Leaving a top Trump administration post? The president may have an ambassadorship for you
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Diplomacy may be soft power, but in President Donald Trump 's administration, it's also lately a soft landing.National security adviser Mike Waltz was nominated as United Nations ambassador after he mistakenly added a journalist to a Signal chat discussing military plans. Trump tapped IRS Commissioner Billy Long to be his ambassador to Iceland after Long contradicted the administration's messaging in his less than two months in the job.And Trump last weekend named State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce as deputy representative to the U.N. after she struggled to gel with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's close-knit team.The new appointments can be viewed as consolation prizes for leaving a high-profile post in the Trump administration following rocky tenures. But they also reflect the degree to which Trump is trying to keep his loyalists close, even if their earlier placements in the administration were ill-fitting. Breaking with the reality TV show that helped make Trump a household name, the Republican president is not telling his top appointees "You're fired!" but instead offering them another way to stay in his administration."It's not like 'The Apprentice,'" said John Bolton, another former Trump national security adviser, who has since become a Trump critic.Trump's first term featured more firings During his first White House tenure, Trump was new to politics, made many staffing picks based on others' recommendations and saw heavy staff turnover. Trump has stocked his second administration with proven boosters, which has meant fewer high-profile departures.Still, those leaving often are the subject of effusive praise and kept in Trump's political orbit, potentially preventing them from becoming critics who can criticize him on TV - something that didn't happen to a long list of former first-term officials.Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, and Trump can nominate anyone he likes, though many ultimately require Senate confirmation. Typically, top ambassadorships are rewards for large donors."It is a tremendous honor to represent the United States as an ambassador - which is why these positions are highly coveted and reserved for the president's most loyal supporters," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. "Mike Waltz, Billy Long and Tammy Bruce are great patriots who believe strongly in the America First agenda, and the President trusts them fully to advance his foreign policy goals."From 'glitch' to a new job Waltz's days appeared numbered after The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg revealed in March that Waltz had added him to a private text chain on an encrypted messaging app that was used to discuss planning for a military operation against Houthi militants in Yemen.Trump initially expressed support for Waltz, downplaying the incident as "a glitch." Roughly five weeks later, the president announced Waltz would be leaving - but not for good. He portrayed the job change as a cause for celebration."From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation's Interests first," Trump posted in announcing Waltz's move on May 1. "I know he will do the same in his new role."Vice President JD Vance also pushed back on insinuations that Waltz had been ousted."The media wants to frame this as a firing. Donald Trump has fired a lot of people," Vance said in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News Channel. "He doesn't give them Senate-confirmed appointments afterwards."Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush before becoming Trump's national security adviser in 2018, called it "a promotion to go in the other direction" - but not the way Waltz went."The lesson is, sometimes you do more good for yourself looking nice," Bolton said of Trump's reassignments.Bruce also picked for a UN post Ironically, Bruce learned of Waltz's ouster from a reporter's question while she was conducting a press briefing.A former Fox News Channel contributor, Bruce is friendly with Trump and was a forceful advocate for his foreign policy. Over the course of her roughly six months as spokesperson, she reduced the frequency of State Department briefings with reporters from four or five days a week to two.But Bruce had also begun to frequently decline to respond to queries on the effectiveness, substantiveness or consistency of the administration's approaches to the Middle East, Russia's war in Ukraine and other global hotspots. She told reporters that special envoy Steve Witkoff "is heading to the region now - to the Gaza area" but then had to concede that she'd not been told exactly where in the Middle East he was going.Trump nonetheless posted Saturday that Bruce did a "fantastic job" at the State Department and would "represent our Country brilliantly at the United Nations."Former U.S. deputy U.N. ambassador Robert Wood, who served as deputy State Department spokesman during President George W. Bush's term and as acting spokesman during President Barack Obama's term, voiced skepticism that Bruce's new position was a move up. Wood later became the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament through the rest of the Obama's tenure and all of the first Trump administration."Given the disdain in MAGA world for anything U.N., it's hard to imagine Tammy Bruce's nomination as U.S. Deputy Representative to the U.N. being seen as a promotion," referring to Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement.During her final State Department briefing on Tuesday, Bruce said Trump's announcing that he wanted her in a new role "was a surprise," but called the decision "especially moving as it allows me to continue serving the State Department, to which I'm now quite attached."'Exciting times ahead!' Then there's Long, a former Republican Missouri congressman, who was the shortest-tenured IRS commissioner confirmed by the Senate since the position was created in 1862. He contradicted administration messaging on several occasions.Long said last month that the IRS' Direct File program would be eliminated. An IRS spokesperson later indicated that it wouldn't be, noting requirements in the tax and spending law Trump has championed. The Washington Post also reported that Long's IRS disagreed with the White House about sharing taxpayer data with immigration officials to help locate people in the U.S. illegally.After learning that Trump wanted him in Reykjavik, Long posted, "Exciting times ahead!"White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to say Tuesday why Long was removed as IRS chief and being deployed to Iceland. "The president loves Billy Long, and he thinks he can serve the administration well in this position," she said.'These things usually don't work out' The soft landings aren't always heralded by Trump.Former television commentator Morgan Ortagus, who was a State Department spokesperson during Trump's first term, is now a special adviser to the United Nations after serving as deputy envoy to the Middle East under Witkoff.Trump foresaw that Ortagus might not be a good fit. He posted in January, while announcing her as Witkoff's deputy, that "Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson.""These things usually don't work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing it for them," Trump added. "Let's see what happens."Ortagus lasted less than six months in the role.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
9 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump is aiming for Pakistan-style compliance from India, but his plan is not working
Synopsis Amidst rising tensions, the US-India trade relationship faces turbulence as Trump's administration imposes tariffs, allegedly to pressure India on geopolitical issues like Russian oil imports. India views these actions as an infringement on its sovereignty, resisting demands to compromise on agriculture, patent laws and military sourcing. India's refusal to play a compliant role, unlike Pakistan, frustrates Trump. "Trump wants a vessel like Pakistan. India refuses to behave like one." That blunt assessment from Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), captures the essence of the US-India trade saga: it's less about economics than geopolitics. While headlines focus on tariffs and trade deficits, the underlying story is about power, leverage and sovereignty. Speaking to Economic Times, Srivastava explains, "Washington expects compliance, and India is not yielding." Trump, who is set to meet Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, has long framed tariffs as a tool to 'fix trade deficits,' but India's case suggests a different motive. On August 7, the US announced it would raise tariffs on Indian goods from 25% to 50%, citing Delhi's purchase of Russian oil. India called the move 'unfair' and 'unjustified,' with the new rate set to take effect on August 27. The White House framed the tariffs as a way to cut Russia's energy revenues and pressure Vladimir Putin toward a ceasefire. With this increase, India becomes the most heavily taxed US trading partner in Asia, joining Brazil which faces similar steep tariffs amid tense bilateral relations. The economic stakes for India are high. In 2024, India exported $87 billion worth of goods to the US. According to US Census Bureau data for May 2025, imports from India stood at $9.43 billion, while US exports to India were $3.82 billion, resulting in a US goods trade deficit, or an Indian surplus, of roughly $5.6 billion. If the 50% tariffs remain in place, nearly all of India's annual exports to the US could become commercially unviable. Meanwhile, the US continues to run a $45.7 billion goods trade deficit with India, yet these tariffs disproportionately affect Indian exports compared with goods from other Srivastava, the message is clear: 'Trade deficit is just for the namesake. It's about forcing countries to fall in line with a geopolitical agenda.' India imports roughly 20% of its GDP in goods, spanning petroleum, machinery and electronics, yet Washington appears less concerned with trade imbalances than with pressuring India to compromise on and dairy have emerged as key sticking points in India-US trade talks, which collapsed earlier this month. On August 7, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared, 'India will never compromise on the well-being of its farmers, dairy producers and fishermen.' New Delhi has consistently resisted US pressure to open these sectors, arguing that doing so would threaten millions of small farmers. Historically, India has kept agriculture largely off the table in trade agreements to safeguard domestic to Srivastava, US demands extend far beyond tariffs: opening government procurement, diluting patent laws that could make medicines costlier, limiting future digital taxes, and shifting military sourcing to the US. 'Even if we open agri and dairy, no trade deal will happen with this. Not a trade issue. They want you to open your government procurement, dilute patent laws, commit to never charge digital tax in future, buy military from the US, the list is endless,' he adds, 'Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Brazil partly over politics and partly because Brazil asked Twitter to remove anti-Brazil content. Records show India generates even more such requests, so he could use that as an excuse too. He can conjure unlimited reasons to impose tariffs if he's unhappy. My sense is he doesn't want a partner in India, he wants a vassal. India refuses to play that role; it insists on an equal partnership. That's the basic problem.'The US approach to Russian oil imports is uneven. China, Russia's largest crude buyer, faces no comparable tariff threats, while India is under heavy pressure. 'Even if the US demanded zero imports from Russia, India's imports would fall anyway due to economic circumstances,' notes Srivastava. European and US bans on petroleum products derived from Russian crude are already reducing India's imports, independent of Washington's selective approach reflects a broader pattern in US trade policy. Brazil, for example, faced a 50% tariff despite running a surplus with the US, largely over political disagreements including its stance on Venezuela and former President Bolsonaro. Venezuela itself is under secondary sanctions for buyers of its oil, though some firms, like Chevron, have received exemptions. These cases suggest that political alignment often outweighs economic between Russia and the US has dropped roughly 90% since the Kremlin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, though last year the US still imported $3 billion worth of Russian goods, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the European Union, a partner in sanctions against Russia, imported $41.9 billion (36 billion euros) of Russian goods in 2024, Eurostat data the US pressures India to cut Russian oil imports, market forces and global regulations are already reshaping trade flows. Europe and US bans on petroleum products ensure India's imports will decline regardless of Washington's actions. Srivastava cautions, however, that the US may find new reasons for tariffs, keeping India under continuous has built a buffer against such pressures. Exports constitute roughly 20% of GDP, compared with 90% for Vietnam, a country far more vulnerable to US-imposed shocks. 'Vietnam will suffer more. We will suffer, but we will absorb it properly. Country will bounce back. All we need to do is not to surrender,' Srivastava US consumers will also feel the impact of tariffs. About 90% of prescriptions in the US rely on generics imported from India. While the total trade value may be under $10 billion, disruption affects the majority of prescriptions, potentially raising prices significantly. Companies may eventually source alternatives over three to four months, but the immediate effect is inflationary.'Indian exports will suffer, but we need to consider whether it's better to endure this and use it to push delayed reforms, like diversifying exports, rather than falling into a bad deal. This isn't really about trade; it's about surrendering sovereignty,' Srivastava Srivastava, Trump's broader strategy is political theatre. 'Basically, he wanted to hit China. He couldn't, so he has to show his domestic voters that he is a big man, that a bully can show strength by hitting someone. He couldn't hit China, so let's hit India, that's the only thing.'With China, Trump launched a trade war over the large trade deficit, but Beijing hit back by restricting supplies of critical materials, he noted. 'India hasn't used those levers, which is why Washington expected Delhi to yield immediately.'India's refusal to play a compliant role, unlike Pakistan, frustrates Trump. At the same time, India maintains strategic autonomy, engaging with Russia on defence, limiting deep Chinese investment to marketing and distribution, and managing relations with the US on equal footing. 'We are a big country, big economy, and so we have to have workable, good relations with everyone, without being in anybody's camp,' Srivastava pre-Galwan, Chinese investment has been superficial. 'China doesn't invest in deep manufacturing. They will not supply any technology. They will invest in marketing of cars, garments, two, $5 billion here and there, but we don't want that. So we have to evaluate very carefully,' he says.'We can have targeted strategic relationships, like with Russia for defence, but moving closer to China is complicated. There's the border dispute and a $100 billion trade deficit,' he export-oriented economy, diversified supply chains and robust domestic market allow it to absorb short-term shocks while resisting long-term concessions. 'All we need to do is not enter into any relationship that costs us the medium or long term,' Srivastava takeaway is clear: Trump's tariffs are less about trade and more about leverage. Every tweet, every tariff threat, every demand is a political signal designed to demonstrate strength to domestic voters. 'Every day he abuses us on Twitter. That shows India has entered his mind,' Srivastava response emphasises sovereignty, resilience and strategic foresight. "Trade deal is not a trade deal. It's about bargaining for your sovereignty. And India is not bargaining."
News18
18 minutes ago
- News18
Trump Vows To ‘Get Ukraine War Stopped' Ahead Of Meeting With Putin In Alaska
Last Updated: US President Trump will meet Russian President Putin in Alaska to discuss ending the Russia-Ukraine war. The summit will be held at a military base. Ahead of his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, US President Donald Trump on Thursday vowed to end the Russia-Ukraine war, saying that he inherited this from Joe Biden, but he's going to get it stopped. This will be the first in-person meeting between Trump and Putin since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 'We're going to get it stopped. I inherited this from Joe Biden, but we're going to get it stopped," the US President said. . @POTUS on his 'mindset" ahead of tomorrow's meeting with President Putin: 'We're going to get it stopped. I inherited this from Joe Biden, but we're going to get it stopped." — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 14, 2025 According to CNN, Trump and Putin will hold a joint press conference following their upcoming meeting in Alaska. The much-awaited meeting is scheduled to take place on Friday. During the Alaska summit, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will hold talks over ending the war in Ukraine. Interestingly, the high-stakes meeting will take place at a military base in Alaska that was crucial to countering the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War and still plays a role today, news agency AP reported, citing a White House official. Trump has said that a peace deal might include swapping land between Russia and Ukraine. He also suggested that Zelenskyy and Putin could meet next — or that he might meet with both of them. 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting, which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing," AP quoted Trump as saying on Wednesday. 'It's going to be a very important meeting, but it's setting the table for the second meeting," he added. The BBC reports that Putin has stated Russia would agree to a ceasefire if the Ukrainian government withdrew from the four partially Russian-controlled regions — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. He also insisted that Ukraine must formally abandon its bid to join the NATO military alliance, the outlet added. Meanwhile, Zelensky has expressed deep concerns over being excluded from the upcoming summit, warning that any peace deal excluding Kyiv will lead to dead solutions. Officials from Ukraine and Europe fear that the one-on-one meeting they will not take part in could lead to a result favouring Russian goals. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump is aiming for Pakistan-style compliance from India, but his plan is not working
" Trump wants a vessel like Pakistan. India refuses to behave like one." That blunt assessment from Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), captures the essence of the US-India trade saga: it's less about economics than geopolitics. Independence Day 2025 Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji gave India its own currency Swadeshi 2.0: India is no longer just a market, it's a maker While headlines focus on tariffs and trade deficits, the underlying story is about power, leverage and sovereignty. Speaking to Economic Times, Srivastava explains, "Washington expects compliance, and India is not yielding." Tariffs as geopolitical weapons Trump, who is set to meet Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, has long framed tariffs as a tool to 'fix trade deficits,' but India's case suggests a different motive. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 Most Beautiful Women in the World Undo On August 7, the US announced it would raise tariffs on Indian goods from 25% to 50%, citing Delhi's purchase of Russian oil . India called the move 'unfair' and 'unjustified,' with the new rate set to take effect on August 27. The White House framed the tariffs as a way to cut Russia's energy revenues and pressure Vladimir Putin toward a ceasefire. With this increase, India becomes the most heavily taxed US trading partner in Asia, joining Brazil which faces similar steep tariffs amid tense bilateral relations. Live Events The economic stakes for India are high. In 2024, India exported $87 billion worth of goods to the US. According to US Census Bureau data for May 2025, imports from India stood at $9.43 billion, while US exports to India were $3.82 billion, resulting in a US goods trade deficit, or an Indian surplus, of roughly $5.6 billion. If the 50% tariffs remain in place, nearly all of India's annual exports to the US could become commercially unviable. Meanwhile, the US continues to run a $45.7 billion goods trade deficit with India, yet these tariffs disproportionately affect Indian exports compared with goods from other countries. For Srivastava, the message is clear: 'Trade deficit is just for the namesake. It's about forcing countries to fall in line with a geopolitical agenda.' India imports roughly 20% of its GDP in goods, spanning petroleum, machinery and electronics, yet Washington appears less concerned with trade imbalances than with pressuring India to compromise on sovereignty. Agriculture and dairy major flashpoints Agriculture and dairy have emerged as key sticking points in India-US trade talks, which collapsed earlier this month. On August 7, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared, 'India will never compromise on the well-being of its farmers, dairy producers and fishermen.' New Delhi has consistently resisted US pressure to open these sectors, arguing that doing so would threaten millions of small farmers. Historically, India has kept agriculture largely off the table in trade agreements to safeguard domestic communities. According to Srivastava, US demands extend far beyond tariffs: opening government procurement, diluting patent laws that could make medicines costlier, limiting future digital taxes, and shifting military sourcing to the US. 'Even if we open agri and dairy, no trade deal will happen with this. Not a trade issue. They want you to open your government procurement, dilute patent laws, commit to never charge digital tax in future, buy military from the US, the list is endless,' he says. He adds, 'Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Brazil partly over politics and partly because Brazil asked Twitter to remove anti-Brazil content. Records show India generates even more such requests, so he could use that as an excuse too. He can conjure unlimited reasons to impose tariffs if he's unhappy. My sense is he doesn't want a partner in India, he wants a vassal. India refuses to play that role; it insists on an equal partnership. That's the basic problem.' Selective pressure and double standards The US approach to Russian oil imports is uneven. China, Russia's largest crude buyer, faces no comparable tariff threats, while India is under heavy pressure. 'Even if the US demanded zero imports from Russia, India's imports would fall anyway due to economic circumstances,' notes Srivastava. European and US bans on petroleum products derived from Russian crude are already reducing India's imports, independent of Washington's pressure. This selective approach reflects a broader pattern in US trade policy. Brazil, for example, faced a 50% tariff despite running a surplus with the US, largely over political disagreements including its stance on Venezuela and former President Bolsonaro. Venezuela itself is under secondary sanctions for buyers of its oil, though some firms, like Chevron, have received exemptions. These cases suggest that political alignment often outweighs economic considerations. Trade between Russia and the US has dropped roughly 90% since the Kremlin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, though last year the US still imported $3 billion worth of Russian goods, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the European Union, a partner in sanctions against Russia, imported $41.9 billion (36 billion euros) of Russian goods in 2024, Eurostat data shows. While the US pressures India to cut Russian oil imports, market forces and global regulations are already reshaping trade flows. Europe and US bans on petroleum products ensure India's imports will decline regardless of Washington's actions. Srivastava cautions, however, that the US may find new reasons for tariffs, keeping India under continuous scrutiny. Economic resilience and the cost of compliance India has built a buffer against such pressures. Exports constitute roughly 20% of GDP, compared with 90% for Vietnam, a country far more vulnerable to US-imposed shocks. 'Vietnam will suffer more. We will suffer, but we will absorb it properly. Country will bounce back. All we need to do is not to surrender,' Srivastava notes. Domestically, US consumers will also feel the impact of tariffs. About 90% of prescriptions in the US rely on generics imported from India. While the total trade value may be under $10 billion, disruption affects the majority of prescriptions, potentially raising prices significantly. Companies may eventually source alternatives over three to four months, but the immediate effect is inflationary. 'Indian exports will suffer, but we need to consider whether it's better to endure this and use it to push delayed reforms, like diversifying exports, rather than falling into a bad deal. This isn't really about trade; it's about surrendering sovereignty,' Srivastava adds. Geopolitics, not trade For Srivastava, Trump's broader strategy is political theatre. 'Basically, he wanted to hit China. He couldn't, so he has to show his domestic voters that he is a big man, that a bully can show strength by hitting someone. He couldn't hit China, so let's hit India, that's the only thing.' With China, Trump launched a trade war over the large trade deficit, but Beijing hit back by restricting supplies of critical materials, he noted. 'India hasn't used those levers, which is why Washington expected Delhi to yield immediately.' India's refusal to play a compliant role, unlike Pakistan, frustrates Trump. At the same time, India maintains strategic autonomy, engaging with Russia on defence, limiting deep Chinese investment to marketing and distribution, and managing relations with the US on equal footing. 'We are a big country, big economy, and so we have to have workable, good relations with everyone, without being in anybody's camp,' Srivastava explains. Even pre-Galwan, Chinese investment has been superficial. 'China doesn't invest in deep manufacturing. They will not supply any technology. They will invest in marketing of cars, garments, two, $5 billion here and there, but we don't want that. So we have to evaluate very carefully,' he says. 'We can have targeted strategic relationships, like with Russia for defence, but moving closer to China is complicated. There's the border dispute and a $100 billion trade deficit,' he adds. Strategic autonomy and resilience India's export-oriented economy, diversified supply chains and robust domestic market allow it to absorb short-term shocks while resisting long-term concessions. 'All we need to do is not enter into any relationship that costs us the medium or long term,' Srivastava says. The takeaway is clear: Trump's tariffs are less about trade and more about leverage. Every tweet, every tariff threat, every demand is a political signal designed to demonstrate strength to domestic voters. 'Every day he abuses us on Twitter. That shows India has entered his mind,' Srivastava notes. India's response emphasises sovereignty, resilience and strategic foresight. "Trade deal is not a trade deal. It's about bargaining for your sovereignty. And India is not bargaining."
