The cold (and occasionally hot) war between Trump and his predecessors
'If not completely unprecedented, it's aberrational,' said Barbara Perry, co-chair of the presidential oral history programme at the University of Virginia's Miller Centre. 'Ex-presidents feel that they are part of this exclusive club. There are so few people who have been president, and you share this common bond, a brotherhood of sorts. And that is bipartisan and in some ways nonpartisan.'
Not this time. Trump's launch of an investigation into Biden, a political opponent, over the autopen violates democratic norms and comes as Biden is seeking to focus on his legacy. Some Democrats want Obama to speak out more forcefully, while he fires back that they should stop looking for a 'messiah'. Bush, the only living former Republican president, is keeping a low profile as Trump reshapes the GOP in a way that reflects a broad rejection of his legacy and that of his father.
Senator Chris Coons (D-Delaware) said Trump is attacking the former presidents in large part because he needs enemies.
'Biden beat him and was a good president who delivered on things that Trump failed to deliver on - but he attacks Bush and Obama with equal flair,' Coons said. 'Trump defines himself by who he fights and how he fights. He thrives on the drama of constant tension. A war of all against all, in order to keep people tuning in to the next episode, is how he runs his life.'
Trump's supporters contend that his predecessors represent a failed system that has been rejected by voters, so it's not surprising that tensions would erupt.
'Former Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden are all part of the same club that's spent decades serving the corrupt DC establishment and protecting the failed status quo. President Trump wears their criticism as a badge of honour,' said White House spokeswoman Liz Huston. 'President Trump remains the ultimate outsider, and he's focused on keeping his promises to hardworking, patriotic citizens and making America greater than ever before.'
President Donald Trump speaks with former president Barack Obama and former vice president Joe Biden during Trump's first inauguration on January 20, 2017. Photo / Getty Images
Obama's role is among the most notable, as he seeks to present a counterpoint to Trump without becoming a high-profile spokesman for the opposition.
In a June 17 appearance in Hartford, Connecticut, Obama left little doubt how he views the Trump administration. 'The system is captured by those who, let's say, have a weak attachment to democracy - I don't even think that's a controversial statement at this point,' Obama said.
The United States, he added, is getting 'dangerously close' to normalising autocratic behaviour, in part because so few people are pushing back on falsehoods like the notion that the 2020 election was rigged. 'In one of our major political parties, you have a whole bunch of people who know that's not true but will pretend like it is,' Obama said. 'And that is dangerous.'
Clinton also has not been silent. He has been promoting The First Gentleman, his latest political thriller with James Patterson, and has been asked about Trump at his book events.
In a June 1 appearance on CBS Sunday Morning, Clinton took Trump to task for his cavalier attitude toward judicial rulings, and he predicted that voters will rebel if Trump continues on this path.
'Look, we've never seen anything like this before in my lifetime - somebody who says, 'Whatever I want should be the law of the land. It's my way or the highway,'' Clinton said. 'And most Americans don't agree with that.'
Former president George W. Bush, President Donald Trump, and former presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter look on during a funeral for former president George H.W. Bush in 2018. Photo / Matt McClain, The Washington Post
Biden has been playing defence as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans pursue investigations into whether he was so diminished that his staff used an autopen to improperly approve presidential decisions. They have provided no evidence, but the probes have prompted several Biden aides to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.
Biden has blasted the claims as an attempted 'distraction' from Trump's 'disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations'.
In a sense, the Democratic former presidents are stepping into the vacuum that confronts any party out of power. As Trump presses ahead with his sweeping, chaotic agenda, many Democrats view him as an existential threat and are hungry for someone to hit back.
Obama is in some ways a natural contender. A Gallup poll in January found that 96% of Democrats had a favourable view of Obama, and a survey a month earlier found that 84% of them said Obama was an outstanding or above-average president.
'My own view is that Obama, who is the most popular and probably most influential Democrat, should be very seriously considering speaking out more and giving voice to the values and the vision of the Democratic Party on a steadier basis,' said Alex Keyssar, a historian at the Harvard Kennedy School. 'I'm sympathetic to the idea that it needs to be done, and he may be uniquely positioned to do it.'
At a recent Democratic fundraiser in New Jersey, Obama focused not only on Trump's actions – 'I mean, that's who he is' – but also on Democrats who, he suggested, are spending too much time hand-wringing and not enough fighting back.
'I think it's going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions,' Obama said, according to excerpts released by his office. 'And it's going to require Democrats to just toughen up.'
On the other hand, just 4% of Democrats in a CNN poll in March volunteered Obama's name as the leader who best reflects the party's core values. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) was named by 10%, former Vice-President Kamala Harris by 9% and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) by 8% – bolstering the notion that the party lacks a clear leader.
This is not the first time presidents and ex-presidents have gone after one another, although usually the attacks have been more sporadic and less personal. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, Clinton, who by then had been out of office for four years, levelled a sharp attack on Bush, a Republican seeking reelection, accusing him of squandering the country's unity after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
But those critiques were broad arguments made as part of well-established political rituals, bearing little resemblance to today's hard-hitting exchanges.
As Trump faces growing pressure to release material related to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, for example, he has lashed out on a Truth Social post at Obama, Biden and other officials. 'Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration?' Trump wrote.
The post was part of Trump's ongoing drumbeat about his fellow presidents. On June 1, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, 'President Obama was a terrible president. President Biden was the worst president in the history of our country. President Bush should not have gone into the Middle East and blow the place up, so I don't give him high marks either.'
A portrait of Trump hangs between paintings of former first ladies Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton at the White House on May 20. Photo / Demetrius Freeman, The Washington Post
Trump's criticism of Biden in particular has become so reflexive that he recently slammed his predecessor for appointing Jerome H. Powell, even though it was Trump himself who appointed the Federal Reserve chairman. Powell has displeased Trump by not lowering interest rates.
Andrew Bates, a Democratic strategist who worked in Biden's White House, said Trump is levelling his attacks in an effort to change the subject. 'He is eager to talk about his predecessor and anyone else because he knows that his support is cratering and the prices he ran on lowering on are going up,' Bates said.
Coons said Biden has been judicious about firing back, especially given the direct nature of Trump's attacks.
'Trump has been so aggressive and so personal and so biting,' Coons said. 'If you are a newly-elected president and you are criticising your predecessor's policies, that strikes me more as fair game. But … Trump has made his attacks on Biden so personal and so persistent that it's hard to ignore them.'
Trump has been slower to attack Bush, the only living former Republican President. But he and his aides have been clear that they view Bush's decision to launch the Iraq War in 2003 as a historic blunder, an issue that flared up after Trump's decision last month to bomb Iran.
For his part, Bush has been notably quiet as Trump has remade the Republican Party that Bush and his father built, demolishing such longtime Republican principles as free trade and low deficits. But after Trump dismantled the US Agency for International Development, Bush recorded a video with Obama and others thanking USAID employees for their contribution to the country.
'You've shown the great strength of America through your work, and that is our good heart,' Bush said.
Bush spoke on the video with particular emotion about PEPFAR, the global Aids-fighting initiative he created that Trump has sought to cut. 'This program shows a fundamental question facing our country: Is it in our national interest that 25 million people who would have died now live?' Bush said. 'I think it is.'
As the ex-presidents continue trying to calibrate the aggressiveness of their responses to Trump's onslaught, Keyssar emphasised the novelty of the entire exercise. Presidents have always been courteous even when taking office after a predecessor whose agenda they reject, he said.
'Eisenhower did not blame Roosevelt or Truman, and in fact ended up accepting the New Deal,' Keyssar said. 'Neither Kennedy nor Johnson attacked Eisenhower. Nixon did not attack the Democrats, saying Vietnam was their war.'
At the New Jersey fundraiser, Obama told Democrats they should not look to former presidents or anyone else to lead them out of the wilderness. Rather, he said, they should focus on winning critical races this November and next year.
'Stop looking for the quick fix. Stop looking for the messiah,' Obama said. 'You have great candidates running races right now. Support those candidates.'
Scott Clement contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
34 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
US ties with India trampled as Trump hunts goal of ending Russia's war in Ukraine
This week, Trump seemed ready to ditch that relationship. He doubled already hefty tariffs on Indian exports to the US for its steadfast refusal to stop buying oil from Russia, in an effort to pressure Russia to end the war. Trump has accused India of helping Russia finance its war on Ukraine through oil purchases; India has said it needs cheap oil to meet the energy needs of its fast-growing economy. India called the additional tariffs 'unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable', pointing out that it was being punished for doing something — buying Russian oil at a discounted price — that other nations have done, although it didn't mention names. China is the largest buyer of Russian oil, and Turkey has also deepened its energy links with Russia since the start of the war in Ukraine, without incurring similar penalties. Analysts said Trump's pressure tactics could damage the long-standing ties between India and the US. 'We are better off together than apart,' said Atul Keshap, a retired US diplomat and president of the US-India Business Council. 'The partnership forged by our elected leaders over the past 25 years is worth preserving and has achieved considerable mutual prosperity and advanced our shared strategic interests.' It's difficult to quantify what exactly America would lose if its relationship with India cools. India is a valuable strategic partner for the US, acting as a counterweight to China. It is also important to many American companies, including Apple, which has shifted some manufacturing of its products to India from China. Ajay Srivastava, a former trade official at the Global Trade Research Initiative, a New Delhi-based think-tank, said the US action 'will push India to reconsider its strategic alignment, deepening ties with Russia, China, and many other countries'. India and the US, with Japan and Australia, are part of a diplomatic partnership called the Quad, set up largely to counter China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. India is planning to host the Quad Leaders' Summit later this year. Trump was expected to attend, although it's now unclear if he will. For India, the costs of a damaged relationship may prove to be higher. Trump's move puts Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a bind. Russia is the source of 45% of its oil imports. If India stops buying Russian oil, accepting higher prices for consumers and domestic manufacturing, it would be politically damaging for Modi's Government. If it ignores Trump's threat and continues buying Russian oil, the hit to India's economy will be far costlier. The higher tariffs could cut India's more than US$86 billion in exports to the US by half, according to the Global Trade Research Initiative, an Indian research group. The US is India's biggest trading partner, and exports account for nearly 20% of India's economy. India ranks only 10th among American trade partners in goods. India has also come to value American backing for its bid to be recognised as a global superpower. Modi has touted his relationship with Trump, courting the US President during his first term in office and calling him a 'true friend'. But that friendship, as many American allies have learned, may mean little when Trump's own priorities are at stake. US President Donald Trump is open to meeting Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the White House said yesterday. Photo / Olga Maltseva, Brendan Smialowski, Frederick Florin / AFP In recent weeks, Trump announced that he had struck deals with Japan, South Korea and the European Union, but even after months of negotiation, India had not reached an agreement. India was reluctant to make concessions on politically sensitive sectors like dairy and agriculture. India also publicly denied Trump's repeated claims that he helped broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a brief, four-day conflict between the two neighbours in May. India has maintained that the ceasefire was negotiated bilaterally with Pakistan, and Indian leaders bristled at Trump's willingness to insert himself into that bitter rivalry. It is not yet clear whether the punitive tariffs Trump has threatened will ever take effect. In the executive order he issued, Trump said the tariffs would be implemented within a month, but he could modify the order if circumstances changed. The order included a provision that the US would look at other countries' purchases of Russian oil as well. So far, there is no indication that Trump intends to take a similar approach to China. Chinese and US officials are in the middle of sensitive negotiations about potential trade agreements after an initial round of retaliatory tariffs threatened to destabilise the global economy. With his tariff moves against India, Trump is keeping his eye on big strategic goals — a deal with China and keeping the pressure on Moscow before a potential meeting with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, which he disclosed yesterday. Far from being 'a dead economy', as Trump called it, India is the fastest-growing large economy in the world. But its place on the President's list of priorities may be much less certain. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Anupreeta Das Photograph by: Saumya Khandelwal ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Opinion: Palestinian recognition isn't a reward. It's a rescue plan – British High Commissioner Iona Thomas
The devastation in Gaza is undeniable and unrelenting. In the words of Starmer, 'the starvation and denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, the increasing violence from extremist settler groups and Israel's disproportionate military escalation in Gaza are all indefensible'. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has suspended arms exports to Israel and increased humanitarian aid. Photo / Getty Images This is not to deny the horrific nature of the October 7 attack by Hamas. And the UK is clear that Hamas must never be rewarded. We call on Hamas to immediately release all the hostages, commit to disarmament and accept it will play no part in the Government of Gaza. The UK's support for Israel's right to exist and defend itself is unwavering. But Israel has an obligation to uphold the rights and dignity of Palestinians. There is no contradiction between support for Israel's security and support for Palestinian statehood. Recognition of a Palestinian state, in this context, is not about blame or rewarding one side over another. It's about restoring balance. It's about ensuring that any path forward includes the rights, futures and dignity of both peoples. In practical terms, the UK has taken action to address the current crisis: we have suspended arms exports to Israel, sanctioned Israeli ministers and violent settlers, frozen trade talks and increased humanitarian aid. Now, recognition of Palestine joins that list, as part of a wider strategy, not a moment in isolation. For decades, the international community, including New Zealand, has reiterated its commitment to two states living side by side. UN resolutions, from 242 (1967) to 2334 (2016), are the accumulated conviction of a world that wants peace but sees it slipping further away. Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, said plainly that the Israeli Government's outright rejection of a two-state solution is 'morally and strategically wrong'. Shutting down the only path that can deliver both peace and legitimacy, it both harms Palestinians and undermines the long-term interests of Israelis. Recognition alone won't resolve the crisis. But it signals a shift: away from waiting for perfect conditions and toward using diplomacy as an active lever. It puts pressure on all parties, Israel, Hamas and others, to return to the negotiating table. The UK has made clear that no party can hold a veto over our recognition. Both Hamas and the Israeli Government will be judged on whether they meet clear conditions: ceasefire, humanitarian access, a political horizon. It's a firm but balanced approach, one aimed at preserving the viability of the only solution that offers dignity, peace and security, not only today but for a future that is different from the last years. New Zealand and the UK have long supported a rules-based international order. We speak often about justice, peace and multilateralism. We have backed UN resolutions affirming Palestinian self-determination, supported UNRWA, and consistently called for aid access and de-escalation. New Zealand and the UK have consistently supported international law, justice and peace through backing UN resolutions, aid access and multilateral efforts. Photo / RNZ The UK's position now invites others to reflect. As the conflict deepens and the humanitarian crisis worsens, how can countries like ours use our voice, reputation and diplomacy to stop this war from extinguishing the last chance for peace? There are no simple answers. But there is a clear direction: towards action that supports civilian life, international law and the promise of a two-state future. In closing his address to the UN, the Foreign Secretary said: 'The hand of history is on our shoulders.' These words were not poetic hyperbole, but a reminder of responsibility. The two-state solution is not dead yet but finds itself in critical condition. What happens now will decide whether it survives. Recognition won't fix everything. But alongside co-ordinated efforts, aid delivery, a ceasefire, diplomacy and accountability, it can help shift the balance towards justice and survival. This is not about choosing sides. It's about people, hostages still held, children starving and trust eroded on all sides. Diplomacy in these times of instability is when our principles as diplomats are put to the test. The UK is determined to work towards a lasting peace. Staying engaged, clear-eyed and committed to a peaceful outcome may be the most important contribution we can make.
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump's higher tariffs hit major US trading partners, sparking defiance and concern
By David Lawder and Andrea Shalal , Reuters The new rates will test Trump's strategy for shrinking US trade deficits without causing massive disruptions to global supply chains or provoking trading partners. Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP United States President Donald Trump's higher tariffs on imports from dozens of countries have kicked in, raising the average US import duty to its highest in a century and leaving major trade partners such as Switzerland, Brazil and India hurriedly searching for a better deal. The US Customs and Border Protection agency began collecting the higher tariffs of 10 percent to 50 percent at 12:01am EDT (4:01pm Thursday in New Zealand) after weeks of suspense over Trump's final tariff rates and frantic negotiations with countries seeking to lower them. The leaders of Brazil and India vowed not to be cowed by Trump's hardline bargaining position, even while their negotiators sought a reprieve from the highest tariff levels. The new rates will test Trump's strategy for shrinking US trade deficits without causing massive disruptions to global supply chains or provoking higher inflation and stiff retaliation from trading partners. After unveiling his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, Trump has frequently modified his plans, slapping much higher rates on imports from some countries, including 50 percent for goods from Brazil, 39 percent from Switzerland, 35 percent from Canada and 25 percent from India. He announced on Wednesday a separate 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, to be imposed in 21 days, over India's purchases of Russian oil. "BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, LARGELY FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MANY YEARS, LAUGHING ALL THE WAY, WILL START FLOWING INTO THE USA," Trump said on Truth Social just ahead of the tariff deadline. Tariffs are ultimately paid by companies importing the goods, and passed on in full or in part to consumers of end products. Trump's top trade negotiator, Jamieson Greer, said the US was working to reverse decades of policies that had weakened US manufacturing capacity and workforce, and that many other countries shared concerns about macroeconomic imbalances. "The rules of international trade cannot be a suicide pact," he wrote in a column published by the New York Times. "By imposing tariffs to rebalance the trade deficit and negotiating significant reforms that form the basis of a new international system, the United States has shown bold leadership," Greer said. Eight major trading partners accounting for about 40 percent of US trade flows have reached framework deals for trade and investment concessions to Trump, including the European Union, Japan and South Korea, reducing their base tariff rates to 15 percent. Britain won a 10 percent rate, while Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines secured rate reductions to 19 percent or 20 percent. "There'll be some supply chain rearrangement. There'll be a new equilibrium. Prices here will go up, but it'll take a while for that to show up in a major way," said William Reinsch, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Countries with punishingly high duties, such as India and Canada, "will continue to scramble around trying to fix this", he added. Switzerland's government was to hold an emergency meeting after President Karin Keller-Sutter returned home empty-handed from an 11th-hour trip to Washington aimed at averting the crippling US import tariff on Swiss goods. A last-minute attempt by South Africa to improve its offer in exchange for a lower tariff rate also failed. The two countries' trade negotiating teams will have more talks, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's office said. Vietnam said it will continue talks with the US as it seeks to lower tariffs further still after negotiating a reduction to 20 percent from the 46 percent duty Trump slapped on the Southeast Asian country in April. Meanwhile, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters on Wednesday he wouldn't humiliate himself by seeking a phone call with Trump even as he said his government would continue cabinet-level talks to lower a 50 percent tariff rate. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was similarly defiant, saying he would not compromise the interests of the country's farmers. There were also signs that some countries were rallying together to confront Trump, with Brazil's Lula saying he would call the leaders of India and China to discuss a joint BRICS response to tariffs. India said on Wednesday that Modi will visit China for the first time in seven years. US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrive to hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on 13 February, 2025. Photo: AFP Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump at the White House in February. US import taxes are one part of a multilayered tariff strategy that includes national security-based sectoral tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, autos, steel, aluminum, copper, lumber and other goods. Trump said on Wednesday the microchip duties could reach 100 percent. China is on a separate tariff track and will face a potential tariff increase on 12 August unless Trump approves an extension of a prior truce. He has said he may impose additional tariffs over China's purchases of Russian oil as he seeks to pressure Moscow into ending its war in Ukraine. Trump has touted a vast increase in federal revenues from his import tax collections, with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying on Fox Business Network on Thursday that he expected revenue from tariffs to reach $50 billion (NZ$84b) a month. The move will drive average US tariff rates to around 20 percent, the highest in a century and up from 2.5 percent when Trump took office in January, the Atlantic Institute estimates. Commerce Department data released last week showed more evidence that tariffs were driving up US prices, including for recreational goods and motor vehicles, while costs are mounting for companies, including bellwethers Caterpillar, Marriott, Molson Coors and Yum Brands. Toyota on Thursday said it expected a hit of nearly $10 billion (NZ$16.9b) from tariffs on cars imported into the US as it cut its full-year profit forecast by 16 percent. But other Japanese companies such as Sony and Honda said they now expected a smaller impact on profits after Japan agreed a bilateral deal with Washington to lower tariffs. - Reuters
