had lost a day earlier. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also rose 1.2%, as did the Nasdaq Composite.

A concept of a deal, without many details

After the retreat, Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen cautiously offered that “the day is ending on a better note than it began” but said the details of the agreement still need to be worked out.

One idea NATO members have discussed as part of the compromise would see Denmark and the alliance working with the U.S. to build out more U.S. bases in Greenland, according to a European official familiar with the matter but not authorized to comment publicly. The official said it was not immediately clear if that idea was included in the contours of the framework that Trump and Rutte discussed on the sidelines of Davos on Wednesday.

Rutte in an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday evening gave little hint about what precisely he and Trump agreed to.

“We agreed that he’s right, and he’s right that collectively we have to protect the Arctic regions,” Rutte said. “But also, of course, the U.S. continue its conversations with Greenland and Denmark when it comes to how can we make sure that the Russians and China will not gain access to the economy or a military sense of Greenland.”

It wasn’t just the financial markets that were telling Trump to rethink the tariffs and tough rhetoric toward allies.

A number of U.S. officials had also been concerned about Trump’s hardline stance and bellicose language toward Greenland, Denmark and other NATO allies because they feared it could harm other foreign policy goals.

These officials thought the fixation on Greenland and Trump’s earlier comments suggesting that the potential splintering of NATO was a cost he might be willing to pay were complicating the president’s effort to form the Board of Peacewhich he’s expected to spotlight Thursday in Davos. The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss concerns being floated inside the administration.

Many European countries, which were already skeptical of the proposed board’s broad global mandate, had reacted even more negatively to the concept after Trump’s tariff threat. The board, which was born from Trump’s 20-point plan to end the Israel-Hamas warwas initially envisioned as a small group of world leaders overseeing the Gaza ceasefire but has morphed into something far more ambitious.

A few European nations have even declined their invitations.

“The interpretation that European leaders are going to take from this is that actually standing up and being firm defused the crisis,” said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Trump is acting like a bully, and the only way that we’re going to have a stable relationship is if we push back.”

But Matthew Kroenig, vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, countered that the idea that Trump would seize Greenland seemed more like a bluff all along — and one that may have worked.

“Most of the world was freaking out over these threats,” Kroenig said. But he he noted there are some downsides to that negotiating style.

For one, it drove the prime minister of Canada, a close U.S. ally, to propose that smaller countries unite against aggressive superpowers.

“It’s been unnecessarily dramatic, costly and damaging, but all the damages so far are repairable,” added Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland who is now a distinguished senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

That possibility, Fried noted, would be harder to achieve had Trump continued on the path with Greenland where he appeared to be heading.

AP writers Stan Choe in New York and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed reporting.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Amanda Gorman honors Alex Pretti in new poem

Published

on

Amanda Gorman honors Alex Pretti in new poem

Amanda Gorman shared a powerful poem on Instagram that she wrote in honor of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen killed by a federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Saturday.

The poem, “For Alex Jeffrey Pretti,” characterizes Pretti’s killing as a “betrayal” and an “execution.”

Gorman, earlier this month, also paid tribute to Renee Nicole Good, another U.S. citizen killed by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. In a caption accompanying another poem shared on Instagram, Gorman said she was “horrified by the ongoing violence that ICE wages upon our community. Across our country, we are witnessing discrimination and brutality on an unconscionable scale.”

Her poem says, in part: “You could believe departed to be the dawn/ When the blank night has so long stood./ But our bright-fled angels will never be fully gone,/ When they forever are so fiercely Good.”

The 27-year-old writer and activist famously recited her poem, “Blue Light News We Climb,” at Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration in 2021. Gorman has also written poems in the wake of other tragedies in the country, including “Hymn for the Hurting,” about the Robb Elementary mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas in 2022. She also performed a poem she wrote about reproductive rights and the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court case in a NowThis video in 2019.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Ted Cruz bashes Vance and Trump in secret recordings

Published

on

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in recordings obtained by Axiosseems to have a bone to pick with Vice President JD Vance and sometimes, President Donald Trump.

In his remarks, which lasted about 10 minutes and were reportedly made in a private meeting with donors sometime last year, Cruz portrays himself as an economically-minded, pro-interventionist who has the president’s ear.

The Texas senator is also heard criticizing former Fox News personality, Tucker Carlson, and his relationship with the vice president. “Tucker created JD. JD is Tucker’s protégé, and they are one and the same,” Cruz told donors.

Cruz, who has clashed with Carlson in the past over foreign intervention policies, bashed the administration’s appointment of Israel critic Daniel Davis to a top national intelligence position. A vocal supporter of Israel himself, Cruz called Davis “a guy who viciously hates Israel,” and credited himself with removing Davis from the job.

The Republican senator also blamed Vance and Carlson for ousting former national security adviser Mike Waltz over similar anti-interventionist sentiments related to Iran.

“[Waltz] supported being vigorous against Iran and bombing Iran — and Tucker and JD took Mike out,” Cruz said.

Cruz also said he has been trying to get the White House to accept a trade agreement with India, but claimed White House economic adviser Peter Navarro, Vance and “sometimes” Trump, are resistant.

Domestically, Cruz cautioned donors about Trump’s tariffs, which he said could result in severe economic and political consequences. Cruz is reportedly heard telling donors that he told the president “if we get to November of [2026] and people’s 401(k)s are down 30% and prices are up 10–20% at the supermarket, we’re going to go into Election Day, face a bloodbath.”

Cruz said a conversation he had with Trump about tariffs “did not go well,” and that Trump was “yelling” and “cursing.” Cruz said Trump told him: “F*** you, Ted.”

“Trump was in a bad mood,” Cruz said. “I’ve been in conversations where he was very happy. This was not one of them.”

In a statement about the recordings, a spokesperson for Cruz said he is “the president’s greatest ally in the Senate and battles every day in the trenches to advance his agenda. Those battles include fights over staffers who try to enter the administration despite disagreeing with the president and seeking to undermine his foreign policy” and that “these attempts at sowing division are pathetic and getting boring.”

In an email responding to MS NOW’s request for comment on Cruz’s reported statements, the White House did not address Cruz’s statements.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The real reason Trump and MAGA are so quick to blame Minneapolis shooting victims

Published

on

Alex Pretti was shot to death on the sidewalk of a street in Minneapolis after he didn’t leave when federal agents demanded he leave. Renee Good was shot to death in her car on a street in Minneapolis because she tried to leave when federal agents demanded she not.

Advocates of President Donald Trump’s administration will cite this disobedience as a central factor in Pretti and Good’s deaths. Each has been assigned a contrived danger, as well, to reinforce the urgent need for their killings: Pretti had a gun (that he doesn’t appear to have drawn) and Good had her car (that she doesn’t appear to have used as a weapon).

But their central offense, among those eager to champion Trump’s politics and policies, was their failure to be pliant. They were at odds with the state and, well, sometimes that’s punishable by death.

It is stunning, though not surprising, to see the president of the United States and sworn federal officials impugn dead citizens so callously.

It has been posited that the eagerness with which Trump and his allies have defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents against charges of excessive force, and the alacrity with which they assign blame to the victims of those shootings, demonstrates hypocrisy, given their collective willingness to absolve — to beatify! — the rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. They, too, defied state authority and, in many cases, far more aggressively. But they are hailed as heroes by the current administration.

But this isn’t hypocrisy at all. It’s consistent. If you object to or impede their politics, they will hurt you. That is the consistency and it is why off-duty police were in the mob on Jan. 6 and why Trump supporters defend ICE today. It’s not the badge that matters. It’s the red cap.

The most jarring element of the response to Pretti’s death and to Good’s death is the speed with which the administration has disparaged the victims rather than the perpetrators. Each of them was also immediately asserted to have been a premeditated, violent actor. A terrorist. When each, instead, was at the scene of their unwitting deaths because they were part of and supportive of their community.

It is stunning, though not surprising, to see the president of the United States and sworn federal officials impugn dead citizens so callously. It’s utterly immoral, if not deranged. What flows through their veins is partisanship, and what dominates their thoughts is knocking their opponents and critics back on their heels. Perhaps there are flutters of recognition that this is not how human beings behave, much less political leaders in a democracy. But if those flames flicker into existence, they are quickly snuffed.

And for what! This is the question that continues to baffle me more than any other. Why has the Department of Homeland Security dispatched vans and SUVs filled with masked men to Minneapolis? Most immediately, it seems, it’s because a bad-faith “investigation” from a right-wing media personality made Minnesota a focus of the right’s collective anger. So the president pointed at Minnesota and his shock troops marched.

Their mission has been described in a number of ways, which means that (as with so much else in Trump’s world) the effect was decided before the cause. Maybe it’s about combatting the fraud alleged by the media personality, even though prosecutors had been investigating and securing convictions for social services fraud in Minnesota for years. Or maybe it’s just about uprooting immigrants.

This is the government’s most common explanation. Trump and his aides have repeatedly insisted that the expansive, guerrilla-style raids being conducted by federal agents in Minnesota have been effective at removing the “worst of the worst” criminal immigrants from the area, something it insists that the state’s Democratic leaders had refused to do. (The state disagrees.)

What’s the right ratio here, Mr. President? How many citizens being shot to death is worth this campaign of fear and its sporadic deportations?

At a White House press conference on Jan. 20, Trump held up images of 40 individuals who he claimed had been detained by federal agents in Minnesota. A DHS website titled, “ARRESTED: WORST OF THE WORST,” — identifies just under 500 such people in the state. Some of them (as was the case with Trump’s visual aids) seem less like “the worst of the worst” than like “people with any criminal record at all.” Does having a DUI make you one of the nation’s worst criminals? If you weren’t born here, I guess so.

Even by DHS’ count, though, the government isn’t only targeting “the worst of the worst.” On Jan. 14, the agency put out a press release claiming that they’d arrested 2,500 of the “worst of the worst,” meaning that the website, even with the drunk drivers, is a couple thousand short in its tally. Nationally, of course, ICE has accelerated its detention of people with no criminal records at all. One analysis estimates that 92 out of every 100 people added to ICE detention last year faced no criminal charges and had no past convictions. Besides, violent crime in Minnesota was already on the decline before DHS and ICE showed up (also mirroring national trends).

So the feds rolled up some people with criminal records or maybe pending charges. In doing so, they spread chaos and confusion around the city, shipped a kindergartener off to Texas and sent a baby to the hospital.

In doing so, they killed two residents of Minneapolis, their dying bodies laying at the side of the road.

What’s the right ratio here, Mr. President? How many citizens being shot to death is worth this campaign of fear and its sporadic deportations?

It seems as though the answer is clear by now: As many as can be killed with his base still believing that they were violent opponents of the president’s politics. As long as that belief is sustained, the killings can continue because it means that his supporters’ confidence and trust in him is sustained, too. And that, more even than purifying the populaceis what matters to Trump.

The White House and DHS frequently validate their work by pointing to the killers they’re taking out of the country, outsiders who’d killed Americans. It would be a more effective argument if they weren’t defending the outsiders they brought into Minneapolis who did the same thing.

Philip Bump is a data journalist and MS NOW contributor.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending