Blog No. 172. Chaos, DACA, Guns and Trade

 

Tuesday saw one of the most significant departures from the embattled Trump White House. Gary Cohn  Trump’s chief economic adviser, was a former President of Goldman Sachs and a figure of genuine stature. Indeed, many saw him as one of the “adults in the room” attempting to keep Trump on course. Cohn’s departure was apparently sparked by Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs on steel and aluminum, a potentially calamitous step that Cohn had vigorously opposed. Cohn’s resignation came only three days after Trump, appearing at the Gridiron Dinner, had attempted to make light of disorganization at the White House and well-publicized departures of staff.

Speaking at the dinner, Trump had sought to demonstrate, against considerable evidence to the contrary, that he has a sense of humor. The event was not televised, but reporters were present to observe various attempts at levity that were not entirely successful. For example, one of Trump’s offerings most widely quoted the next day acknowledged chaos in the White House:

So many people have been leaving the White House. It’s invigorating, since you want turnover. I like chaos. It really is good. Who’s going to be the next to leave? Steve Miller, or Melania?

As the Chicago Sun Times reported, the quip drew groans that Trump could not ignore

Turning toward the first lady, Trump, aware that the line did not get the reception he expected, asked her if that was “terrible honey? But you love me, right?”Mrs. Trump shrugged.

(For an example of a President with a genuine sense of humor, and the ability to enjoy fun that does not come at someone else’s expense, readers are invited to watch President Reagan along with Tip O’Neil and Howard Baker and the “Juggling Act” they enjoyed together at Ford’s Theater. The video has been around a long time, and many will have seen it, but it is hilarious and worth another look for a glimpse at a happier time.)

Humor and attempted humor aside, there is little question that the White House is in chaos. And, Trump to the contrary, chaos is not a good thing. It creates obstacles to resolving issues, foreign and domestic, that are difficult under the best of circumstances.

The chaos has been most obviously reflected in personnel matters, people leaving the White House and difficulties in recruiting replacements. The turnover in the first year of the Trump administration has been greater than for any other past administration in history. A CNN report last month summarized the numbers through January:

During the president’s first year, the administration saw a 34% turnover rate. This is the highest of any recent White House, according to a Brookings Institution report that tracked departures of senior officials over the last 40 years. The next-highest turnover rate for an administration’s first year was Ronald Reagan’s, with 17% of senior aides leaving their posts in 1981. Former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton saw much lower turnovers during their first year in office—9%, 6%, and 11%, respectively.

Just since that report, the White House saw the high-profile departure of Rob Porter and the resignation of Hope Hicks, and now that of Gary Cohn. The Hicks resignation was reported to be particularly painful for Trump, as she was one of his closest and longest serving aides and one said to be the most capable of soothing his tempestuous moods. The loss of Cohn, however, is far more substantive and will significantly affect the dynamics of economic debates within the administration. Another significant departure may be that of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who according to some reports, is expected to leave by the end of the month. (McMaster was recently rebuked in a Trump tweet for having publicly acknowledged that evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 election was indisputable.)

Then there are the problematic family members: daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, both of whom are reported to be subjects of various investigations and both of whom have seen a reduction in their roles in the White House. In fact, Chief of Staff John Kelly, who recently downgraded Jared Kushner’s top security clearance, was reported by Newsweek “to be wondering what exactly Ivanka and her husband do all day in the White House.” Kelly himself had been thought by some to be in jeopardy over his handling of the Rob Porter matter, but he appears to have survived that episode. On the other hand, Anthony Scaramucci, who worked briefly in the White House, was seen on television attacking Kelly with, according to CNN, the tacit approval of the President. Altogether, the Trump White House resembles nothing so much as a reality TV show with contestants on an island competing with each other as they face a variety of perils.

Inevitably, chaos in personnel and administration has only aggravated Trump’s inherent lack of discipline in addressing, or purporting to address, policy issues such as DACA, gun control and trade. Although DACA has been pushed from the front pages by succeeding crises, it is an important issue remaining unresolved largely because of Trump’s feckless leadership. At a televised meeting with Congressional leaders in January, Trump said that he would sign any bill that gave relief for the Dreamers and also provided funding for his cherished border wall. But then he fell under the influence of White House aide Stephen Miller and other immigration hard-liners and demanded even more: that the bill also sharply reduce legal immigration. A bipartisan compromise bill in the Senate gave Trump most of what he asked for, but was attacked by the administration and failed to reach the necessary sixty votes.

The Wall Street Journal, which struggles to write positive things about Trump whenever it can, summed up the situation in a February 16 editorial

Mr. Trump can recover from Thursday’s defeat, but he’ll need to be the President who told Members of Congress in January that if they strike a deal that gives him the wall in return for Dreamer legalization he’ll “take the heat.” The restriction minority on the right erupted, and Mr. Miller persuaded him to demand more.

Well, the [Bipartisan Senate] bill gives him more. No President can expect to get everything in a single immigration bill, especially not after so many years of bipartisan mistrust. Mr. Trump issued the order repealing a safe harbor for the Dreamers, and he’ll rightly get the political blame if he now blocks a sensible compromise to save them from deportation to countries they barely know.

Some urgency has seemingly been removed from the DACA issue by rulings in two lower federal courts which have blocked the Trump order that would have ended on March 5 the President Obama’s protection of Dreamers. The Supreme Court rejected a request by the administration for an immediate review and existing procedures will remain in place during consideration by Courts of Appeal. Nevertheless, while current Dreamers are permitted to apply for and receive extensions during this period, no new applications are being processed and even those enjoying protection do so under a cloud of uncertainty. Members of Congress have continued to work on the problem, but there is little likelihood that it will be resolved unless and until chaos is replaced with leadership from the President.

Trump’s performance on DACA was eerily reprised after the tragic shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. At another televised meeting with Congressional leaders on February 28, he sought to portray the role of a unifying leader seeking a solution. Although his remarks were meandering and unfocused, he seemed supportive of a variety of gun control measures and he specifically endorsed one proposal, strongly opposed by the NRA:  raising  to 21 the minimum age  to acquire the kind of assault weapons used with deadly effect at Parkland and in other mass killings. The following night, however, he and Vice President Pence met with the chief lobbyist for the NRA, Chris Cox. Trump tweeted that the meeting was “Good (Great)” and Cox followed with a tweet agreeing that it was a great meeting and asserting that “POTUS & VPOTUS support the Second Amendment, support strong due process and don’t want gun control.”

Where Trump now stands, and what he will support, let alone urge others to support, no one including Congress knows. After the Parkland shooting, the entire country stood in awe of the eloquence and passion shown by the student survivors of the Parkland shooting. Showing a maturity far beyond their years, they gave reason to hope that this time things would be different and that lawmakers would no longer be able to ignore the public’s demands for action. Perhaps that will be the case. The student survivors have scheduled a “March For Our Lives” rally on March 24 in Washington, which will deserve and receive wide coverage in the media. Whether it will move lawmakers in thrall to the NRA is another matter. It is clear, however, that here as in the case of DACA, very little is likely to happen in the absence of coherent leadership from the President. As Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post:

On issues from immigration to gun control, the president has made seemingly random and contradictory interventions that reveal his ignorance about the basics of important policy debates. The man who believes in “the power of strength” exhibits a level of competence that would be embarrassing in high school student government.

Another product of chaos in the White House appeared in the form of Trump’s trade announcement of across-the-board tariffs on steel and aluminum. To be fair, the announcement was consistent with Trump’s position taken during the campaign and, indeed, for years before that. Yet the actual announcement was made while debate within the White House was still ongoing and may have been prompted by Trump’s irritation over other matters. As reported by NBC News:

According to two officials, Trump’s decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

On Wednesday evening, the president became “unglued,” in the words of one official familiar with the president’s state of mind.

A trifecta of events had set him off in a way that two officials said they had not seen before: Hope Hicks’ testimony to lawmakers investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, conduct by his embattled attorney general and the treatment of his son-in-law by his chief of staff.

Trump, the two officials said, was angry and gunning for a fight, and he chose a trade war, spurred on by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the White House director for trade — and against longstanding advice from his economic chair Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

Whatever sparked Trump’s trade announcement, it is a thoroughly unfortunate policy, widely regarded as likely to cost more jobs than it will preserve, and having the potential of causing a recession. Trump’s announcement resulted in significant push-back on Capitol Hill with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell among other senior members expressing grave concerns. Such push-back is highly unusual from Congressional Republicans who are almost always loathe to criticize or oppose the President, no matter how great the provocation. I asked Carla Hills, my former colleague and a former United State Trade Representative for her reaction and she clearly expressed her own concerns:

I take a very dim view of the expectation that President Trump will impose section 232 tariffs in the name of national security on all imports of steel and aluminum. It is hard to make the “national security” argument; most of our imports are from our closest allies (e.g., Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico). Far better to sit down and get an agreement on how collectively we can deal with overproduction. 

Interestingly we already have “trade remedies” (i.e., anti-dumping and counter-vailing duties) imposed against more than 30 countries’ steel mill imports to the U.S. (most against China).  Although China has been a focus of proponents’ remarks, we import less than 2% of our steel from China. We will lose far more jobs (e.g., auto makers and manufacturers), than we hope to gain from our steel producers.  

The repercussions from this action will be horrific. Our hefty tariffs will result in retaliation on key export areas hit ranging from agriculture to manufacturing.  Already the EU and Mexico are making their target lists.

In the case of DACA and gun control, Trump took a reasonable stance and then beat a hasty retreat from it; in the case of tariffs, he has taken an unwise stance, and one can only hope that he will find a way to retreat from it. But his protectionist instincts appear to run deep, so there is not a lot of room for optimism.