Latest news with #Wolff
NDTV
3 hours ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Donald Trump's Biographer On Why US President Has A "Grudge" Against Harvard
Washington: US President Donald Trump has intensified his war with Harvard recently, with social media users claiming that his hatred for the Ivy League university comes from his son, Barron Trump, not being accepted. But, the President's biographer, Michael Wolff, has suggested something else. According to him, it was Trump, not Barron, who was rejected by Harvard. Wolff, the author of 'Fire and Fury', 'Siege: Trump under fire', and this year's 'All or nothing', presented his theory about the US President during a podcast with the The Daily Beast. While the host, Joanna Coles, suggested that many people linked to Trump studied at Harvard, Wolff said, "It's important not to lend too much calculation and planning to anything he does." "But the other thing is that, by the way, he didn't get into Harvard. So one of the Trump things is always holding a grudge against the Ivy League," he added. Trump studied at Fordham University in 1964 after four years of attending the New York Military Academy. Two years later, he transferred to the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania - where he graduated with a bachelor's degree in economics. However, there is no official data available on whether the US President applied to Harvard, let alone he was rejected. No published biographies have also mentioned this claim. A White House spokesperson hit out at Wolff and The Daily Beast for "peddling fake news", adding that Trump did not need to apply to an "overrated and corrupt" university like Harvard. "They both peddle fake news for clickbait in a hopeless attempt to amount to something more than lying losers. The President didn't need to apply to an overrated, corrupt institution like Harvard to become a successful businessman and the most transformative President in history," Taylor Rogers said. 'The Trump show' Wolff, additionally, suggested that apart from "holding the grudge", Trump's "TV star instincts as a producer" play a key role in his legal battle against Ivy League Universities - especially Harvard. According to the author, Trump needs an enemy. "That's what makes the show great, the Trump show. He picks fantastic enemies. And Harvard, for all it represents, fits right into the Trump show. The president loves the drama. He's done what he set out to do - dominate the headline. What do you do? You go after Harvard in a way that is draconian, dramatic, and existential. It's threatening Harvard on that level," he told The Daily Beast. According to him, this becomes another aspect of the "Trump show". Trump-Harvard battle Donald Trump's crackdown on Harvard has taken a more aggressive stance within a few months of the Republican leader taking office for the second term - saying that he is seeking to eliminate antisemitism on campuses. He had even accused his predecessor, Joe Biden, of letting some of the Ivy League universities off the hook. Harvard had first fallen prey to the crackdown last month when the White House put a $2.2 billion freeze on federal funding. Trump had put forth a few conditions to revoke the ban on federal funding, but refused to bend the knee. Last week, the administration sent a letter to the university banning the Ivy League's ability to enroll international students amid an ongoing investigation into the university. It also mentioned said that Harvard could still reverse the government's ban and enroll foreign students - if they fulfill Trump's conditions within 72 hours. However, the university refused again. Shortly after receiving the letter, Harvard slammed the Trump administration and called the move "unlawful". Earlier this week, the Trump administration reportedly ordered all its consular missions overseas to begin additional vetting of visa applicants looking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose.
11 hours ago
- Business
What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings?
President Donald Trump's steepest tariffs fell into legal limbo this week, casting uncertainty over a major swath of the president's signature economic policy. The Trump administration could ultimately prevail in a court battle over the levies or seek other legal authorities to reimpose some of the tariffs, experts told ABC News, but a complete revival of the policy now faces formidable obstacles. Two separate federal courts invalidated far-reaching levies on dozens of countries unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony that Trump had dubbed " Liberation Day." The rulings also struck down 30% tariffs imposed on China as well as a baseline 10% levy slapped on nearly all imports, among other measures. A federal appeals court moved to temporarily reinstate the tariffs on Thursday afternoon, however, keeping the levies in place while judges weigh the underlying legal justification. Here's what to know about what's next for Trump's tariffs and what happens to the tax revenue already paid, according to experts. High-stakes court battle The court rulings this week set off a legal battle over the tariffs that could stretch on for more than a year and make its way to the Supreme Court, experts told ABC News. The rulings against the levies in two federal courts – the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. -- centered on Trump's unprecedented invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act as a legal justification for tariffs. The 1977 law allows the president to stop all transactions with a foreign adversary that poses a threat, including the use of tools like sanctions and trade embargoes. But the measure does not explicitly permit tariffs, putting Trump in untested legal territory. "These are momentous actions to reverse a major initiative of the president of the United States," Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, told ABC News. "It's a real loss for the White House." The temporary reinstatement of the tariffs allows the policy to continue as the legal fight plays out, but the ruling does not indicate how judges will weigh in on the merits of the case, Wolff added. "It doesn't change the circumstances in court all that much," Wolff said. "I'm sure the White House would like this to get straightened out as soon as possible." In a social media post, Trump slammed the judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade and touted the benefits of his tariff policy. "Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?" Trump said. The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International trade included one judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, one judge appointed by Barack Obama and one judge appointed by Trump himself. Trump added: "In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite." As of Wednesday, U.S. tariffs had generated about $68 billion in revenue so far this year, though only a portion of those funds owes to levies at risk of being struck down, according to a Politico analysis. The duration of the legal battle may depend on the rulings handed down from the two appeals courts handling each of the Trump administration's challenges, Patrick Childress, a former trade official under President Joe Biden and Trump, told ABC News. If the two appellate courts handed down opposing decisions, it would raise the likelihood that the case will take over a year and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, Childress said. But, he added, a pair of similar rulings at the appeals court level could fast-track resolution of the case. For now, the fate of the tariffs at issue remains highly unclear, even after the appeals court temporarily reinstated them, Childress added. "There's still a very similar amount of uncertainty," Childress said. New tariffs could draw on other legal authorities If the courts ultimately rule against Trump's tariffs, the White House may explore other legal authorities as a means of reviving some of the levies, experts said. In some cases, however, the alternative legal statutes would require time-consuming investigations at federal agencies and put limits on the scope of the levies. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the executive to invoke temporary tariff authority in response to an adverse trade policy taken up by another country. Trump's tariffs on a wide swath of Chinese goods during his first term relied on Section 301, which Biden invoked in service of tariffs of his own. The White House may use Section 301 to reimpose tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China over the nations' respective roles in the transport of fentanyl to the U.S., Childress said. But a wide-ranging invocation of Section 301 for tariffs on dozens of countries could pose administrative challenges, since each use of the measure requires a federal investigation of the alleged abuses, he added. "It wouldn't be impossible but it would require a lot of investigations," Childress said. The Trump administration is weighing the use of a separate provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose country-specific tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, The Wall Street Journal reported. The White House could also expand its use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the executive to impose tariffs on a specific product if the Commerce Department deems foreign production a threat to national security. Trump already has invoked the measure to slap 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminum. Additional sector-specific tariffs may hit pharmaceuticals and semiconductor chips, according to recent comments from Trump. Companies may receive tax refunds Importers who have paid the tariffs at issue will receive government refunds if the levies fall victim to legal challenges, experts told ABC News. "Companies should get the money back if that's the result -- and it's a lot of money," Wolff said. The federal government will likely slow down the issuance of refunds until the legal cases are resolved, Childress said. "Importers who made the payments could be looking at one or even two years until those refunds get paid," Childress added. When seeking a refund, companies will need to provide detailed information about their imports, the date of shipment and where the products entered the U.S.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings?
President Donald Trump's steepest tariffs fell into legal limbo this week, casting uncertainty over a major swath of the president's signature economic policy. The Trump administration could ultimately prevail in a court battle over the levies or seek other legal authorities to reimpose some of the tariffs, experts told ABC News, but a complete revival of the policy now faces formidable obstacles. Two separate federal courts invalidated far-reaching levies on dozens of countries unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony that Trump had dubbed "Liberation Day." The rulings also struck down 30% tariffs imposed on China as well as a baseline 10% levy slapped on nearly all imports, among other measures. MORE: Trump claims China 'totally violated' trade agreement with US A federal appeals court moved to temporarily reinstate the tariffs on Thursday afternoon, however, keeping the levies in place while judges weigh the underlying legal justification. Here's what to know about what's next for Trump's tariffs and what happens to the tax revenue already paid, according to experts. The court rulings this week set off a legal battle over the tariffs that could stretch on for more than a year and make its way to the Supreme Court, experts told ABC News. The rulings against the levies in two federal courts – the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. -- centered on Trump's unprecedented invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act as a legal justification for tariffs. The 1977 law allows the president to stop all transactions with a foreign adversary that poses a threat, including the use of tools like sanctions and trade embargoes. But the measure does not explicitly permit tariffs, putting Trump in untested legal territory. "These are momentous actions to reverse a major initiative of the president of the United States," Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, told ABC News. "It's a real loss for the White House." The temporary reinstatement of the tariffs allows the policy to continue as the legal fight plays out, but the ruling does not indicate how judges will weigh in on the merits of the case, Wolff added. "It doesn't change the circumstances in court all that much," Wolff said. "I'm sure the White House would like this to get straightened out as soon as possible." In a social media post, Trump slammed the judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade and touted the benefits of his tariff policy. "Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?" Trump said. The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International trade included one judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, one judge appointed by Barack Obama and one judge appointed by Trump himself. Trump added: "In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite." As of Wednesday, U.S. tariffs had generated about $68 billion in revenue so far this year, though only a portion of those funds owes to levies at risk of being struck down, according to a Politico analysis. The duration of the legal battle may depend on the rulings handed down from the two appeals courts handling each of the Trump administration's challenges, Patrick Childress, a former trade official under President Joe Biden and Trump, told ABC News. If the two appellate courts handed down opposing decisions, it would raise the likelihood that the case will take over a year and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, Childress said. But, he added, a pair of similar rulings at the appeals court level could fast-track resolution of the case. For now, the fate of the tariffs at issue remains highly unclear, even after the appeals court temporarily reinstated them, Childress added. "There's still a very similar amount of uncertainty," Childress said. If the courts ultimately rule against Trump's tariffs, the White House may explore other legal authorities as a means of reviving some of the levies, experts said. In some cases, however, the alternative legal statutes would require time-consuming investigations at federal agencies and put limits on the scope of the levies. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the executive to invoke temporary tariff authority in response to an adverse trade policy taken up by another country. Trump's tariffs on a wide swath of Chinese goods during his first term relied on Section 301, which Biden invoked in service of tariffs of his own. The White House may use Section 301 to reimpose tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China over the nations' respective roles in the transport of fentanyl to the U.S., Childress said. But a wide-ranging invocation of Section 301 for tariffs on dozens of countries could pose administrative challenges, since each use of the measure requires a federal investigation of the alleged abuses, he added. "It wouldn't be impossible but it would require a lot of investigations," Childress said. The Trump administration is weighing the use of a separate provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose country-specific tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, The Wall Street Journal reported. The White House could also expand its use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the executive to impose tariffs on a specific product if the Commerce Department deems foreign production a threat to national security. Trump already has invoked the measure to slap 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminum. Additional sector-specific tariffs may hit pharmaceuticals and semiconductor chips, according to recent comments from Trump. Importers who have paid the tariffs at issue will receive government refunds if the levies fall victim to legal challenges, experts told ABC News. "Companies should get the money back if that's the result -- and it's a lot of money," Wolff said. MORE: Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs for now after ruling blocking them The federal government will likely slow down the issuance of refunds until the legal cases are resolved, Childress said. "Importers who made the payments could be looking at one or even two years until those refunds get paid," Childress added. When seeking a refund, companies will need to provide detailed information about their imports, the date of shipment and where the products entered the U.S. "All of that information is necessary to get a refund further down the road," Childress said. What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings? originally appeared on
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Biographer: This Is the ‘Real Reason' He Hates Harvard
There's a running joke going around the White House that President Donald Trump is out for Harvard's blood because his son Barron didn't get in—one scotched by First Lady Melania Trump in an unprecedented piercing of her veil of privacy. But presidential biographer Michael Wolff has suggested a very different explanation for Trump's vendetta: he's the one that couldn't attend the prestigious Ivy League. Wolff, author of bestsellers Fire & Fury and this year's All or Nothing advanced the suggestion on Thursday's episode of The Daily Beast Podcast in a discussion with host Joanna Coles about his war on Harvard and other elite colleges. 'It's also odd because so many of the people around Donald Trump went to Ivy League universities. Several of them went to Harvard Business School,' Coles said. 'Obviously, JD Vance proudly went to Yale. So it does seem particularly odd, but perhaps he's also trying to stuff it to them too.' 'It's important not to lend too much calculation and planning to anything he does,' Wolff said. 'But the other thing is that, by the way, he didn't get into Harvard. So one of the Trump things is always holding a grudge against the Ivy Leagues.' Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, was critical about Wolff's claim. She did not, however, confirm on the record whether or not Trump applied to Harvard. 'The Daily Beast and Michael Wolff have lots in common—they both peddle fake news for clickbait in a hopeless attempt to amount to something more than lying losers," she said in an email. 'The President didn't need to apply to an overrated, corrupt institution like Harvard to become a successful businessman and the most transformative President in history.' The White House has previously called Wolff 'a lying sack of s--t,' which he has laughed off. There are no publicly available records or reports which would shed light on whether Trump did apply to Harvard in the 1960s. Published biographies have not made that assertion. The potential that his war on Harvard is motivated by personal grudge may appear to be trivial, but his moves against the university are already at the center of high-stakes litigation and questions of motivation would be likely to be closely scrutinized by Harvard's counsel. What is known about his higher education is that as a young boy, Trump dreamed of going to film school at the University of Southern California, a school that's also borne the brunt of his recent attacks. The institution has lost $17.5 million after Trump stripped money from federal research grants after the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights said it did not 'fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus.' After finishing high school at the New York Military Academy, Trump's dreams of attending film school were dashed. He enrolled at Fordham University in 1964, commuting to the private Catholic school in the Bronx from his family home in Jamaica Estates, Queens. 'I'd been away at school for five years, and I wanted to see my parents,' Trump said in Gwenda Blair's The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, noting that the school was close to home. According to his sister Maryanne Trump Barry, who passed away in 2023, he opted to attend Fordham because they let him in. At Fordham, his grades were average, wrote The New York Times investigative journalists Ross Buettner and Susanne Craig in their 2024 book Lucky Loser. Trump did not make the dean's list in his first year, which only required a GPA of 3.5, or the equivalent of a B+. After only two years at Fordham, Trump's brother Fred called in a favor. His good friend, Jim Nolan, had just taken a job at the University of Pennsylvania's admissions office. 'Freddy requested a favor. Could Nolan schedule an interview to get his kid brother into the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce?' wrote Buettner and Craig. Nolan agreed. When Trump and his father showed up, they were gracious and warm, 'but it was all show,' Nolan added. Nolan said that Trump's grades from Fordham were 'sufficient' to meet the Wharton standards of that era. 'I would say we probably accepted thirty, forty percent of the people who applied,' Nolan said. Only later did Wharton become the highly sought-after institution it is today, the book noted. Trump's then attorney Michael Cohen wrote to Fordham in the run-up to the 2016 election to demand that it keep his transcripts secret. Trump graduated from UPenn in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in economics. Trump's two older sons, Don Jr. and Eric, went to UPenn but his son-in-law Jared Kushner attended Harvard. He was accepted months after his father, New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner, pledged $2.5 million to the university. Daniel Golden quoted a number of people at Kushner's high school as saying he did not have the GPA or SAT scores to get accepted into Harvard in his book, The Price of Admission. The war on Harvard is now one of Trump's most high-profile campaigns. In April, the White House stripped the university of much of its federal funding after Harvard refused to bend the knee to the president's orders. Trump had already succeeded in his attempts to exert control over other Ivy Leagues like Columbia, forcing them to change their policies, staff, and curriculum to stamp out rhetoric related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices or anything that was deemed anti-Israel sentiment. On May 25, Trump demanded the 'names and countries' of all international students enrolled in Harvard, later vowing to determine 'how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country.' 'But have no fear, the Government will, in the end, WIN!' he wrote on Truth Social. Wolff suggested that aside from potential grudge, the reality TV star's instincts as a producer are key to understanding his actions. 'He needs an enemy,' he said, adding: 'That's what make the show great, the Trump show. He picks fantastic enemies, actually. And Harvard, for all it represents, fits right into the Trump show.' The president loves the drama, Wolff said. 'He's done what he set out to do,' he said. 'Dominate the headlines. What do you do? You go after Harvard and you go after Harvard in a way that is draconian, dramatic, and existential. It's threatening Harvard on that level.' Wolff added that even when the higher institutions and federal judges fight back, it's all part of the president's scheme to stay in the spotlight. 'So [Harvard] will oppose this and therefore the courts will stop this from happening. But at the same time, that becomes another aspect to the Trump show,' he said. 'He forces them to play their part, which is to oppose him.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Biographer claims it's Trump who didn't get into Harvard
Trump biographer Michael Wolff has suggested that the president has turned his ire on Harvard because he didn't get into the school. The Daily Beast reported earlier this week that there's a running joke in the White House that Donald Trump has set his sights on the Ivy League institution because his son Barron couldn't get in. But Wolff has suggested that it's Trump himself who failed to attend. Barron's mom, First Lady Melania Trump, said her son never applied to Harvard and was not the reason for the president's apparent vendetta against the university. Barron attends New York University. Wolff presented his theory about the president Thursday on The Daily Beast Podcast to host Joanna Coles. 'It's also odd because so many of the people around Donald Trump went to Ivy League universities. Several of them went to Harvard Business School,' Coles pointed out. 'Obviously, JD Vance proudly went to Yale. So it does seem particularly odd, but perhaps he's also trying to stuff it to them.' 'It's important not to lend too much calculation and planning to anything he does,' Wolff responded. 'But the other thing is that, by the way, he didn't get into Harvard. So one of the Trump things is always holding a grudge against the Ivy Leagues.' Trump attended the University of Pennsylvania. A spokesperson for the White House, Taylor Rogers, blasted the author and the outlet in a statement to The Daily Beast. 'The Daily Beast and Michael Wolff have lots in common — they both peddle fake news for clickbait in a hopeless attempt to amount to something more than lying losers,' she said. 'The President didn't need to apply to an overrated, corrupt institution like Harvard to become a successful businessman and the most transformative President in history.' The White House has previously referred to Wolff as a 'lying sack of s***.' It's uncertain whether Trump ever applied to Harvard. No published biographies have claimed that he did. Trump enrolled at Fordham University in 1964 after attending the New York Military Academy. After two years at the school, Trump transferred to the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania. Trump's niece, Mary Trump, recorded conversations in 2018 and 2019, reported byThe Washington Post in 2020, with her aunt, the late federal judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who said on tape that she did Trump's homework for him. Trump Barry also said a friend took his college entrance exam for him. Similarly, Mary Trump wrote in her book published in 2020 that the president paid someone to take his SATs. 'I drove him around New York City to try to get him into college,' Trump Barry said at the time. She added that Trump 'went to Fordham for one year and then he got into the University of Pennsylvania because he had somebody take the exams.' Trump actually attended Fordham for two years. A White House spokesperson at the time said it was 'false' that someone took the SATs for the president. Responding to The Post's report about the recordings at the time, Trump said: 'Who cares?' Last month, the White House announced the removal of most of Harvard's federal funding after the school refused to adhere to the president's orders to shut down diversity programs at the university. Trump has claimed that the basis for his fight with Harvard has to do with antisemitism on campus. Subsequently, on May 25, the president demanded the 'names and countries' of all international students at the school. Trump said he would find out 'how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country.' Wolff said on the podcast that Trump 'needs an enemy. That's what makes the 'show' great, the Trump show. He picks fantastic enemies, actually. And Harvard, for all it represents, fits right into the Trump show.' He has 'done what he set out to do – dominate the headlines,' Wolff added. 'What do you do? You go after Harvard, and you go after Harvard in a way that is draconian, dramatic, and existential. It's threatening Harvard on that level.' So Harvard 'will oppose this and therefore the courts will stop this from happening. But at the same time, that becomes another aspect to the Trump show,' he argued. 'He forces them to play their part, which is to oppose him.'
