As Trump pursues his trade agenda, other countries' views shift on ties with China: From the Politics Desk
In today's edition, Scott Bland breaks down new poll numbers that show the world's views shifting on China and the economy. Plus, Sahil Kapur examines how Republican members of Congress are hate-voting for certain pieces of legislation.
— Adam Wollner
As Trump pursues his trade agenda, other countries' views shift on ties with China
Analysis by Scott Bland
President Donald Trump's first year back in the White House has coincided with some sharp changes in allied countries' assessments of the importance of Chinese economic ties.
That's according to new data from surveys conducted in 25 countries by the Pew Research Center. Pew notes that the changing attitudes also reflect a rebound from low points in the immediate aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, which began in China.
But the data also demonstrates how Trump's presidency and his trade agenda have sharply shifted public opinion in other nations — shifts that could have far-reaching effects for years.
In particular, Pew asked whether it was more important for each country surveyed to have close economic ties with the U.S. or China. Generally, the share of respondents choosing China has grown in recent years, while the United States' share has shrunk. But two nations in particular stand out.
There's Australia, which this week is hosting military exercises meant to signal strength against China. This year, Australian respondents said 53%-42% that having closer economic ties with China is more important. Four years ago, that was reversed — 52%-39% toward the U.S.
And then there's Mexico, one of the biggest U.S. trading partners. Mexican survey respondents have long recognized the importance of the trade relationship with the U.S., but amid the back-and-forth on tariffs this year, they split on whether ties with the U.S. or China were more important.
These opinions have shifted over time, and there's no telling where they'll go in the future. But as the U.S. tries to shift its trade policy and tries to counter China geopolitically, these surveys offer some early evidence of backlash in one realm that could affect the other.
Republicans keep voting for bills they say they don't like
By Sahil Kapur
There's a new trend in Congress that has emerged in President Donald Trump's second term: Republican lawmakers across the ideological spectrum keep voting for bills they have publicly criticized.
In some cases, GOP members of Congress have explicitly threatened to vote 'no' on bills they say are deeply flawed before eventually folding and voting 'yes.' In others, they warn bills they have voted for will require fixing down the road.
A few notable examples:
Medicaid: Two weeks after voting to pass a sweeping domestic policy bill that cuts Medicaid by about $1 trillion, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill to repeal some of those cuts.
'Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a statement.
Hawley said he feared the party's megabill would cause long-term harm if the Medicaid cuts are fully implemented, but still voted for it because it will deliver more hospital money for Missouri in the first four years.
'You can't get everything you want in one piece of legislation. I like a lot of what we did. I don't like some of it,' he told reporters after unveiling his own measure on Tuesday.
National debt: Nowhere has this dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump. With Trump's megabill, they complained about red ink: It's expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
'What the Senate did is unconscionable,' Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said in a Rules Committee meeting, vowing that 'I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor.' He ultimately voted for that bill, unamended, after conservatives were told Congress would consider future bills to lower the debt.
Rescissions: And in the run-up to the votes on a package to cancel $9 billion in previously approved funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, several Republicans expressed serious concerns with its substance, its deference to the executive branch and the damage it could do to bipartisan dealmaking on government funding in the future.
'I suspect we're going to find out there are some things that we're going to regret. Some second- and third-order effects. And I suspect that when we do, we'll have to come back and fix it,' said Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, before voting in favor of the bill.
Bottom line: It isn't unusual for lawmakers to back legislation they call imperfect. But this year, that contrast has become more stark. It comes as Trump has solidified his grasp over the GOP base, resulting in lawmakers growing increasingly leery of crossing him and risking their political futures.
Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on the future of the megabill President Donald Trump signed into law.
'If the Democrats gain control of both chambers of Congress how much of the Republicans bill can they change?'
In theory, Democrats could change much, if not all, of what's in the new tax cut and spending law if they were in power in Washington, using the same party-line 'budget reconciliation' process Republicans just utilized. But they won't be in that position for a while — and they may not want to completely do away with the sweeping package.
Let's start with the first point. Given Republicans' tiny majority in the chamber and the usual headwinds the party in power faces during a midterm, Democrats have a good shot at winning the control of the House next year. But the Senate is a different story. As we've written, Democrats face an uphill climb to the majority in 2026, and the 2028 map doesn't look much more favorable, with the number of states splitting their presidential and Senate tickets dwindling.
Then of course, even if Democrats manage to take control of both chambers of Congress, they won't have an opportunity at the White House until 2028.
As for the second point, there are a lot of aspects of the 'big, beautiful bill' Democrats would like to reverse, most notably the cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs. But there are others, such as ' no tax on tips,' that have garnered support from Democrats.
And while Democrats support increasing the current tax rates on the top earners, they wouldn't want the 2017 tax cuts that the law extends to completely expire. That would mean tax hikes on middle- and lower-income Americans, too.
🗞️ Today's other top stories
✉️ Epstein fallout: Trump took legal action less than 24 hours after The Wall Street Journal published an article saying Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that included a drawing of a naked woman. The Justice Department also filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case in Manhattan federal court.
📻 Stations in limbo: After Congress approved a package to cut funding for PBS and NPR, media advocates fear that local public broadcasters will be forced to downsize or shutter, which could have an outsize impact on rural areas. Read more →
🩺 Health care hikes: People who get health insurance through the Affordable Care Act could soon see their monthly premiums sharply increase as subsidies expire and insurers propose a major premium hike for 2026. Read more →
🪙 Crypto crunch: Trump signed the GENIUS Act, the first piece of federal legislation regulating stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency, into law after it passed through Congress with bipartisan support. Read more →
🤠 Texas two-step: Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin was set to travel to Houston today to meet with Texas Democrats to discuss how to fight back against Republican efforts to redraw the state's congressional maps. Read more →
🌴 Palmetto State dispatch: In conversations with more than a dozen Democrats across the South Carolina, a key presidential primary state, two themes emerged: They want someone ready to 'fight,' but they also want someone who can appeal across party lines. Read more →
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Why Reeves should sell her bitcoin hoards
Deep fried prawn balls, chicken chow mein, crispy shredded beef and a Ponzi scheme could be about to win the Chancellor a decent chunk of her headroom back. As Rachel Reeves starts sketching out her autumn Budget, most of the focus has been on the tax hikes she'll need if she's serious about sticking to the 'ironclad' fiscal rules she recommitted to just last week. Economists reckon the wafer-thin £9.9 billion margin she left herself at the Spring Statement has already been wiped out and that she's now staring down a black hole of over £20 billion. So it was a relief to read this morning that the Treasury isn't relying solely on tax rises and has discovered a rather large stash of money down the back of the government sofa. According to The Telegraph, the government is developing a system to allow police forces and the National Crime Agency to sell more than £5 billion crypto assets seized in recent years We don't know the total amount of confiscated crypto the state is sitting on but one seizure in 2018 took in 61,000 bitcoin. If sold today, it would bring in some £5.4 billion – more than triple the culture budget and twenty times its value on the day the police got their hands on it. Jian Wen, who worked in a chinese takeaway, was convicted of laundering money – and her bitcoin seized – from a crypto scam carried out in China when she went from a life living in 'shabby Chinese restaurants' to putting cash offers on £24 million pound houses in Hampstead and villas in Tuscany. Victims of that Wen's ponzi scheme will be entitled to any proceeds of the sell off but experts are confident that enough of them will be untraceable that the Treasury can scoop up the rest and use it to start plugging the black hole. Of course, if Reeves does press 'sell', she will be accused of 'pulling a Gordon Brown', and selling the gold. Bitcoin is already up nearly 20 per cent this year and on current trajectories the Wen haul could be worth over £200 billion in 20 years. But she'd be wise to ignore those voices. Sure, crypto probably will rise. But given it has no fundamental value it might nosedive too. And the state simply can't afford to gamble on highly volatile assets when the public finances are in the mess they are in. So if this really is the plan, the Chancellor should act fast, take the money, and resist the temptation to hold. If all goes well she can treat herself to a Chinese.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Bipartisan government funding is at risk of dying in Trump's Washington
WASHINGTON — For many years, final decisions over how much the U.S. government spends, and how, have required sign-off from leaders of both parties, no matter who controlled the White House or Capitol Hill or the level of polarization. Now, that last vestige of the bipartisan funding process is at risk of dying after a one-two punch by President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress. The 'appropriations' process, whereby both parties pass detailed funding bills for various federal agencies every year, has been in a slow decline for decades. But recent moves by the Trump-era GOP to disrupt past funding agreements have accelerated that decline — and, in the view of Democrats and even some weary Republicans, undermined Congress' power of the purse in deference to the White House. First, Republicans passed a $300 billion hike in military spending and immigration enforcement as part of Trump's megabill; and second, they cut $9 billion in domestic money and foreign aid under a rarely used 'rescission' process, allowing the GOP to cancel already approved bipartisan spending with a party-line vote. A Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown will test whether a bipartisan deal is still possible, particularly as Trump's top budget aide publicly calls for a more partisan approach. House Republicans have undermined the bipartisan path for years by slamming the resulting deals as 'swamp' creations by a 'uniparty' that is addicted to spending. Now, GOP lawmakers in both chambers are going it alone, suggesting they'll bring more rescissions packages to undo past bipartisan spending agreements because the existing process is failing. 'We don't have an appropriations process. It's broken. It's been broken for a while,' said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said Congress will likely fall back on continuing resolutions, which largely maintain the status quo, and rescission packages for the remainder of Trump's presidency. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a senior appropriator, said the once-respected government funding process has 'disappeared,' calling the latest rescissions package 'a step backwards.' 'It's basically saying: No matter what you decide on, the president is going to be able to change the bill, even for money that's been appropriated,' Durbin said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, insist the process is alive and well. They will test that theory this week as Thune plans to bring at least one — if not more — appropriations bills to the Senate floor. He has argued that the $9 billion cut hits a tiny portion of the federal budget and shouldn't dissuade Democrats from working toward a deal. 'I would hope, at least for the functioning of our government, that they would be willing to work with us on some things,' Thune said Wednesday on Fox News. 'They haven't been so far.' But even some GOP proponents of the bill admit it adds to the challenges. 'The rescission package — of course, I understand that could complicate things,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. Vought weighs in Just after the Senate overcame objections in both parties to approve the $9 billion spending-cut bill requested by Trump, a comment from White House budget director Russell Vought dropped like a bomb on Capitol Hill. 'The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan,' Vought told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday. 'It's not going to keep me up at night, and I think will lead to better results, by having the appropriations process be a little bit partisan.' He added that more rescission packages would be coming. The backlash was fierce. Senate Republicans responsible for crafting the government funding bills were taken aback by his candor. 'Mr. Vought's lack of respect and apparent lack of understanding of how Congress operates is baffling, because he's served in government before,' Collins told NBC News. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Vought 'disrespects' the appropriations process in Congress with his 'dismissive' comments. 'I think he thinks that we are irrelevant,' she said. And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday called on Trump to 'fire Russell Vought immediately, before he destroys our democracy and runs the country into the ground.' The series of clashes escalates tensions leading up to the fall deadline, with top Democrats warning ahead of the vote that they would have little incentive to provide the 60 votes to cut a deal. 'It is absurd to expect Democrats to play along with funding the government if Republicans are just going to renege on a bipartisan agreement by concocting rescissions packages behind closed doors that can pass with only their votes,' Schumer warned in a recent speech. The debate over the demise of individual lawmakers getting to dictate where federal funding is allocated came to a head during a recent meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee, with many senators arguing that the work they were doing in that moment may just be overridden by congressional leadership and the president. 'The one thing we all agree on is the appropriations process is broken,' former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lamented, describing how during his 18 years leading the GOP conference he helped oversee a shift away from government funding levels being decided by committees and instead being negotiated by only the highest levels of leadership and the White House. 'I concluded our failure to pass our bills empower every president, regardless of party, because I've been in those discussions at the end, the big four and the guy with the pen, and that makes all of our requests irrelevant,' McConnell said. Collins has repeatedly blamed the decline of the process on Schumer's refusal to put appropriations bills on the Senate floor. That has also been a slow-moving trend: McConnell and former Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also short-circuited the process on the floor when in charge. Rising partisanship has weakened committees broadly and placed more power in the hands of leadership. In the context of government funding, that led to 'omnibus' spending bills and continuing resolutions — or CRs — negotiated by party leaders and jammed through Congress, often with an impending deadline to pressure holdouts to fall in line quickly. But House Republicans raised hell, torching the massive bills negotiated behind closed doors as a betrayal to their constituents. In recent years, they have successfully steered their leadership away from that approach. And it leaves few options going forward. 'What the math tells us' Durbin, who is retiring after a 30-year Senate career, reminisced about when the process was at the peak of its powers — last century. The last time Congress completed it through 'regular order' was in the 1990s. 'There was a time when we called 12 appropriation bills to the floor, open for amendment! Can you imagine that?' Durbin said. 'I remember. And you had to do your job in the committee. You had to have a subcommittee lined up on a bipartisan basis, a full committee lined up on a bipartisan basis. And the committee stood together. And you could find enough to support it to pass something. That, I think, really reflected the best of the Senate.' He attributed the change to the growing discord between the parties and the declining 'reputation of the Appropriations Committee,' although he credited Collins and Vice Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., with trying to restore the bipartisan spirit of the panel. Collins, notably, is on an island as the only GOP senator who voted against both attempts to rewrite government funding — in the megabill and rescissions package. Collins is also up for re-election next year in a Democratic-leaning state that Trump lost in 2024. Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University and the Brookings Institution, said the megabill's changes to GOP spending priorities 'undermines the rough parity between defense and nondefense discretionary spending that until recently made bipartisan deals possible.' She added, 'The Trump OMB's aggressive impoundments of enacted appropriations severely threatens Congress' power of the purse and with it the authority and expertise of and oversight by appropriators.' Yet even as Republicans find new ways to go around the Senate's 60-vote threshold, Thune has promised he won't abolish the filibuster. He distanced himself from Vought's remarks. 'Well, that runs contrary to what the math tells us around here,' he said. 'So, we need 60 on approps bills. And it's going to take 60 to fund the government.' The path to a new funding law is murky, at best. And Collins, for now, maintains confidence in the bipartisan appropriations process. When asked if she has any concerns about its future, Collins told NBC News, 'None whatsoever.'
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Inside the Lords battle on foreign media ownership
After a two-year impasse, the future of the Daily Telegraph could be resolved shortly. A £500m deal has been struck for US firm Redbird Capital to take control of the Telegraph Media Group, with state-backed Abu Dhabi investment vehicle IMI among investors. But a fresh challenge has arisen in the House of Lords. Peers are threatening to block minister's efforts to change the law to give foreign companies a greater stake in British media outfits – up from the existing five per cent to 15 cent. This is a necessary legal change to allow the Telegraph sale to go ahead. A 'fatal motion' will be held in the Lords on Tuesday; if passed, it would kill the government's plans. It is a device seldom wielded by peers, having been last used in 2012. But opponents are growing increasingly confident that the 'fatal motion' could succeed. Two separate fronts have opened up in the Lords. The first is led by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Fox, who tabled the motion. Lib Dem whips are understood to be pulling out all the stops to maximise turnout, including facilitating the attendance of their older peers who do not vote regularly. Their argument is simple: the power of the free press should not be sold to overseas companies susceptible to foreign government influence. The hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. The second front is led by the cross-party Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac) and its supporters like Lord Alton. Their focus is more directly on the Telegraph sale. Sir Iain Duncan Smith has written to Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, arguing that a Foreign State Intervention Notice (FSNI) be issued in this case. A legal opinion by Tom Cross KC details alleged links between Redbird Capital's chairman John Thornton and the Chinese state, including his advisory roles on Beijing's sovereign wealth fund. Sir Iain argues that this is compelling evidence for Nandy to 'adhere to your statutory duty and issue a FSIN without delay.' Both groups are seeking to influence their colleagues across the House. Given the government's lack of a majority, the hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. Tory whips are expected to vote against the fatal motion, though their colleagues will not be whipped to follow suit. Lord Forsyth, the respected chair of the Association of Conservative Peers, is expected to vote for the motion; others will likely follow his lead. One opponent notes that the Conservatives voted for fatal motions that successfully halted government legislation when they were last in opposition before 2010. A separate 'motion of regret' has been put down by Baroness Stowell, the former Leader of the House. Some supporters of the fatal motion fear it could frustrate their efforts, with wavering peers potentially voting for Stowell's amendment rather than Fox's. The government will argue that a statutory instrument can close the loophole whereby multiple states can each own 15 per cent of any publication. But their critics will counter that this is insufficient and will not stop the Telegraph deal from going ahead.
