'Our Company Could Not Coexist' with Trump as a Partner
THE MOST PRESCIENT AND POINTED WARNING about Donald Trump may have been raised by a Harrah's executive. In 2016.
Phil Satre wasn't a celebrity, but he stood out in at least two ways: He was Trump's partner on an Atlantic City casino project in the 1980s. And he was willing to stick his neck out and write about it in the Reno Gazette Journal.
The column Satre wrote was so spot-on that in my role then as commentary editor of USA Today, I republished it in our newspaper in hopes it would influence voters throughout the land. That was back when the extent of the Teflon Don syndrome had not fully penetrated our brains—when we still thought, or hoped, that reason and facts could make a difference.
Here's just one paragraph of Satre's column:
In 1985 I filed an affidavit with the court over Trump's claims of mismanagement: Referring to Trump I said, 'His written response to my letter of May 10 is characteristic of the bluster, threats, intemperance and unsupported and unsupportable falsehoods that have permeated the correspondence we have received from him and his key management employees almost since the beginning of our partnership.' My opinion of Donald Trump from the 1980s has not changed. The negative publicity about Donald Trump during this campaign—his conduct toward women, his business failures and his explosive temperament—matches my dealings with him.
As we know, reason and facts did not prevail. Satre's words, so blunt and vivid, probably had the most impact inside my own brain. They have come to mind repeatedly during the first two months of Trump's return to office.
Call it the boomerang presidency. Or the whiplash or rug-pull presidency. The bottom line is the same, whether we're talking about tariffs, Ukraine, Social Security, immigration, or anything else: You cannot count on Trump. You cannot trust him. Also, he knows nothing about the economy.
'I don't have a changed view of him,' Satre told me in a phone call this week—the first time we'd ever talked. 'His whole approach during the periods that I was involved with him in a partnership were examples of somebody who talked a lot about himself with a great deal of bombast. And there was no regard to accuracy of what he said or truthfulness. And as a consequence, ultimately, our company could not coexist with him as a partner.'
Keep up with all our articles, newsletters, podcasts, and livestreams:
Negotiating with Trump then sounds a lot like negotiating with him now. 'What was negotiated in those days was his name and how valuable his name was. We had lots of disagreements about that,' Satre said, deadpan, and we both chuckled. Were they resolved? 'No, they weren't,' he said.
In a way, though, they were. Satre and the rest of the Harrah's team decided to sell their half-interest in the project back to Trump. They didn't lose any money in the transaction, Satre said, but Trump nevertheless claimed it was 'a great deal for him.'
Harrah's went back to operating its 'very successful' Marina District casino in Atlantic City, which had opened in 1980. And Trump went back to doing what he does best, or worst.
The Trump Plaza, as Trump called it after the partnership ended, 'filed for bankruptcy in 1992. It closed in 2014 after additional bankruptcies,' Satre wrote in 2016. And lest you're inclined to blame economic conditions, he made a point of noting that 'in contrast, Harrah's flourished during this same period, and I retired as Chairman in 2005.'
And furthermore: 'I am convinced he simply does not have the temperament to be president, or more importantly, commander in chief: His hair-trigger temper, bluster, racial rhetoric and divisive domestic and international views will endanger our democracy and risk permanent damage to our society.'
Not surprisingly, both Satre and I thought immediately of his long-ago op-ed after the volcanic Oval Office meeting between Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. When Satre read about it and watched clips, he had flashbacks to some of his sessions with Trump. 'We had several of those just really angry outbursts,' he told me.
Satre did not write anything about Trump last year. 'I didn't feel like I could say anything different than what I said then. I actually was quite shocked in 2024, shocked by the outcome,' he said.
Join now
The enduring mystery, for Satre and so many of us, is why Trump's skills at selling and marketing himself have worked so well and for so long. They weren't in evidence, nor was there any hint he had a political future, at the time Satre was trying to work with him.
That came later, he says, when Trump was riding high with The Apprentice: 'He had become a media personality more than a developer personality, and he started talking about running for president and all that. I began to run into people who said we should elect him president. I said 'Really?' The Apprentice. People were attracted to that.'
Satre, now the non-executive chairman of the board of Wynn Resorts, has had a long and respected career in the gaming industry. But like millions of Americans, maybe tens of millions, he has failed at one big thing: Turning the electorate away from Donald Trump.
Years ago, when he and other Harrah's executives contemplated a continued future with Trump, 'We made the decision that we'd be well served by terminating our relationship with him,' he said during our call. 'We decided to do it and we were very happy.'
If only Republicans could find the courage and will to do the same. If I were a betting woman, I'd say they, and their country, would be very happy.
Send this article around—to friends or followers or family.
Share
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Yemen's al-Qaida branch leader threatens Trump, Musk and others
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The leader of al-Qaida's Yemen branch has threatened both U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk over the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip in his first video message since taking over the group last year. The half-hour video message by Saad bin Atef al-Awlaki, which spread online early Saturday via supporters of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, also included calls for lone-wolf militants to assassinate leaders in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states over the war, which has decimated Gaza. The video of al-Awlaki's speech showed images of Trump and Musk, as well as U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of State Pete Hegseth. It also included images of logos of Musk's businesses, including the electric carmaker Tesla. 'There are no red lines after what happened and is happening to our people in Gaza," al-Awlaki said. "Reciprocity is legitimate.' Yemen's al-Qaida branch long thought to be most dangerous Though believed to be weakened in recent years due to infighting and suspected U.S. drone strikes killing its leaders, the group known by the acronym AQAP had been considered the most dangerous branch of al-Qaida still operating after the 2011 killing by U.S. Navy SEALs of founder Osama bin Laden, who masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In 2022, a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan killed bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahri, who also helped plot 9/11. The Sept. 11 attacks then began decades of war by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, and fomented the rise of the Islamic State group. Al-Awlaki already has a $6 million U.S. bounty on his head, as Washington says al-Awlaki 'has publicly called for attacks against the United States and its allies.' He replaced AQAP leader Khalid al-Batarfi, whose death was announced by the group in 2024. Israel-Hamas war a focus of the Houthis as well AQAP seizing onto the Israel-Hamas war follows the efforts of Yemen's Houthi rebels to do the same. The Iranian-backed group has launched missile attacks on Israel and targeted commercial vessels moving through the Red Sea corridor, as well as American warships. The U.S. Navy has described their campaign against the Houthis as the most intense combat it has faced since World War II. The Trump administration also launched its own intense campaign of strikes on the Houthis, which only ended before the president's recent trip to the Middle East. The Houthis' international profile rose as the group remains mired in Yemen's long-stalemated war. Al-Awlaki may be betting on the same for his group, which U.N. experts have estimated has between 3,000 and 4,000 active fighters and passive members. The group raises money by robbing banks and money exchange shops, as well as smuggling weapons, counterfeiting currencies and ransom operations, according to the U.N. The Shiite Zaydi Houthis have previously denied working with AQAP, a Sunni extremist group. However, AQAP targeting of the Houthis has dropped in recent years, while the militants keep attacking Saudi-led coalition forces who have battled the Houthis. 'As the Houthis gain popularity as leaders of the 'Arab and Muslim world's resistance' against Israel, al-Awlaki seeks to challenge their dominance by presenting himself as equally concerned about the situation in Gaza,' said Mohammed al-Basha, a Yemen expert of the Basha Report risk advisory firm. 'For a national security and foreign policy community increasingly disengaged from Yemen, this video is a clear reminder: Yemen still matters.'
12 minutes ago
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
‘He's gone so nuclear': Vance isn't sure Musk could rejoin the MAGA fold
Vice President JD Vance said he wasn't sure Elon Musk could ever get back into the good graces of President Donald Trump, after the two men's relationship blew up earlier this week. The vice president was forced to respond in real time to Musk's Thursday barrage of social media posts attacking Trump — including the allegations that the president was on 'the Epstein files,' referring to the sex predator Jeffrey Epstein — as he was taping a podcast. In the interview released Saturday, Vance told podcaster Theo Von that it was a 'big mistake' for Musk to attack the president. 'I'm always going to be loyal to the president, and I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold,' Vance said, sitting in front of a painting of the president. 'Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear.' In the last several days, the relationship between Musk and Trump has imploded after the former Department of Government Efficiency chief unleashed a broadside of attacks against the president, including highlighting his connections with Epstein and implying that he should be impeached. It has long been known that Trump and prominent politicians are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein. But Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. Musk has been vocal in his opposition of the Trump-backed spending bill, which he argues will increase the nation's deficit. But the two exchanged fire earlier this week, with Trump also threatening Musk's government contracts, suggesting the world's richest man has 'lost his mind' and insisting he was moving on from him. Many Republicans have rallied to Trump's defense, suggesting they are taking his side in the fight — including Vance. 'If he and the president are in some blood feud, most importantly it's going to be bad for the country, but I don't think it's going to be good for Elon either,' Vance told Von. Musk has since deleted the original post accusing Trump of being on the 'Epstein list,' but has continued alluding to it in additional posts. 'I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man … to be at this war with the world's most powerful man,' Vance said on the podcast.
