Letters to the Editor: Why is Trump waiting 50 days to follow through on Russia tariff threat?
Can you imagine Trump's rhetoric if President Biden made the same decision under the same circumstances while in office? Russia could make the decision to cease military action immediately if that government were motivated to do so. Instead of 50 days, the mandate should have been five days. How does Trump rationalize the 50 days after his experience of being dragged along by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia's destruction of civilian buildings, hospitals, schools, maternity wards and homes? Is it weakness or fear? How can anyone who has the power to change the course of events live with complicity in allowing Russia to continue the obliteration of so many people's lives?
Congress, the MAGA base and the American people should demand more of Trump.
Sidney Pelston, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: This article ('Trump to meet NATO secretary general as plan takes shape for Ukraine weapons sales,' July 13) and earlier ones show that European leaders are getting serious about Russia's assault on Ukraine and are cooperating with the U.S. on using the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Putin's aggression. This could be more effective than Putin originally feared when he launched his first attack in 2014 — an attack that only strengthened Ukraine's desire to join NATO.
Dale Pfremmer, Agoura Hills
..
To the editor: It has become increasingly apparent that, for his own sake, Putin cannot afford to end his war in Ukraine. Putin probably y knows that if he does, he will almost certainly lose control of Russia, which could lead to dire consequences for himself.
But what if he had an alternative? Trump could offer Putin asylum here in the U.S. Who wouldn't choose to live out their retirement years in Florida next to Disney World? Trump just needs to make sure Immigration and Customs Enforcement leaves Putin alone.
Dave Wilson, Murrieta, Calif.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
6 minutes ago
- Engadget
China calls for the creation of a global AI organization
China wants to work with other countries and has laid out its plans for the global governance of artificial intelligence at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai. Li Qiang, the country's premier, warned about "technological monopolies" and said that AI could become "an exclusive game for a few countries and companies." As such, he proposed the creation of a "world AI cooperation organization" during the event. Li didn't specifically mention the United States when he talked about monopolies, but the US restricts AI chip exports to his country. NVIDIA had to develop chips that are only meant for China and conform to export rules so it wouldn't lose the Chinese market completely. Meanwhile, Chinese companies like Huawei are developing their own AI systems to make up for China's lack of access to more advanced AI chips from American firms. Li also made the statement a few days after the Trump administration revealed its AI Action Plan, which seeks to limit state regulation of AI companies and which aims to ensure that the US can beat China in the AI race. The Chinese premier said his country would "actively promote" the development of open source artificial intelligence and that China is "willing to provide more Chinese solutions to the international community" when it comes to AI. He also said that his country was eager to share AI technologies with developing countries in the global south. "Currently, overall global AI governance is still fragmented. Countries have great differences, particularly in terms of areas such as regulatory concepts [and] institutional rules," Li said. "We should strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible."
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump threatens to withhold trade deals from Thailand, Cambodia amid conflict
President Trump threatened to withhold potential trade deals from Thailand and Cambodia amid a border conflict that has displaced tens of thousands of civilians and left at least 32 people dead. Trump said on Saturday that he spoke with Cambodia's prime minister Hun Manet and that he called Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai to 'request' a ceasefire and an end to the cross-border war. 'We happen to be, by coincidence, currently dealing on Trade with both Countries, but do not want to make any Deal, with either Country, if they are fighting — And I have told them so,' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. 'Many people are being killed in this War, but it very much reminds me of the Conflict between Pakistan and India, which was brought to a successful halt,' the president added, referring to U.S. efforts to help broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May after the two exchanged tit-for-tat strikes. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has continued on Saturday, its third day. In Thailand, 19 people were killed, while in Cambodia, the death toll has reached 13, according to The Associated Press. The conflict has erupted after five Thai soldiers were wounded on Wednesday from a land mine explosion. In another Saturday post on Truth Social, Trump, who is visiting Scotland, said he had a 'very good conversation' with Wechayachai, Thailand's acting prime minister. 'Thailand, like Cambodia, wants to have an immediate Ceasefire, and PEACE. I am now going to relay that message back to the Prime Minister of Cambodia,' Trump wrote on Saturday. 'After speaking to both Parties, Ceasefire, Peace, and Prosperity seems to be a natural. We will soon see!' Trump's conversations with leaders of Cambodia and Thailand come as he has threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs on a host of countries, including the two currently at war. Both Bangkok and Phnom Penh would face a 36 percent reciprocal rate, which Trump and other administration officials said would go into effect on Aug. 1.
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
