Trump wants absolute power

An immigration case involving a single man reveals the heart of the issues raised by the Trump presidency.

Trump and his core team believe that he has virtually absolute and unchecked power.  His political revival is asserted as evidence that the American people want him to decisively change their government.

The case involves the removal from Maryland of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who claims refugee status and who remained in the U.S. as the result of a court order.  The Department of Justice says he was expelled because of an “administrative error.”

The government refuses to attempt to return him to the U.S., despite a unanimous Supreme Court order, backing a decision of a federal district court. The “administrative error” overlooked his right to due process, including a formal hearing.

DOJ officials argue that the courts cannot order the executive branch to “facilitate” his return.  They maintain that the Constitution gives the president complete and exclusive authority over foreign relations, making it impossible for the court to require him to take an action relating to the man, who is now in prison in El Salvador (the Savior).  

No basis exists for asserting that presidential authority over foreign affairs is complete and exclusive.  For example, the Constitution gives Congress authority in approving treaties, sanctioning enemies, declaring war and controlling immigration.  It may delegate functions to the president, but it retains ultimate control.

Most importantly, it has the power of the purse.  It may pass laws affecting the exercise of presidential powers by denying the use of federal funds for a specific purpose. 

The courts, too, have powers relating to the exercise of foreign relations. They are responsible for ensuring that all branches of government act within the requirements of the Constitution and laws, including due process. 

Despite DOJ claims, the Supreme Court has issued decisions, respected by the executive branch, related to government actions taken outside of American territory.  In the case of a person illegally sent by the executive branch to El Salvador, courts can issue orders to the president who sits in Washington.

The courts try to carefully consider their decisions and may issue temporary orders to halt executive branch action while they deliberate.  The executive may disagree, but it must comply, at least temporarily.

Judges disapprove of government action being taken despite such a restraining order, as the Trump administration has done in the case involving the hasty transfer of hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador without due process. 

In that case, the judge has found that the administration may be in contempt of court.  If he issues such a ruling, the DOJ would have to prosecute violators.  The judge warns that he could appoint outside lawyers, if the DOJ refuses to act.

When swift presidential action forces the court into making rapid rulings without full review, a district court judge, sitting alone, may be made to appear as a partisan adversary.  The president may claim to be tussling with an “unelected” opponent rather than disobeying a court.

The assertion of broad presidential foreign relations power is part of an attempt to exercise nearly total government power, pushing aside Congress and the courts.  The Republican Congress has voluntarily acquiesced, but the federal courts continue trying to ensure executive branch actions are legal.

Many federal court cases across the country involve complaints that many of Trump’s executive orders and DOGE agency-slashing moves violate the law.  By acting rapidly, the president has forced courts to act quickly either to suspend his actions or consider them after the fact.

In the federal government, each of the three branches can control, limit or delay action by each of the others.  Constitutional checks and balances are meant to ensure that nobody can exercise unilateral power, akin to authoritarian rule. 

No election, no matter how strong its political message, allows the winner to annul the constitutional system.  Elections and policies come and go, but the system must prevail.  If not, we can reach a point, as we have, when the president threatens to expel citizens he considers serious criminals.

That’s wrong for a citizen and is also wrong for a non-citizen, like Abrego Garcia.  Due process  does not apply only to a citizen; it applies to a “person” in the U.S., however they got here.

In an obviously staged event, the president of El Salvador met with President Trump at the White House.  He refused to return the man, saying he would not send a terrorist to the U.S.  There is no evidence that the man is a terrorist. 

But Trump did not correct him or say the U.S. would accept him in line with the Supreme Court order.  Instead, he smirked in approval.  Later, Trump’s press secretary defiantly asserted Abrego Garcia would never return to the U.S.

Is this where the Constitution stops?

 

The Trump Referendum

Gordon L. Weil

Voters unhappy with the performance of President Trump are looking for opportunities to express their discontent at the ballot box.  House elections to fill vacancies offer them little comfort thus far, because the seats have been solidly Republican.  The only cheer for them may be that the new members of Congress did not do as well as Trump did in last year’s election.

But major vote looms, and it is really all about Trump.  It’s when Canadians elect a new parliament. The vote takes place on April 28. That’s somewhat earlier than required by law, but political circumstances dictated the earlier date.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Party leader, had grown unpopular. Many Canadians believed that he had not produced an economy they could live with.  Facing the inevitability of a loss, he tried to sweeten the pot by ill-advised breaks for average people. But that would disrupt his budget commitments, and his finance minister, who would have kept them, quit.

His voting deal with other parties then collapsed, making early elections inevitable.  Trudeau resigned as head of his party, which would then select a new leader, who would become prime minister until the elections. It looked like the Conservatives, under Paul Poilievre, would sweep into power.

Poilievre, from the province of Alberta which is the rough equivalent of Texas, is a professional politician who had cast himself in the model of Trump.  Just as several European countries had voted themselves to the right, he hoped to do the same in Canada.  As in the U.S., many people seemed to want a change from Liberal policies that had not produced promised results.

Into this mix of events came Donald Trump.  He moved to raise tariffs in violation of the USMCA trade agreement that he had pushed in his first term.  The relief for tariffs that he clearly believed would cripple Canada was his plan to force the northern neighbor to give up its nationhood and become the 51^st American state.

His push for Canadian statehood had the same kind of effect there as Pearl Harbor had brought about in the U.S.  If there wasn’t instant unity, it came reasonably close.   Ideological sympathies and the export of its oil to the U.S. showed Alberta to be somewhat less enthusiastic about the response to the U.S. than the other nine provinces.

Poilievre was caught flat-footed.  His natural ally had become the great nemesis.  He saw his 25 percent lead melt to the point that he trailed the new Liberal prime minister.

The new Liberal leader was quite different from his predecessor, who had tried to placate Trump despite being called “Governor” Trudeau by his fellow government chief. The Liberals overwhelmingly selected Mark Carney, formerly governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England plus having served as chair of the international Financial Stability Board.

In short, he knows his stuff and won’t agree with Trump’s version of the role of tariffs. He also comes to the job with excellent credentials and standing and, as a former hockey player, has made it clear he won’t deal with Trump unless he and Canada are treated with respect. 

Many Canadians seem inclined to support him, because he will defend the country against any Trump moves.  He recognizes the need for a long-term relationship with the U.S., but he says the old days are “over.”

There is a third party in Canadian politics, the New Democrats. They are similar to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.  It appears that they will lose strength, as Canadian voters want to make a clear choice between Carney and Poilievre.  The Quebec Party wins seats but cannot produce a government. That contest makes the election a clear referendum on Trump.

While Poilievre has been forced to open some distance from Trump, he remains the representative of a party that would move Canada in the same direction as the GOP.  Will voters conclude that he will be better able to work with his political soulmate than the technically competent Liberal leader?

Feeling runs high in Canada against the wild idea, presented as if it could happen, of their country as an American state.  Obviously, Carney is in a better position than the Conservative and looks stronger and more experienced that Trudeau (or, for that matter, Trump). 

If Carney wins at all and especially if he wins big, it will serve as a rebuke to Trump and his a la carte foreign and economic policy.  Not only will it say that Canada will not succumb to Trump, but that the Great White North will stand on its own as never before.  That could send the puck back to the Americans.

 

 

 

Don't count on the Supreme Court

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump seems to be amassing constitutional and legal violations. We await the inevitable action by the Supreme Court to exercise its checks-and-balances power to reverse his excesses.

His actions are likely to be found extra-legal even by a court stacked with conservative justices.  It’s possible that, while Thomas and Alito may not shed their partisan loyalty, the other more responsible justices will give the law dominance over power politics.

Don’t count on it.

Five members of the Court made up the majority in favor of the broadest legal statement of presidential power ever in U.S. history.  While they were joined by Justice Barrett last July, she went along with all their assertions.

That decision was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts.  His support for an almost unchecked president suggests that he will not now support a fresh look at limiting Trump’s powers.  He is a true conservative who may well agree with Trump’s policies.

Trump’s questionable moves take two forms.  First, he declines to follow the spending priorities that are the essence of congressional appropriations.  Congress may authorize or reject spending proposed by the president.  The president must spend just what Congress decides and refrain from spending without authorization.

Yet Trump has cut back on approved spending to the point of virtually eliminating government agencies.  He recognizes that Congress alone can formally terminate an agency, but he gets the job done by shutting it down.   In effect, he exercises a line-item veto, despite the Supreme Court having ruled that presidents don’t have that authority.

He also seeks to subvert the plain language of the Constitution, supported by the Court, the legislative record and historical practice.  He wants to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S., known as birthright citizenship.  Their citizenship is “black-letter law,” an unambiguous statement in the Constitution.

Trading on popular opposition to easy immigration, Trump appears to believes that the goal justifies a manufactured interpretation of the clear words of the Constitution.

Beyond these two gambits, he also applies existing laws, including one that formed part of President John Adams’ infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, in ways not contemplated by their drafters nor consistent with historical understandings in Congress and among the states.

The principal reason he can take actions straining the essence of the laws is the compliant Republican majority in the House and Senate.  The GOP members allow his moves either because they share his impatience with democratic processes or because they fear that crossing him may cost them their seats.  Their hold on power may be slim, but it works.

That leaves the federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.  They become part of the political system, searching for legal coat hooks onto which they can hang their pre-formed opinions. 

If it ventures too far into political questions, the Court runs the risk of one day facing political retaliation, quite possibly by the addition of new justices to counterbalance the conservative majority.  Roberts obviously worries about direct assaults on the federal courts.

So, the Chief Justice tries to keep the Court rulings as narrow and technical as possible. The Court can support the president simply based on the supposed procedural failings of his opponents and not on the merits of the central question itself.  Such decisions are made on the so-called “shadow docket” where they can be made quickly and without reasons.

A good example is the decision that Trump can transport Venezuelans to El Salvador.  By 5-4, the Court allowed his action based on the failure of the Venezuelans, while being in the expulsion process to bring their case to the correct district court.  The Court said they had due process rights, but let the administration get away with violating that requirement.

In avoiding the substance of issues, the Court can let Trump act freely, while insisting it has lost no power.  In Roberts’ view, the Court should not get involved in essentially political disputes, but should leave them to the president and Congress, the political institutions.  If they are aligned, as at they are now, their will must be deemed the will of the people.

That sends the ultimate recourse back to the ultimate sovereign – the people.  That could mean that the 2026 congressional elections are the next time a decision to approve or disapprove Trump’s authoritarian approach.  Trump has shown the broad implications of his approach and a decision on it should be the central point of the campaign.

Easy talk about defending democracy does not convey the necessary message about the potentially wide reach of Trump’s rule.  To paraphrase a famous statement, if people do not oppose the injustice of authoritarian rule when it affects others, nobody will oppose it when it affects them.

Trump Doctrine emerges: America First, block China

 

The Trump Doctrine now takes its place in American history.

Trump joins presidents who adopted broad world policies that became identified with them.  President James Monroe warned that Europe should stay out of the Americas, creating the Monroe Doctrine.  President Harry Truman pledged U.S. support to governments opposing authoritarians, creating the Truman Doctrine (though probably repealed by Trump).

Both Monroe and Truman based their doctrines on the growing American power.  The Trump Doctrine recognizes the limits of American power.  It has become known thanks to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the accidental model of transparency even about the most sensitive government planning.

The Trump Doctrine has two priorities: defending the American “homeland” and preparing for a potentially military confrontation with China.  These are Trump’s basics drawn from Project 2025, a conservative manifesto that he had denied even knowing about.

“China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario,” is Hegseth’s description of the core of the doctrine.

This strategy explains policies that Trump has pursued from the outset of his presidency.  The U.S. prepares to meet a “threat” from China, but it acts now to fulfill a “scenario” of security.

First, defend the 50-state homeland by increasing the buffer around it.  Add Canada and Greenland to create a new, expanded homeland, allowing the U.S. to defend against attack from the north.  Owning territory provides greater security than a mere alliance like NATO.

The original America First movement in 1940-41 preached that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were satisfactory buffers, but the new America First supplements them with territory.  The aspirations and values of other nations must be overridden to put this plan in place.

Second, casting any doubt aside, the Trump Doctrine makes clear that the U.S. would use military force to protect Taiwan from a Chinese attempt to seize it.  It makes clear that the principal threat to American security comes from China.  While this may be accurate, all measures short of a military buildup seem to have been ruled out.

What about the rest of the world?  Europe, the Middle East and East Asia defenses would largely be left to regional powers.  The U.S, would help them against threats from Russia, Iran or North Korea, but only within the limits of its resources after dealing with its top two priorities.

Though American policy would call these regional powers “allies,” their dependence on the U.S. for weapons and intelligence would make them something more like the “satellites” that surrounded the Soviet Union and which Putin seeks to recreate. 

Trump’s attempt to take over key elements of Ukraine’s economy in return for past American help against the Russian invasion is a prime example of this approach.  Trump wields the power of tariffs, weapons supply, and intelligence capability to force compliance.  He even demands that foreign suppliers to the U.S. drop their DEI programs.

Because his demands affect the sovereign powers of other nations, his Doctrine could encounter strong resistance.  Sensing any willingness by them to make concessions, he increases his demands.  Leaders may try personal flattery, but can end up appeasing him to avoid retaliation.  History reveals that appeasement fails to yield satisfactory results.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney shows he understands that appeasement will not work.  Measures to cut tiny Fentanyl flows or a trickle of illegal immigration have only led to greater U.S. demands.  Carney is taking a tougher line with Trump and is trying to rally Canadians to a sense of unity that will preserve the nation.

Britain and France are willing to defend Ukraine, though some other Europeans remain addicted to taking a free ride whether provided by Europe or the U.S.  If those two countries plus Germany and Poland form a core response, they must make some voluntary sacrifices instead of those demanded by Trump.  Ukraine already is making sacrifices for its survival.

Instead of a free world dominated by the U.S., a series of interlocking accords are likely to gradually develop.  A variety of alliances focusing on military planning, arms production, trade and intelligence could grow, though the U.S. would remain a needed partner. 

Given the obvious flaws in American intelligence security, a new version of Five Eyes could include Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand plus Germany, which has sought to participate. A deeper trade relationship with Europe could bring Canada a form of associate status with the EU and participation in the Anglo-French military “coalition of the willing.” 

Moves toward greater self-reliance by otter countries could require costly adjustments, but so would the Trump Doctrine.

The U.S. might reverse its policy, but trust in it has been deeply damaged.  Its cast-off friends cannot take any more risks and must create their own future.

 

 

History shows DEI works; Eisenhower's Black soldiers

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump has set out to kill DEI – diversity, equity and inclusion.

His message is that the traditional system has been shunted aside by preferences given to members of groups that have suffered discrimination.  Groups helped by DEI include women, Blacks, American Indians, and Asians.  In his view, they have gained an advantage over white males.

The key element of his policy is the assumption that merit has been sacrificed to political correctness.  Competence is sacrificed.  He rejects the idea that DEI helps ensure that members of affected groups, though equally qualified, are not excluded because of their sex or race.

Trump wants to end DEI policies across American society, not only the federal government.  He can use the influence of federal spending to make that possible.  He also seeks to erase the history of discrimination, implying that leadership roles played by Blacks, women and others were due to their favored treatment, not their own merit.

Nowhere is his policy more apparent than in the Defense Department.  It may have been embodied in an excessively clever statement by a Pentagon information officer who issued a statement that DEI “Divides the force, Erodes unit cohesion and Interferes with the services’ core warfighting mission.” 

Carrying out Trump’s policy, the department went too far and erased recognition of Jackie Robinson’s service, the role of the Tuskegee airmen and a Black general who had won the Medal of Honor.  It was an attempt to whitewash history.  Strong opposition caused this erasure to be reversed, and the official was reassigned to less public duties.

He was wrong.  While you can change policy, you can’t change history.  A still almost unknown story reveals just how wrong he was.

Years ago, I wrote a book about building the Alcan highway in 1942.   It was a hastily constructed road to get troops and supplies to Alaska in the event of a Japanese attack.  In response to Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the Doolittle raid on Tokyo and the Alcan.

It was built by seven Army Engineer regiments, four composed of white troops and three of Black troops.  The Army was not integrated below the regiment level.  The officers of the Black units, including my distant cousin, were white.  The road was quickly built.

Many of the Black soldiers were then assigned to Louisiana.  In the mess hall, they were given spoons but denied forks or knives.  They faced open racism.  As Black soldiers at many Army posts were similarly mistreated, they rebelled and were quickly shipped to Europe to drive supply trucks.

Following the successful but costly Battle of the Bulge in Belgium at the end of 1944, General Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander, found the Army was short of front-line combat troops.  He wanted to add Blacks from engineer units, but was warned that he would have to ask permission from Washington.

Instead, Eisenhower called for Black troops, in excess of engineer needs, to volunteer for assignment to combat units.  Many volunteered and most were accepted into new platoons integrated into white companies and went into battle.  In theory, the separate Black platoons would not amount to integration.

But a platoon is a small unit, and they ended up fighting alongside white platoons.  Some Germans could recognize the presence of American forces by their Black troops. When the war ended in Europe so did the Black platoons.

Given the importance of wartime morale, the Army Department quietly conducted surveys of soldiers.  White soldiers who had fought together with the Blacks were asked for their reactions.   Only five percent said Blacks were not as good as whites, while 17 percent of officers and 9 percent of enlisted said they fought better.

Overwhelming majorities of officers and enlisted rated them favorably.  Ratings were highest in units that had faced the heaviest fighting.  Problems arose mainly when troops from outside units came in contact.  Survey respondents mostly favored the platoon approach, some saying that individual assignment could cause problems because of certain soldiers’ racism.

The results of those 1945 surveys would destroy the foundations of today’s attacks on DEI.  But Army bosses kept the surveys secret, presumably because the findings would make the case for integration.  Digging in the National Archives decades later, I found them.  My interviews with Black Alcan engineers confirmed the data.

These surveys are proof of the false basis for the Pentagon claim and for Trump’s opposition to DEI.

Trump removed the Black general chairing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Navy and Coast Guard chiefs, both women, without explanation.  Their appointments probably looked like DEI to him.

DEI should not place underqualified people in jobs.  Opposition to DEI should not be used to deny jobs to qualified people.  Trump’s claim of using merit alone obviously lacks merit.

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. becomes economic island; Trump's tax increase

 

Gordon L. Weil

In his avalanche of actions, President Trump has adopted an across-the-board tax increase. Like many of his other moves, he should have asked Congress to approve, but he chose to act on his own.

He is using powers meant for a true national emergency to radically increase tariffs as he launches his personal view of trade policy and seeks to use trade as a weapon against other countries, both friends and allies. 

Trump’s trade policy is aimed at making the U.S. economically self-sufficient.  The rest of the world sells more to the U.S. than America sells to them.  Trump charges they profit because they cheat.  In his view, the U.S. buys imports at rigged, low prices, rewarding countries that use their profits from enormous U.S. sales to subsidize their own economies.

He uses tariffs to force up the price of imports.  As import prices rise, higher cost American goods can compete.  In fact, U.S. producers may be able to raise their prices.  After claiming he would restore the economy and combat high prices, he has admitted that prices will rise because of his tariff policy and the country might face a recession. That’s hardly what he promised.

Higher prices are the taxes he imposes to finance his notion of the proper role of tariffs.  But the price is wrong. And Congress did not give the president emergency authority to use tariffs as he does and effectively raise taxes.

The U.S. is the world’s only economic superpower, for the time being at least, and Trump takes advantage of its strength to remedy what he sees as the victimization of the U.S. and to force other countries into line.  By his unchecked action, he raises prices. That has the exact same effect as if Congress had raised taxes to support a new policy.

Trump’s view fairly recognizes that traditional free trade does not always work.  Countries must have market economies where buying and selling are free for free trade to work.  But some countries that benefit from the low tariffs that are part of free markets have state-run economies that allow them to take unfair advantage of the system.

Take China, the worst offender.  Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s trade guru, correctly opposed China’s admission to the tariff-cutting World Trade Organization, because of its state-run system.  It became a WTO member by lying about its intentions.  Countries like China have made a mockery of free trade, but U.S. consumers lap up their lower cost goods.

Higher consumer costs are not the biggest problem.  Underlying Trump’s policy are several economic assumptions that have been disproven.

Much trade is based on economic efficiency, with countries specializing in production where they are strong. Trade naturally favors exchanges among countries selling what they are best at producing and buying from others whose goods are better or cheaper than their own.  That’s an efficient division of trade.

Trump complains that most other countries are using the system to take unfair advantage of the U.S.  That ignores the role of consumers in a market economy.  A nation’s import-export balance usually results more from what its domestic market wants than the trade treachery of others.

The U.S. depends on some countries for essential resources, like rare earths, uranium and even some types of oil.  A tough trade policy can get in the way of meeting essential needs.  As an alternative to easing trade policy, Trump pressures Ukraine to become a major low-cost supplier of rare minerals supposedly to repay American aid to its defense against the Russian invasion.

The Trump trade policy also ignores the reaction of other countries.  He assumes they will have to accept the loss of sales to American competitors.  He has argued they will pay more tariff revenues that will fatten the federal budget, though he increasingly recognizes that those revenues will ultimately come from American consumers when they pay higher prices.

He has little obvious concern whether, faced with American protectionism, foreign governments will reject his “beggar thy neighbor” policy.  But they retaliate, trying to reduce their U.S. imports and to punish the U.S. for its tariff increases.  The U.S. itself then retaliates. This spiral is the essence of a trade war.

Finding the U.S. an unreliable trading partner, other countries are likely to seek new trade relationships. The world economy can be reshaped if Trump persists.  For example, Canada could consider joining the EU customs union to replace its former free-trade relationship with the U.S.

As world commerce reconfigures, the U.S. dollar would lose influence as the most accepted reserve currency.  With that loss goes much of American economic power in the world.  

The political equivalent of protectionism is isolation and the loss of world power.  That could happen if Trump’s “America First” turns the country into an economic island.

Trump wrong about EU

Gordon L. Weil

President Donald Trump says the EU was “formed in order to screw the United States.”

This statement is both a gross misstatement and a demonstration of his ignorance of history.  It is either the result of intentionally distorting history or the sign of a seriously faulty memory. He insists on using his incorrect claim as the pretext for levying high tariffs on imports from Europe.

I am an eyewitness to the fact that Trump’s assertion is false.  I played a role in the relationship between the U.S. and the EU.

After World War II, leaders in the U.S., Britain, France and Germany agreed to seek ways to prevent yet another clash between Germany and France that could again lead to world war.  They were determined to find a formula that would make such a conflict impossible.

The solution was to intertwine the economies of Germany, France and other European countries so that they would be unable to develop an independent ability to build a war machine.  Even more important, the joint European undertaking would be based on democratic principles, with decisions being made in an organization that could, in many cases, overrule nationalistic action.

That formula worked.  Year by year, new forms of economic integration were adopted.  Eventually, a single market was created where goods and services and even workers could freely move.  As more nations joined, they established the world’s largest trading unit.   It operates along many of the same lines as the U.S. market.

American policy was consistently supportive of the Europeans’ efforts.  The emerging Europe would adopt the principles of democratic liberalism.  Not only could Europe refrain from conflict in which the U.S. would inevitably become entangled, but it could become a powerful ally in facing the aggressive policies of the Soviet Union.

Among Europe’s efforts to create unity was the establishment of a graduate school where the future leaders of the EU and its member countries could study, socialize and develop shared outlooks on common challenges.  As an American, I was selected to attend this school in the hope that I would represent American democratic values.

I would later become the sole American on the staff of the European Commission, the international body responsible for adopting continent-wide policies.  It was not difficult to explain to the American media the details of the new European decisions that were usually quite compatible with Washington’s policies.

The leadership of the State Department was favorable to the European effort and supportive in almost all cases.  I was able to serve as a non-diplomatic link between European and American leaders.

The high point came at a meeting between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Walter Hallstein, the president of the European Commission.  I was present with them in the White House Oval Office when they met to confirm their mutual interest in trans-Atlantic cooperation.  Clearly, Europe was not out to “screw” the U.S.

Of course, the U.S. and Europe would each promote their own economic interests, just as any country would.  Instead of going to war, they entered negotiations to find workable arrangements.  These talks took the form of the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, named in honor of the late American president.

I became an American journalist, reporting to the Washington Post and other publications on the Kennedy Round and European unification. While the negotiations often focused on specific sectors, the goal was to find a balance of interests.  Each side should be able to end up with a deal that was beneficial to it.

The solution was to increase trans-Atlantic trade by lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers.  In launching the negotiations, President Kennedy had recalled that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”  By lowering tariffs on both sides to increase trade, everybody could benefit.  The Kennedy Round succeeded.

This is the history that proves Trump wrong on both the facts and the policy.  The creation of the EU was not hostile to the U.S.  While the U.S. has a trade deficit today with the EU, the solution is more likely to be Kennedy’s “rising tide” than punching holes in the bottom of the boat.