Is Trump chickening out on foreign policy?
Some investors on Wall Street are starting to call President Trump's bluffs on tariffs — coining the acronym TACO, for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' But will Trump make good on his promises to end the conflict in Ukraine, strike a deal with Iran and make nice with China? Or is his strongman approach just making things worse? Columnists Dana Milbank, Catherine Rampell and Jim Geraghty discuss how difficult it is to strike deals when Trump's actual policy objectives are so muddled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
5 minutes ago
- Business Insider
The jobs report has dashed any hopes of a rate cut this summer
Say goodbye to the prospect of a rate cut this summer. Investors have slashed the odds of a rate cut from the Federal Reserve this month after the job market was unexpectedly strong in June. The robust report means the central bank has room to keep interest rates elevated, with employment strong and inflation remaining above its 2% target. Employers added 147,000 jobs to the economy last month, handily beating expectations of 110,000. In another sign of strength, payrolls for May were revised upward to 144,000, and the overall unemployment rate unexpectedly ticked down from 4.2% to 4.1%. According to the CME FedWatch tool, the odds of the Fed cutting rates by 25 basis points plunged Thursday morning, dropping from a 23.8% chance on Wednesday to 6.7% after the report. Markets still see a September rate cut as likely, with odds of about 71% after the jobs report. Stocks moved slightly higher as traders cheered the strong data but dimmer rate-cut views kept a lid on more pronounced gains. Still, the S&P 500 managed to rise to a fresh intraday record of 6,271. The bigger reaction to the jobs data was in the bond market. Yields jumped on the prospects for the Fed to keep rates higher for longer. The 10-year US Treasury yield jumped four basis points to around 4.34%. The yield on the 2-year Treasury, which is the most sensitive to Fed policy, spiked nine basis points to 3.88%. "The firm June unemployment rate waves the Federal Reserve off the possibility of a July rate cut, which shifts the spotlight to September," Mark Hamrick, a senior economic analyst at Bankrate, wrote in a note. "If businesses keep expanding payrolls like they've done so far this year, the Fed can comfortably sit in 'wait and see' mode at the upcoming policy meeting. Uncertainty around tariffs and trade have apparently not spooked businesses into shedding workers," Jeffrey Roach, the chief economist at LPL Financial, said. Pressure on Powell The report is unlikely to lead to rate cuts this month, which means the Trump administration's withering criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell could intensify. Powell has signaled the central bank is comfortable holding interest rates steady while the central bank monitors the path of inflation and any possible impact from tariffs. This week, Powell said the Fed would have cut rates already were it not for Trump's trade war. Trump, who has harangued Powell to cut rates for years, posted on Truth Social on Wednesday suggesting the Fed chief leave his position. "' Too Late ' should resign immediately!!!" Trump wrote, referring to nickname he has frequently called Powell to express his annoyance at not cutting interest rates earlier. Trump's post also linked to an article detailing a post on X from William Pulte, the FHFA director, who suggested that Congress should investigate Powell. Pulte has criticized Powell for hurting the housing market by keeping rates high. "Like this tweet if you think it's time for Jerome Powell to resign," Pulte said in a separate post Wednesday evening. According to the latest Freddie Mac survey, the 30-year US fixed mortgage rate hovered around 6.77% last week. Still, Powell looks likely to stand pat on interest rates, even amid escalating political pressure, Bankrate's Hamrick said. "He is determined to serve out the remainder of his term not being swayed by political pressure or blunt criticism from the president. Indeed, the president's pressure could have the opposite of the intended impact," he added. Others have speculated that Trump's criticism only makes it less likely that Powell will bend and lower rates. Observers say Powell may now be more focused on his legacy of protecting Fed independence.
Wall Street Journal
7 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
EU Seeks 'Agreement in Principle' on Trade With the U.S.
The European Union is aiming for a trade "agreement in principle" with the Trump administration rather than a more comprehensive deal by July 9, a top European official said. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday that reaching a detailed agreement with the U.S. during the Trump administration's 90-day window wasn't possible. Negotiating with the U.S. is 'a huge task' because of the volume and complexity of the trade relationship, she said. 'What we are aiming at is an agreement in principle,' added von der Leyen, who leads the EU's executive body.
Boston Globe
13 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump goes ‘woke' in report on antisemitism at Harvard
What the administration mainly offers in its finding, though, is a litany of sit-ins, walk-outs, and group letters organized by pro-Palestinian student groups — with remarkably little evidence of any intention to harass or discriminate against Jewish peers. Take, for example, the government's finding that 'Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard were repeatedly denied access to … libraries.' That sounds like an accusation of intentional discrimination. In fact, though, the only evidence for several of these 'denials of access' consists of Advertisement The answer is that the administration could classify that behavior as discriminatory only by embracing an especially radical version of an effects-based theory of discrimination. Specifically, the implicit argument proceeds in two steps. First, Jews or Israelis are much more likely than others to be offended by this kind of anti-Israel rhetoric — and so to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable in spaces where it is present. Second, when certain behavior (here, certain expression) has that kind of disproportionate impact on one group, engaging in that behavior amounts to discrimination against the disparately affected group — even absent any intent to single out its members. The legal term for this kind of discrimination theory is 'disparate-impact liability,' although that legal theory is usually seen only in domains such as employment and housing — not as a basis for speech regulation, let alone for mandating how peers should interact on college campuses. Advertisement And hence the rich irony: Not only is disparate impact widely recognized as a progressive idea, it is intensely embattled — thanks in no small part to President Trump. Just months ago, Trump issued a landmark executive Advertisement But somehow the anti-Harvard legal team, alone among federal officials tasked with enforcing civil rights, didn't get the memo. When it comes to people of color who are excluded from voting by ostensibly neutral requirements, the administration's position is that there can be no discrimination without proof of intent. Likewise for women excluded from public-safety jobs by physical capacity tests, or Black citizens who bear the brunt of police violence or decrepit public infrastructure. But if a college student's political activity disproportionately affects Jewish or Israeli peers — even just by causing offense or making them feel alienated — the administration deems that inherently discriminatory, no intent required. Could the administration claim instead that hostility toward Israel or Zionism is inherently antisemitic because many Jews see Zionism as part of their Jewish identity? Not really. Because Title VI does not cover religion, Jewishness is protected by the law only insofar as it constitutes a 'race' — a fact about one's ancestry. Under existing law, however, culturally salient practices or beliefs can play no role in the definition of racial categories. That is why judges have ruled that bans on dreadlocks and cornrows are not racially discriminatory, even if Black employees view these hairstyles as expressive of their racial identity. Advertisement The irony, once again, is that the contrary view — the culture-oriented conception of race that Trump's legal theory in the Harvard case would require the courts to embrace — is a well-known tenet of critical race theory, the 'woke' school that Trump and his allies have ridiculed for years. Maybe it is a mistake to scrutinize the legal analysis in what is evidently a political document. Yet if anyone still doubts the sham quality of this 'civil rights' action, there is no better proof than the lawyers' shameless reliance on ideas about discrimination that, when enlisted in the service of traditional civil rights concerns, the administration purports to find fundamentally un-American.
