logo
CNBC Exclusive: Transcript: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Speaks with CNBC's Eamon Javers on 'Power Lunch' Today

CNBC Exclusive: Transcript: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Speaks with CNBC's Eamon Javers on 'Power Lunch' Today

CNBC29-07-2025
WHEN: Today, Tuesday, July 29, 2025
WHERE: CNBC's "Power Lunch"
Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC exclusive interview with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on CNBC's "Power Lunch" (M-F, 2PM-3PM ET) today, Tuesday, July 29. Following are links to video on CNBC.com: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/07/29/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-treasury-secretary-scott-bessent.html, https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/07/29/treasury-sec-scott-bessent-not-end-of-the-world-if-snapback-tariffs-are-on-for-days-or-weeks.html and https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/07/29/treasury-sec-scott-bessent-wouldnt-be-surprised-if-eu-put-on-some-tariffs-against-china.html.
All references must be sourced to CNBC.
EAMON JAVERS: Brian, thank you very much. And, yes, we are here with Scott Bessent. Mr. Treasury Secretary, thank you so much for doing this and being live on CNBC. Really appreciate your time today.
U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Good to see you. Good to be here in Stockholm.
JAVERS: Take us behind the scenes, if you could. Covering these things, as we reporters travel around the world following you guys, it's sort of a black box. We don't know what happens inside that room. We occasionally get the handout picture. How are these talks actually structured? What happens inside the room? Do you have sort of bullet points from both sides that each side agrees to bring up in advance? Does each side make a speech to each other? Bring us in the room.
BESSENT: Well, there's a lot of pregame, so a lot of preparation on both sides in terms of, what do we want to talk about? What would we like to accomplish? With the Chinese, there were 75 of them in their delegation, 15 of us.
JAVERS: Wow.
BESSENT: We start out in a very large room, probably 12 or 15 on each side of the table. As you said, there tends to be a bit of speech-reading. There's a little back-and-forth on that. Then there's a discussion. We have various topics. But the real work gets done. We break down into smaller groups of two on two, so Ambassador Jamieson, myself. It was with Vice Premier He Lifeng. And then they actually had two, a deputy trade minister and a deputy finance minister, and then the translators. And then Vice Premier Lifeng and I spent some time alone with the translators.
JAVERS: And do you go into breakout rooms to discuss among just the American side what the Chinese have proposed and then come back, or is it all done in the same room together?
BESSENT: Well, Ambassador Greer and I have been doing a lot of trade deals. And we have done a lot of prep in advance. This was our third meeting with this Chinese team. So we built up some level of personal rapport. We also -- I can tell you that London built on Geneva. Stockholm built on London and Geneva. So we have an arc that is getting better. We have been able to -- this meeting, we were able to discuss more of the big economic frameworks, whereas Geneva and London were much more specific meetings.
JAVERS: I think the market really expected that what we would see here is an extension of that August 12 deadline. That was sort of a low bar for these talks. People thought, if they can kick the can another 90 days and keep the truce in place that happened back in London, that's basically a win for Stockholm. Did you agree to kick that can down the road, or is that pending President Trump's approval?
BESSENT: Well, it's pending President Trump's approval. He has final say on all the trade deals. I spoke to him right before I came in with you. I'm going to see him with Ambassador Greer tomorrow. And he will have the final decision. I think our Chinese counterparts have jumped the gun a little and said that we do have an extension. I can say that the meetings were very far-reaching, far-reaching, robust and highly satisfactory.
JAVERS: And what will you recommend to President Trump, if you can share it with us? Will you recommend that he extend that pause?
BESSENT: Well, we're just going to give him the facts, and then he will decide.
JAVERS: What can you tell us what was agreed to in the room, if anything? Any specific agreements on any of those agenda items that you set up in the pregame, as you call it?
BESSENT: Well, we continually are perfecting their rare earth control system. It was a new system that was put in globally on April 4. And it's been a bit clunky. So, we keep pushing them to work on that. And it's the entire global supply chain, because the restrictions or the controls aren't just on the U.S. It's on every country. So we discussed that. We made some very good progress on that. We had very long discussions, in-depth discussions and reports on each other's economies. You know, we pushed them. They have what they call the five-year plan coming up. I believe the meeting is in September, October. It'll be discussed in February. And we discussed -- or Ambassador Jamieson and I encouraged them to work on rebalancing the economy towards more of a consumer economy, away from a manufacturing economy, and, if they have decided that that is in their five-year plan, to make that public.
JAVERS: The other big piece of speculation going into this was, would this tee up a Xi Jinping-Donald Trump meeting sometime in the fall, maybe October? You have said now that there was no discussion of that in these talks. So where do we stand on the idea of a possible world leaders meeting?
BESSENT: It was June 5, June 4 -- June 5, the president did a call with Party Chair Xi. Party Chair Xi invited him to come to Beijing. So that will be something between the White House and Xi's staff.
JAVERS: What else was discussed in the room? One of the items was Chinese purchases of Iranian oil. What did they say to your request to stop making those purchases?
BESSENT: They said they're a sovereign nation and that they have security needs, energy needs, and that it would be based on their internal policies.
JAVERS: And so you don't have any leverage at this point to push them on that? Or do you?
BESSENT: Well, not at this point. We have -- at Treasury, we have sanctioned what are called teapot refineries. They are private refineries, not state-owned. And so we have sanctioned those refineries. The owners and -- some of those owners may have assets in the U.S.
JAVERS: The other big question coming into this was, how much would the E.U. deal having been signed on Sunday influence what happened in the room in Stockholm this week? Did you get a sense whether that made any difference in terms of the trajectory of the talks here?
BESSENT: I think that everyone can see the arc of where these trade deals are going. I won't say that the Chinese were on their heels, because they're very composed. Vice Premier He Lifeng is a seasoned politician. But it's clear that the momentum was with us, that, when you get the E.U., the world's largest trading bloc, when you get that deal inked, we had Japan, we had Indonesia, we had Vietnam. So, not only did we have the E.U., who has a very large trading relationship with China. We also had three of their neighbors.
JAVERS: You said something interesting with a small group of reporters earlier today, which was that the Chinese goods -- if the U.S. is going to tariff Chinese goods, those goods have to go somewhere. And you think they're flowing to Europe, Canada and Australia. Do you think Europe needs to put up a tariff wall of its own? Do you think they need to be tariffing Chinese goods?
BESSENT: I wouldn't be surprised if they don't put on some kind of tariffs at a point. But this is where the opportunity is for the Chinese to be proactive and create a bigger consumer economy and sell more of those goods at home, because those goods can't just flow to the Global South.
JAVERS: You have said that's your goal for the Chinese economy. It's not entirely clear that that's the Chinese government's goal for the Chinese economy. To what degree do you get the sense that they embrace that argument at all?
BESSENT: Again, we will see. It may take some external forces. I remember -- I think I went to Japan first time in 1990. Maybe the bubble burst in 1991. They didn't fix the banking problem until 2004. Then Abenomics wasn't until 2012. And that was really an external stimulus. A lot of that was from the China threat. So it may take some external stimulus or an external -- the catalyst to get the Chinese to change. It may be more tariffs.
JAVERS: One of the big questions about that E.U. deal from the weekend is this $600 billion piece for additional purchases from the United States. But E.U. officials have come out since the deal was agreed to and said, well, that's coming from private sector companies. We don't really have any control over that, so we can't enforce it on our end. Does the U.S. have any guarantee that that $600 billion is real and is actually going to happen?
BESSENT: Well, I think that's going to be closely monitored. I think President Trump believes that this is a good deal. I mean, on paper, this is the deal of the century. And I would be surprised over time if the E.U. doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, or the 15 percent tariff rate could change.
JAVERS: What do you think those purchases will be? I mean, that could impact hugely some American companies.
BESSENT: Well, it could be purchases. Problem now is, Europe is rearming. NATO is finally upping its defense spending. We have a very large backlog with our defense companies. So I would imagine a big, big portion of that could be for defense. There are going to be some ag purchases. And then they will also be building, you know, increased investment in European companies putting plants in the U.S.
JAVERS: These deals have been coming pretty fast and furious. At times, it gets hard to track the details of them. The Vietnam deal that the president announced earlier in July, I don't think we have seen confirmation, or at least I haven't as I sit here now, from the Vietnamese government of that deal. Did we get confirmation from the Vietnamese government? Do we have an agreement with them on paper?
BESSENT: I didn't work on that deal, but I assume that we do, because we have also done Indonesia and Philippines, so I would imagine that—
JAVERS: But you haven't seen that paperwork?
BESSENT: But I don't -- that's -- Ambassador Greer, who is a seasoned veteran, with an encyclopedic memory and knowledge of all this, keeps all that.
JAVERS: How do you divide it in the room between yourself and Ambassador Greer as you are negotiating with the Chinese? Do you have a lane? Does he have a lane?
BESSENT: I think I try to keep things moving along in a big picture way and think about, what are our goals? Ambassador Greer, again, like I said, he not only has an encyclopedic knowledge. He has dealt with the Chinese in President Trump's first term. He knows all the particulars on tariffs, on trade, on -- he walks around. It's a great prop. It's probably two times, three times bigger than the old New York City phone book, but it's the non-tariff trade barriers of all the countries. So you kind of put that down on the table and say, OK, let's go through them.
JAVERS: Right. Friday, we have got another big deadline coming up, which is August 1, for snapback tariffs on all the other countries that have not agreed to a deal so far. What can you tell American businesses to expect on Friday?
BESSENT: Well, I would think that it's not the end of the world if these snapback tariffs are on for anywhere from a few days to a few weeks, as long as the countries are moving forward and trying to negotiate in good faith.
JAVERS: One of the other big questions around this has been, which of these other sideline issues are really part of this trade deal and which are not? TikTok has been one that we have talked about. You said that wasn't discussed today. The other question is that "The Financial Times" reported that the president of Taiwan was declined permission to transit New York, which is something that the Chinese would have wanted from the U.S. government. Was that done to help smooth a deal with the Chinese?
BESSENT: Yes, and I want to go back for—
JAVERS: Sure.
BESSENT: On -- because the August 1 is important. I think, for President Trump, the -- for me, what's given us a lot of negotiating leverage is, he's happy to do the deal, but he's equally as happy, sometimes in more cases -- in some cases, more happy just to have the tariff income.
JAVERS: Right.
BESSENT: So it gives us a lot of negotiating flexibility. So, TikTok wasn't discussed. And we are very careful to keep trade and national security separate. So, the Taiwanese president -- president's movements had nothing to do with our talks.
JAVERS: Mr. Secretary, we're almost out of time. I'm being told we have just one minute left. So, with that, give us a sense of what you expect next from this U.S.-China relationship. Are we going to see another meeting in 90 days? What city will we be in 90 days from now?
BESSENT: Look, I don't know where we're going to be. The good news is, we're talking, because initially China was -- on April 2, tariff day, we advised all the countries, don't retaliate, and that would be your peak number, and you can work down from there. China was the only country to retaliate. We went into this tit for tat. We ended up at 145. They were 125, which is essentially an embargo. We brought those down in Geneva. There's the problem with the rare earth magnets. That was solved, Geneva, London. And the good news is, President Xi, President Trump have a very close relationship. Now we are able to establish communication lanes at all the various levels, whether it's between Ambassador Greer and myself with the vice premier, with the trade delegations, with the deputy finance minister. So, I think more interaction is good interaction. We're not going to agree. They're tough negotiators. We're tough negotiators. So—
JAVERS: We will see where it goes. Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for being on CNBC.
BESSENT: Good to see you.
JAVERS: Really appreciate your time. Brian, we will send it back to you.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's Assault on D.C. Is a Grave Threat to the District and Democracy
Trump's Assault on D.C. Is a Grave Threat to the District and Democracy

Newsweek

time12 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Trump's Assault on D.C. Is a Grave Threat to the District and Democracy

President Donald Trump is federalizing control of the local police and deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to further his authoritarian and anti-democratic agenda. As autocrats commonly do, Trump is seeking control over the national capital in order to intimidate and squelch dissent. Like despots around the world and throughout history, Trump is also relying on the pretextual deployment of military force to intimidate and project power, to suppress protest and undercut democracy. Across the nation, Americans should protest this move and what it means for our democracy. They should worry that Trump will misuse claims of national emergency to block peaceful protest and that he will deploy troops to deter demonstrators, or worse. President Donald Trump takes questions from reporters after signing an executive order in the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Aug. 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump takes questions from reporters after signing an executive order in the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Aug. 5, 2025, in Washington, is a move of dubious legality and no necessity. The Home Rule Act governing the District of Columbia gives the president authority to take control of the metropolitan police force when there are "special conditions of an emergency nature." There are no special conditions and there is no emergency. Like everyone, Washingtonians want to be secure in their person, but everyday street crime does not constitute an emergency—especially when the Justice Department's own statistics show the violent crime rate in the District is at its lowest point in decades. There is a major crime problem in Washington, D.C., but it's not the one Trump is talking about—and it's one the administration is making that far worse. Corporate crime and wrongdoing—pollution, dangerous products, financial fraud and scams, unsafe workplaces, and more—inflicts far more damage on people than street crime, whether measured by dollars, injuries, or lives. But Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi are epically weak on corporate crime enforcement—probably the weakest in American history. They are ending investigations and prosecutions into corporations, announcing no-prosecute policies against whole areas of corporate wrongdoing, and redirecting law enforcement resources away from corporate crime and toward its mass deportation agenda. Trump is also complaining about homelessness in D.C. There is, in fact, a significant housing problem in Washington, D.C., like there is throughout the nation. But on this score, Trump is doing nothing to help—and actively making things worse. Telling people without housing that they have to "move out" of the District, as Trump has done, does nothing to actually address that problem. Investing more in housing would help, but there were no such investments in Trump's tax and budget reconciliation bill—he was too busy conferring giant tax breaks on the super rich and corporations and stripping health care coverage from everyday Americans. Those health care cuts will significantly worsen homelessness—both because health care is key to help people without housing and because Medicaid is often used for supportive housing. Providing support to people with addiction issues would also help address the homelessness challenge; instead, the administration is considering withholding already appropriated funding for responding to fentanyl overdoses. Trump's actions have nothing to do with anything happening in Washington, D.C. Trump is motivated instead to advance his authoritarian agenda and to distract from his political weakness. This aligns perfectly with his other despotic tendencies, for example his enemies lists, his mantra of "loyalists only"—particularly those who support his election denialism—to key appointments, and Pam Biondi's recent move to deputize Ed Martin to investigate perceived opponents like Adam Schiff and Tish James. Washington, D.C. does not need National Guard members—who signed up to address genuine national security threats and actual emergencies, not to be political pawns—on our streets. Instead, what we in D.C. need is representation in Congress and more federal funding to mitigate the restrictions on the District's power of taxation. But this is an issue of import that goes far beyond the interests of the people of Washington, D.C.—and not just because D.C. is our nation's capital. Trump is now broadcasting that he hopes to militarize law enforcement in cities across the country. Whether the nation tolerates—or rises up to oppose—Trump's actions in Washington will very meaningfully impact whether the country goes down a democratic or authoritarian path. Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert are Public Citizen co-presidents. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

Budget-conscious Americans are thrifting in 2025: Here are the hottest spots for second hand finds
Budget-conscious Americans are thrifting in 2025: Here are the hottest spots for second hand finds

New York Post

time14 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Budget-conscious Americans are thrifting in 2025: Here are the hottest spots for second hand finds

Death of the fun budget: Americans say their discretionary spending has dropped by 42% in the last year, according to a recent survey. The poll of 2,000 American adults found that many are looking for ways to save in the current economic environment, as over half of those surveyed (52%) revealed that they're worried about the state of their finances. Advertisement According to the findings, two-thirds (66%) of Americans are turning to thrifting on a regular basis to balance their budgets these days. In fact, nearly one in six (17%) are even thrifting as often as once per week, with Gen Z secondhand shopping more each week (28%) than other generations. 7 Americans say their discretionary spending has dropped by 42% in the last year, according to a recent survey. Seventyfour – And thrifting in 2025 isn't just a brick-and-mortar shopping experience, since the study found that almost one in four thrift shoppers (22%) like to do so online. Advertisement Conducted by Talker Research and commissioned by Mercari, an online marketplace, for National Thrifting Day on August 17th, the survey found that more than a quarter of thrifters (26%) have picked up secondhand shopping in the last year. Looking at the 'why' behind this uptick, nearly three-quarters (72%) said they shop secondhand to save money. 7 According to the survey, two-thirds (66%) of Americans are turning to thrifting on a regular basis to balance their budgets these days. Gabriel Cassan – However, many respondents have additional motivations for thrift shopping, with half of thrifters (51%) saying they hit the thrift stores because they enjoy the thrill of finding a good deal. Advertisement Forty-two percent relish searching for unique, one-of-a-kind things, and 28% are on the lookout for collectible items. And for 30%, they simply enjoy the vibe of thrift stores. 7 Thrifting in 2025 isn't just a brick-and-mortar shopping experience, since the study found that almost one in four thrift shoppers like to do so online. AntonioDiaz – Clothing (71%) is the most popular commodity people are thrifting this year, followed by home decor (45%), books (40%), home goods (39%), shoes (31%), collectibles (30%), and furniture (26%). Advertisement And respondents estimated that 34% of their belongings have been purchased secondhand, on average. 'As the data shows, thrifting is multidimensional,' said Jeff LeBeau, vice president of growth at Mercari. 'It's something people are doing to spend responsibility these days, but it's also a hobby for many. Not only is it an affordable option for shoppers due to financial constraints, but thrifters also just thrift for the fun of it, and to find unique deals. From clothes to video games to books to furniture, most everyone has something they enjoy browsing for when thrifting.' 7 Clothing is the most popular commodity people are thrifting this year, followed by home decor, books, home goods, shoes, collectibles, and furniture. AntonioDiaz – Thrift shopping is also something most secondhand shoppers (57%) consider to be self-care, and Gen Z (70%) is the most likely out of all generations to label thrifting as part of their self-care routine. Zooming in to investigate the quintessential thrifting excursion, many thrifters (37%) like to make it more of an experience than an errand by hitting up multiple stores in one day. Twenty-nine percent also like to meet up with a friend to thrift together, and a quarter (25%) said that treating themselves to a coffee or beverage to sip on while shopping is a must. 7 The survey found that more than a quarter of thrifters (26%) have picked up secondhand shopping in the last year. Gabriel Cassan – And from inexpensive but dearly cherished items, to once-in-a-lifetime designer deals, thrifters have really scored big in the past. Advertisement The survey asked respondents to share their best secondhand deals to date and uncovered that many have walked away with hidden gems, including vintage and designer clothing, retro video games, collectibles, antique furniture, and nearly-new tech. 'It's not unusual to walk away from thrifting with a killer deal,' said LeBeau. 'That's part of the joy of thrifting — searching for and finding something that's perfect for you, at a price you can afford. And with the rise of online thrifting, American consumers now have more opportunities than ever to discover incredible bargains.' 7 Many thrifters (37%) like to make it more of an experience than an errand by hitting up multiple stores in one day. okrasiuk – America's Best Thrift Wins: ● 'One of my favorite things I've thrifted is a vintage leather jacket that looks timeless and high-quality. I estimate it originally cost around $300 new, but I found it for just $40. It's become a staple piece I love wearing!' ● 'It was a copy of my favorite book that I then gave to a friend. [It] wasn't valuable, but I wanted her to have a copy.' ● 'Probably a video game that was rare. I gave $25 for it.' Advertisement 7 'One of my favorite things I've thrifted is a vintage leather jacket that looks timeless and high-quality. I estimate it originally cost around $300 new, but I found it for just $40. It's become a staple piece I love wearing,' one person said. Mazur Travel – ● 'My most recent favorite find was a 1974 Expo '74 decorative plate. It went well with my collection.' ● 'One thing I found was an old Schwinn bicycle that was the exact same as [the one] I rode when I was a kid, and I bought it for $10. Restored, it's worth a decent amount of money.' ● 'I bought a designer jacket for $34 that would have cost over $200 brand new. It was in perfect condition.' ● 'Sets of tools that I bought for $40 that would normally cost over $200 brand new.' Survey methodology: Talker Research surveyed 2,000 general population Americans; the survey was commissioned by Mercari and administered and conducted online by Talker Research between July 24 and July 29, 2025.

President Donald Trump's rhetoric about DC echoes a history of racist narratives about urban crime
President Donald Trump's rhetoric about DC echoes a history of racist narratives about urban crime

Chicago Tribune

time14 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

President Donald Trump's rhetoric about DC echoes a history of racist narratives about urban crime

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has taken control of the District of Columbia's law enforcement and ordered National Guard troops to deploy onto the streets of the nation's capital, arguing the extraordinary moves are in response to an urgent public safety crisis. Even as district officials questioned the claims underlying his emergency declaration, the Republican president promised a 'historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' His rhetoric echoed that used by conservative politicians going back decades who have denounced American cities, especially those with majority non-white populations or led by progressive politicians, as lawless or crime-ridden and in need of outside intervention. 'This is liberation day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back,' Trump promised Monday. As District of Columbia National Guard troops arrived at their headquarters Tuesday, for many residents, the prospect of federal troops surging into the district's neighborhoods represented an alarming violation of local agency. To some, it echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint historically or predominantly Black cities and neighborhoods with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify aggressive police action. April Goggans, a longtime Washington resident and grassroots organizer, said she was not surprised by Trump's actions. Communities had been preparing for a potential federal crackdown in the district since the summer of 2020, when Trump deployed National Guard troops during racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd. 'We have to be vigilant,' said Goggans, who has coordinated protests and local civil liberties educational campaigns for nearly a decade. She worries about what a surge in law enforcement could mean for residents' freedoms. 'Regardless of where you fall on the political scale, understand that this could be you, your children, your grandmother, your co-worker who are brutalized or have certain rights violated,' she said. According to White House officials, National Guard troops will be deployed to protect federal assets in the district and facilitate a safe environment for law enforcement to make arrests. The administration believes the highly visible presence of law enforcement will deter violent crime. It is unclear how the administration defines providing a safe environment for law enforcement to conduct arrests, raising alarm bells for some local advocates. 'The president foreshadowed that if these heavy-handed tactics take root here, they will be rolled out to other majority-Black and Brown cities, like Chicago, Oakland and Baltimore, across the country,' said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's D.C. chapter. 'We've seen before how federal control of the D.C. National Guard and police can lead to abuse, intimidation and civil rights violations — from military helicopters swooping over peaceful racial justice protesters in 2020 to the unchecked conduct of federal officers who remain shielded from full accountability,' Hopkins said. Conservative lawmakers have for generations used denigrating language to describe the condition of major American cities and called for greater law enforcement, often in response to changing demographics in those cities driven by nonwhite populations relocating in search of work or safety from racial discrimination and state violence. Republicans have called for greater police crackdowns in cities since at least the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles. President Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968 after campaigning on a 'law and order' agenda to appeal to white voters in northern cities alongside overtures to white Southerners as part of his 'Southern Strategy.' Ronald Reagan similarly won both his presidential elections after campaigning heavily on law and order politics. Politicians ranging from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to former President Bill Clinton have cited the need to tamp down crime as a reason to seize power from cities like Washington for decades. District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the local police force 'unsettling' but not without precedent. The mayor kept a mostly measured tone during a Monday news conference following Trump's announcement but decried the president's reasoning as a 'so-called emergency' and said the district's residents 'know that access to our democracy is tenuous.' Trump threatened to 'take over' and 'beautify' the nation's capital on the campaign trail and claimed the district was 'a nightmare of murder and crime.' He also argued the city was 'horribly run' and said his team intended 'to take it away from the mayor.' The president repeated comments he'd previously made about some of the nation's largest cities during his news conference, including Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and his hometown of New York City. All are currently run by Black mayors. 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities in a very bad, New York is a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore. They're so far gone. We're not going to let it happen,' he said. Civil rights advocates see the president's rhetoric as part of a broader political strategy. 'It's a playbook he's used in the past,' said Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The president's rhetoric 'paints a picture that crime is out of control, even when it is not true, then blames the policies of Democratic lawmakers that are reform- and public safety-minded, and then claims that you have to step in and violate people's rights or demand that reforms be reversed,' Wiley said. She added that the playbook has special potency in the capital because the district's local law enforcement can be directly placed under federal control, a power Trump invoked in his announcement. Trump's actions in Washington and comments about other major American cities sent shock waves across the country, as other cities prepare to respond to potential federal action. Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said Trump's plan 'lacks seriousness and is deeply dangerous' in a statement and pointed to a 30-year-low crime rate in Baltimore as a reason the administration should consult local leaders rather than antagonize them. In Oakland, Mayor Barbara Lee called Trump's characterization of the city 'fearmongering.' The administration already faced a major flashpoint between local control and federal power earlier in the summer, when Trump deployed National Guard troops to quell protests and support immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles despite opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Civil rights leaders have denounced Trump's action in Washington as an unjustified distraction. 'This president campaigned on 'law and order,' but he is the president of chaos and corruption,' said NAACP President Derrick Johnson. 'There's no emergency in D.C., so why would he deploy the National Guard? To distract us from his alleged inclusion in the Epstein files? To rid the city of unhoused people? D.C. has the right to govern itself. It doesn't need this federal coup.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store