If you were wondering whether Bob Lighthizer supported Donald Trump’s decision to impose across-the-board tariffs on Mexico in order to compel America’s southern neighbor to curb illegal immigration, the answer is no.
According to CNBC and the Wall Street Journal – both reports crossed at virtually the same time – Lighthizer was against the move.
“President Trump’s top trade adviser opposed the White House’s threat to impose escalating tariffs on Mexico, arguing that the plan could jeopardize [the USMCA]”, the Journal writes, citing people familiar with the situation.
CNBC said Steve Mnuchin opposed the tariffs too, but that’s no surprise. Mnuchin is one of the only voices of reason left in the administration. The fact that Lighthizer opposed the deal underscores concerns that Trump’s penchant for flying off the handle is becoming untenable and jeopardizing key agenda items for the sake of ostensibly advancing others.
WSJ notes that Trump ran out of patience this week with the rising number of undocumented immigrants crossing the US border and was tired of waiting for AMLO to get his sea legs. Lighthizer is said to have leveraged his working relationship with Nancy Pelosi to help push the USMCA through Congress, but now, that’s in jeopardy.
Read more: Mexican Standoff.
At the risk of extrapolating, it seems entirely possible that Stephen Miller is now exercising undue influence over US trade policy. Miller recently succeeded in gutting Homeland Security as part of a sweeping effort to purge relevant agencies of anyone deemed not sufficiently hardline when it comes to immigration.
A series of reports in April shed light on at least two nefarious-sounding plans Miller hatched over the course of the last six months targeting immigrants. Those plans reportedly rattled former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, whose resignation Miller forced.
Read more: Trump, Miller Hatched Plan To Arrest Parents And Children In Migrant ‘Blitz Operation’
Trump is increasingly prone to blurring the line between trade policy and other priorities, and it would be entirely consistent with Miller’s thinking to goad Trump into using tariffs against Mexico in the course of punishing the country for alleged foot-dragging on stemming the flow of migrants.
Indeed, CNBC’s sources confirmed that Miller was behind the move. “The tariff strategy was spearheaded by Trump advisor Stephen Miller”, the network said, citing a source close to the White House and a person briefed on the matter. Trump, CNBC adds, was “‘riled up’ by conservative radio commentary about the recent surge in border crossings.”
It’s not clear what’s more disconcerting: The fact that conservative media is once again making policy thanks to the reality distortion loop between far-right propagandists and the president, or the fact that Stephen Miller is getting stronger by the month.
This is a dark road to go down and it risks stripping Trump’s negotiators of all credibility with America’s trade partners (assuming they had any left).
“We do not doubt the credibility of the tariff threat, but the use of tariffs to push for a solution to the immigration issue is a strong but slightly unorthodox option in some ways”, SocGen gingerly noted on Friday. “On the US side, it sets a precedent for geopolitical or social negotiations, with a possible adverse impact on the credibility of its international and economic relations and negotiations, including trade deals with other countries”.
Could this be a ‘special’ way for Trump to collect tariffs from American manufacturers/importers and then be able to say – Mexico is paying for the wall.
No. American consumers would be paying for the wall.
So at what point does the Mill-, I mean Trump Administration just assume all Article I powers and imposes taxes on money repatriated to Mexico and Central America?