Archive for ‘White House spokesman’

05/04/2020

As Trump administration debated travel restrictions, thousands streamed in from China

(Reuters) – In defending his strategy against the deadly coronavirus, President Donald Trump repeatedly has said he slowed its spread into the United States by acting decisively to bar travelers from China on Jan. 31.

“I was criticized by the Democrats when I closed the Country down to China many weeks ahead of what almost everyone recommended. Saved many lives,” he tweeted, for instance, on March 2.

But Reuters has found that the administration took a month from the time it learned of the outbreak in late December to impose the initial travel restrictions amid furious infighting.

During that time, the National Security Council staff, the state department and other federal agencies argued about everything from how best to screen for sick travelers to the economic impact of any restrictions, according to two government officials familiar with the deliberations.

The NSC staff ultimately proposed aggressive travel restrictions to high-level administration officials – but it took at least a week more for the president to adopt them, one of the government officials said.

In meetings, Matthew Pottinger, deputy national security adviser and a China expert, met opposition from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow, said two former NSC officials and one of the government officials involved in the deliberations. The two top aides were concerned about economic fallout from barring travelers from China, the sources said.

Each day that the administration debated the travel measures, roughly 14,000 travelers arrived in the United States from China, according to figures cited by the Trump administration. Among them was a traveler who came from Wuhan to Seattle in mid-January, who turned out to be the first confirmed case in the United States.

On Jan. 22, Trump downplayed the threat posed by the virus, telling CNBC from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, “We have it totally under control.”

The battle within the White House over whether and how to stop infected travelers from China lasted nine more days.

On Jan. 31, Trump issued a proclamation barring entry of non-U.S. citizens, other than the immediate family of citizens and permanent residents, who had traveled to China within the last two weeks. The restrictions have since been expanded to many other countries.

It is unclear when the president was made aware of the NSC’s proposal and what prompted his decision to act, but the decision followed the World Health Organization’s declaration the day before that the epidemic was a “public health emergency of international concern.”

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials told Reuters that they contributed to the decision as part of the administration’s newly convened coronavirus task force.

A Treasury Department spokesperson said that Mnuchin “never objected to the decision to restrict flights from China.”

A White House spokesman, Judd P Deere, said: “Any suggestion that Larry Kudlow objected to restricting flights from China to contain COVID-19 and protect the health of the American people is completely false. Larry fully supported the President’s bold decision.”

In a statement, NSC spokesman John Ullyot said that the council’s early meetings about the coronavirus involved great expertise and robust discussion and were professional.

As of April 4, the coronavirus has infected more than 300,000 people in the United States, and killed over 8,000, according to the Reuters coronavirus tracker. The country has more cases than anywhere else in the world.

The sources for this story, former NSC members, public health officials and others involved in, or briefed on, the administration’s response, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the record.

POPPING A FLARE

The NSC, which operates within the White House to coordinate policies and recommendations involving national security across agencies, was at the center of the effort to formulate the early response to the outbreak.

The council was first notified of the outbreak on the morning of Dec. 31, according to one of the government officials involved, when an NSC official was forwarded an email from a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) attache in Beijing that had been sent to senior HHS officials the night before.

The “pop-a-flare” notice, as it is known, described strange cases of pneumonia that could not be definitively traced to seasonal flu, said the government official, who saw the message. The email said the Chinese would soon be notifying the World Health Organization, the official said.

On Jan. 3, Dr. Gao Fu, head of China’s disease control agency, informed his U.S. counterpart, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the CDC, in an emotional telephone call that the outbreak was growing out of control, according to the same federal official and a former NSC official. Both said they had been informed of the details.

Gao’s agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Ullyot, the NSC spokesman, disputed the timeline, saying the council did not learn of the coronavirus outbreak until Jan. 3. The CDC, a part of HHS, confirmed to Reuters that it learned of an outbreak in late December and that the call with Gao occurred Jan. 3.

Health agencies were scrambling to gather information, the two government officials involved in the deliberations said. Questions went back to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, and experts across the government: How many travelers arrive daily from Wuhan, China, the initial site of the outbreak? What U.S. airports do they fly into? What would be the pros and cons, including costs, of any travel restriction?

In discussions with the NSC, public health officials, including from HHS and CDC, initially argued for the targeted approach of medically screening travelers from Wuhan, as they sifted through information about where and how quickly the virus was spreading, one of the government officials involved said. Public health officials tend not to favor border closures because they can restrict medical response and divert limited resources.

The NSC’s Pottinger was pushing hard for strict travel restrictions – expressing doubt about the truth of the data China was releasing, according to the official.

There was “a lot of yelling, a sign of frustration,” said a former NSC staffer who was not in the meetings but got messages from colleagues in attendance expressing dismay. The person described the messages but did not share them with Reuters. The two current federal officials confirmed the acrimony.

The NSC struggled to reconcile conflicting viewpoints, the two government officials involved said.

The debate delayed the screening of travelers from China by at least a week, one of the officials said. CDC officials ultimately announced enhanced medical screenings for travelers from Wuhan at three international airports, in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York’s John F. Kennedy, on Jan. 17, expanding them to 20 U.S. airports by Jan. 28.

At one point, during a meeting, Pottinger snapped at health officials that their approach “really has to take a step back,” so that national security interests could shape the response, the official said.

The CDC declined to comment on the debate.

Some former NSC officials who spoke to Reuters traced what they saw as an ineffective response by the council in part to structural changes in 2018 in which former National Security adviser John Bolton had folded the council’s Global Health Security and Biodefense directorate into a larger operation, with the result that pandemic planning was not as great a priority. Others said that, under Bolton, the NSC worked effectively on biopreparedness, but after he departed it lost a number of important experts.

NSC spokesman Ullyot rejected as false the suggestion that the council lacked expertise. The council is staffed by officials with “extensive experience in virology, infectious disease epidemiology, global health security, public health, and emergency response,” he said.

The NSC’s own public health experts were involved in the discussions from the beginning, advocating “early and often” for traveler screening and raising the issue of banning flights from Wuhan, he said.

While the conflict soured the interactions, one of the government officials involved said, data soon emerged that led the health agency officials to agree with Pottinger: A travel restriction for all of China was needed. They saw that there were thousands of travelers arriving daily from Wuhan’s Hubei province to the United States, as well as a rising number of Covid-19 cases reported by the Chinese government beginning in mid-January, the source said.

In its statement to Reuters, the CDC did not directly address what led to its ultimate decision to support the travel restrictions.

By Jan. 24, the staff of the NSC had proposed restricting flights from China, said the government official involved in the deliberations. But as Pottinger met with deputies from other cabinet-level agencies, the recommendation met with resistance because of concerns about spooking the markets and scaring the public, three sources with knowledge of the deliberations told Reuters.

STILL DIVIDED

With opinions still divided, the matter went to top White House aides, at which point Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Economic Council director Kudlow argued strongly against the travel restrictions, said two former NSC officials and the government official involved in the deliberations.

In addition to the impact on the stock market, the two top aides expressed concern about the supply chain for everything from semiconductors to ingredients for pharmaceuticals, said one of the government officials involved in the deliberations.

Pottinger was “pleading with Mnuchin and others” to stop travelers from coming, the former NSC official said.

By then, the first known patient in the United States – a man in his 30s who had traveled from Wuhan to Seattle on Jan. 15 – tested positive for the coronavirus disease, COVID-19.

He had slipped through travel screenings because his trip had been broken up, so the Wuhan origin of his trip had not been obvious to customs agents, said the government official with knowledge of the deliberations.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump told CNBC on Jan. 22: “It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”

On Jan. 29, the Council of Economic Advisers, which advises the president on economic policy, presented an analysis describing a worst-case scenario of what a pandemic and travel restrictions could do to the economy, according to one of the government officials involved in the deliberations, who read it. The report supported Kudlow and Mnuchin’s arguments against such restrictions and “scared everyone,” the source said.

The next day, at an afternoon meeting of the White House’s newly formed coronavirus task force, as well as other attendees, travel restrictions were still being debated, according to the government official involved in the deliberations and a former NSC official who learned of the meeting from former colleagues.

During the meeting, Mick Mulvaney, then President Trump’s chief of staff, entered the room, telling a smaller group, including Pottinger: “The president wants to see you now,” according to the official involved in the deliberations and the former NSC officials.

Mulvaney referred questions to the White House, which did not respond.

Trump issued the order the next day. By then, the novel coronavirus was already carving a lethal path through a Seattle nursing home.

Source: Reuters

10/05/2019

Trade war: Trump raises tariffs on $200bn of Chinese goods

The US has more than doubled tariffs on $200bn (£153.7bn) worth of Chinese products, in a sharp escalation of the countries’ damaging trade war.

Tariffs on affected Chinese goods have risen to 25% from 10%, and Beijing has vowed to retaliate.

China says it “deeply regrets” the move and will have to take “necessary counter-measures.”

It comes as high-level officials from both sides are attempting to salvage a trade deal in Washington.

Only recently, the US and China appeared to be close to ending months of trade tensions.

China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed the latest US tariff increase on its website.

“It is hoped that the US and the Chinese sides will work together… to resolve existing problems through co-operation and consultation,” it said in a statement.

Tariffs are taxes paid by importers on foreign goods, so the 25% tariff will be paid by American companies who bring Chinese goods into the country.

Chinese stock markets rose on Friday, with the Hang Seng index up less than 1% and the Shanghai Composite more than 3% higher.

However, earlier in the week stock markets had fallen after US President Donald Trump flagged the tariff rise on Sunday.

The US imposed a 10% tariff on $200bn worth of Chinese products – including fish, handbags, clothing and footwear – last year.

The tariff was due to rise at the start of the year, but the increase was delayed as negotiations advanced.

What will be the impact of the tariff rise?

The US-China trade war has weighed on the global economy over the past year and created uncertainty for businesses and consumers.

Even though Mr Trump has downplayed the impact of tariffs on the US economy, the rise is likely to affect some American companies and consumers as firms may pass on some of the cost, analysts said.

Deborah Elms, executive director at the Asian Trade Centre, said: “It’s going to be a big shock to the economy.

“Those are all US companies who are suddenly facing a 25% increase in cost, and then you have to remember that the Chinese are going to retaliate.”

China's Vice Premier Liu He (C) poses for a photo with US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (R) and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (L) at Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing on March 29, 2019Image copyright GETTY IMAGES
Image caption US and Chinese officials have held several round of talks in an attempt to strike a deal to end the trade war.

In a statement, the American Chamber of Commerce in China said it was committed to helping both sides find a “sustainable” solution.

“While we are disappointed that the stakes have been raised, we nevertheless support the ongoing effort by both sides to reach agreement on a strong, enforceable deal that resolves the fundamental, structural issues our members have long faced in China.”

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire warned that the trade dispute escalation threatened jobs across Europe.

“There is no greater threat to world growth,” Mr Le Maire told CNews. “It would mean that trade tariffs go up, fewer goods would circulate around the world… and jobs in France and in Europe would be destroyed.”

Presentational grey line

‘Serious escalation’ of the trade war

Analysis box by Karishma Vaswani, Asia business correspondent

No breakthrough, and no deal – just, more tariffs.

With this move, US President Donald Trump has effectively dealt a fresh blow to not just the Chinese economy – as he had presumably hoped – but also to US’s.

The previous set of tariffs of 10% on $200bn of Chinese goods have to some extent been absorbed by American importers, but economists say a 25% tariff will be much harder for them to stomach.

They will almost certainly have to pass on that cost to American consumers – and that means higher prices.

Make no mistake, this is a serious escalation – and the trade war between the world’s two largest economies is back on.

This means the rest of us should be prepared for more pain ahead.

Presentational grey line

How will the tariff increase affect negotiations?

Despite this week’s escalation in tensions, talks were held between Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Thursday.

A White House spokesman said US officials had agreed with the vice-premier to resume talks on Friday morning, according to media reports.

Even though there had been growing optimism about progress in trade talks recently, sticking points have persisted throughout.

These have included issues around intellectual property protection, how fast to roll back tariffs and how to enforce a deal.

Analysts say the Chinese are still willing to negotiate to retain the moral high ground and because they recognise the importance of solving the trade war.

“A trade war will be bad for China, both the real economy and the financial markets. It will also be bad for the world economy,” said Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“Better for China to play the role of conciliatory statesman than angry retaliator.”

Why are the US and China at odds?

China has been a frequent target of Donald Trump’s anger, with the US president criticising trade imbalances between the two countries and Chinese intellectual property rules, which he says hobble US companies.

Some in China see the trade war as part of an attempt by the US to curb its rise, with Western governments increasingly nervous about China’s growing influence in the world.

Both sides have already imposed tariffs on billions of dollars worth of one another’s goods. The situation could become worse still, as Mr Trump has also warned he could “shortly” introduce 25% duties on $325bn of Chinese goods.

What exactly sparked the US president’s latest actions, which apparently took China by surprise, is unclear.

Ahead of the discussions, Mr Trump told a rally China “broke the deal” and would pay for it.

How the trade war has played out

The International Monetary Fund said the row poses a “threat to the global economy”.

“As we have said before, everybody loses in a protracted trade conflict,” the body which aims to ensure global financial stability said in a statement, calling for a “speedy resolution”.

Source: The BBC

Law of Unintended Consequences

continuously updated blog about China & India

ChiaHou's Book Reviews

continuously updated blog about China & India

What's wrong with the world; and its economy

continuously updated blog about China & India