Connect with us

Economics

Donald Trump cries “invasion” to justify an immigration crackdown

Published

on

AN “INVASION”. On the campaign trail, that’s how Donald Trump described the millions of migrant encounters at the southern border during Joe Biden’s presidency. During his inaugural address the 45th, and now 47th, president echoed the same sentiment, but this time with a note of triumphalism. “For American citizens, January 20th, 2025 is Liberation Day,” he crowed.

The notion that America is being invaded has become the defining theme of Mr Trump’s immigration policy. Hours after his inauguration the president issued ten executive orders on immigration and border enforcement “to repel the disastrous invasion of our country”. This is despite the fact that encounters at the border are the lowest they have been in four years, thanks to increased enforcement by Mexico and asylum restrictions implemented last year. The executive actions generally fall into three categories: the rescission of Mr Biden’s policies and reinstatement of Mr Trump’s first term plans, flashy things meant to project toughness, and more extreme measures that range from probably illegal to flagrantly unconstitutional.

In the first group Mr Trump issued a sweeping order modelled on one from his first term that aims to increase detention, force countries to take back their citizens, enlist local police to help with immigration enforcement and punish sanctuary cities by withholding federal funds, among other things. He intends to bring back Remain in Mexico, a policy introduced in 2019 that forced migrants to wait on the other side of the border while their asylum claims were adjudicated. But because Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president, has to agree to that—and she has already registered her opposition—the order is more of a signal of intent than an immediate policy change. Mr Trump promised during the campaign to shut down CBP One, a government app set up by the Biden administration that allowed migrants to schedule an appointment to apply for asylum. Migrants waiting for those appointments on the Mexican side of the border found their meetings abruptly cancelled as soon as Mr Trump took the Oath of Office.

During his first term, the number of refugees relocated to America plummeted. This time he has completely suspended all refugee resettlement for at least four months. According to Reuters, soon after Mr Trump was inaugurated nearly 1,700 Afghans who were cleared to be resettled in America had their flights cancelled. Another order increases vetting for migrants and directs agencies to identify countries from which travel should be banned, something that will sound eerily familiar to those who remember the travel ban Mr Trump implemented on mostly Muslim-majority countries almost exactly eight years ago.

Next consider the policies that sound tough but may not change very much. The same order that discontinued CBP One also demands physical border barriers, detention and deportation. That is “just calling for enforcing laws that are already on the books”, says Julia Gelatt of the Migration Policy Institute, a think-tank. Additionally, Mr Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, which allows the secretary of defence to send troops to help secure the frontier with Mexico. This is hardly unprecedented. George W. Bush (Operation Jump Start) and Barack Obama (Operation Phalanx) did something similar. Federal law limits soldiers’ roles in domestic affairs to non-law enforcement activities such as transportation and logistical support, rather than actually arresting migrants. Mr Trump’s order suggests that he doesn’t plan to cross that line. The national emergency also unlocks construction funds from the Department of Defence for the fortification of the border wall, a move the president also made in 2019.

That leaves the most extreme orders. The new president kickstarted the lengthy process of classifying drug cartels as foreign terrorist organisations by arguing that they “threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere”. Some Republicans have wanted that for more than a decade. The worrisome bit of that order directs top officials to prepare for the possibility that Mr Trump will invoke the Alien Enemies Act. This law is the only piece of the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798 when America was feuding with France, that was not repealed or allowed to lapse. It permits the president to summarily detain and deport citizens of countries with whom America is at war. It was last invoked to detain Germans, Italians and Japanese during the second world war—hardly a proud moment in American history. Yet America is not at war, and drug gangs are not sovereign nations, even if they do control some territory.

This is where Mr Trump’s talk of an “invasion” becomes more than rhetorical bombast. Framing the cartels as terrorist organisations invading America is meant to legitimise his use of the law—though it is doubtful the courts will see it that way. And because America is being invaded, Mr Trump argues, he can block anyone from crossing the border, in effect suspending asylum until he decides that the invasion is over.

Mr Trump also decided that the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the constitution, which says that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”, is up for debate. He declared that from next month, children born to parents who are neither citizens nor permanent residents would be denied passports. The order applies not only to the children of unauthorised immigrants but also to those of people living in America on work or student visas. To justify this, Mr Trump argues that all foreigners are not in fact “subject to the jurisdiction” of its government. Since the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, which gave citizenship to Native Americans belonging to sovereign tribes, only foreign diplomats have been considered immune from American law under that clause.

This executive order seems extremely unlikely to survive in the courts. But it could be intensely disruptive for new parents in the meantime. If implemented, in effect American-born children will become illegal “immigrants” on exit from the womb. American birth certificates do not include information on the citizenship of parents, and so it is unclear exactly how Mr Trump expects officials to gather the information necessary to refuse passports. Still, it is exactly what the president promised he would do.

Economics

‘He should bring them down’

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Win McNamee | Annabelle Gordon | Reuters

President Donald Trump on Friday lobbed his latest criticism at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as the White House’s discontent for the economic policy leader hits a fever pitch.

During a Friday afternoon question-and-answer session with reporters, Trump pointed to examples of prices going down.

“If we had a Fed Chairman that understood what he was doing, interest rates would be coming down, too,” Trump said. “He should bring them down.”

Trump has long argued that the Fed, which sets monetary policy in the U.S., should cut down interest rates. His latest comments come as the White House has ratcheted up its attacks on Powell in recent days.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Friday that Trump and his team are assessing whether they can remove the Fed chair. Powell has said previously that he cannot be fired under law and intends to serve through the end of his term as chair in May 2026.

“The president and his team will continue to study that matter,” Hassett said at the White House after a reporter questioned if firing Powell “is an option in a way that it wasn’t before,” according to Reuters.

Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough.” His post included the nickname of “Too Late” for Powell, a continuation of Trump’s habit of giving satirical titles to political rivals.

His use of the word “termination” raised questions around if Trump was referring to Powell’s potential removal from his post ahead of schedule. Hassett said on Friday the administration will look at if there’s “new legal analysis” that would allow for Powell’s firing.

Powell appeared to irk Trump after saying Wednesday that the president’s contentious tariff plan could drive up inflation in the near-term and create challenges for the central bank in managing goals of high employment rates and price stability. Powell said Trump’s levies — many of which are currently on pause — are “likely to move us further away from our goals.”

“We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual-mandate goals are in tension,” Powell said in prepared remarks before the Economic Club of Chicago. “If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each goal, and the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close.”

Powell also said that the Fed was “well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

The Federal Open Market Committee has its borrowing rate currently targeted in a range between 4.25% and 4.5%, where it has sat since December. Fed funds futures are pricing in a more than 90% likelihood that the central bank holds rates steady again at its policy meeting next month, according to CME’s FedWatch tool.

As Trump’s team has scaled up criticisms, some Democrats have gone on defense. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., warned on Thursday that a president firing the Fed chief would be dire for U.S. financial markets.

“Understand this: If Chairman Powell can be fired by the president of the United States, it will crash markets in the United States,” Warren said on CNBC.

Continue Reading

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Trending