Latest news with #TheArtoftheDeal
Global News
a day ago
- Business
- Global News
Trump lashes out at claim he's a ‘chicken' when it comes to trade
U.S. President Donald Trump may be many things, but he wants the world to know he's no 'chicken' when it comes to fiscal policy, despite what appears to be a tendency to recoil in the face of resistance from economic partners and foes — a behaviour financial analysts have coined 'TACO' trade. The president's propensity to threaten and then momentarily impose outrageous import taxes on U.S. trade partners, only to retreat when met with retaliation, paved the way for the acronym created by the Financial Times' Robert Armstrong. It stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' and has come to encapsulate what Trump says is a legitimate form of negotiation. Under conditions created by his erratic manoeuvres, markets tend to sell off when a new tariff threat emerges and then recover after the president backs down. Story continues below advertisement When asked about the unfavourable phrase during a press conference in the Oval Office on Wednesday, the president appeared offended and rejected the notion that he has made a habit of backing out of deals. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'You call that chickening out?' Trump said. 'It's called negotiation.' The author of The Art of the Deal added that he sets a 'ridiculous high number and I go down a little bit, you know, a little bit,' doubling down on his position that it's an effective bargaining strategy. 'Six months ago, this country was stone-cold dead, we had a dead country, we had a country that people didn't think was going to survive, and you ask a nasty question like that,' he added. Trump defended his decision to raise tariffs on China to 145 per cent, only to reduce them to 30 per cent for 90 days during negotiations. Similarly, last week, he threatened to impose 50 per cent levies on goods from the European Union as of June — but swiftly delayed the start date until July 9 for negotiations, while the 10 per cent continues. Trump claims that the EU would not be negotiating if not for his threat of high tariffs. Similar debacles unfurled over electronics and the universal tariffs that Trump announced on April 2, which were based partially on individual trade deficits with other countries. Story continues below advertisement View image in full screen President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025, in Washington. Mark Schiefelbein/ Getty Images His see-sawing antics caused chaos in global stock markets, which have been forced to weather drastically fluctuating conditions. Trump claims that his global economic policy has created US$14 trillion in new investments in the U.S., a figure that appears to be inflated and is not sufficiently supported by official data. 'We have $14 trillion now invested … when Biden didn't have practically anything, Biden,' the president said. 'This country was dying, you know, we have the hottest country of anywhere in the world, I went to Saudi Arabia, the king told me,' the President concluded. As of Wednesday afternoon, the S&P 500 stock index was up slightly so far this year. But it was down as much as 15 per cent year over year, a reflection of the volatility that Trump's changing policies have created. Story continues below advertisement — With files from The Associated Press
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Most Successful Business Venture
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Paul Walczak didn't have a plausible defense, but he did have a backup plan. As a Florida nursing-home executive, he'd defrauded taxpayers out of almost $11 million, using it to fund a lavish lifestyle. He pleaded guilty last fall, but applied for a pardon after Donald Trump retook office, claiming that he'd been prosecuted because of his mother Elizabeth Fago's support for Trump. Only after she attended a $1 million-per-person April fundraiser, which promised face time with the president, did Trump grant Walczak a full pardon. The press can't declare things 'bribes' without concrete proof, and it's not entirely clear how much of the money Fago donated herself, but even the staid New York Times resorted to snark in describing the case. 'A judge had justified the incarceration by declaring that there 'is not a get-out-of-jail-free card' for the rich. The pardon, however, indicated otherwise,' Kenneth Vogel wrote. A million bucks is, by the standards of this administration, pretty paltry. Trump has made many millions off being president. Earlier this week, my colleague David Frum took stock of the corruption of Trump's second term and concluded, 'Nothing like this has been attempted or even imagined in the history of the American presidency. Throw away the history books; discard feeble comparisons to scandals of the past.' Yet even against this backdrop, the brazenness of the pardon's timing makes it stand out. Whether or not Trump was bought in this case, he's eager to create the impression that he is for sale. And for good reason: What's bad for the integrity of American rule of law has been very good for Trump's bottom line. After a career of high-profile mediocrity, punctuated by flamboyant failures, the selling of the presidency is the most successful business venture of his career. Business prowess is at the center of Trump's renown and political appeal, but the impression that he is a titan of industry is more a creation of The Art of the Deal and The Apprentice than his actual CV. By the time he ran for president for the first time, he'd largely given up on the real-estate development that made him famous, instead concentrating on licensing his name to products and buildings. That was mostly a concession to reality: At that point, Trump was struggling to find lenders because he'd stiffed so many banks. Trump's businesses declared bankruptcy six times, and although he has consistently defended these filings as savvy business moves, an even savvier business move is not needing to declare bankruptcy. Trump managed the impressive task of losing money as a casino owner. Although Atlantic City was in decline as a whole during Trump's time there, a Temple University legal scholar found that Trump underperformed competitors: 'His casinos were not the 'best' and not even average. They were the worst.' The president's lofty net worth was less a product of success than a product of coming into his father's fortune. In 2021, Forbes calculated that he would have made more money if he'd just put his inheritance in an S&P 500 index fund. (And the money that he did make might have been less if he hadn't been committing extensive fraud.) During Trump's first term, he began finding ways to profit from the presidency. He charged the Secret Service big bills to stay at his properties while protecting him (even though son Eric claimed that they stayed at a discount), and had officials like Vice President Mike Pence unnecessarily rack up charges there too. Moreover, the hotel he owned near the White House became an essential location for any officials looking to influence him. There was, it seemed, a benefit to being seen—and probably more importantly, to spending some dosh. Although this seemed like a clear violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, attempts to enforce it were stymied in court. But in his second term, Trump has far surpassed these relatively petty hustles. The profits started rolling in even before he won reelection, as speculators poured cash into Trump Media and Technology Group—a business with wretched numbers but high upside for anyone wishing to influence the president. Since November, the flow has increased. 'Few if any legitimate investors entrusted their money to Trump's businesses when he was out of office,' Frum noted, but now Middle Eastern governments, Chinese crypto investors, and American corporations are all finding ways to get money into Trump-related businesses. The White House claims that because Trump's sons run these companies, no conflict of interest exists, but experts have noted that Trump hasn't really distanced himself meaningfully from his companies and he continues to profit from them. And nearly everyone involved is winning. Trump is making out like a bandit—perhaps very much like a bandit—and people such as Paul Walczak are getting their pardons. (Notably, Trump seems quick to pardon people charged with either fraud or corrupt use of government positions—both offenses of which he has been accused.) Unfortunately, the losers are the American people: anyone who might want the government to support rule of law, discourage corruption, and operate as something other than a concierge desk for those wealthy enough to buy in. When news emerged earlier this month of Trump's plans to accept a $400 million airplane from the Qatari government, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a Republican, dismissed any concerns about emoluments. 'I think nobody believes that Donald Trump can be bought,' he said. 'I mean, what does Donald Trump need more money for?' This is either deeply cynical or painfully gullible. Trump's entire career has been consumed by his quest for more money—this is a man who once cashed a 13-cent prank check from a Spy magazine correspondent—even if he hasn't always been very good at it. Now that he's found a reliable way to keep the cash rolling in, he's not going to turn it down. Related: The Trump presidency's world-historical heist There's no such thing as a free plane. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: The conversations Trump's doctors should be having with him The perilous spread of the wellness craze Bring back communal kid discipline. Today's News An appeals court temporarily paused a lower-court ruling that had blocked most of President Donald Trump's tariffs. The acting director of ICE gave Harvard University 30 days to challenge the Trump administration's ban revoking the college's ability to enroll international students. Elon Musk announced yesterday that he is leaving the Department of Government Efficiency after saying that he is shifting his focus from politics back to his companies. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Any recent college graduate will tell you that their head felt heaviest after the cap came off, Amogh Dimri writes. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read How America Lost Control of the Seas By Arnav Rao 'He who commands the sea has command of everything,' the ancient Athenian general Themistocles said. By that standard, the United States has command of very little. America depends on ocean shipping. About 80 percent of its international trade by weight traverses the seas. The U.S. needs ships to deliver nearly 90 percent of its armed forces' supplies and equipment, including fuel, ammunition, and food … In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. had a thriving, well-regulated ocean-shipping industry. Then the country turned its back on the system that made it all possible. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Striking down Trump's tariffs isn't a judicial coup. A Swiss village destroyed by a landslide A way to understand Pope Leo XIV's mission of love Xochitl Gonzalez on Diddy's defenders Culture Break Read. These five books will redirect your attention and break the spell of malaise. Make a pledge. Moral courage can result in something beautiful. A lovely paradox of doing good in the world is that it does you good too, according to the happiness expert Arthur C. Brooks. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Business
- Atlantic
The Presidency Is Trump's Most Successful Business
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Paul Walczak didn't have a plausible defense, but he did have a backup plan. As a Florida nursing-home executive, he'd defrauded taxpayers out of almost $11 million, using it to fund a lavish lifestyle. He pleaded guilty last fall, but applied for a pardon after Donald Trump retook office, claiming that he'd been prosecuted because of his mother Elizabeth Fago's support for Trump. Only after she attended a $1 million-per-person April fundraiser, which promised face time with the president, did Trump grant Walczak a full pardon. The press can't declare things 'bribes' without concrete proof, and it's not entirely clear how much of the money Fago donated herself, but even the staid New York Times resorted to snark in describing the case. 'A judge had justified the incarceration by declaring that there 'is not a get-out-of-jail-free card' for the rich. The pardon, however, indicated otherwise,' Kenneth Vogel wrote. A million bucks is, by the standards of this administration, pretty paltry. Trump has made many millions off being president. Earlier this week, my colleague David Frum took stock of the corruption of Trump's second term and concluded, 'Nothing like this has been attempted or even imagined in the history of the American presidency. Throw away the history books; discard feeble comparisons to scandals of the past.' Yet even against this backdrop, the brazenness of the pardon's timing makes it stand out. Whether or not Trump was bought in this case, he's eager to create the impression that he is for sale. And for good reason: What's bad for the integrity of American rule of law has been very good for Trump's bottom line. After a career of high-profile mediocrity, punctuated by flamboyant failures, the selling of the presidency is the most successful business venture of his career. Business prowess is at the center of Trump's renown and political appeal, but the impression that he is a titan of industry is more a creation of The Art of the Deal and The Apprentice than his actual CV. By the time he ran for president for the first time, he'd largely given up on the real-estate development that made him famous, instead concentrating on licensing his name to products and buildings. That was mostly a concession to reality: At that point, Trump was struggling to find lenders because he'd stiffed so many banks. Trump's businesses declared bankruptcy six times, and although he has consistently defended these filings as savvy business moves, an even savvier business move is not needing to declare bankruptcy. Trump managed the impressive task of losing money as a casino owner. Although Atlantic City was in decline as a whole during Trump's time there, a Temple University legal scholar found that Trump underperformed competitors: 'His casinos were not the 'best' and not even average. They were the worst.' The president's lofty net worth was less a product of success than a product of coming into his father's fortune. In 2021, Forbes calculated that he would have made more money if he'd just put his inheritance in an S&P 500 index fund. (And the money that he did make might have been less if he hadn't been committing extensive fraud.) During Trump's first term, he began finding ways to profit from the presidency. He charged the Secret Service big bills to stay at his properties while protecting him (even though son Eric claimed that they stayed at a discount), and had officials like Vice President Mike Pence unnecessarily rack up charges there too. Moreover, the hotel he owned near the White House became an essential location for any officials looking to influence him. There was, it seemed, a benefit to being seen—and probably more importantly, to spending some dosh. Although this seemed like a clear violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, attempts to enforce it were stymied in court. But in his second term, Trump has far surpassed these relatively petty hustles. The profits started rolling in even before he won reelection, as speculators poured cash into Trump Media and Technology Group—a business with wretched numbers but high upside for anyone wishing to influence the president. Since November, the flow has increased. 'Few if any legitimate investors entrusted their money to Trump's businesses when he was out of office,' Frum noted, but now Middle Eastern governments, Chinese crypto investors, and American corporations are all finding ways to get money into Trump-related businesses. The White House claims that because Trump's sons run these companies, no conflict of interest exists, but experts have noted that Trump hasn't really distanced himself meaningfully from his companies and he continues to profit from them. And nearly everyone involved is winning. Trump is making out like a bandit—perhaps very much like a bandit—and people such as Paul Walczak are getting their pardons. (Notably, Trump seems quick to pardon people charged with either fraud or corrupt use of government positions—both offenses of which he has been accused.) Unfortunately, the losers are the American people: anyone who might want the government to support rule of law, discourage corruption, and operate as something other than a concierge desk for those wealthy enough to buy in. When news emerged earlier this month of Trump's plans to accept a $400 million airplane from the Qatari government, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a Republican, dismissed any concerns about emoluments. 'I think nobody believes that Donald Trump can be bought,' he said. 'I mean, what does Donald Trump need more money for?' This is either deeply cynical or painfully gullible. Trump's entire career has been consumed by his quest for more money—this is a man who once cashed a 13-cent prank check from a Spy magazine correspondent—even if he hasn't always been very good at it. Now that he's found a reliable way to keep the cash rolling in, he's not going to turn it down. An appeals court temporarily paused a lower-court ruling that had blocked most of President Donald Trump's tariffs. The acting director of ICE gave Harvard University 30 days to challenge the Trump administration's ban revoking the college's ability to enroll international students. Elon Musk announced yesterday that he is leaving the Department of Government Efficiency after saying that he is shifting his focus from politics back to his companies. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Any recent college graduate will tell you that their head felt heaviest after the cap came off, Amogh Dimri writes. Evening Read How America Lost Control of the Seas By Arnav Rao 'He who commands the sea has command of everything,' the ancient Athenian general Themistocles said. By that standard, the United States has command of very little. America depends on ocean shipping. About 80 percent of its international trade by weight traverses the seas. The U.S. needs ships to deliver nearly 90 percent of its armed forces' supplies and equipment, including fuel, ammunition, and food … In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. had a thriving, well-regulated ocean-shipping industry. Then the country turned its back on the system that made it all possible. More From The Atlantic Read. These five books will redirect your attention and break the spell of malaise. Make a pledge. Moral courage can result in something beautiful. A lovely paradox of doing good in the world is that it does you good too, according to the happiness expert Arthur C. Brooks. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.
New York Post
2 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
The dirty secret Big Tech doesn't want you to know: AI runs on theft
Artificial intelligence is one of the fastest-growing, most exciting industries in America. Many in the tech industry are confident that as AI continues to improve, it will become increasingly important in our everyday lives. But its growth has come at a cost — and if we're not careful, AI's expansion could end up crippling other critical sectors of the American economy. Big Tech's dirty secret is that the success of its AI tools has been almost entirely built on theft. Advertisement These companies are scraping enormous amounts of copyrighted content, without permission or compensation, to fuel their AI products — and in the process dangerously undermining content creators' businesses. Instead of paying for access to copyrighted material — everything from magazine columns to President Trump's own book 'The Art of the Deal' — most AI companies have made the conscious choice to steal it instead. Advertisement They argue that all content, even content registered for protection with the US Copyright Office, should be considered 'fair use' when used to build and operate AI models. To gather the data that powers their large language models, Big Tech companies have consistently bypassed paywalls, ignored websites' directives asking users not to copy material, and worse. Meta, for instance, used illegal Russia-based pirate site LibGen to copy the contents of at least 7.5 million books to train its Llama AI model — an egregiously unlawful, copyright-violating workaround. Advertisement Relying on questionable sources for AI training purposes poses a variety of serious problems, perhaps even to US national security. Recently an online data watchdog found that many of the most popular AI chatbots have absorbed millions of articles designed to spread Russian propaganda and outright falsehoods. Now infected by a Russian disinformation network known as 'Pravda,' these chatbots, including Grok, ChatGPT and Gemini, mimic Kremlin talking points when asked about certain topics — and spread false narratives about 33% of the time. Content creators, meanwhile, face existential problems. Advertisement In addition to seeing their content stolen for training purposes, publishers are now forced to watch as Big Tech companies make billions using that stolen content in ways that directly compete with publishers' business models. With retrieval-augmented generation, in which an AI model references outside sources before responding to user inquiries, many AI products now give users real-time information, pulled directly from recently published news articles. Those same AI companies run ads against that content — generating revenue that should belong to those who invested in its creation. A user who gets all the information contained within an article directly through an AI chatbot has almost no reason to click through to the original text — much less to buy a subscription, if the item is behind a paywall. The data on this is clear: AI chatbots drive referral traffic at a 96% lower rate than traditional Google search, an already shrunken relic of the past. For every 1,000 people using an AI chatbot, fewer than four will click through to see the original source of the information they're reading. As AI replaces traditional search for many users, this drop in referral traffic will cut deeply into both subscription and advertising revenue for publishers — depriving them of the funds they need to produce the content consumers (and AI companies) rely on. Advertisement AI companies are lobbying to legitimize this behavior, but Washington should take care. Tilting the scales in Big Tech's favor will undermine centuries of intellectual-property protections that have paid tremendous dividends for the United States, giving us countless advancements — and a competitive edge on the world stage. Blessing the theft of American content would instantly erode our country's foundation as an innovation powerhouse. Advertisement The news media industry supports a balanced approach. Many publications and journalists, in fact, now use AI to better serve their customers. But it's important to develop AI products responsibly and in coordination with the creators of the content they use, with the long-term sustainability of both AI companies and creators in mind. If AI companies' theft drives creators out of business, everyone ends up worse off. To protect their work, over a dozen members of the News/Media Alliance recently sued Cohere, Inc., a growing AI company, for unauthorized use of their content. Advertisement They joined a number of other publishers, including News Corp and The New York Times, that are suing various AI companies to enforce their rights. Some in Big Tech are clearly beginning to recognize the problem with unfettered content theft. We've seen a rapid proliferation of licensing agreements, in which AI companies pay publishers to use their content, over the last year. A News/Media Alliance collective is currently licensing content at scale. Advertisement But without reinforced legal protections against content theft, bad actors will continue to exploit publishers and creators — undermining America's creative industries to further tech's own commercial interests. Danielle Coffey is president and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, which represents more than 2,200 publishers nationwide.
USA Today
3 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
TACO Trump? President lashes out at 'Trump Always Chickens Out' talk. Hilarious.
TACO Trump? President lashes out at 'Trump Always Chickens Out' talk. Hilarious. | Opinion These unpatriotic nerds who understand the economy should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting our bold, strong, vibrant president would ever chicken out. Show Caption Hide Caption European shares rise after Trump says he'll delay tariffs until July 9 European stocks rose after President Donald Trump announced a delay in new 50% tariffs until July 9. Apparently, some of the snoots on Wall Street have spotted what they believe is a trend in the way our business genius in chief, President Donald Trump, uses tariffs. He smartly slaps hefty tariffs on various countries for various reasons and then just as swiftly turns around and lowers them, having accomplished something only he is smart enough to fully understand. That on-again/off-again strategy has led Wall Street analysts to use the extremely rude and possibly illegal term 'TACO,' or 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Stop calling Trump a tariff chicken. He's definitely not a tariff chicken. After recently announcing 50% tariffs on countries in the European Union, Trump backed off and said the tariffs are now delayed until July. That led Paul Donovan, chief economist of UBS Global Wealth Management, to write: 'These retreats are so frequent that investors should rationally expect them.' THAT IS VERY RUDE, PAUL DONOVAN. Opinion: Russia better start listening to big, tough Donald Trump. He is SERIOUS! Trump deflects TACO label by explaining how he always chickens out These unpatriotic nerds who understand the economy should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting that our bold, strong, vibrant president would ever chicken out. And he let the press know about that in no uncertain terms when he was asked about the TACO label at the White House on May 28. 'Oh, I chicken out. I've never heard that,' Trump said. 'You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to 100, then down to another number?' Well, yes, I suppose a person who hates America could technically call that chickening out. Forgetting it was you who set the absurdly high tariff is a smart strategy Trump continued making perfect sense: 'It's called negotiation. You set a number, and if you go down. You know, if I set a number, a ridiculous high number and I go down a little bit, you know a little bit, they want me to hold that number, 145% tariff. Even I said, 'Man, that really got up.' … I said, 'Where are we now?' We're 145%.' I said 'Whoo, that's high.' ' Opinion: Democrats want a liberal Joe Rogan to help them win elections. I'm right here. Foolish rude-nickname-generating Wall Street goons don't understand the subtle art of negotiation, which, according to President Trump, author of 'The Art of the Deal,' involves letting everyone know that you always start by setting an artificially high number, then you forget it was you who set that number, then you act surprised at how high the number is. Duh. Trump doesn't want people to know he's mad at being called a chicken Trump concluded by lashing out at the reporter who dared ask the TACO question: 'Don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question. To me, that's the nastiest question.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. One can assume the president will later downgrade his criticism of the question to 'half-nastiest,' then say he will withhold his criticism for one month before finally lowering his criticism of the question to zero, having smartly gained nothing. That's the art of the deal, baby. And it is DEFINITELY NOT chickening out! Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
