- A group of Senate Republicans came out against President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on all Mexican goods following a closed-door meeting with administration officials Tuesday.
- The Republicans expressed concern over the long-term economic impacts of the tariffs, which are set to go into effect June 10.
- Speaking at a press conference in London, Trump said that the Republicans would be “foolish” to try to stop his tariffs.
Senate Republicans Go Against Trump
A group of Republican senators said Tuesday that they opposed President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on all Mexican goods.
Last week, Trump announced in a tweet that the U.S. will impose a five percent tariff on all Mexican imports starting June 10, in order to put pressure on Mexico to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the country.
The White House later said in a statement the administration will increase the tariffs by another 5 percent every month, until they reach 25 percent in October, at which point they will “permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory.”
While Trump’s party has generally backed his immigration policies, numerous Republican senators made the tariffs a point of departure following a closed-door meeting with administration officials on Capitol Hill.
“There is not much support for tariffs in my conference, that’s for sure,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters after the meeting. “Our hope is that the tariffs will be avoided, and we will not have to answer any hypotheticals.”
Other senators who attended the meeting also expressed their discontent to reporters, like Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who called the tariffs “a mistake,” and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who told reporters, “There’s no reason for Texas farmers and ranchers and manufacturers and small businesses to pay the price of massive new taxes.”
Other Republican senators warned that they would try to block the tariffs, with some even arguing that they could get enough support among Republicans to get a veto-proof majority.
“The administration ought to be concerned about another vote of disapproval on another national emergency act, this time trying to implement tariffs,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told reporters. “Tariffs are not real popular in the Republican Conference,”
Other Republicans backed this claim, like Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND).
Trump in London
The senators spoke out against the tariffs just a few hours after Trump told reporters in London that he had enough Republican support.
When asked by a reporter if he thought Republicans would block the tariffs, Trump said: “No, I don’t think they will do that, I think if they do, it’s foolish.”
To that point, there certainly are key Senate Republicans who have come out to back Trump.
In a tweet, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote that the president has “broad authority to control transactions with other nations if there is an unusual & extraordinary threat.”
Others agreed with Rubio’s sentiment. “I think Mexico could help us solve the crisis down at the border,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC). “What’s the tax on handling 80,000 additional illegal immigrants coming across the border, housing them, adjudicating them? You’ve got to look at the total cost of the prices.”
While Trump definitely has some support, experts have still described this as one of the biggest rebukes from Republicans during his time in office, which raises the question: why are Republicans so against the tariffs?
It all comes down to the economic impact.
Trump says the tariffs are a punishment for Mexico, but most economists say that the costs of the tariff will largely fall on U.S. businesses and consumers. This is due to the fact that tariffs are paid by companies that import products, and when U.S. businesses are required to pay the tax, that extra cost is then passed to consumers.
This economic concept is broadly supported by economists and experts from different schools of thought and does not fall into a category of liberal versus conservative economic theory.
“US tariffs are taxes on American households and businesses, so imposing them will always be an act of self-destruction,” Dan Ikenson, who leads trade studies at the conservative Cato Institute think tank, told Vox News.
“Trump may believe he can dictate demands because the smaller Mexican economy is more dependent on the US economy than vice versa, but make no mistake: Both economies would be hurt significantly by the tariff war being threatened.”
Additionally, economists also agree that because tariffs function like a regressive tax, the negative impacts are more likely to hit lower-income communities.
Besides consumers, the two biggest business sectors that will be hit are the auto industry and the agriculture sector. “Motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts accounted for one-third of the value of all US imports from Mexico, and much of that cross-border trade was in unfinished product,” said Ikenson.
“In other words, the factory floor spans the US-Mexican border, so imposing tariffs is akin to erecting a concrete wall through the middle of that factory.”
On Tuesday, Toyota Motor Corp told Reuters that the tariffs on Mexico could cost its major suppliers $1 billion. The tariffs will also not only create higher costs but also cause job losses as well.
According to a new report from the Perryman Group, an economic research firm, job losses would amount to nearly 406,000, and “the proposed tariffs would lead to an increase in direct costs of about $28.1 billion each year.”
Others also worry that the new tariffs will undermine the ongoing negotiations of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which is the treaty that Trump intends to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with.
What Can Mexico Do?
While Trump remains adamant that he will implement the tariffs, Mexican officials remain more optimistic.
Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, is set to meet with Vice President Mike Pence in Washington to discuss the tariffs Wednesday, and Mexican authorities have said they are willing to cooperate but have pushed for talks rather than economic retaliation.
However, the question that remains is: how much can Mexico really do to stop the migrant flows? According to the Washington Post, Mexico has dramatically stepped up immigration enforcement recently.
The country has nearly tripled its monthly deportations since the beginning of 2019. Last month alone, they apprehended more than 22,000 unauthorized migrants, marking the highest monthly number in Mexicos history.
However, Mexico largely lacks resources to deal with the influx of migrants from Central America that travel to the country with hopes of getting asylum in the U.S. Mexico uses up a lot of its police and military resources combatting organized-crime groups and their immigration authorities are entirely overwhelmed.
As of now, the Trump administration has not specifically said what Mexico can do to reverse the tariffs.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Vox) (Fox News)
House Passes Equality Act Aimed at Preventing LGBTQ+ Discrimination
- The House voted Thursday to approve the Equality Act, which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
- Democrats and civil rights groups have applauded the move, saying it is necessary to protect LGBTQ+ Americans from discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other public areas.
- Republicans and conservative groups have opposed the bill, arguing it violates religious freedoms by forcing organizations that refuse to serve LGBTQ+ people to choose between operating on their beliefs.
- The legislation faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where it will need 60 votes to avoid the legislative filibuster.
House Approves Equality Act
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act on Thursday, a broad measure that would greatly expand protections for the LGBTQ+ community.
The legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity in numerous public areas such as employment, housing, education, credit, and jury service, among other places.
The bill also would expand the 1964 act to cover other federally funded programs and “public accommodations” like shopping malls, sports stadiums, and online retailers.
Currently, anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people fall under the umbrella of “sex,” a relatively new development that came last June after the Supreme Court ruled that gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans were protected under the Civil Rights Act on the basis of sex.
But the existing law still has many loopholes that have allowed for discriminatory practices against the LGBTQ+ community.
A person can still be denied housing due to their sexual orientation or gender identity in 27 states, according to a statement released by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the leading sponsor of the measure. They can also be denied access to education in 31 states and the right to serve on a jury in 41.
Support and Opposition
Many Democrats, civil rights organizations, and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups have praised the House’s passage of the bill, which has been decades in the making, and which President Joe Biden had promised would be one of his top priorities during his first 100 days in office.
“Today’s vote is a major milestone for equality bringing us closer to ensuring that every person is treated equally under the law,” Human Rights Campaign president Alphonso David said in a statement. “Now, the ball is in the Senate’s court to pass the Equality Act and finally allow LGBTQ Americans the ability to live their lives free from discrimination.”
However, the legislation faces an uphill battle in the Senate, which previously blocked the legislation when the House initially passed in it 2019. While the Senate was controlled by Republicans at the time, the current 50-50 split still means that at least 10 Republicans will have to join all 50 Democrats to break the 60-vote legislative filibuster.
But Republicans in Congress have largely opposed the act. Only three GOP representatives voted in favor of the measure Thursday, just half of the number who voted for its passage in 2019.
Many Republicans have echoed the claims of anti-LGBTQ+ groups, arguing that the act will infringe on religious freedoms by forcing businesses and organizations that have religious objections to serving LGBTQ+ people to decide between their beliefs or continued operation.
Others have also said the bill that would roll back protections for women who were assigned female at birth by allowing transgender women to participate in women’s sports.
Shift in Public Opinion
Still, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday he will fight for the act in his chamber and condemned Republicans who have voiced their opposition to it.
“Their attacks on trans people in the transgender community are just mean,” he said. “And show a complete lack of understanding, complete lack of empathy. They don’t represent our views and they don’t represent the views of a majority of Americans.”
Several recent polls have found that Americans broadly support legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community.
According to the 2020 Public Religion Research Institute American Values Survey, more than 8 in 10 people said they favor laws that would protect LGBTQ+ people against discrimination in public accommodations and workplaces.
A 2020 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found the number of Americans who support these laws to be slightly lower, roughly 7 in 10. Notably, that also included 62% of Republicans, which may indicate that the actions of GOP leaders in Congress do not represent the will of their voter base.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (NPR) (CNN)
Former Aide Accuses New York Governor Andrew Cuomo of Sexual Harassment
- New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) was accused of sexual harassment by his former aide Lindsey Boylan in an essay she published on Medium Wednesday.
- Boylan claimed she was subjected to inappropriate remarks and behavior from the governor for years, including an instance in 2018 where he allegedly kissed her without her consent after a meeting.
- Boylan said Cuomo created an administration, “where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected.”
- Cuomo denied the allegations, but Boylan’s essay comes as numerous current and former top officials have recently accused the governor of engaging in intimidation and creating a hostile work environment.
Lindsey Boylan Details Allegations Against Cuomo
A former aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) published an essay Wednesday accusing him of sexual harassment, expanding on allegations she made in December. The aide, Lindsey Boylan, first made the accusations in a Twitter thread about women being harassed in the workplace.
“Yes, @NYGovCuomo sexually harassed me for years,” she wrote. “Many saw it, and watched.”
At the time, Boylan did not provide any more details to the media, and Cuomo denied the allegations.
“I fought for and I believe a woman has the right to come forward and express her opinion and express issues and concerns that she has,” he said at a press conference after the accusations surfaced. “But it’s just not true.”
In her essay, published on Medium, Boylan accused Cuomo of subjecting her to several years of deeply uncomfortable situations, including an instance after a meeting in 2018 when he kissed her on the lips without her consent.
She claimed that Cuomo “would go out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs” and that over the years, “His inappropriate gestures became more frequent.”
These alleged actions also included one time in October 2017, where she said he sat across from her on a jet and said “Let’s play strip poker.” Boylan outlined a number of other inappropriate actions and comments she claimed the governor made. She even embedded screenshots from emails and text messages that she said supported her story. However, she said her fears got worse after the kiss in 2018, and that she “came to work nauseous every day” until she eventually resigned in September of that year.
Notably, Boyland additionally stated that Cuomo’s “pervasive harassment” extended to other women as well, and that he would make “unflattering comments about the weight of female colleagues” and “ridiculed” them about their romantic relationships.
This kind of behavior, she said, was part of the culture Cuomo created in his administration, “where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected.”
“He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences,” she said, stating that after she first tweeted the accusation in December, two other women reached out to her but were too afraid to speak.
One allegedly told Boylan she lived in fear of what would happen if she rejected Cuomo’s advances, and the other said he had instructed her to warn people who upset him that they risk losing their jobs.
Cuomo’s press secretary Caitlin Girouard responded to the allegations in a statement Wednesday by reiterating the governor’s past remarks.
“As we said before, Ms. Boylan’s claims of inappropriate behavior are quite simply false,” she told reporters.
Girouard also disputed Boylan’s story about the jet ride, sharing a statement from four current and former administration officials who were on one or more of the four flights in October 2017 that Boylan had taken with Cuomo.
“We were on each of these October flights and this conversation did not happen,” the four officials said.
Boylan is by no means alone in some of her specific accusations. Cuomo’s last few weeks have been mired in scandal after a top aide revealed his administration had withheld nursing home data on COVID-related deaths. In the aftermath of the revelations and Cuomo’s handling of it, numerous top officials have accused the governor of intimidation, bullying, and fostering a toxic workplace.
Many of those accusations surfaced after New York Assemblyman Ron Kim (D), who has been an outspoken critic of Cuomo, claimed that the governor threatened to “destroy” him on a call last week.
Cuomo said Kim was lying about the conversation, but shortly after, many current and former aides and other insiders gave The New York Times similar accounts of aggressive behavior and intimidation.
Also on Wednesday, Karen Hinton, another ex-Cuomo staffer, published an op-ed in the New York Daily News that echoed many of Boylan’s claims about a toxic work environment for women.
That claim also appeared to be supported up by three people who worked in the governor’s office at the same time as Boylan. They told The Times it was true that Cuomo would make inappropriate remarks and comment on people’s appearances.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CBS News)
Former Capitol Security Officials Blame Intelligence Failures for Insurrection
- During the Senate’s first hearing into security failures that lead to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, top officials provided new insights but shirked responsibility.
- Many blamed the FBI for not gathering more information or properly communicating what they did know, arguing that the breakdown was a result of the intelligence community not taking domestic extremism seriously.
- Police leaders noted that a bulletin from an FBI field office warning of a “war” at the Capitol, issued a day before the insurrection, was not properly flagged or delivered.
- However, others noted that the Capitol Police had in fact issued an internal alert three days before warning of similar threats.
Security Officials Shirk Responsibility
Former top officials responsible for security at the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection testified before the Senate for the first time Tuesday.
While the testimonies represented the most detailed accounts of the security failures leading up to and during attacks, they also raised questions about how those failures came out.
The top officials did acknowledge some of their own mistakes and admitted they were unprepared for such an event. Still, they largely deflected responsibility for the breakdown in communication and instead blamed intelligence officials, their subordinates, and even each other at times.
All of the officials testified that the FBI and the intelligence community had failed to detect information about the intentions of the pro-Trump insurrectionists and properly relay what they did know before the attack.
Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and acting D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee depicted the collapse in communication as a broader failure of U.S. intelligence agencies to take domestic extremism as seriously as foreign threats.
Specifically, both officials mentioned this in the context of a bulletin issued a day before the insurrection by the FBI’s office in Norfolk, Virginia. That bulletin warned of a “war” at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
In his testimony, Sund — who resigned the day after the insurrection — disclosed for the first time that the alter had in fact been sent to the Capitol Police through the Joint Terrorism Task Force but said it was never forwarded to him or either of the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms.
Contee also said the D.C. police department received the warning, but it was a nondescript email and not labeled as a priority alert that would demand immediate attention.
“I would certainly think that something as violent as an insurrection at the Capitol would warrant a phone call or something,” he told the Senators.
However, lawmakers pointed out that the Capitol Police did have warnings about the attack in the form of their own internal intelligence report issued three days before the planned pro-Trump rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol.
In that 12-page memo, some of which was obtained by The Washington Post, the Capitol Police intelligence unit warned that “Congress itself” could be targeted by Trump supporters who believed the electoral college certification was “the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election.”
The memo also noted the large expected crowds, the fact that organizers had urged Trump supporters to bring guns and combat gear, and that “President Trump himself” had been promoting the chaos.
Two people familiar with the memo told The Post that the report had been relayed to all Capitol Police command staff, though in their testimonies Tuesday, the former security officials said the intel they had did not have enough specifics about the potential for an attack.
Some, however, appear to doubt the series of events detailed by Sund. On Tuesday, Buzzfeed filed a lawsuit against the Capitol Police for records related to the insurrection. The agency has been criticized for not providing enough information to the media, and contradictory testimonies delivered to Senators likely raised more red flags.
Lawmakers Emphasize Need for Better Precautions
The argument that there was so much vague, threatening online chatter making it hard to distinguish what was legitimate is something that many law enforcement officials have used to explain their failure to prepare for the attacks.
In fact, that was the exact same response the FBI gave reporters Tuesday after Sund and Contee blamed them for not giving an explicit or strong enough warning. Lawmakers hope that the many hearings and ongoing investigations into the matter will result in tangible policy changes to prevent similar attacks from happening again.
While it is currently unclear what that will look like, many leaders have emphasized the need for a broad rethinking of how the U.S. addresses domestic extremist threats at every level.
“There’s no question in my mind that there was a failure to take this threat more seriously, despite widespread social media content and public reporting that indicated violence was extremely likely,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mi.) told reporters Tuesday.
“The federal government must start taking these online threats seriously to ensure they don’t cross into the real-world violence.”