Trump did not understand Pearl Harbor, new book reveals: ‘What's this all about?'
Donald Trump barely knew of Pearl Harbor, was ignorant about the basics of geography and complained the US constitution was like reading 'a foreign language', a new book reveals.
A Very Stable Genius, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, is the latest book detailing the Trump administration's tumultuous three years in the White House.
Named after Mr Trump's self-declared intellectual brilliance, the book, excerpts of which have been published by The Washington Post, reveals his litany of missteps and willingness to break long-standing legal and ethical norms since becoming president in 2017.
'Hey, John, what's this all about? What's this a tour of?' Mr Trump reportedly asked John Kelly, his then-chief of staff, when they took a private tour in 2017 of the USS Arizona Memorial, a ship commemorating the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during the Second World War.
"Trump had heard the phrase 'Pearl Harbor' and appeared to understand that he was visiting the scene of a historic battle, but he did not seem to know much else," write the authors, who quote a former White House adviser concluding the US president was 'dangerously uninformed'.
During a meeting with Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister's 'eyes bulged out in surprise', the Washington Post reporters claim, when Mr Trump told him: 'It's not like you've got China on your border.'
China and India in fact share more than 2,000 miles of common border.
Mr Modi's expression 'shifted from shock and concern to resignation', with aides telling the authors the Indians 'took a step back' in their diplomatic relations with the US following the meeting.
Foreshadowing the later special counsel investigation into his ties with Russia, during the presidential transition Mr Trump interrupted an interview with a potential secretary of state to inquire about when he would be able to meet Vladimir Putin.
"When can I meet Putin? Can I meet with him before the inaugural ceremony?" he reportedly asked.
When the leaders did meet, at a G20 summit in Hamburg, Mr Trump dismissed the expertise of his then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson, an oil executive who knew Mr Putin personally, telling him: 'I have had a two-hour meeting with Putin. That's all I need to know ... I've sized it all up. I've got it.'
He also clashed with Mr Tillerson in 2017 when he asked his help in attempting to ditch the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a decades-old law banning Americans from bribing foreign officials for business deals.
"It's just so unfair that American companies aren't allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas. We're going to change that," Mr Trump said, according to the authors, who claim the president complained the rule prevented industry friends and his own company officials from paying off foreign governments.
When Mr Trump early in his tenure agreed to feature in an HBO documentary in which all living presidents read from the constitution, Mr Trump blamed others in the room when he struggled to read the text.
"It's like a foreign language,' he allegedly complained.
Another chapter reveals Mr Trump speculated an ex-wife of former White House official Rob Porter, who was forced to resign over domestic abuse allegations, faked a photograph in order to frame her ex-husband.
The image, which surfaced online, showed Colbie Holderness sporting a black eye.
'Maybe Holderness purposefully ran into a refrigerator to give herself bruises and try to get money out of Porter?" Mr Trump reportedly said.
The book, the authors say, is based on hundreds of hours of interviews with hundreds of sources, and corroborated when possible with documentation.
The White House has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE The leak that threatened to derail Trump's Iran strike... Susie Wiles's secret role... and a nail-biting final phone call, all now revealed
After exiting Marine One last Saturday evening, President Donald Trump – donning a red MAGA cap and signature blue suit and red tie – walked across the South Lawn glancing up briefly to acknowledge the assembled media but declining to answer their shouted questions. Then, the president suddenly stopped and looked skyward.
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's plot to abolish major right as Supreme Court gives him more power
The US President wants to abolish a right enshrined in the US Constitution for 157 years - and now there's almost nobody who can stop him Donald Trump wants to abolish a major right people born in America have enjoyed for 157 years - and is enshrined in the US Constitution. He's taking his fight against 'birthright citizenship' all the way to the Supreme Court - and won a major victory last night. In a decision that hands him almost unlimited power to change American laws with a wave of his hand, Supreme Court justices ruled that individual federal judges would no longer be allowed to halt or block his executive orders - even if they're unconstitutional. It leaves just the Supremes themselves between him and whatever he wants to do. And the next thing on his list is birthright citizenship - an issue likely to come before the highest court in October. Here's what's at stake for Americans if that happens. What is birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship is the rule that if you're born in the United States, you're a US citizen, regardless of your parents' immigration status. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the US to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of US law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the US to foreign diplomats. Because it's enshrined in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, it should require a congressional supermajority to change the rule - at least that's the theory. Why does Trump want to get rid of it? Republicans have long argued this leads to undocumented immigrants having "anchor babies" - a truly unpleasant term suggesting some people have children to make them harder to deport. And Trump himself has argued, baselessly, that the amendment was only ever intended to cover freed slaves, which ignores decades of caselaw and precedent. How is Trump trying to scrap it? Trump claims he can set it aside with an executive order - and he signed such an order almost immediately upon returning to the White House in January. Trump's executive order would deny citizenship to those born after February 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the US can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. What's the pushback been like? Some 22 states have brought lawsuits challenging the order, with one brought by Washington state, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois heard first in Seattle. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. So is it still blocked? Briefly. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order - yet. Instead, they were asked to rule on the principle of state and district judges blocking orders for the whole country - which the Supremes decided wasn't on, despite being a right enjoyed by judges for decades. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. What happens next? The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As tension between the White House and Iran grows, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
PETER HITCHENS: Donald Trump's attack on Iran was lawless and we'll all regret it soon enough. But it was his actions afterwards that everyone has missed
Donald Trump 's allies are more afraid of him than his enemies are. There are plenty of examples in Washington DC of former critics who now serve at his court, so crushed that they would clean his shoes for him in public if asked. Last week he treated the US constitution like a used paper bag, making a lawless attack on Iran which he was specifically not allowed to do by an overwhelming resolution of Congress, passed when that body still had some guts, in 1973.
