A port CEO panned Trump's tariffs. A Chinese official's spouse sent praise
As the head of the Port of Los Angeles was doing a flurry of media interviews warning of the damage caused by United States President Donald Trump's tariffs last month, he received an email filled with effusive praise from a notable city resident.
Wang Wei, the wife of Chinese Consul General Guo Shaochun, wanted Port of Los Angeles CEO Gene Seroka to know that she found his views 'practical, well-reasoned, and very convincing'.
'I was pleasantly surprised to see your interview on Fox News this afternoon, where you shared your insights on the impact of the US-China tariff conflict on port trade,' Wang wrote in the email on May 6.
'Later, I browsed YouTube and discovered that you have recently been interviewed by several major networks, including CNN and CNBC etc. I just knew you are such a well-known celebrity and entrepreneur in the business field,' Wang continued.
'Thank you for actively speaking up and advocating for the development and exchange of US-China trade.'
Seroka responded the next day, thanking Wang for her message.
'We will continue to champion world trade,' he wrote. 'There is so much we need to do together.'
The emails, obtained by Al Jazeera through a public records request, provide an unusual insight into behind-the-scenes Chinese lobbying against Trump's trade war, which has been directed most intensely at Beijing.
China has fiercely opposed Trump's tariffs, the most severe of which have been paused as Washington and Beijing work towards a comprehensive trade deal, accusing his administration of protectionism and 'unilateral bullying'.
While the US government has grown sceptical of Chinese trade as it seeks to contain China's rise, state and local authorities – such as the Port of Los Angeles, a self-supporting department of the City of Los Angeles – are more inclined to see the benefits of business between the sides.
In the week that Wang and Seroka exchanged emails, the Port of Los Angeles, the busiest seaport in the Western Hemisphere, announced that cargo had dropped 35 percent compared with the previous year.
When contacted for comment by Al Jazeera, Seroka, who has argued in interviews that 'no one wins' from a protracted US-China trade war, said his exchange with Wang was typical of his work as port CEO.
'Having lived in China and other Pacific Rim countries, I have a wide range of international business relationships. Ms Wang Wei is one of many,' he said, adding that 'all are in the course of promoting business at the Port of Los Angeles'.
China's consulate in Los Angeles and embassy in Washington, DC did not respond to requests for comment.
Despite tensions between Washington and Beijing, a more pragmatic, pro-business view of ties is widely shared at the state and local level.
Diplomacy between lower-level officials of the countries is not uncommon, as reflected in events such as the US-China Sister Cities Summit held last year in Tacoma, Washington state.
Such engagement, however, has drawn scrutiny from Washington.
In 2022, the US National Counterintelligence and Security Centre (NCSC) warned that China aimed to exploit 'subnational relationships' with local officials and legislators 'to influence US policies and advance PRC geopolitical interests'.
The NCSC has more recently issued warnings about Chinese investment into US tech start-ups and efforts by intelligence agencies posing as consulting firms or think tanks to recruit current and former US officials.
While foreign diplomats routinely have contact with local officials and businesspeople about government policy, it is unusual for their family members to weigh in on such matters, a former Western diplomat in China told Al Jazeera.
'Spouses or other family members of diplomats don't typically engage with host country counterparts on policy issues, unless there happens to be an established personal relationship,' the ex-diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
'In private social settings, family members do talk about policy with other diplomats and/or people from the host country, but in my experience it's unusual for a spouse to weigh in – even privately – with a host country counterpart on a policy issue.'
A former US diplomat in China expressed a similar view.
'From just about any country in the world, it would be very unusual to have the spouse of a consul general comment in that way,' the ex-diplomat, who requested anonymity, told Al Jazeera.
'China, sometimes, can be different. Rarely, but sometimes, the spouse of a Chinese diplomat is also a government official. In those cases, they may engage in this way. Otherwise, it would usually be limited to comments on people-to-people or cultural programmes.'
Still, US government warnings about Chinese engagement with state and local authorities are largely 'overblown', the former diplomat said, calling '90 percent' of such activity harmless.
'In most cases, it's innocuous. The problem comes when they start throwing money around,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Nobody knows what I'm going to do': Trump embraces ambiguity towards Iran
President Donald Trump has continued to offer mixed signals about whether the United States would directly intervene in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, which has seen six days of intense bombing. The Republican leader began his Wednesday on the White House lawn, where he installed two giant flagpoles, each 88 feet — or 27 metres — high. During that appearance, however, he was confronted with the question looming over the Middle East conflict: Would the US join Israel in striking Iran's nuclear facilities? 'You don't know that I'm going to even do it,' Trump told one reporter. 'I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this: Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate.' Later, as he posed for photographs in the Oval Office with the Juventus football club, Trump once again signalled he had not made up his mind — and was unlikely to do so until the last possible moment. ' I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final [call],' Trump said. 'I like to make a final decision one second before it's due, you know? Because things change, especially with war. Things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other.' That ambiguity over whether the US may enter the fray has fed uncertainty within the conflict — and led to controversy on the domestic front for Trump. Some Republicans and Democrats have introduced legislation to limit Trump's ability to engage in the fighting between Iran and Israel. Meanwhile, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has published a video interview he recorded with right-wing Senator Ted Cruz, where the two Trump supporters sparred over whether the US should push for regime change in Iran. Trump himself was asked to weigh in on their debate on Wednesday from the Oval Office. The president signalled that he was sympathetic to Carlson's desire to keep the US out of a costly foreign conflict — but with a caveat. 'I don't want to fight either. I'm not looking to fight,' Trump said. 'But if it's a situation between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do. Maybe we won't have to fight. Don't forget: We haven't been fighting.' The Trump administration has described Israel's initial strike on June 13 as a 'unilateral action'. But the president himself has signalled that he knew of the attack in advance and supported Israel's military campaign. In testimony to Congress, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers that the US military would be ready if called upon. 'President Trump's word means something. The world understands that,' Hegseth said. 'And at the Defence Department, our job is to stand ready and prepared with options. And that's precisely what we're doing.' The current conflict, Trump has repeatedly argued, would have never begun if Iran had agreed to US terms for limiting its nuclear programme. US officials had been meeting with their Iranian counterparts since April to talk about limiting Iran's enrichment of uranium, a necessary step for building a nuclear weapon. But Iran has long denied any ambitions of building a nuclear arsenal and has instead maintained that its uranium is used for civilian energy purposes only. Still, Trump tied the ongoing conflict with Israel to the fear that Iran had gotten close to building a bomb. He warned that, if Iran had a nuclear weapon, 'the entire world will blow up'. 'I've been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I've been saying it for a long time, and I think they were a few weeks away from having one,' Trump said on Wednesday. In March, however, Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before Congress that the US intelligence community had assessed 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon'. She has since walked back that comment, calling her position in line with the president's. Critics have warned that Trump may be building the case for US involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran by highlighting the risk of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. Israel too has pointed to the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon as its rationale for launching the first strike. A US ally, Israel is widely believed to have its own undisclosed nuclear arsenal. Negotiations with the US, however, came to standstill after Israel's June 13 strike, which spiralled into a heated exchange of missile fire. A scheduled meeting over the weekend was cancelled, and some of Iran's representatives in the nuclear talks were killed in the initial blasts, as were military leaders and scientists. Trump bemoaned the failure of those talks again on Wednesday, blaming Iran for failing to comply with a 60-day deadline he set in April. 'Why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?' Trump asked. 'I said to people: Why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would've had a country. It's very sad to watch this.' He confirmed that Iranian officials had reached out to him for a White House meeting since the outbreak of the recent conflict. 'I said it's very late to be talking,' Trump told reporters, relaying his reply. ' There's a big difference between now and a week ago.' Trump's own words in recent days have fuelled fears that the conflict could escalate into a regional war. Just a day prior, on Tuesday, Trump publicly mused that he could kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and called for the country's 'unconditional surrender'. Iran has since responded to Trump's remarks. In an interview with CNN host Christiane Amanpour, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi dismissed reports that his officials were trying to get negotiations with the US back on track. 'We are not reaching out to anybody. We are defending ourselves,' Ravanchi said. 'We can negotiate under the threats. We cannot negotiate while our people are under bombardment every day. So we are not begging for anything.' 'If the Americans get involved directly, definitely our hands will not be tied. We will do whatever is necessary to protect our people and our interests.' Khamenei himself said US involvement in the conflict would have 'serious irreparable consequences' and denounced Trump's threats. Trump himself on Wednesday offered different interpretations of how he saw the conflict ending, the first coming in his appearance on the White House lawn, where he repeated his call for 'unconditional surrender'. 'Unconditional surrender: That means I've had it. OK? I've had it. I give up. No more. Then we go blow up all the nuclear stuff that's all over the place there,' Trump said, again blaming Iran for the fighting. 'They had bad intentions. For 40 years, they've been saying: Death to America! Death to Israel! Death to anybody else that they didn't like. They were bullies. They were schoolyard bullies, and now they're not bullies anymore.' Later, in the Oval Office, Trump indicated the conflict could be resolved simply by assuring Iran did not get its hands on a nuclear weapon. 'We're not looking for ceasefire. We're looking for a total complete victory. You know what the victory is? No nuclear weapon.' He warned that the upcoming week would 'be very big' — though he shared no details about what that meant for the future of the conflict. The death toll in Iran has reportedly risen to 240 people, including 70 women and children.
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Fed leaves interest rates unchanged amid economic uncertainty
The United States Federal Reserve has left its benchmark rate unchanged despite mounting pressure from President Donald Trump to cut rates. On Wednesday, the Fed said it will leave its short-term rate unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent. The central bank's decision was largely in line with expectations, and it has not cut interest rates since December. The decision comes as policymakers weigh signs of a weakening economy. US retail sales numbers fell more than expected in its report from the US Department of Commerce yesterday. Last week's jobless claims report from the US Department of Labour came in at its highest in eight months at 248,000. However, the last jobs report showed the unemployment rate was steady at 4.2 percent, indicating the labour market, while slowing, remains fairly stable. 'The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook has diminished but remains elevated,' the central bank said in a statement. 'Fed Chair Jerome Powell has little urgency to ease. But if any easing were to have occurred, it would have been hugely stimulative, and would have lowered US debt interest expense,' Michael Ashley Schulman, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital Advisors, told Al Jazeera. Policymakers are looking at the looming and consistently shifting changes to Trump's tariff policies as well as the escalating tensions in the Middle East. While oil prices were on the decline before Israel's attack last week on Iran and its retaliatory strikes, the concerns about a closure of the Strait of Hormuz as tensions escalate have fueled concerns that prices could go up in the coming weeks. Trump criticises Powell Before the rate announcement, Trump expressed disappointment in the central bank's decision to hold rates steady in the past few months. 'Powell's too late,' he said, referring to his desire for rate cuts. 'I call him 'too late Powell' because he's always too late. I mean, if you look at him, every time I did this I was right 100 percent, he was wrong,' Trump said. He added that he 'may have to force something' but it is not clear what Trump meant by that. He also suggested that he should lead the central bank. 'Maybe I should go to the Fed,' Trump said. 'Am I allowed to appoint myself at the Fed? I'd do a much better job than these people.' Powell's term is set to expire next May, and Trump has recently walked back his rhetoric on firing the central bank head. 'What I'm going to do is, you know, he gets out in about nine months, he has to, he gets fortunately terminated … I would have never reappointed him, [former President Joe] Biden reappointed him. I don't know why that is, but I guess maybe he was a Democrat … he's done a poor job,' Trump said.
Al Jazeera
10 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law barring gender-affirming care for youth
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a Tennessee law barring puberty blockers and hormone therapies for transgender minors does not violate the US Constitution and can therefore remain in effect. Wednesday's decision was split along ideological lines, with the high court's six conservative judges siding with Tennessee and its three left-leaning judges joining together for a dissent. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. In it, he explained that the plaintiffs — three transgender minors, their parents and a doctor — had not successfully shown a violation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs had sought to lift the ban, arguing that Tennessee's law, known as SB1, discriminated against them based on their sex and gender. Roberts, however, disagreed. He pointed out that the ban applies to young men and women equally. 'SB1 does not mask sex-based classifications,' he wrote. 'The law does not prohibit conduct for one sex that it permits for the other. Under SB1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence.' Roberts also noted that puberty blockers continue to be available under the Tennessee law to treat congenital defects, early puberty, disease or injury among children. That application likewise was allowed regardless of sex, he wrote. 'SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses — gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence — from the range of treatable conditions,' Roberts said. Transgender youth are sometimes prescribed hormone inhibitors to delay the onset of puberty, thereby stopping the development of secondary sexual characteristics like breasts, deepening voices and facial hair. LGBTQ advocates say such gender-affirming care is essential in some cases to alleviate the stress of such changes and reduce the potential need for surgeries later on. Puberty blockers are widely considered to be safe and their effects temporary. But Roberts noted that some medical providers are pushing for more research into the long-term effects of the drugs and pointing to 'open questions' in the medical field. 'Health authorities in a number of European countries have raised significant concerns regarding the potential harms associated with using puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors,' Roberts wrote. 'Recent developments only underscore the need for legislative flexibility in this area,' he continued. The majority's opinion was met by a fierce dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She pointed out that puberty blockers can save lives, given that transgender youth face higher rates of suicide, self-harm and bullying. 'The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee's categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as 'any reasonably conceivable state of facts' might justify it,' Sotomayor wrote. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' She emphasised that the consensus in the US medical community is that puberty blockers are 'appropriate and medically necessary' in cases of a comprehensive and clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. 'Transgender adolescents' access to hormones and puberty blockers (known as gender-affirming care) is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference,' Sotomayor said. 'To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death.' She questioned why Tennessee lawmakers should have the power to regulate a medical decision — and why puberty blockers could still be used to address issues like unwanted facial hair among teenage girls but not gender affirmation among transgender youth. 'Tennessee's ban applies no matter what the minor's parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor's mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child,' Sotomayor said. Wednesday's decision comes at a precarious time for the transgender community in the US. Since returning to office for a second term in January, US President Donald Trump has taken steps to limit the rights of transgender people. On his very first day back in the White House, the Republican leader issued an executive order announcing the federal government would only recognise two sexes, male and female. Days later, on January 27, he issued another executive order, effectively setting the stage for a ban on transgender troops in the military. Trump denounced transgender people as 'expressing a false 'gender identity'' and said their identity 'conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle'. The Supreme Court upheld that ban as well. June 6 marked an initial deadline for transgender troops to self-identify and leave the military voluntarily. In addition, Trump has said his administration will withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls and women to participate in women's sports. That decision has led to clashes with states like Maine, where Democratic Governor Janet Mills has pledged to stand up to Trump. The fight over Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers arrives amid a wave of similar legislation: According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), some 25 states have bans on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth. The group estimates that those laws leave around 100,000 transgender minors without access to medical care they may need. The ban the Supreme Court weighed on Wednesday had initially faced an injunction from a lower court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction pending an appeal. The ACLU called the Supreme Court's decision a setback but pledged to continue filing legal challenges. In a statement, it noted that the Supreme Court had not overturned the wider precedent that discriminating against transgender people is illegal. 'Today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,' said Chase Strangio, a co-director for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project. 'We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person.'
