Category: Donald Trump

The between relationship the United States and the United Nations has been bittersweet since the appointment of President Donald Trump into office. This essay is will advocate against the Trump administration withdrawal from the UN several bodies, specifically: the Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization by discussing the reasons and implications of such decision. Firstly, it will begin by defining key terms, secondly delve into the reasons why the Trump administration withdrew from the UN. Thirdly, his essay will discuss the implications the withdrawal will have on international law. Lastly, the essay will state the theory of international law and that the Trump administration takes in the decision to withdraw for that UN.

Definition of Key Terms

International Law

According to Koh (2017:415), international law is the law between and amongst sovereign nations that came about through countless public and private multinational actors by developing international and domestic law (Koh, 2017:415). In addition, in managing the lead of states and international associations in international relations with each other and transnational organizations, private individuals and minority groups; for general application, international law comprises of regulations and standards (Beckam and Butte).

Shaw (2008:1) distinguishes between private and international law. According to Shaw, private international law is made up of cases inside specific overall sets of laws, in which foreign components interfere, bringing up issues concerning the use of foreign law or courts (Shaw, 2008: 1). An example of private law would be if a South African finance manager consents to an arrangement in Paris, France, the understanding is liable to French law. This implies that any lawful debates need to tended to by means of French law, not South African law. Public international law alludes to the international overall set of laws, not simply a lawful change of legal system (Shaw, 2008: 1).

The United Nations

According to Whineray (2020: 2), the UN is a forum or an organization of sovereign states, which willfully consolidate to make a discussion regarding peace and security. It assumes a focal part in lessening international pressures, forestalling clashes and stopping battling effectively under way. The UN was established after World War II with the desire to keep away from future conflicts through tact and exchange among states. In order to assist those most deprived with having better lives, the United Nations gives the resources to assist with keeping up with global harmony and security, and to detail strategies on issue influencing the entirety of humankind. All activities of the United Nations are settled by member states since it gives them the component to take care of issues and debates and to follow up on issue of worry to humanity (Whineray, 2020: 2).

The Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council was set up on 15 March 2006 by the General Assembly. It is an intergovernmental body that reports straight to the UN General Assembly. It is an unmistakable element from UN Human Rights, which is important for the UN Secretariat tasked with reporting back to the Secretary-General (Blanchfield, 2019). Moreover, the Human Rights Council was made to supplant the 60-year-old UN Commission on Human Rights as the key UN intergovernmental body liable for human rights. It gives specialized, considerable and secretariat backing to the Council and essentially political body with comprehensive human rights mandate, and a forum empowered to prevent abuses, inequity and discrimination, protect the most vulnerable, and expose perpetrators (Blanchfield, 2019).

The World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO) was set up on 7 April 1948, settled in Geneva, Switzerland. It is a particular office of the United Nations (UN), which is devoted to matters concerning about global wellbeing and also tasked with coordinating control over matter of health inside the UN framework (Caballero et al., 2016). Moreover, it is liable for a number of responsibilities including giving initiative on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries, and monitoring and assessing health trends (Caballero et al., 2016).

Background Information: The Relationship Between the Trump Administration and the United Nations

The United States plays a significant role as a member of the United Nations. The UN was made at the drive of the US after World War II and it is the biggest contributor as it gives the most monetary commitment to the UN’s general financial plan. However, relationship between the Trump administration and the United Nations has been a tricky one. The appointment of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States has raised concerns at the United Nations (New York Times, 17/09/2021). It was indistinct and hard to foresee what perspectives of the Trump administration, joined with Republican larger parts in the two offices of Congress. However, signs showed that the UN is going to have a testing or possibly difficult relationship with the US. The UN needed to give close consideration to four regions that were suspected to be influenced by the changes that might come along with the Trump administration – the UN Security Council (UNSC) dynamics, funding, climate change and human rights, and the World Health Organization (New York Times, 17/09/2021).

The UN Bodies the Trump Administration Withdrew from

Amongst the bodies that the US President Donald Trump withdrew from was the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in October 2017 and June 2018 separately. The United States likewise reported its withdrawal from the World Health Organization on July 6, 2020, viable one year after the fact (New York Times, 17/09/2021).

Reasons for Trump Administration’s Decision to Withdraw from the UN Bodies

The Human Rights Council

Shortly after Trump was appointed as the US President, the administration flagged doubt about the Council and the degree to which the United States should seek after change from inside the Human Rights Council. Later on, the United States pulled out from the UN Human Rights Council in June 19, 2018 (American journal of international law, 2018:748). The withdrawal happened a day after the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights scrutinized the United States in a discourse at the Human Rights Council for its unseemly practice of persuasively isolating undocumented families entering the United States. In addition to the reasons why the United State withdrew from UNHRC was that the expressed purposes behind withdrawal went from what the Trump administration sees appearing absence of interest in tending to maltreatments in places like Venezuela and Iran, to allegations of inclination. “On the off chance that the Human Rights Council will assault states that maintain human rights and safeguard states that misuse human rights, then, at that point America ought not provide it with any credibility”, said the U.S. Nikki Haley Ambassador to the United Nations (American Journal of International Law, 2018:748).

The World Health Organization

In April 2020, the United Nations was officially informed of the Trump administration’s choice to pull out the US from the World Health Organization, severing attachments with the WHO in the midpoint of a global pandemic. The US has additionally blamed the WHO for agreeing with China on the episode of the infections, which started in the Chinese city of Wuhan before the end of 2019, claiming the wellbeing and livelihoods of thousands including people in America (The Economic Times, 17/09/2021). Trump stated China has complete power over the World Health Organization and additionally affirmed that the Chinese government attempted to conceal where the Covid-19 pandemic came from. As a result, the U.S. quit subsidizing the WHO while assessing the ties the organization (The Economic Times, 17/09/2021). Moreover, Trump has more than once censured WHO for delaying to react to the pandemic and as well driven by China. Later on in May, because of the U.S. felt about the WHO by asserting that it buckled under pressure from China to misdirect the world when the infection was first found by Chinese specialists and that it’s under the absolute control of China, Trump reported the choice to leave the organization (The Economic Times, 17/09/2021).

Implications the Trump Administration Withdrawal Would Have for International Law

The United States is one of the major contributors to United Nations; therefore, the Trump administration withdrawal from the UN will be followed by implication law.

The Human Rights Council

According to the International Justice Center (2018) to the international community, the United States pulling out from the Human Rights Council will be followed by consequence or implications, each perhaps debilitating the Council’s capacity to secure and advance human rights. In the first place, the Council might experience a deficiency of validity and the strength of its human rights conversations and projects; secondly, other member states on the Council will actually want to push forward their plans, which will probably incorporate destroying certain human rights projects and impeding human rights protectors from partaking in global forums; and thirdly, the Council will experience a decrease in subsidizing because the United States would lessen its surveyed commitment to the United Nations by the sum that would usually stream to the Human Rights Council and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (International Justice Center, 2018).

The World Health Organization

Wang (2020) states that the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization could unleash significant harm on the global work that has already been done and could sabotage the world’s capacity to distinguish and react to any dangers concerning the wellbeing of people that specialists cautioned (Wang, 2020). Moreover, The US administration would be unable to unravel the country from WHO administration and projects as it has unparalleled global reach and authenticity with the WHO. In addition, the USA is likewise a state party to two WHO arrangements: the WHO Constitution, establishing it as the directing and coordinating authority on international health, and the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005), the overseeing system for scourge readiness and response (Banswell, 2020).

Theories of International Law: Realism Approach

The Trump approach doesn’t esteem deliberate endeavors to decipher existing lawful principles yet rather guarantees that there are no standards that tie America’s conduct. In this perspective, the United States is acting dependent on its apparent national interests, and not follows internationals guidelines (Koh, 2017:417). Moreover, this approach appears to be grounded on asserted national rights, not the general rights on which this nation was established, and that structure a large part of the establishment of modem law (Bellinger, 2019:24). Trump’s approach appears to lay for the most part on hard force, offering no apparent procedure for respective and multilateral strategic commitment, or then again, any orderly job for the State Department. The Trump administration has shown practically zero tendency to apply a methodology that would permit America to use the authenticity of legitimate alternatives into a more inventive arrangement of proactive answers for bring about global issues (Koh, 2017:417).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Trump administration decision to withdraw from the UN In terms of the above-mentioned bodies affects the operation and the system that needs to take place to maintain order. The withdrawal from the Human Rights Council reduces the validity of the Human Rights Council and questions the capability of maintaining agreements regarding human rights. The WHO received most of the funding and support from the US. The withdrawal of the United States has a negative impact on the rest of the world and the wellbeing of people. The approach that the Trump administration took by withdrawing from the UN shows a realist theory of international law only maintaining the nation’s self-interest.

Bibliography

1. Caballero, B., Finglas, P., and Toldra, F. (eds.), 2016. The Encyclopedia of Food and Health. Oxford: Academic Press. Vol. 5.
2. Cambridge University Press, 2018. United States Withdraws from the UN Human Rights Council, Shortly After Receiving Criticism About Its Border Policy. American Journal of International Law. Vol.112(4).
3. Beckman, R. and Butte, D. Introduction to International Law.
4. Bellinger, J., 2019. ‘The Trump Administration’s Approach to International Law and Courts: Are We Seeing a Turn for the Worse?’. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Vol. 51(1).
5. Blanchfield, L., 2019. The United Nations Human Rights Council: Background and Policy Issues. Specialist in International Relations
6. Branswell, H., 2020. Experts Warn of Dire Global Health Consequences if U.S. Withdraws from the World Health Organization.
7. International Justice Resource Centre. 2020. ‘Consequences of the U.S Departure from the Human Rights Council’, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/newsinternationalworld-newsus-formally-notifies-un-of-decision-to-withdraw-from-whoarticleshow76845421.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
8. Koh, H. H. 2020. ‘The Trump Administration and International Law’. Washburn Law Journal. Vol.56.
9. Shaw, Malcolm N. 2008. ‘The Nature and Development of International Law. In ‘International Law’ (Sixth edition). Cambridge University Press.
10. The Economic Times 2021. ‘US Formally Notifies UN of Decision to Withdraw from WHO’. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/newsinternationalworld-newsus-formally-notifies-un-of-decision-to-withdraw-fromwhoarticleshow76845421.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
11. Wang, K. K., 2020. US Withdrawal from WHO Is Unlawful and Threatens Global and US Health and Security. Vol.396.

At the end of 2017, President Trump signed into law one of the largest tax code overhauls since the 1980s. The President assured taxpayers that this bill included a simpler and more reformed tax code, protection for lower- and middle-income Americans and cuts for corporations that would in theory spur investment and economic growth. Once implemented, however, this bill disproportionately benefited higher earners, created loopholes for profitable corporations, increased the federal deficit and did not deliver the high economic growth it promised, rather staying in line with previous economic projections.

On December 22nd, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was signed into law. Republican lawmakers hailed this bill, steadfastly arguing supply-side economics assure that this would be a tax code that would spur investment and economic growth (Floyd). Yet, supply-side economics is a theory that does not have solid backing with economists. Despite this backing, it is still consistently used as support for major tax cuts. This theory suggests that tax cuts have a multiplicative effect that will eventually create enough revenue to pay for the loss of federal income. A multiplier is something that once changed will create more changes in other economic factors. In this context, this means that it was expected that cutting taxes would increase all American’s after-tax income (Hayes). With this income, they would spend more, corporations would increase investments, spurring economic growth and eventually creating enough revenue to somehow make up for the cut to federal income. However, this is only effective if tax rates are high enough that they can be considered ‘prohibitive’. Essentially, unless tax rates are reaching heights of 90-100%, cutting them will not have the multiplicative effect suggested by supply-side theory (Amadeo). The justification for the tax cuts of 2017 is therefore inherently flawed because before the tax cuts, rates were not in this range.

Moreover, this bill was advertised as protection for lower income and middle-class Americans. In practice, the TCJA created permanent tax cuts for corporations, while only temporarily reducing individual rates (Floyd). The TCJA created a flat tax rate of 21% for corporations while also getting rid of the individual mandate for health coverage enacted during the Obama administration. As a whole, tax cuts for corporations benefit shareholders, who tend to be of a higher income level. Additionally, the removal of the individual mandate will end up decreasing the federal deficit by an estimated $338 billion, but leave about 13 million Americans uninsured and increase insurance premiums overall.

In terms of individual rates, the Tax Policy Center released a report that states 80.4% of households can expect to see an increase in after tax income. However, this increase is distributed unevenly. While 93.7% of taxpayers in the highest earning bracket will see these benefits, only 53.9% of those in the lowest bracket will have an increase in after tax income (Floyd). All of these factors illustrate that the tax cuts will disproportionately benefit higher earners, while leaving behind lower- and middle-income households. In fact, this past year was the first time that the “400 wealthiest Americans actually paid lower total tax rate than any other income group combined” (Leonhardt). Furthermore, this tax bill worsens the growing income inequality in the United States. As demonstrated in the graphs, the top income groups have begun to pay less and less in total taxes since 1950. The consequences of these choices are that the United States is moving towards a regressive tax system in which taxes are applied at the same level regardless of income, and effectively taking more from low-income earners than from high income earners (Kagan). It is evident that the architects of this bill did not write the law with the intent of alleviating middle- and lower-income tax burdens.

Furthermore, one of the main goals, or at least advertisements, of the TCJA was the idea that it would reform and simplify the tax code. In practice, however, this bill ended up creating more loopholes for large corporations. In a study done by the CRS, it was found that the statutory tax rate dropped by 40% while the effective tax rate dropped by 48%, which indicates that the law actually gave corporations opportunities to argue their way out of taxation, showing more corruption rather than reform (Gardner).

In terms of the macroeconomic effects of the TCJA, this bill radically increased the deficit on a static basis, stayed in the predicted ranges of GDP growth rates prior to enactment, did not increase wages at the same rate as the GDP, and kept investment rates stagnant. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the TCJA will add an estimated $230 to the federal debt this year and $1.9 trillion in the coming decade. While lawmakers had argued that this bill would ‘pay for itself’, the Congressional Research Service found that so far it has only paid for about 5% of its total costs. The Congressional Research Service also found that the economy grew by 2.9 percent the year after the law was put into effect. However, this was the projection made by the Congressional Budget Office long before the bill was passed, indicating that this bill did not surpass Congress’s expectations for the economy before taxes had been reduced. Additionally, wages grew less than the GDP. More importantly, wages grew at an even slower rate for workers in production and non-supervisory positions, indicating that the tax cuts disproportionately benefited higher earners. Finally, it is believed that the tax cuts initially boosted investments by about .75%. However, monetary policy was tightened and therefore could have reduced investment rates by about 25%. Trade wars with China also decreased investment rates by an estimated 25% (Furman). All of these effects roughly cancel each other out, showing no long-term changes to investment rates that the bill had originally been passed to stimulate.

Overall, the TCJA was less successful than its biggest supporters had projected it to be. This bill was marketed as a victory for lower- and middle-income Americans, when in reality they for the most part benefits corporations and higher income households. Additionally, the ‘reform’ that it was supposed to be ended up creating even more loopholes for corporations to pay less in taxes. And, the idea that these tax cuts would ‘pay for themselves’ has not yet held true, with only 5% of costs being covered, increasing the deficit now and over the next decade. Throughout the past 50 years, the United States tax system has consistently become less progressive, with higher earners often paying a lower rate than their middle- and lower-income counterparts, and the TCJA is no departure from this trend.

The focus of this study is to understand the influence of leaders in decision-making of foreign policy and the subsequent impact of the choices thatthey make at the international level.

In todays time, it has become mandatory to know what is going around the world, the relationships of different countries, their politics.

The two countries that I have chosen are leading the world in many aspects. Now to talk about them, it can be done by comparing the leaderships of their respected Presidents.

Description of various consequential events in our history reside in the actions and policies of all the political leaders across the globe which necessitates the examination of their thoughts, their respected personality, their emotions, their perceptions and decision-making processes of all of them. Hardly anyone would ever mention the events of World War II without mentioning Hitler, Soviet policy in the 30s and 40s without Stalin, abolition of the apartheid system without Nelson Mandela, foreign policy of China without Mao and also the foreign policy of Russia without Vladimir Putin.

In addition to the historical and ideological strengths of leaders, practical facts and physical strength also make leaders and their role important. For example, in the post-Cold War period, there was much ambiguity about the nature of the geography, which led to many interpretations, misinterpretations and misunderstandings. In such a climate of uncertainty, decision-makers can exert tremendous influence on policies. Global barriers to foreign policy are becoming increasingly complex, which is why there is an opportunity for individual leaders to stand up. Further, attention is diverted to individual leaders who not only have an impact within their country but also have an influence beyond the borders of the country they lead. In the past, such discussions have been curtailed by academics who have suggested that they focus on global problems that limit their ability to hold leaders. In their view, the needs of the system of chaos and interdependence are so clear that leaders are left with a limited list of foreign policy strategies. However, the ambiguity of the world that is post the cold war and the ambiguity that exists in today’s world close to a multi political world with the emergence of regional and non-state actors, allow individuals to control global affairs.

Donald Trump who was once considered a long shot, the 74-year-old is now president of the United States, almost four years old. Knowing that he would run in the 2016 election was not only based on his controversial platform over the migration and outrage of campaign style but from his past celebrities. The businessman, however, had one last laugh when he disregarded all the predictions of beating up senior politicians in the Republican primary race. Mr Trump has expressed interest in running for president since 1987, and has even entered the 2000 race as a candidate for the Reform Party. After 2008, he became one of the most talked about members of the ‘breeding’ movement, which doubted whether Barack Obama was born in the US. Those claims are completely dismissed; Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. Mr. Trump finally admitted that there was no truth in these claims even though, apparently, there was no apology. It was not until June 2015 that Mr. Trump officially announced his entry into the White House competition. ‘We need someone to take over this country and make it bigger again. We can do that,’ he said in a statement, promising that as a candidate, he did not respond to anything special and was a very forward-looking person to be drafted. Trump’s work can be divided into three categories. The first one, which ran from the early 1970s to the mid / late 1980s was like a real estate agent, with a strong focus on New York and Atlantic City. The second was in the late 1980’s. After the financial crisis, the banks turned against Trump, and his control of his business was greatly curtailed by the influence of financial institutions. Then, for the third time, from the late 1990s onwards, Trump’s fortunes were transformed by his appearance as a real TV celebrity and Trump product brand. We say that Trump supported his business ‘success’ in the pursuit of profits, tax payments, savings, deportation and risk transfer, often recognizing the importance of the economic downturn, and holding a zero-sum view or a negative view of economic transactions. The upbuilding experience of Trump’s business venture was in New York in the late 1970’s. During the Great Recession (Thabb, 1982) and in the interest of the city’s renewal, the city was ready to offer tax deals and services, which Trump exploited. The first major project at the time was the rebuilding of the now defunct Comodore Hotel, which is owned by the Penn Central Railroad. To make this happen Donald Trump needed tax breaks, money and a management company to manage the hotel. This was a brief of past of Donald Trump.

Wodak (2015) (Mollan)In an interview with The New York Times in 2017, Bannon said everything President Trump does is all about moving forward or stopping any potential problem’. Bannon’s importance and his desire to restore what he considered to be American traditional values go hand in hand with those people in the United States Wodak explains that they may have embraced the right-wing populism of the so-called modern ‘loss’. So, while Bannon and others are considering a crisis based on long-term historical tendencies, political ideologies, and a certain sense of American destiny (all of which have been used in detail by Trump’s campaign to raise funds), there has also been a real “ rusty ” American ‘heart’ problem. in the middle, where these stories have a clear voice. While Clinton did better than Trump among low-income voters, Trump won in the poorest parts of the country. Central to this are the ways in which economic development, globalization, and market changes in co-operatives have resulted in significant socio-economic decline. Mark Blyth’s paper on ‘Global Trumpism’ makes the point that neo-liberal changes from the late 1970s onwards led to a decline in real wages and an increase in personal and family debt. In this context, the gatekeepers of neo-liberalism (the group of Davos and established Republicans and Democrats) are the beneficiaries of a regime based on anti-inflation policies that have systematically destroyed large sections of American society. As Blyth states that debtors cannot afford to pay but politically, and this is important to empower debtors because they cannot pay, cannot pay, and have the right to vote’. As Trump said ‘I am the master of debt. I love debt ‘, in terms of revisiting loan terms, and the common hair taken by lenders where he was concerned. This strenuous effort by an inhuman source, or cause, of widespread economic hardship based on Trump’s business experience is another reason why Trump appeals to those who have endured such hardships in turn, to stand up and attack impersonal forces and cause individual suffering.

Now coming to Putin. It is a largely believed belief that all the political leaders who enjoy strong local authority also have a free hand in international affairs. In other words, the idea that strong, radical and independent political cultures often give birth to many leaders. This is by no means to say that democracy does not produce prominent leaders. It only shows that democratic leaders cannot use individual power freely as leaders in power because their political traditions empower institutions and not the people. This may also contribute to their power to influence the actions of the state differently. So based on the above arguments, it can be said that leaders can only come out strong in the international arena and prove strong if they have a positive and appropriate domestic background. In order to understand Putin’s influence on international politics, it is important to consider him as the main driver of Russia’s foreign policy. In order to do so it is required to study the domestic context and procedures for making foreign policy in Russia.

The decision-making environment is the most important aspect of policy making and is characterized by the identity of those responsible for doing so. In Russia, this includes President Putin, but also other figures, namely Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is the Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergei Ivanov, Russian state oil company chief Rosneft Igor Sechin, and Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev. (Mollan) Putin is in the middle of this decision-making position and is considered the highest decision-making authority. Some members have limited influence as they are in Putin’s lower position and because they are all entrusted with subordinate domains and agendas. Despite the opposition, Russia’s political culture is seen as one that favors strong, independent rule. Russia’s history is marked by political power figures. Independent governmental styles have been commonplace in the Russian government since the Tsars’ ironclad capture until the Politburo-based Communist law. Russia’s separation from democracy is a recent phenomenon and continues to advance in modern and democratic government. In the current context, even if the various political parties and political leaders at the national level do not agree with Russia’s policies, especially in the field of foreign policy, ultimately in the hands of Executive-Putin. He has created what his advisers call a ‘controlled democracy’ that provide not only the likeness of popular democracy but also where the opposition parties are neutral and the Russians have lost the ability to vote in direct elections. (Mollan)

Vladimir Putin’s impact in the face of foreign affairs is most evident in his actions in Ukraine and Syria. Finally, he became a game changer by filling the void left by the US, which called for the world to be no longer a regional power. Russia’s September 2015 military intervention in the name of the Assad regime has made him a central military figure in the Syrian war. America only works collaboratively and does not participate collaboratively. This gives Russia a free hand in the Syrian crisis and how it is constructed. Putin’s policy in Crimea marks the beginning of a multipolar country. Forbes appointed him as the 55th most powerful leader in the world and could serve as a perfect example of a leader who successfully influenced and shaped international politics.

There is a criticism of Donald Trump and the idea which is called as Trump-ism for drawing ideas from critical management / organizational disciplines and related sectors such as business history and leadership studies. It is impossible to understand the American political situation of the day without thinking deeply about Trump’s business career, his leadership style, how he is marketed in American society and how his business style informs the successive political agenda his executives follow. We want to show how American politics is shaped by Trump’s approach to business and leadership on the issue of American descent combined with a public debate urging voters who feel left behind – even if the truth is, in some cases, rather different. In all of Trump’s political projects there is resonance, as well as the emphasis on discourse, on decay and decay, the imminent problem, and the zero-sum (or negative-sum) understanding of economic and social problems. Preservation ideas so far alongside major U.S. copyright law have been approved – in large part by Trump’s ‘business’ celebrities. They are used to justify Trump’s brutal and selfish business and political approach (zero / negative-sum, good credit fraud, risk exchange and refusal to allow defeat), and as a great motivator and in many cases hamper political change. The elements of Trump’s business ownership that are not thought to deter voters are the very features that entice them. Wrapped up with the phrase ‘Making America Great Again’, Trump promises ethno-nationalist economic transformation (Edwards, 2009) to those who feel in a state of decline. We argued that the root of President Trump’s appeal as a candidate for the 2016 presidential election (and his continued support within his political base) were his applications for business intelligence, his position as an outsider, his ability to disrupt established institutions and his contemporary American analysis. Most important here is that Trump provides and represents the broader view that America is unorganized and mismanaged and that the solution or solution is Trump’s business leadership in the office.

Putin ordered the formation of a State Council working group to combat the spread of coronavirus. Putin has appointed Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin as party head. On March 22, 2020, after a phone call with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, Putin arranged for the Russian army to send military doctors, special antiseptics, and other medical equipment to Italy, the European country most affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. On March 24, 2020, Putin visited a hospital in Kommunarka, Moscow, where patients with coronavirus were treated, where he spoke with doctors and doctors. [206] Vladimir Putin began working remotely in his office in Novo-Ogaryovo. According to Dmitry Peskov, Putin passes daily coronavirus tests, and his health is not in danger. On March 25, President Putin announced in a televised address to the nation that the April 22 constitutional referendum would be suspended due to coronavirus. He added that next week would be a nationally paid holiday and urged Russians to stay home. Putin also announced a list of social protection measures, support for small and medium enterprises, and changes in monetary policy. [212] Putin has announced the following measures for small, medium and micro enterprises: postponing tax payments (excluding Russian value added tax) over the next six months, halving the size of social security contributions, postponing social security contributions, postponing loan payments for the next six months, suspension six months of fines, debt collection, and creditors’ applications for liquidation. In addition, a new income tax from major deposits will be introduced in 2021, and industrial taxes will be increased. On 2 April, Putin re-issued an address in which he announced the extension of the unemployment term until April 30. Putin likened the Russian war to COVID-19 to the Russian wars that plagued Pecheneg and Cuman security in the 10th and 11th centuries. In Levada’s 24 to 27 April vote, 48% of Russian respondents said they did not agree with Putin’s handling of the coronavirus epidemic, and his separation from resilience and lack of leadership during a crisis was widely cited as a sign of the loss of powerful image.

According to the latest Forbes’ world ranking of billionaires, Trump has an estimated fortune of $3.1 billion, mostly earned on the back of property, making him the 766th richest person in the world. He also had a successful carrier in the reality TV, the show is called ‘The Apprentice’, and he surprised the world when he won the U.S. presidential election in 2016. When we think about it, Trump is the only man having such a specific and successful carrier. Of course, he had the advantage of being born into a wealthy American family a precious help for his life achievements. Trump is an authentic leader, he means what he says, and he will say, what he means, even if it is completely unacceptable for the people who are listening. He is one of the few politicians who is so authentic in an inauthentic world. Companies spend a lot of money for advertising, marketing to be on the spotlight and individuals use social media to impress the world with their incredible and nice-looking life. And we all know how difficult it is to get authentic answer out of (most) politicians. In fact, before the presidential election, he said that we need someone like him to take the lead of the country because his carrier is successful, “the kind of thinking we need for this country”. But when he goes on Twitter with his account @realDonaldTrump, he doesn’t hold back in any way. He lets us know exactly what he thinks about information, that makes polemic, whether we like it or not. Think about it, the most powerful person in the world sharing his thoughts directly with the world with no shame and no scare of the consequence it could have on the political world. Trump also signed more executive orders in his first 100 days, than any president since World War II. Since the beginning of his incredible career, Trump showed incredible business skills.

Following his father into the important estate development business, Donald joined the family firm, Elizabeth Trump & Son, and he graduated from Wharton college of Business in 1968.

He immediately began to make important decisions, guided by firm goals. Managing a company like that is something that only the true entrepreneurs can do. As an example, he makes his father to be more adventurous when he borrows his money in order to finance expansions of the Trump business. In 1971, he became the chief of the family business which he renamed ‘The Trump Organization’. What’s make Donald trump a successful businessman is the fact that his mind is set, he knows what he wants to do and he apply it with confidence Donald Trump is not a simple worker, he has the passion of leading and he got the skills to be one of the best at doing it, he quoted: “You have to think anyway, so why not think big”.

And because of his passion, he invests into a lot different activities like hotels, housing, leisure complexes, casinos, football or even board game! In order to develop such a diverse portfolio and operate in a large number of business areas, Trump has had to use considerable leadership qualities like the capacity to choose who to trust or not, to delegate decisive tasks and the most important, to inspire people and making decisions with confidence even if the business gets hard to deal with.

Actually, he is one among the foremost noted individuals on the world.

With all his qualities and achievements, it make him, for sure someone with a lot to tell to every future leaders and entrepreneurs.

Black Lives Matter is an international activist movement founded in the United States because of violence against black people. It organizes protests, rallies, demonstrations after the cases of police brutality, killings, and racial discrimination. Despite the great intentions, the government’s attitude toward the demonstrators varies and is frequently hostile. Numerous questions surround the Trump administration and policies, as his secret police repeatedly contradict Black Lives Matter.

Protests have a lengthy history, but the death of George Floyd provoked an even more significant wave of public outrage. The incident was the last straw for members of the nation’s minorities. They have raised issues of racial inequality and police brutality since the deaths of Breonna Taylor, Ahmad Arbury, and Tony McDane in recent years (Gibbons, 2020). Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s stance on the issue is highly controversial. He has repeatedly called Black Lives Matter a hate slogan and has seen demonstrations as a threat. Trump believes that the movement supported individuals who spread violence in American cities (Gibbons, 2020). Therefore, federal forces used harsh measures on the grounds of protection of state property, which infuriated local authorities, who noted an increase in tensions in the region.

The secret police unit was created from the Border Patrol Service, the Marshals Service, the Federal Protective Service, and several other Department of Homeland Security units. In particular, such groups of enforcers were seen in Portland, Oregon, where they participated in the detention of protesters, acting without any identifying marks (Schrader, 2020). Initially, the primary purpose of such divisions was to protect federal buildings, but Trump has used them to “restore order.”

The terminology Trump operated is likewise intriguing, especially the interpretation of antifa (anti-fascists) and the attribution of responsibility for the riots. Trump has even stated that the U.S. will recognize the antifa movement as a terrorist group in the near future (Taylor, 2020). He blamed the activists of the movement for the ongoing actions related to the death of African-American George Floyd in police custody. Trump emphasized the swiftness of the police, who quickly suppressed the riots after the mobilization.

The former president has tried to reassure the public that the racial justice protests that are hunting the nation have a terrible message. He claims that antifa, the military leftist anarchist movement, uses the demonstrations to burn the country down. The only concern is that it is not a movement: the definition emerged in Germany and unites supporters of various political views (Taylor, 2020). While there is no doubt that antifa is present at some recent protests, there is no reason to believe it is responsible for the violence and anarchy. It is confirmed by internal FBI assessments and court documents related to the marches.

Therefore, this term is a contrived totem used to justify a violent “law and order” approach to genuinely legitimate demonstrations demanding racial justice. During the prosecution against antifa, Trump tried to cover up the violence that caused the protests in the first place. He has tried to hide the truth and the police brutality that took Floyd’s life, just as it endangered the lives of other black Americans. His authoritarian tactics are similar to those that existed before (Schrader, 2020). Even in the Cold War, failed operations led to widespread uprisings, which became the reason for violence from the state, and this chain of events has not changed.

In conclusion, it is essential to note that Trump is not the first president to use police forces in a non-human way. The topic of minorities has always been complex for the U.S., and despite democracy, discrimination still exists in the country. Numerous movements are fighting for the rights of people of color, and their intentions are obvious. Nevertheless, their demonstrations should not be dispersed in prohibited ways as these methods worsen inequality.

References

Gibbons, S. (2020). Trump’s Secret Police Are Waging a War on American Cities. Jacobin.

Schrader, Stuart. (2020). Trump Has Brought America’s Dirty Wars Home. The Soapbox.

Taylor, Vanessa. (2020). Anarchists are tired of being scapegoated by Trump. Here’s what they have to say. Mic.

Having carefully read the article by David Robinson, it can be noted that his methodological approach, in this case, does not correspond to reality. Most likely, Tweets from the iPhone are sent by Trump’s aides, who do not know about his real mood at the moment, and also, perhaps, they have the task of writing only in general phrases, without expressing anything specifically. The author himself asks whether the tweets belong to Trump or his aides (Robinson 2020). From the Android platform, Donald Trump writes himself, and therefore these Tweets have a brighter emotional coloring, although more often negative.

To understand how the public feels about a particular politician, would be appropriate to rely on an analysis of sentiment. With the help of social networks, sociological surveys are conducted to help identify the attitude of the public. People can also express their emotions using photos and video messages on social networks. Besides, the Network has a system of comments on the posts of politicians, which can also help to understand the mood of the public.

The main risk in using sentiment analysis is that the public does not always openly and sincerely express their personal opinion. People can be influenced by someone; their opinion can be imposed or simply biased. This fact makes the sentiment analysis less accurate and plausible.

The main advantage of sentiment analysis is its simplicity. On the Internet, it is very easy to track the mood of the public, as many people are ready to openly express their opinion about a particular situation or person. Harsh statements can be deleted, but one way or another, a large number of users may have time to see the message.

In conclusion, sentiment analysis is a rather interesting approach to examining public opinion. Like any approach, this one has its advantages and disadvantages, but in general, it makes a possibility to understand the mood of the audience. Anyway, this approach is budget-friendly and efficient, which also makes it quite attractive.

Reference

Robinson, D. (2020). Text analysis of Trump’s tweets confirms he writes only the (angrier) android half. Variance Explained. Web.

Introduction

The relationships between media and politics are never simple, and many debates and concerns regularly emerge. On the one hand, people believe that access to media resources is a unique opportunity to learn facts and improve their awareness about the current state of affairs in the country and abroad. On the other hand, there are no guarantees about the quality of information online and in printed media. Therefore, the book United States of Distraction about media manipulations and political players is worth recognition as a chance to analyze post-truth America and data credibility. Its authors, Mickey Huff and Nolan Higdon define the issues of media, news, education, and truth and share their objectives to produce knowledge and reliable information. In the third chapter, “The Truth Is the Greatest Enemy of the State,” attention is paid to Trump’s speeches and promises. This reading contains multiple examples of logos and pathos, the rhetorical appeals that strengthen the authors’ message. Despite different goals and characteristics of pathos and logos, Huff and Higdon show how these literary devices may convince, motivate, and challenge the audience, depending on the context and the environment.

Main Themes of the Chapter

United States of Distraction is a story of one powerful nation where citizens develop their truths and lies and base relationships on their assumptions. Huff and Higdon chose the quote for the chapter’s title, introduced by Joseph Goebbels a century ago, about how people may be affected by big and constantly repeating lies and begin believing them (95). They address Donald Trump as the source of lies and compare his words and ideas with the events that actually happened in the United States. There is no clear intention to blame or support the politician and his administration. The goal is to show how truth becomes subjective without proper guidelines and control and discuss the opportunities for propaganda and information wars (Huff and Higdon 143). It does not take much time and effort to disinform citizens and create an environment favorable for a particular leader’s activities. The challenge is dealing with outcomes and finding enough reasons for the already-made choices and propositions. The chapter is a solid combination of facts, personal judgments, and assumptions about how politicians’ words are related to real-life situations.

Importance of Literary Devices in Writing

Regarding the complex and effective purposes identified by the authors in the chosen chapter, the use of specific literary devices is a necessary solution. The world of politics is hardly stable, and people want to promote honest and fair information. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to achieve the desired purposes because of poor management, lack of control, or the development of fractions with different opinions. According to Janezic and Gallego, honesty is one of the most valued political characteristics, but dishonesty is always present and distorts political accountability (5). Rhetoric appeals help authors manipulate the language and persuade the reader, focusing on their knowledge, emotions, and experiences (Gagich and Zickel). It is not enough for Huff and Higdon to demonstrate their attitudes toward Trump and his obsession with Twitter posts as a means of informing people. They want to compare what he said and what he did with the outcomes that touched the lives of ordinary Americans. This approach is a good example of how pathos and logos can be applied to the same reading.

Writers prefer three appeals types: logos, pathos, and ethos. To avoid the promotion of subjective thoughts, ethos is excluded from this rhetorical analysis. This literary device appeals to the reader’s values and authorial credibility (Gagich and Zickel). There is no need to learn what is right or wrong in the context but concentrate on details that reveal the effects of truths and lies in media and politics. In the chapter, the story is described by the two authors about the truth that people can use differently. Although the name of Trump is frequent in the chapter, he is not the major character. He is a doer of actions that affect the main idea of truth. Thus, logos and pathos are the most appropriate elements for evaluation.

It is possible to explain why logos are a vital device in any literary work. It appeals to reason and logic in a discussion when authors use intellectual, cool, and collected facts (Gagich and Zickel). People want to possess some facts and real information to understand the story and build their opinions about everything mentioned in the reading. The authors who choose logos for their statements introduce logical and careful structures and evidence that is objective by nature (Gagich and Zickel). There are many approaches to developing logos through comparing different subjects or objects, discussing causes and effects, giving examples, and elaborating on facts.

Pathos is opposite to logos because this rhetorical appeal allows authors to address various emotional aspects of the reading. When people see what is presented through pathos, they can develop emotions. This technique aims at persuading the audience and evoking feelings about the topic (Gagich and Zickel). Authors need to understand that every reader is unique, and it is hard to predict what kind of emotion may be observed. The same sentence or idea can have equal supporters and opponents. However, emotional appeal is never ignored because it motivates and increases the chances of a better understanding of points and acceptance of arguments. Considering the expected benefits and improvements associated with pathos and logos, these rhetorical appeals effectively contribute to all chapters in the United States of Distraction.

The conviction with Logos and Pathos

The chapter under this rhetorical analysis proves that trust and honesty play an important role in the world of American politics. With the help of logos, Huff and Higdon show how dishonesty is created: Trump’s “administration had created 2.4 million new jobs since… when half a million of those were actually created under Obama” 96). The contradictions between facts and empty phrases are numerous: planned increased wages that had been on their rise during the last two decades or the denunciation of automobile companies and the expansion of automobile services (Huff and Higdon 96). They also use pathos like “empty boasts,” countless acts, “specious statements,” and the “easily disprovable nature” to make the reader understand Trump’s absurdness (Huff and Higdon 96-97). In this chapter, logos supports pathos, convinces, and specifically influences the reader by showing how irrational and dishonest Trump’s words and actions were. There is no need to add other literary devices to prove the urgency of the theme that truth damages the nation. The reader has enough facts to be convinced that leaders, including Trump and his followers, like to exaggerate and confuse the country.

Motivation Through Logos and Pathos

Among various rhetorical appeals’ functions, the audience’s motivation is of great importance. In fiction stories, it is easy to choose characters, create their stories, and add elements that strengthen the motif or explain the event. In the United States of Distraction and the third chapter, American history and real facts are mentioned. A logos example is the description of the situation when Trump supported racism and Islamophobia and banned immigration because of false threats due to poor education or inappropriate history (Huff and Higdon 106). Pathos underlines the necessity to create some emotions, relying on facts and real-life situations. Huff and Higdon successfully use the terms “alternative facts” in brackets and lies to show the reader that all attempts and activities are questionable and ambiguous (106). These illustrative means provoke the reader to think about the political environment as something unreliable and unclear. Instead of making precise decisions to improve the state’s well-being, frustration with injustice and unreasonable fears occupies human minds. Motivation not to trust the media may not be the goal of the book or the chapter, but this outcome may arise.

Challenges Because of Logos and Pathos

Finally, a successful application of rhetorical appeals helps the authors direct the reader and challenge the question of the truth in media and politics. In this chapter, the facts explain why a variety of forms of that fake news can make not just a statement but an idea supported by facts. For example, some journalists might manufacture stories: Jayson Blair was blamed for plagiarism and the use of false evidence, and Brian Williams lied about his experience (Huff and Higdon 140). To explain the conditions under which lies emerge in the media and on TV, the authors mention “the culture of deception, aggression, and self-interest” (Huff and Higdon 137). Such phrases challenge the reader because instead of trusting in the power of journalism, people have more questions in mind. Most of the public remains unprotected and exposed to lies that have no control from credible and professional resources. Pathos and logos, in this case, are the options to raise some burning topics and demonstrate how one book can touch upon political and social questions.

Conclusion

In general, this rhetorical analysis aims to explore the topic of truth in the media and its impact on the state through logos and pathos. Some people like to believe that their politicians and leaders do everything possible to protect and improve the quality of human lives. However, Huff and Higdon prove that the situation is not as promising and stable as expected. Lies have different forms and come from multiple sources, putting the safety of Americans under threat. It is hard to observe all events directly, and people have to surf the web, listen to speeches and news, and base their opinions on the statements offered by others. The content is unpredictable and usually unreliable, and the task of writers is to shed light upon the existing challenges. The readers of the United States of Distraction and its third chapter see how pathos and logos should be combined to strengthen the message. This reading motivates and convinces us that some challenges are inevitable, and some of them may be solved if control is promoted.

Works Cited

Gagich, Melani, and Emilie Zickel. A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing. MSL Academic Endeavors, 2018. Pressbooks.

Huff, Mickey, and Nolan Higdon. United States of Distraction: Media Manipulation in Post-Truth America (And What We Can Do About It). City Lights Publishers, 2019.

Janezic, Katharina A., and Aina Gallego. “Eliciting Preferences for Truth-Telling in a Survey of Politicians.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 36, 2020, pp. 1-7. PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.2008144117.

Introduction to the Issue

The Trump travel ban includes a series of executive actions that were enacted in 2017 by the President of the United States. With the first order, significant restrictions on travel to the US were imposed on the citizens of Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and Somalia (American Council on Education). However, legal challenges and protests that took place after the initial order prompted the second-order that amended some of the pro-second-order first order as well as removed Iraq from the list. The final adjustments to the ban were associated with imposing additional restrictions on the citizens of Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea, while Sudan was no longer included in the list. While the rationale behind the ban was associated with maintaining national security, it is problematic and exclusionary because it targets individuals of predominantly Muslim religion, which is discriminatory and goes against the established international guidelines on equality, inclusion, and the freedom to practice any religion.

It is important to have an in-depth understanding of the ban and its potential impact on the international community because there are already considerations to implement further orders associated with travel restrictions, as mentioned by Sabur for The Telegraph. The aim of the current paper is to explore the ban and review the implications of its enactment for the affected individuals and the global community as a whole. Furthermore, policy recommendations will be made for improving the situation and finding ways to reduce the extreme levels of discrimination that have been established by the policy.

The immediate context for imposing the travel ban on the citizens of specific countries is the declining economy of the United States. According to Trump, the government wants Americans to “have the jobs and the healthcare. And it’s a very powerful order” (qtd. in Pilkington and Rushe). Moreover, the current President is planning to attain re-election in 2020, and strengthening the economy, even during the pandemic, could guarantee him votes from the population. However, since the ban is applicable to the majority of Muslim countries, the question remains as to whether it was enacted to prevent immigration, in general, to give Americans jobs and healthcare or prevent Muslim immigration, which is a different issue in itself. For example, Iran was affected by the ban the most, with the number of immigrant visas declining in 2018 by 92% compared to 2017 (Niayesh). Policy recommendations are needed for addressing the issue because of the adverse influence on the lives of people who are prevented from seeking life opportunities in a country that can benefit from their knowledge, skills, and experiences.

Recommendations for Changing the Policy on Travel Ban

First Proposal: The Option to Appeal

The first policy recommendation is to decrease significantly the restrictions on traveling associated with the ban. While such a solution seems simple, the only way in which a Muslim travel ban could be fixed is that no travel ban should be imposed. Courts should oppose unconstitutional attempts to challenge the commitment of the US to freedom and equality among religions. The government action initiated by Trump has an intent to discriminate based on religion, and it is unconstitutional (Blackman). The proposed policy recommendation is associated with providing the opportunity of appealing the rejection of entering the US in court. Therefore, when individuals of Muslim backgrounds are refused from entering the country, they should receive a definite decision from the court as to whether the refusal holds ground, and there is no way in changing it.

While the process may take some additional time, it establishes a window of opportunity that immigrant individuals from other countries can use to their advantage. At this time, it is unlikely that the travel ban will get less strict due to the restrictions on entering the US associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (Godin). However, when the situation with the virus gets under control, and it is possible to travel to the US, the citizens affected by the Muslim ban should be given an opportunity to appeal the unconstitutional restriction on them entering the country. It is imperative to break from the radical rejection of immigrants and provide some leeway that is supported by the principles laid out in the Constitution.

Second Proposal: The Congress Action

The second policy recommendation includes the increased involvement of Congress in challenging the travel ban. Ever since the implementation of the policy, it remains “a persistent moral stain on the United States, yet a potentially great moment for American democracy” (Woodsome). At this moment, the system works against families living between the US and other countries, which means that they cannot be reunited. The prohibition of religious discrimination with the immigration system is a call for Congress to act according to the Constitution. The Republican members of Congress have the opportunity to join the Democratic representatives in supporting the No Ban Act or other initiatives targeted at ensuring that individuals are not subjected to travel discrimination on the basis of their religious background.

Third Proposal: The Public Action

For ensuring the reduced influence of the travel ban and improve the opportunities of immigrant individuals to seek a new life in the US, public action is imperative. The cooperation between progressive organizations that work toward preserving the constitutional rights of individuals. They should facilitate the Congressional oversight of the Muslim ban, including the requirements on appropriate reporting. In addition, public action and the efforts of non-profit organizations are imperative for reporting the waivers issued to the applicants of visas to facilitate better accountability. In this case, transparency is imperative for offering a foundation necessary for demonstrating the need for repealing the ban or significantly adjusting it (“NIAC Takes in the Muslim Ban”).

In the current situation with the pandemic, establishing accountability for the actions of the government in terms of refusing the entry of Muslim citizens will be complicated. To protect the country from the risks of further spreading of the virus, the government has the right to ban the entry of international citizens into the country. However, it is imperative for the public and relevant organizations to continue scrutinizing the travel ban. In light of the pandemic, the government can use the present state of affairs as a reason to continue rejecting the entry of Muslim individuals to the United States. It is imperative that the public is active and facilitates debate on whether such actions are representative of the United States’ spirit.

Discussion on the Problem

Had there not been a global pandemic of the COVID-19 virus, it could have been possible to facilitate more radical actions targeted at reducing the adverse impact of the Muslim travel ban. At this time, the government is imposing further restrictions on travel because of the spreading of the virus, and, with the American and global economy facing tremendous challenges, the ban can be used as another method of keeping work for the citizens of the country instead of giving it to immigrants. What such a perspective fails to address is that immigrants can offer an invaluable contribution to the economy of the US with their unique knowledge, experience, and skills. Discriminating against the potential great workers that can establish businesses or work for American companies is ineffective, especially at times when the economy is under significant scrutiny.

In addition to being ineffective and not offering any benefit for the American economy, the Muslim travel ban contributes to the exasperation of foreign affairs of the United States with other countries. The “compelling need to provide for the nation’s security” is rather a cover-up for the blatant discrimination against the representatives of the Muslim religion (Zurcher). Because of this, it is imperative to facilitate a policy adjustment that would integrate the option of appealing the rejection to enter the country. Such a change will not eliminate the ban completely, as a change in country leadership is necessary to achieve that, but facilitate accountability and transparency regarding the decisions of the government. According to Wofsy, “the only way to fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban.” However, the appeal option is a window of hope and opportunity that will involve the US courts that will decide whether an individual has a moral right to enter the country as an immigrant. Since the ban goes against the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Constitution, a more open process is required.

Concluding Remarks

The travel ban established by President Trump in 2017 represents an attack on the human right of individuals to practice their religion since the citizens of Muslim countries are the ones that are mostly affected by the policy. Families got separated as it has become harder for them to get reunited because of the ban, with the numbers of immigrant visas being issued reducing by more than 70% for the majority of affected countries. Even having a waiver that is given to those undergoing hardships and requiring to be with loved ones in the United States does not guarantee to enter the country. This way of excluding people based on their religious beliefs should be challenged by the population of the US as well as the global community.

Unfortunately, solving the travel ban is only possible by eliminating it. The three policy recommendations are all targeted at decreasing the adverse impact of the ban and challenging the system that prevents the entry of immigrants who seek work opportunities or want to reunite with their relatives. For some, the Muslim ban is an effort to reduce the inflow of individuals who pose a potential threat to national security, but the reality is far from that. Regular people that have no connection to radical ideas associated with Islam are being affected the most. While the current pandemic limits any possible challenges to the travel ban, it is important not to forget about its impact and continue raising awareness of the discriminatory policy.

References

1. American Council on Education. “Trump Issues New Travel Ban, Clarifies Potential Impact on Student Visa Holders.” ACE, 2017. Web.
2. Blackman, Josh. “The Legality of the 3/6/17 Executive Order, Part III: The Establishment Clause.” Lawfare, 2017. Web.
3. Godin, Melissa. “Why Public Health Experts Say Trump’s Travel Ban Won’t Curb the Spread of COVID-19 in the US.” Time, 2020.
4. “NIAC Takes on the Muslim Ban.” Niacouncil.
5. Niayesh, Vahid. “Statistics show that Trump’s “Travel Ban” Was Always a Muslim Ban.” Quartz, 2019.Web.
6. Pilkington, Ed, and Dominic Rushe. “Operation Reopen America Are We About to Witness a Second Historic Failure of Leadership from Trump?”The Guardian, 2020. Web.
7. Sabur, Rozina. “Donald Trump’s Immigration Ban: Who Is Affected and What Will the Impact Be?” The Telegraph, 2020. Web.
8. Wofsy, Cody. “Why the Only Way to Fix the Muslim Ban Is Not to Have a Muslim Ban.” ACLU, 2017.
9. Woodsome, Kate. “One Man Can’t Change the Travel Ban, but Congress Could.” The Washington Post, 2020. Web.
10. Zurcher, Anthony. “Big Win for Trump and His Travel Ban.” BBC News, 2017. Web.

The editorial board at New York Times Editorial Board on November 15, 2022, voted to reject the decision of having President Donald Trump running again for the United States presidency in 2022. In this editorial, they address some of the major weaknesses that the former president had when he was in power. The editors claim that President Trump failed to unify the country and to fight vices such as racism and misogyny. The editorial also points out the open contempt that he had towards journalists when he was in power. They believe that another term of his presidency will demonstrate that the American society is not committed to addressing these social vices. The piece also criticizes his foreign policies, stating that his presidency threatened the relationship that the country has enjoyed with its allies in Europe and other parts of the world.

The editorial is strongly opposed to the possibility of Donald Trump getting to power again. This is a liberal view as the editors feel that the president will reverse some of the gains made towards creating a society where everyone feels entitled to the benefits that the nation has to offer. The editorial reflects a liberal view where retrogressive beliefs and practices that disenfranchise a section of the society, are eliminated. They believe President Trump will not support such policies (The New York Times Editorial Board, 2022). I support arguments put forth in this editorial. I believe the country deserves a leader that will unite the nation and promote diversity. Social work values supports diversity as a tool that make a society strong, as the editorial explains. There is the fear that these values will be disregarded under his rule.

The editorial by Gray, a senior editor at Telegram, on November 4, 2022, contradicts the opinion presented in the editorial above. In this editorial, the argument presented is that the current President Joe Biden has failed the United States. He explains that during the tenure of President Trump, Russia did not date invade Ukraine because they considered him a tough leader (Gray, 2022). However, they did so when President Biden came to power because they know that he is weak. The editor feels that President Biden’s policies are even more divisive, making Trump a better president for the country.

The editor supports the possibility of President Donald Trump getting back to power. The point of view presented in this editorial is conservative as it seeks to promote status quo as championed by the former president. It reflects a conservative perspective of the issue as it emphasizes the need for America to use its military power to dictate global policies. For instance, the current regime opted to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia when it invaded Ukraine because of various reasons. There was the concern of the cost of war to the country in terms of money and human casualties, the length of time that the war would have taken, the possibility of nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia, among many other challenges. Some of the US military generals who advised the president against direct involvement in the war were appointed to their current positions by the former president. It means that there was a legitimate and bipartisan reasons why the president avoided the war. My personal opinion is that this editorial fails to take into accounts various social welfare challenges the country faces that cannot be solved by divisive politics of the former president.

References

Gray, F. (2022,). Biden is deluded if he thinks he can beat Trump again. Telegraph. Web.

The New York Times Editorial Board. (2022). America deserves better than Donald Trump. The New York Times. Web.

Introduction

Intelligence organizational problem is becoming a major concern in the United States, especially over the past few months that foreign powers have been accused of interfering with independent processes in the country. The Senate has the responsibility to come up with more effective laws that would ensure that the country remains protected from any foreign and domestic threats at all times. As the majority whip in the Senate, Senator John Cornyn has the responsibility of leading other senators in coming up with pieces of legislation that will help the new administration deal with some of the current challenges the country is facing. Currently, President Donald Trump is keen on signing executive orders that will help protect the United States. The following are some of the priority issues that need to be focused on by the senate and the new administration led by President Donald Trump.

Immigration and Border Security

The United States border security is one of the major issues that the political class is concerned with in the country. The increasing acts of terrorism have been blamed on the country’s porous borders and the less effective immigration laws (Trump, 2011). The Immigration department, according to Trump (2015), is not in full control of the people who enter the United States. The problem is that sometimes when the country opens its borders for refugees, there is the fear that extremists may find their way into the country with the sole intention is causing harm to the citizens of the United States or their property. The immigration department is struggling to contain the problem of illegal immigration and entry of contraband goods through our borders.

The new administration of President Donald Trump will need to come up with laws that will ensure that illegal immigration is effectively addressed in this country. The Senate should enact laws that would empower immigration and border patrol officers to deal efficiently with the problem of illegal immigration. According to Southerland and DeLuca (2015), one of the biggest challenges that the immigration and border patrol officers face when addressing the problem of illegal immigration is the existing laws that limit their ability to coordinate their activities and have a single central command. Through a new executive order, there can be a central command for border patrol officials, immigration officers, the Central Intelligence Agency Officers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, and other law enforcement agencies. Given that this is one of the tops of the issue in the agenda of Donald Trump’s administration, the proposed approach may help in limiting illegal immigration and insecurity caused by the porous borders of this country.

Foreign Affairs and National Security

The new administration has been criticized because of what many critics view as inadequate foreign policies (Shaffer, 2017). Traditional allies of the United States such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Mexico are no longer assured of close economic and military cooperation between the United States and their countries. There has been a growing concern that the new administration is not keen on maintaining some of the ties the previous regimes have worked hard to build. The approach that this administration is taking in handling issues such as Iran and North Korea’s nuclear threat may have a significant impact on the country’s national security.

As the Senate majority whip, Senator John Cornyn should work closely with other senators to enact laws that would protect the gains that have already been made by the previous regime in countering the threat posed by these hostile foreign nations. The foreign affairs department must be committed to protecting American citizens from the threat posed by foreign forces (D’Antonio, 2016). It will also be important for the Senate to ensure that the relations between the United States and Russia if improved by the current regime, do not compromise the United States sovereignty and security. The Senate must demand transparency whenever the executive makes an important agreement with the Russian government, especially because of the allegations that have been made that the current president was helped into the office by the Russian forces.

Healthcare Plans for U.S. Citizens

During his campaign, President Donald Trump promised to overhaul the Obamacare through his executive order because he believed that it was not addressing the healthcare problems in the country. One of the initial executive orders that President Trump signed was to weaken the laws governing Obamacare. However, some critics believe that overhauling Obamacare may not be prudent if there is no proper healthcare plan to replace it immediately. The new administration will need a healthcare plan that can effectively address the shortcomings of Obamacare. As Stone (2017) puts it, Obamacare was an ambitious healthcare plan that was meant to help United States citizens, especially those with low income. It may not be the best healthcare plan that Americans can ever get, but it was a step towards assuring the citizens of a comprehensive healthcare cover. The new administration, working closely with the senate, can identify the shortcoming of this plan and come up with new policies that can address these challenges.

References

D’Antonio, M. (2016). The Truth about Trump. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Publishers.

Shaffer, A. (2017). The Day of the Donald: Trump Trumps America. New Delhi, India: Crooked Lane Books.

Southerland, B., & DeLuca, R. (2015). Donald Trump: A biography of the mogul turned presidential candidate. New York, NY: Cengage.

Stone, R. J. (2017). The making of the president 2016: How Donald Trump orchestrated a revolution. New York, NY: Cengage.

Trump, D. (2011). Time to get tough: Making America #1 again. Washington, D.C: Regnery Pub.

Trump, D. (2015). Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.