# data[].attributes.headline
Special interest groups/ Economic policy

# data[].attributes.subject
Special interest groups/ Economic policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the idealized democratic society, economic policy is determined by "one man, one vote." But in all real societies, special interest groups play an important role in the process that determines economic policy. Pressure groups represent relatively narrow interests, for example of peanut farmers, auto workers, or shareholders of firms that produce semiconductors.

# data[].attributes.body
In the US-China trade war, President Trump has been relying on the Trade Act of 1974 for authority to impose tariffs on Chinese tariffs. This Act instructs the Trade Representative to determine whether any act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. government has announced $4.7 billion in direct payments to American farmers, as part of its previously-announced strategy for mitigating the effects of President Donald Trump’s trade disputes, in particular the spat with China.

But some farmers on the receiving end of the aid are pushing back against it.

As the U.S. has hit countries such as China, Mexico and Canada with tariffs on their exports, those countries have retaliated with their own tariffs on U.S. products. The retaliatory tariffs have often targeted American agricultural products, in order to affect Trump’s Midwestern base ahead of the November midterms.

The White House announced last month that it would direct up to $12 billion in emergency aid to American farmers, in order to offset the effects of those retaliatory tariffs. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced details of the first tranche of that aid on Monday.

# data[].attributes.body
Tariffs on Aluminum and Steel-
On March 8, 2018, the President issued Proclamations 9704 and 9705 on Adjusting Imports of Steel and Aluminum into the United States, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), providing for additional import duties for steel mill and aluminum articles, effective March 23, 2018. Steel

As of June 1, 2018:  All countries of origin except Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea.

Aluminum

As of June 1, 2018:  All countries of origin except Argentina and Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
The trade war between China and the United States applies to Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. This section of the Constitution gives Congress the power "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excise." It also give the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Notes for this section:
Citizenship
The Draft
FAQ: What can't Congress do?
FAQ: Why was the power to coin money given to the Federal Government?
FAQ: Who can declare war?

URL: //www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

# data[].attributes.body
President Donald Trump may believe that China will eventually wave the white flag in a trade war, but his posture is inviting only more resistance from Beijing, where skepticism of his administration’s ability to negotiate in good faith is growing. While the Left has long criticized this arrangement, Trump offers nothing better in its place. The US does not have the power to impose a flagrantly unfair set of trade rules on the rest of the world. The average US tariff rate of 2.79 percent is somewhat higher than that of other major developed counties, such as Canada (2.44 percent) and the EU countries (1.92 percent). Whatever the flaws of the current global trading system, it is not rigged against the US. Continuing the tariff offensive against the EU, Canada, and Mexico could spark a global trade war, with no winner and major economic damage to every country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All the latest news about Trade war from the BBC

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/03/02/the-real-reason-trump-wants-to-start-a-trade-war/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6dc939ac6f7d

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nicolas Asfouri | AFP | Getty Images

"The question really is how big a difference can you make and what the potential consequences of it are," Alexander said. "Is it worth putting the whole global trading system at risk to achieve these objectives?"

President Donald Trump has been railing against the trade deficit the country has with its counterparts around the world, and in particular the bilateral shortfall with China.

In his annual letter to investors, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon backed, in general, the administration's efforts to level the playing field.

"When the U.S. administration talks about 'free' and 'fair,' it essentially means the same on all counts. This is not what has existed," Dimon wrote. "It is not unreasonable for the United States to press ahead for more equivalency."

Only Trump knows if the latest round of saber rattling is really about dishwashers and veterinary vaccines and golf carts or any of the other items that can be found here. After all, trying to eradicate a $375 billion annual deficit that has come about mostly because Americans consume more than they make and require cheap imported goods to bridge the gap seems unrealistic.

However, Trump may be able to right some previous wrongs while also playing to his middle-America blue-collar base.

"The analogy is to the arms race with the former Soviet Union," said Princeton economist Alan Blinder, author of the recently released book, "Advice and Dissent: Why America Suffers When Economics and Politics Collide." "We had great success with this under Ronald Reagan, in which he basically threatened a slightly wacky escalation of defense spending and the Russians couldn't match it and they sort of caved."

"It could have had a bad ending if they didn't cave. The analogy here is a trade war. A threat of a trade war that doesn't erupt into an actual trade war could conceivably do some good. But it's playing with fire."

Blinder said it's unclear, though, exactly what Trump hopes to achieve.

Trade deficits usually are a byproduct of a growing economy, and U.S. GDP appears well on its way to achieving the administration's 3 percent annual target. Low levels of American savings also make deficits virtually unavoidable.

"I have not the slightest idea of what Trump thinks he wants to accomplish on this. He talks as if he wants a balance of trade on China. Can he really?" Blinder said. "If what he's after is intellectual property protection, he's been really quiet about it."

The actual release from the U.S. Trade Representative office lists "China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation" as the overriding impetus for the tariffs. There's a 90-day public comment period that also could serve as a chance for the opposing sides to come to the bargaining table.

Dimon suggested several specific reforms regarding China. He thinks it no longer should be regarded as a developing economy and should be treated the same as the U.S. and other global leaders when it comes to World Trade Organization rules.

Changes toward China should be done in concert with U.S. allies, Dimon added.

But Trump likely has more than China in his sights, and there are, to be sure, other items besides intellectual property. The U.S. would like to get its cars and trucks sold in more countries, and the administration has slapped global tariffs on aluminum and steel in an effort to promote domestic production of those goods.

During his presidential campaign, he vowed to tear up trade agreements that he didn't think were fair to the U.S., placing the NAFTA pact with Mexico and Canada near the top of his grievance list.

The world, then, will be watching what happens with China.

"It would be a wonderful thing to see if the Chinese government would put more handcuffs so to speak on that ability to pillage other people's intellectual property," said Seth Kaplowitz, finance lecturer at San Diego State University.

"Not everybody likes the president, not everybody supports the president. The one thing everyone recognizes is that they need the United States to trade with to get their goods to market as well as to provide American goods to their markets," he said. "I am sure behind the scenes they're discussing or about to discuss how this could be resolved."

Markets also are watching closely.

The Dow industrials opened Wednesday down more than 500 points as trade war fears percolated, then staged a stunning turnaround on seemingly no news.

The day seemed to symbolize that the market is trying to price in both outcomes: a damaging global trade war, or a Trump victory on a tariff gambit that others wouldn't take.

"We're going to see more nervousness, more noise, more volatility, more turmoil than less over the next few months," said Eric Winograd, senior economist at AllianceBernstein. "This, too, shall pass. Both parties have enough incentive from an economic sense to progress toward free trade rather than walk away from it."

WATCH: Economist Steven Roach explains trade war ramifications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A potential trade war is scary, but the US has a legitimate beef with China

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. and others around the world have suffered at the hands of China's rampant intellectual property theft.

# data[].attributes.body
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch is working on a bill limiting the president from imposing new national security tariffs. Hatch is eager to take a hard line against Pres. Trump's "escalating" trade war. He also warned  that he might support some of the bills that seek to pull back Congress’s tariff authorization. Further, as the Commerce Department undertakes two additional *Section 232 investigations—one related to uranium and the other to autos and auto parts—Congress is calling on the executive to reconsider its stance on these potential actions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After many months of the executive branch taking action against U.S. trading partners, Congress is starting to push back. A bipartisan group of senators introduced a draft bill Wednesday to reform Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 under which the president has imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. This is the 10th bill working its way through Congress to try to curb the trade war begun by the Trump administration.

Although the separation of trade-law powers is complex, the regulation of foreign commerce is Congress's constitutional prerogative. Yet when it comes to tariff authority, Congress has regularly empowered the executive to manage foreign commerce without the checks that it has accorded itself in other areas.

Now, Congress appears to be rethinking what one senator has called its " helpless bystander" stance-but finding that tariff authority is far more difficult to take back than it is to give.
Numerous bills on the Hill
Here is how the trade war is playing out on Capitol Hill: Lawmakers have introduced at least 10 bills that seek to limit the president's authority, particularly with respect to the steel and aluminum tariffs that President Trump imposed this spring citing national security concerns. Section 232 allows the president to take such action following an investigation to determine "the effects on the national security of imports" of the products in question. Two of these bills predate most of the Trump administration's "three-digit" actions-those taken under Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and under Section 232. The cascade of legislation began in March, when the White House ratcheted up its tariff policy, and things have intensified in the last few weeks.

Members of Congress are also pressuring the executive branch in other ways. The House Ways and Means trade subcommittee held a hearing July 24 on the Commerce Department's process of determining which products should be excluded from the steel and aluminum tariffs. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer testified before a Senate panel July 26 about President Trump's proposed budget for USTR and its enforcement work. And Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote to the White House last month, the Wall Street Journal reported, warning that he might support some of the bills that seek to pull back Congress's tariff authorization. Further, as the Commerce Department undertakes two additional Section 232 investigations-one related to uranium and the other to autos and auto parts-Congress is calling on the executive to reconsider its stance on these potential actions. In a July 18 letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a bipartisan group of 149 House members argued that any action on autos and auto parts would hinder, rather than improve, economic security.

Lawmakers have also sought to address the impact of the executive's trade actions. Members of Congress have introduced legislation that would mitigate the effects of retaliatory tariffs on American workers and firms, including by expanding access to benefits in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, and provide funding to injured farmers. Another pair of bills would require greater transparency regarding the president's personal financial stake in trade actions he directs.

In trying to rein in the Trump administration's actions under Section 232, Congress is considering several legislative options, but it's not clear if any of them will materialize anytime soon. Separately, the American Institute for International Steel and others are challenging the constitutionality of Section 232 on the basis that it lacks any "intelligible principle" to limit the discretion of the president. The U.S. Court of International Trade is reviewing a motion for summary judgment in that case.

The first trade-related bill introduced during the Trump administration was put forward by Sen. Mike Lee on Inauguration Day, long before the Section 232 tariffs were on the horizon. The legislation would increase reporting requirements on the executive and create the option for Congress to prevent any new tariffs from taking effect unless it passes a joint resolution of approval. This rule would apply to not only Section 232 but also other "unilateral trade actions" that the bill defines. Rep. Warren Davidson introduced a companion bill in the House in March. A bill introduced by Rep. Ron Kind on May 10 closely tracks the Lee and Davidson bills but would allow tariffs to take effect unless Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval.

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Bill Pascrell and others in 2017 would make major structural and institutional changes to rein in the delegation of trade power to the executive, share powers more evenly across the branches, and create more enforcement authority within Congress. Pascrell also introduced a draft resolution July 24 requesting that the president transmit to the House of Representatives "any and all documents in draft or final form, including reports, memos, spreadsheets, and slide deck presentations" in his possession that relate to his determination to impose tariffs pursuant to Section 232.

Two recent bills introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake and Sen. Martin Heinrich respectively are directly responsive to specific tariffs the Trump administration has implemented. These bills would repeal the additional tariffs on steel, aluminum and solar cells.

A bill introduced by Sen. Bob Corker on June 6 has received the most attention and support. It addresses only Section 232 and, like the Lee bill from January 2017, would require a joint resolution of approval for tariffs to be imposed. It requires the president to submit a report to Congress for review describing the proposed action and specifying the reasons for action. The bill is retroactive and would allow Congress to end the steel and aluminum tariffs. Rep. Mike Gallagher and others introduced a companion bill in the House with bipartisan support on July 11.

Corker has had trouble finding the right vehicle to get his amendment through. Failed attempts to attach it to the F arm Bill or the National Defense Authorization Act have led to discussion about attaching it to upcoming revenue bills.

Now, there is growing support from members of both parties for the bill introduced Aug. 1 that would, among other reforms, bifurcate the Section 232 into an investigation phase led by the Department of Defense (rather than Commerce) and a remedy phase that Commerce would manage. This change would shift to the Defense Department the determination of whether imports threaten to impair national security.

The closest Congress has come to action on any of these options was when the Senate approved a non-binding motion July 11 to instruct conferees to an appropriations bill to include language providing "a role for Congress in making a determination under Section 232."
What else could Congress do?
As lawmakers debate these many bills, there are still more options they could consider, although, like the bills tabled so far, some options are more realistic than others. Congress could seek to repeal Section 232-an extreme step-effectively taking back the authority it delegated to the executive. It could do so retroactively to invalidate the measures establishing the steel and aluminum tariffs. It could also consider amending the statute by inserting a sunset provision so that the authority simply disappears.

Additionally, Congress could remove or restrict the executive's authority with respect to the types of products that could be subject to action. The statute already includes, in paragraph (f), a condition for congressional approval when it comes to actions on petroleum products. Under this paragraph, any presidential action to adjust imports of petroleum or petroleum products "shall cease to have force and effect upon the enactment of a disapproval resolution" by Congress. Lawmakers could expand the number of products subject to such a constraint. They could likewise remove or restrict authority on the basis of particular countries, such as those with which the United States has a defense alliance.

Congress could also more clearly define "national security" as used in Section 232 and limit the factors by which the executive may conclude that certain imports "threaten to impair" national security. The regulations provide some guidance, but these could be further tailored. In other areas of law, the U.S. Code and government guidance documents contain definitions of "national security" that could serve as a template for such an approach. Legislation that applies such definitions retroactively may lead to new investigations on the affected products if the Trump administration seeks to maintain course. The outcomes of such investigations could be subject to greater legal scrutiny to determine whether they comport with more precisely articulated definitions of national security.
The challenging finish line
Each bill pending in Congress targets different enforcement measures in different ways. Lawmakers appear to be divided over how to address the tariffs or whether to address them at all. Some efforts have positioned members of the president's own party-such as Sens. Rob Portman, Corker and Flake-against the White House, even as some Democrats have opposed such measures. Regardless of which path Congress chooses, the biggest challenge is not opposition from particular members but, rather, the veto that would probably result, raising the threshold for enactment.

With the business community pressuring Congress to reclaim its authority, some action from the Hill seems likely-but exactly what remains to be seen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trade War Battles: Congress Reconsiders Its Role

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress may get involved as conflicts over trade escalate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump's "America first" trade crackdown increasingly has the look of a first-rate campaign issue for Democrats in their uphill bid to take the Senate this fall.

Democratic senators and candidates in competitive races have pounced on Trump's plans to slap tariffs on U.S. allies, saying they are a drag on jobs and the economy in their states, all of which Trump won in 2016. Republicans are struggling to respond, not wanting to cross the president even as they're ideologically in favor of free trade. And the leaders of some conservative organizations likely to invest heavily in Senate races, including the Koch brothers' political network, are concerned that an economic backlash could damage GOP candidates in a number of key races.

Story Continued Below

Still, Republicans contend that Trump won these states, and the White House, largely thanks to his "America first" trade rhetoric, and that he remains overwhelmingly popular with the voters who approved of that message 18 months ago. But Democrats think that support will diminish if a trade war hits voters in their pocketbooks.

The case is stark in states like North Dakota, Missouri and Tennessee, homes to three battleground Senate contests that could be directly affected by Trump's tariff plan.

"I think right now anyone who objectively looks at North Dakota's economics knows that this trade policy is not good for North Dakota," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, said in an interview. In a state Trump won by nearly 40 points, she has staked her reelection bid on a message of being willing to work with Trump when she agrees with him and stand up to him when she doesn't. On tariffs, she's chosen to speak out.

"I think you've got to be aggressive and make your voice known and make these concerns known," Heitkamp added. "My position is that when I see something that threatens my state economically, I'm going to be very aggressive in talking about it."

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Yet Republican candidates in those races are generally defending the president. They say he should have space to negotiate, and endorse his broader trade policy, even as some admit that they don't like tariffs. In states with critical Senate races where the president remains largely popular, Republicans are counting on Trump supporters in November.

Rep. Kevin Cramer, Heitkamp's challenger in the fall, has largely backed the president's actions, and he accused Heitkamp of politicizing the issue. The Republican lawmaker has labeled concern about the tariffs "hysteria" and said negative reactions have not been helpful to Trump's negotiating position or to volatile markets. Democrats have harshly criticized Cramer's use of the word "hysteria" as callous to the state's economic interests.

Cramer said in an interview that North Dakota farmers with whom he speaks say they've been getting "ripped off" and support the president's broader goals. Still, he said the tariffs could have a detrimental economic impact if they're in place long term, and that there's "anxiety" about where the policy will lead.

"I'm always concerned about tariffs," Cramer said. "I think they're a lousy weapon in a trade war. But if they can be used in the short term as negotiating leverage so we can get a better deal for the American farmer, I want to help the president do that."

In Missouri, Sen. Claire McCaskill told POLITICO that farmers are "very worried" that tariffs will hurt their bottom line. In particular, she said tariffs against Canada, where Missourians export corn, soybeans and other commodities, would hurt her state.

"If they retaliate it will be a direct hit on my state and it will be very painful," McCaskill said. She said she understood the desire to go after "cheaters" like China but dismissed the tariffs against U.S. allies. "This notion that we're going to declare a trade war with Canada when my state is so dependent on Canadian exports is really worrisome."

But her opponent, Attorney General Josh Hawley, backs the president's approach. He said Missouri farmers are already getting a raw deal, pointing to Canadian tariffs against dairy exports. He said ultimately he'll judge a deal by the end result, but said Missouri farmers he's spoken to are supportive of Trump trying to "shake things up."

"We'll judge the deal that he gets," Hawley said. "If he wants to go out there and highlight the fact that Missouri farmers need a better deal and deserve something better than the way they're being treated, I think he's on the right track."

Hawley also accused McCaskill of politicizing the issue and argued she has ignored farm interests in the state. Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau - a group that endorsed both of McCaskill's previous opponents - said he has spoken with her only twice since her last election and that McCaskill didn't appear at a meeting with the group when they were in Washington in March. McCaskill's office said she was unable to attend due to a conflict but that her staff attended the event and that she spoke with Hurst directly and attended a meeting with him last year.

Hurst said those in the agriculture business are "very concerned" with Trump's rhetoric on trade, and "very questioning" of whether his strategy would be successful. He called last week's public feud with Canada "upsetting" because it's a large export market, but he said the majority of Missourians would give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

"I think that so far, Trump's actions on trade, however disturbing they have been to farmers, have met from approval from the average voter in Missouri," Hurst said. "I don't think he's hurt himself politically so far."

Other Republicans worry the hurt could come soon. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, the main arm of the Koch political network, said he supports the president on taxes and regulations, but the tariffs could wipe out otherwise positive economic agenda.

"Bad policy is usually bad politics and that is absolutely the case with these tariffs," Phillips said. "Most of the key states in play will be negatively impacted by the tariffs and by the trade war that we're already seeing expand."

Dan Eberhart, a major GOP donor and ally of several Senate campaigns, including Cramer's, said he opposes the tariffs and that Republican candidates have been put in a bind.

"I think it's really difficult for these Senate candidates because they're generally caught between a popular Trump and a tariff policy that people oppose and may not be the best thing for the pocketbooks for people in their states."

In Tennessee, former Gov. Phil Bredesen, the Democratic candidate in the race to replace retiring Sen. Bob Corker, seized on the issue, calling the tariffs a "tax on Tennesseans." Corker unsuccessfully pushed for a vote on legislation to give Congress a check on the president's tariffs, an effort Bredesen willingly endorsed.

His opponent, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, has taken the same route as other Republicans, saying that she's not a fan of tariffs but supports the president's broader goals and believes he should be given room to negotiate. In a Twitter video last week, she highlighted meetings she'd had with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to talk about applications for exemptions from the tariffs. But the state's Democratic Party has attacked her, challenging her to take a stronger stance on the issue.

Democrats are not universally opposed to Trump's trade action. In Ohio, a manufacturing state Trump won handily in 2016, Sen. Sherrod Brown is an ally on tariffs, though he's critical of the president's ad hoc approach and doesn't support taking aim at U.S. allies. He has maneuvered to outflank Rep. Jim Renacci, the Trump-endorsed Republican in the race, on the broader issue of trade - he recently released a TV ad highlighting his opposition to past trade deals and touting himself as an ally of steelworkers.

"People generally like the tariffs, but they don't like the way the president has presented them," Brown said in an interview. "They don't like the unevenness; they don't like that he says it's a trade war."

Renacci, for his part, had a message similar to th ose of his fellow Republicans, taking a wait-and-see approach while supporting giving the president room to negotiate.

"He negotiates a little different than most and in the end, he understands this is about American jobs," Renacci said. "He understands this is about unfair trade with China,and he'll keep moving in the right direction."

This article tagged under:

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning - in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats pounce on Trump trade war in midterms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The president's planned tariffs are making Republican candidates choose between their party leader and free-trade beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1038971/US-china-trade-war-china-yuan-donald-trump-latest-china-news
China's currency has hit its lowest level in a decade. Beijing's manufacturing sector has also expanded at its slowest pace in over 2 years. Raymond Yeung, chief economist for China says "the governments priority is to avoid a financial blow up." If this trade war escalates or keeps up the Chinese economy could be facing some serious problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons We Don't Want a Trade War With China

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The stock market has been rather volatile lately, and fears of a trade war are to blame -- especially in regards to China.

# data[].attributes.headline
Book tells of Xi Xing Ping's fun days in Iowa

# data[].attributes.subject
Book tells of Xi Xing Ping's fun days in Iowa

# data[].attributes.body
The Des Moines Register issued fake Chinese news articles saying that Xi Xing Ping is in love with Iowans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Twice Wednesday, President Donald Trump pointed to a Chinese government-backed advertising insert in the Des Moines Register as evidence Beijing is trying to interfere in the U.S. midterm elections.

"Regrettably, we found that China has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election, coming up in November, against my administration," Trump said at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday.

The president later specifically cited a China Daily advertising supplement that ran in the Register over the weekend.

"China is actually placing propaganda ads in the Des Moines Register and other papers, made to look like news. That's because we are beating them on Trade, opening markets, and the farmers will make a fortune when this is over!" the president tweeted.

Iowa experts said the four-page supplement, which said "section sponsored by China Daily" at the top of each page in the Sunday Register, was intended to undermine farm-country support for Trump's escalating trade war.

More: Chinese-backed newspaper insert tries to undermine Iowa farm support for Trump, trade war

"It suggests that Republicans ought to change their views on how to deal with China - that maybe they should put pressure on President Trump ... to cease and desist adding additional tariffs," said Steffen Schmidt, an Iowa State University political science professor.

Schmidt said the insert could be considered election meddling "to some extent."

"Anything done this close to elections, you have to look at with a certain amount of suspicion," Schmidt said.

The China Daily insert touted the mutual benefits of U.S.-China trade, built on concern about long-term market losses, and highlighted President Xi Jinping's three-decades-long relationship with Iowa.

That relationship includes a close friendship between Xi and U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad, Iowa's former governor.

Trump told reporters Wednesday the Chinese ad was targeting him.

"They don't want me or us to win because I am the first president to ever challenge China on trade," Trump said.

The supplement, for example, had a trade story jump-page headline that said: "Dispute: The fruit of a president's folly."

The Trump administration's tariffs on China prompted retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products, hitting Iowa farm products hard. A recent Iowa State University study said the state's ag economy could see a $2.2 billion hit because of the trade war.

The president said he's defending both himself and farmers.

"Well, take a look at it. You have not only ads, you have statements made that they're going to hit our farmers, who are my voters. I love the farmers," he said.

"China is going and attacking the farm belt - our farmers. They're attacking our industrial - with ads, and with statements that don't look like ads. It looks like they're editorials and they're not," the president said.

More: Iowa Poll: More than a third of Iowans say decision-making in Trump White House is 'not normal or safe'

Interference through ads?

Trump did not mention the extensive and ongoing campaign by the Russian government to sway U.S. elections at the U.N. meeting. Iowa experts say Russian actions in 2016 and China's advertisement campaign are not parallel.

"The president is correct that Chinese authorities would like to sway Iowa voters in the midterm elections in order to send a message to the White House that there is a political cost to the trade war," said David Skidmore, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines.

"But if he is suggesting that an attributed newspaper insert is somehow equivalent to the broad-based and hidden Russian campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, that would be a stretch," Skidmore said.

Donna Hoffman, a University of Northern Iowa political science professor, questionedwhether the insert rose to the level of election interference.

"I think Trump is trying to boost this notion that China is doing something nefarious," Hoffman said. "China is doing what a lot of countries do" in promoting its own interests, she said.

"People might think it's unsavory, but I don't think ... China is trying to influence the U.S. elections," she said. "Trump made a leap from point A to point G."

Hoffman and others said the Chinese insert provided little new information to Iowa voters.

"If you're an Iowa soybean farmer, if you're an Iowa hog producer, you already know you've lost a lot of your income, and looking forward, it could be a disaster if China continues slapping tariffs on U.S. products and Iowa products," Schmidt said.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said earlier this week the ad supplement is "the propaganda you'd expect from a communist country."

CLOSE

China is the largest buyer of U.S. soybeans and second-largest buyer of pork, based on weight. Iowa is the nation's largest pork producer and second-largest soybean producer.

The federal government has acknowledged U.S. farmers will get hurt from the trade war, with a $12 billion emergency trade bailout.

The first round will send $4.7 billion directly to soybean, pork, dairy, cotton and other growers. Iowa farmers expect to see $550 million.

Register reacts

Carol Hunter, the Register's executive editor, said the China Daily placement was not surprising, given that "trade is a big issue right now, and Iowa is at the epicenter of potential damage."

Hunter said the insert met the Register's standard criteria for advertising.

The New York Times, the Washington Post and other newspapers have run similar China Daily inserts.

The supplement was clearly marked as a product of China Daily, an official publication of the People's Republic of China, and neither Register news nor advertising staff had a role in its creation, she said.

"Certainly, it gives China's perspective. But that's what advertisers do," Hunter said. "I think Iowans are smart enough to see this for what it is: It's an advertiser buying access to an audience. The Register happens to offer a sophisticated audience that's interested in trade and politics."

China's insert in the Register is attracting the president's attention because of Iowa's "very real potential for economic damage and its role as a swing state in presidential politics," Hunter said.
Chinese government-backed advertisement
Read or Share this story: https://dmreg.co/2xSKRaO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Citing ad in Des Moines Register, Trump accuses China of meddling in U.S. elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"China is actually placing propaganda ads in the Des Moines Register and other papers, made to look like news," Trump said.

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump didn't start this trade war with China but he does plan on ending it. Since 2012 our trade deficit with China has consistently topped 300 billion dollars. China uses protectionist policies that discriminate against foreign business. Back in March, the U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan congressional advisory body, published a list of 10 ways China cheats on trade called “China’s Technonationalism Toolbox.” Free trade requires fair trade, based on a common set of mutually beneficial rules. We finally have a president willing to take the actions necessary to put a stop to Chinese cheating and to protect America’s national interests.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/china-started-the-trade-war-trump-is-just-trying-to-end-it

# data[].attributes.body
Democratic senators and candidates in competitive races have pounced on Trump’s plans to slap tariffs on U.S. allies, saying they are a drag on jobs and the economy in their states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No, trade wars aren't easy to win says Mike Thompson in this animated political cartoon.