USMCA Officially in Effect – Statement from USTR Robert Lighthizer…


First, for those who have fought for decades against the baseline flaws within the NAFTA trade agreement, today is a very memorable day. Today the USMCA officially goes into effect and the trade brokerage system exploited by Mexico and Canada is officially ended.

NAFTA is DEAD! …This has been one hell of a decades-long battle.

Effective today the manufacturing of North American products must originate in North America. No longer will Canada and Mexico be allowed to “assemble” component goods from Asia and transport them as finished North American goods into the U.S. market.

The immediate impacts from this trade-loophole closure will be felt over the next several months and years.  Yes, things are rapidly about to change… and when you understand the details you also understand why the Democrats need to exploit a fictitious COVID fear to stop the explosion of U.S. economic growth that will follow.

Statement from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer:

“Today marks the beginning of a new and better chapter for trade between the United States, Mexico and Canada – just as President Trump promised he would deliver for the American people.

“From day one of his Administration, President Trump has changed the focus of America’s trade policy away from what is best for big, multi-national corporations to instead what is best for America’s workers, farmers and ranchers. That’s a monumental change. His success in creating a bipartisan consensus on this new model for trade policy — in spite of the establishment critics who said it couldn’t be done — is truly remarkable.

“The USMCA contains significant improvements and modernized approaches that will deliver more jobs, stronger worker protections, expanded market access, and greater opportunities to trade for companies large and small. We have worked closely with the governments of Mexico and Canada to ensure that the obligations and responsibilities of all three nations under the agreement have been met, and we will continue to do so to ensure the USMCA is enforced.

“The recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates that now, more than ever, the United States must stop the outsourcing of jobs and increase our manufacturing capacity and investment here at home. With the USMCA’s entry into force, we take another giant step forward in reaching this goal and advancing President Trump’s vision for pro-worker trade policies.”  (link)

It is also important to recognize the team that put this together.  USTR Robert Lighthizer did an exceptional job framing the agreement to the benefit of the American workforce. White House Trade and Manufacturing Advisor Peter Navarro; Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross; Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; and the teams of staff and negotiators who put the details together.

Additionally, it is worthwhile noting who was NOT permitted to write the trade agreement for the first time in the last three decades.  The absence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce influence is another big part of the victory that Americans will benefit from, yet almost no Americans will know about.

Statement from the White House:

Today, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will go into effect. Thanks to the bold leadership of President Trump, the agreement will mean stronger economic growth, more jobs for American workers, and fairer trade for our country.

President Trump has delivered for American manufacturers, farmers, businesses, and workers.

The agreement will drive job creation and includes the strongest, most advanced, and comprehensive set of labor provisions of any United States trade agreement.

American farmers will have access to fairer markets in Canada and Mexico, opening up more opportunities to export their goods.

USMCA will strengthen American manufacturing, including incentivizing investment in high paying auto manufacturing jobs here in the United States.

Just as promised, President Trump is replacing the disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement, which drove American jobs overseas for years.

USMCA is a fair deal for American workers and finally brings our trade relationship with Canada and Mexico into the 21st century. (link)

Previously both Canada and Mexico structured key parts of their independent trade agreements to take advantage of their unique access to the U.S. market.  Mexico and Canada generate billions in economic activity through exploiting the NAFTA loophole.  China, Asia (writ large), and the EU enter into trade agreements with Mexico and Canada as back-doors into the U.S. market.  So long as corporations can avoid U.S. tariffs by going through Canada and Mexico they would continue to exploit this approach.

By shipping parts to Mexico and/or Canada; and by deploying satellite manufacturing and assembly facilities in Canada and/or Mexico; China, Asia and to a lesser extent EU corporations exploited a loophole.  Through a process of building, assembling or manufacturing their products in Mexico/Canada those foreign corporations can skirt U.S. trade tariffs and direct U.S. trade agreements.  The finished foreign products entered the U.S. under NAFTA rules.

Why deal with the U.S. when they could just deal with Mexico, and use NAFTA rules to ship their product(s) directly into the U.S. market?

This exploitative approach, a backdoor to the U.S. market, was the primary reason for massive foreign investment in Canada and Mexico; it was also the primary reason why candidate Donald Trump, now President Donald Trump, wanted to shut down that loophole and renegotiate NAFTA.

This loophole was the primary reason for U.S. manufacturers to relocate operations to Mexico.  Corporations within the U.S. Auto-Sector could enhance profits by building in Mexico or Canada using parts imported from Asia/China.  The labor factor was not as big a part of the overall cost consideration as cheaper parts and imported raw materials.

Take away the market access and the ability for Mexico and Canada to broker themselves for economic benefit, and both nations would lose hundreds of billions in economic activity.  This was always the NAFTA fatal flaw.

Kayleigh McEnany White House Press Briefing – Video


Earlier today White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany held a press briefing from the Brady room.  [Video below, transcript will follow]

 

[Transcript] – MS. MCENANY: So I am pleased to inform everyone that Seattle has been liberated. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, otherwise known as “CHAZ” — I think they switched their name to “CHOP,” but I’m told they went back to “CHAZ” — was a failed four-week Democrat experiment by the radical left. And the results are in: Anarchy is anti-American, law and order is essential, peace in our streets will be secured.

While the Democrat mayor of Seattle proclaimed that CHAZ was to be, quote, “the summer of love,” in fact, it was not. And other failed Democrat politicians also remained passive, or even silent, in the face of anarchy. But while that happened, President Trump set the tone: Law and order must prevail to preserve peace in our streets.

The President is not the Democrat governor of the state of Washington. The President is not the Democrat mayor of Seattle. But, nevertheless, the President must lead by example and be prepared to act in the face of failed Democrat leadership, which is what we saw in Democrat Seattle and Democrat Wisconsin.

President Trump has always stood on the side of law and order, and we are pleased to report that law and order has prevailed, and Seattle has been liberated from the anarchists.

In President Trump’s America, autonomous zones will have no sanctuary. The BHAZ, B-H-A-Z — which stood for the Black House Autonomous Zone, across from the White House — was swiftly dismantled. One hundred anarchists were arrested for rioting and destruction of federal property here in D.C; I believe that number is now above 300. Four men have been charged in federal court for attempting to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square. And there are 200 open domestic terrorism investigations.

You contrast the President’s vision of law and order to that of the failed CHAZ experiments and anarchy, and here’s what you find in the failed Democratic experiment that took place out in Seattle: The Seattle Times said the shooting at Seattle’s CHOP protest tragically killed a 16-year-old boy, leaving a 14-year-old “seriously injured.” That’s what happens in an autonomous zone.

The police chief, Carmen Best, who did a marvelous job winding down the CHOP zone noted that CHOP has become “lawless and brutal” and “enough is enough,” and she took action. According to reports, quote, “Police also investigated several vehicles circling the CHOP zone” with “people inside carrying firearms and wearing body armor.” This was no, quote, “summer of love,” as the Democrat mayor in Seattle said.

And President Trump compelled action. He has said, “Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will.” He has said, “This is not a game. These ugly Anarchists must be stopped IMMEDIATELY. MOVE FAST!”

And finally, the Democrat mayor in Seattle, who was long delayed, finally gave the order to dismantle the CHAZ. And it was an admission — it was an admission that President Trump’s vision is right, that anarchy is wrong, and that law and order bring peace.

And with that, I’ll take questions.

Kristen.

Q Kayleigh, thank you so much. National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said that the intelligence about the alleged Russia plot was being taken so seriously that U.S. allies were alerted and that it could impact military tactics. So how is that a hoax?

MS. MCENANY: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, what happens when any intelligence comes in unverified — if there is any way that it could affect American troops or allies — it is immediately communicated on the ground to ensure that troops and commanders and generals can make the best decisions, tactically speaking. So that’s the way it’s done.

But what I would say is: At the same time, until there’s a strategic decision for the President to make, until it is verified, it is not briefed up to the President of the United States. That’s how intelligence works.

Q Is he angry or frustrated or upset about the fact that he was not in the loop on this when members of Congress were briefed and U.S. allies were briefed?

MS. MCENANY: No, the President believes that — and has great faith in Ambassador O’Brien and the others who made the decision — that this shouldn’t be risen to his desk. It was a career CIA officer with more than 30 years of tenure who made the decision not to brief it up. And the National Security Advisor agreed with that decision — she’s an excellent officer and does great work — and made the decision not to brief it up. It was the right decision to make. And at this moment, as I speak to you, it is still unverified.

Q And, Kayleigh, just to follow very quickly, I’ve heard you and Robert O’Brien and others express real outrage about the leaks. Is there outrage about what the intelligence community is investigating, which is the possibility of these Russian bounties targeting U.S. troops?

MS. MCENANY: Make no mistake that this administration has acted tough on Russia; always makes the decision that’s in the best interest of protecting our troops, like killing General Soleimani — who killed 600 American troops, maimed thousands others — and al-Baghdadi. We always act in the best interest of our troops, but this is unverified still at this very moment.

Jon.

Q Kayleigh, why is the President calling “Black Lives Matter” a symbol of hate?

MS. MCENANY: Well, what the President was noting is that that symbol, when you look at some of the things that have been chanted by Black Lives Matter, like “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon,” that’s not an acceptable phrase to paint on our streets.

Look, he agrees that all black lives matter, including that of Officer David Dorn, Patrick Underwood, two officers whose lives were tragically taken amid at these riots. All black lives do matter; he agrees with that sentiment. But what he doesn’t agree with is an organization that chants, “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon,” about our police officers, our valiant heroes, who are out on the street protecting us each and every day.

Q Kayleigh, Americans of all races have protested in all 50 states around that phrase, “black lives matter.” And the President is here calling it a symbol of hate?

MS. MCENANY: He is talking about the organization. I would note to you that the —

Q He didn’t say organization in his tweet.

MS. MCENANY: — Greater New York BLM president has said, “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, [that] we will burn down [the] system…And I could be speaking…literally.” I’d call that a pretty hateful statement.

Q But, Kayleigh, he’s not —

MS. MCENANY: Yes. Ben.

Q — talking about the organization in his tweet. He says the words —

MS. MCENANY: Yes, Ben.

Q — he says the words, “Black Lives Matter.”

MS. MCENANY: Which — what’s the name of the organization again?

Q Black Lives Matter.

MS. MCENANY: There you go. You just answered my question.

Q Those are words that are going to be on Fifth Avenue.

MS. MCENANY: Go ahead, Ben.

Q A question on coronavirus. Earlier today, the President said, “I think that, at some point, that’s going to, sort of, just disappear — I hope.” Is hoping that it will disappear, the President’s strategy at this point?

MS. MCENANY: No. The President is confident that it will disappear. He’s confident that he’s put together a revolutionary first-class team that is going to break through bureaucracy and get us a vaccine. He’s confident that that will lead us to a place where we won’t have COVID on our hands.

And, in fact, there was very pleasing news today from Pfizer and BioNTech that showed positive results for their vaccines.

Q Dr. Fauci says that we’re heading towards 100,000 cases per day, so why does the President have evidence that it would just disappear?

MS. MCENANY: Well, one —

Q He distinguished between a vaccine and it just disappearing.

MS. MCENANY: One thing I would note, with regard to cases: We’re aware that there are embers in the country. We’re aware that there are places with rising cases, and that’s why Dr. Birx is on the ground and others. We’re continually assessing that.

But one thing I would note is just that when you do test more people, you do identify more cases. And that is rapidly ongoing. We’re testing more than a half a million a day. To give you an example: On April 6th, really, the height of the pandemic, we were doing 151,525 tests. One day, you know — Thursday is the number that I have here — we conducted 637,587 tests. So when you have more than a five-fold increase in tests, you have greater identification of cases.

Q But do you consider what’s happening in Florida, in Texas, and Arizona as “embers”?

MS. MCENANY: I would say that those are — we see rising cases, we see embers around the country. We always knew that would come with reopening. But those who are identifying as positive cases do tend to be younger individuals, as the Vice President noted. And I think the increase in testing is part of the contribution to what we’re seeing.

Yes.

Q Today, Mayor Bowser said her office has communicated with Department of Interior about the Fourth of July celebration, and it’s not, in her mind, in keeping with CDC guidelines, as well as D.C. Department of Health guidelines. The White House has said over and over again we should look to our local authorities for how we should act. Should the administration be following the local guidelines for this?

MS. MCENANY: The President has said that we should follow our local authorities with masks, so that’s the decision — that he encourages people to follow those authorities. The CDC guidelines, I’d also note, say “recommended,” but not required. And we are very much looking forward to the Fourth of July celebration.

Yes.

Q Are you preparing some options for the President to consider for retaliation against Russia, should this intelligence prove to be true?

MS. MCENANY: You know, I won’t get ahead of the President on action. I also won’t get ahead of the intelligence which, at this moment, is unverified.

Q Does the President want this intelligence to be corroborated or not? Or — I mean, what has he told his advisors on this front?

MS. MCENANY: The President — it’s unverified; it’s being assessed. It’s going through the same process normal intelligence would go through. But what’s unfortunate is we’re having this discussion because of the New York Times deciding to run with this erroneous information about the President being briefed, which was not true, and the erroneous information that there was a conclusion when, in fact, there was not a conclusion.

Jen?

Q Yeah. Kayleigh, can you confirm that the CIA director and the NSA director will brief the congressional Gang of Eight tomorrow about the Russia bounties?

MS. MCENANY: Yes, that is the plan.

Q Okay, so two of them? Anyone else that will be briefing the Gang of Eight?

MS. MCENANY: I’m not entirely sure who else will be in that briefing.

Q And can you also say, does the President generally have confidence in the intelligence community’s findings and conclusions about Russia?

MS. MCENANY: Yes, he does confidence. And he has, many times, acted on verified intelligence. And there’s times he’s decided that it’s in our strategic interest not to act. I gave you the example of Soleimani and al-Baghdadi, and then the example of Iran shooting down — when Iran engaged in actions and the President said it’s not time to engage because shooting down a — shooting down an entity is not the same as losing — loss of civilian lives.

Yes. Francesca.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh.

MS. MCENANY: Shooting down a drone, excuse me.

Q The President has come under criticism this week for statements that he has made, that his detractors say are “dog whistles” to a certain segment of his base that he’s trying to gin up for reelection. Those include comments like “Kung flu,” “our heritage” while talking about Confederate statues, and most recently they include the video — that I know you discussed in here the other day — but the video of a supporter of his using the term “white power.” So why hasn’t the President denounced that video and called that a hateful statement?

MS. MCENANY: The President took down that video. That deletion speaks strongly. And what I would note: The President has repeatedly condemned hate.

August of 2019: “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America.”

In April of 2019: “We have no tolerance for those who disrupt this peace, and we condemn all hate and violence, [especially] in our places of worship.”

August of 2018: “I condemn all types of racism.”

He’s repeatedly done this.

Q But why hasn’t he denounced that specific video and said that that is hateful language that was used in it?

MS. MCENANY: He deleted it. The deletion speaks for itself. His repeated condemnations of hate speak for themselves. And this is a President who has repeatedly condemned hate and repeatedly encouraged for us all to come together.

Yes.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh. Did the President meet today with Senate Republican Leader McConnell about the future recovery-aid package? And is there any sort of agreement on additional unemployment insurance or stimulus payments?

MS. MCENANY: Yeah, so I have no announcements with regard to his meetings. But what I would say is: He did mention that, in a phase four, he would be open to direct payments.

On the point of unemployment insurance, one thing that he is concerned about is he does not want to see an incentive not to work. And enhanced unemployment benefits that Senator Schumer has suggested would be an incentive for people not to get back to work, and he wants to encourage people to get back to work.

And at the same time, he’s mentioned a payroll tax holiday — a big win for our workers — that helps those who are on the lowest end of the payroll would help the Americans who need it most. So those are some things he’s talked about for phase four.

Yes.

Q Kayleigh, you used the word “embers” to describe the coronavirus, but yesterday, another all-time record of 47,000 cases, and four times this week a new record. Why do you use the word “embers” when many people would say it’s been more like a wildfire?

MS. MCENANY: So I use the word “embers” because that is what the President has acknowledged that would happen around the country. You would see spikes across the country. He said, at times, you would see a fire across the country — embers, fires. But at the same time, I would note the increase in cases — or the increase in testing. You know, a six-fold increase in testing; you identify more cases.

I’d also note that Secretary Azar said that we’ve seen nationwide that fatality is at a two-month low. So this is a different situation when those who are testing positive are younger. We have increased tests. We’re aware where there are surges. That’s why Dr. Birx is on the ground. But we believe we are equipped to handle what we see on the horizon.

Q Has the President made a conscious decision to talk less about the virus? You know, I think in his town hall with Sean Hannity, someone mentioned it was only three minutes that he discussed it. He tweets about it far less often than he used to.

MS. MCENANY: The President is not focused on talking; he’s focused on action. And this administration has taken historic action with regard to the coronavirus. We have an excess amount of PPE, surge — a huge amount of ventilators in the stockpile. Things that could never be done, we were told, have been done under this administration. Testing more than 600,000 a day. This President has done a historic job with regard to coronavirus.

Lalit.

Q Thank you. The President yesterday tweeted that he is angry against China. There is anger against China in India also. So India has banned 59 apps from China, including TikTok. How — does the President know about this? And what are his views on this?

MS. MCENANY: So with regard to India and China, we’re closely monitoring the situation; he is as well. Both India and China have expressed a desire to deescalate, and we support a peaceful resolution of the current situation. And he said that China’s aggressive stance along the India-China border fits with the larger pattern of Chinese aggression in other parts of the world. And these actions only confirm the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party.

Q And on TikTok — with India banning the TikTok app?

MS. MCENANY: No announcements on that. I would just point you to what Secretary Pompeo said earlier. Yeah.

Yes.

Q When can we expect the President to weigh in on Israel’s plan to annex parts of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley? And how much does this delay, perhaps, have to do with the concern about (inaudible) evangelicals here in the United States, who, of course, are a really important part of the President’s base in the election?

MS. MCENANY: Yeah, so I’ve not spoken to him about that specific issue, but he’s a great supporter of Israel, and I would just leave it at that.

Q But Kellyanne said that there could be something this week, so I’m just wondering what the delay is. And maybe you could weigh in on — you know, there are concerns this could be the final nail in the coffin on a Palestinian state. Like, what is the President thinking about?

MS. MCENANY: So no announcements on that front, and I won’t get ahead of him on anything that would happen this week or beyond.

Yes.

Q The President has said, in this room, that he wants to meet the Taliban leadership. Now that world leaders are coming here again, is that on the cards? Is that going to happen soon? Is there a timetable?

MS. MCENANY: So, again, I won’t get ahead of the President on that. What the President wants is to see our troops come home from Afghanistan. He has been on the record being against keeping a sustained presence in Afghanistan. He does not believe in foreign adventurism and wars that drag on. He believes the ultimate way to secure our troops is to bring them home.

Q But has the report of the Russian bounties and Taliban fighters affected that calculus?

MS. MCENANY: That’s unverified intelligence that’s currently being assessed.

Yamiche?

Q Hi. Thanks, Kayleigh. The first question I have — two questions. The first is: On Monday, the President went after stripping racist names on buildings. On Tuesday, he went after a rule to combat racial segregation. And then today, he said that he described the words “Black Lives Matters” as a symbol of hate. Why is he digging in on race in this way?

MS. MCENANY: So, first, I mean, if you’re saying that the fact that he does not want to rename our bases — if you’re considering that racist, then apparently 56 percent of America is as well, because 56 percent of America is against changing the name —

Q I just was (inaudible) things that he did just this week.

MS. MCENANY: — of U.S. military bases. He believes that our young men and women who left these bases overseas — many of whom lost their lives, and the last thing they saw was being on one of these military bases — that they should not be told that the base that they trained in, the last place they saw on American soil was a racist institution.

Q (Inaudible) I just listed three —

MS. MCENANY: And that’s a proposition the vast majority of America agrees with.

Q I just listed three (inaudible), including him saying that the words “Black Lives Matter” — as you noted, it has been chanted in 50 states — why is he saying that that’s a symbol of hate, on top of all the other things that he’s done just this week alone, in terms of race?

MS. MCENANY: Well, is “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon” racist? I mean, is that — is that hateful? That is a hateful thing to say, I would argue. I would think the vast majority of America would agree with that, too.

I think the vast majority of America would think it’s hateful to say that “We will burn down this system.” And I could be speaking literally.

I think the vast majority of America would agree with him, yet again, that holding up a severed pig’s head is unacceptable. He —

Q If you’re not going to engage on that, I have a second question. Since you’re not —

MS. MCENANY: I did engage on that.

Q The second question I have is —

MS. MCENANY: I engaged on that, Yamiche, and I said we agree all black lives matter, with that sentiment, but we will not stand with an organization that exhibits that kind of hate against our police officers.

Q My second question is: What does the President have to say to military service — the families of service members who are really afraid that their loved ones might have been killed in connection to this to this Russia bounty? There are families that are already saying, “We want the United States to — and federal government to call us and settle us up.” Kristen had an interview with a father saying that, just this week. What is this President’s message to the military families in this country?

MS. MCENANY: So that — it’s unverified intelligence. It’s continually being assessed. And the Department of Defense has said they do not know of any Americans that have been killed in relation to this unverified intelligence that’s currently being assessed.

Q Quick follow-up.

MS. MCENANY: Yes. Chanel.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh. The President has stated in the past that he will not tolerate defunding police, and he said this multiple times. Considering that many Democrat-led cities have now done so — including New York City, as of this morning — what does not tolerating this move look like from the President’s vantage at this time?

MS. MCENANY: Yeah, I mean, speaking out fervently against it. And what it means is — you know, this executive order gives additional funding to police departments if they meet certain standards.

We want safe policing. We want to make sure that police officers are trained to de-escalate. That’s why there is this supplementary funding in the EO that incentivizes and rewards police departments that train their officers in de-escalation; that get rid of chokeholds, except when there’s an incident of lethal force.

But, look, he stands firmly with America yet again on this, with 64 percent op- — opposing defunding the police. That’s a huge number. Fifty-seven percent, according to another HuffPost/YouGov poll, stand against it.

And, look, they — where America stands is here, where — we’re at a place where 64 percent of the nation are concerned that the growing criticism of America’s police will lead to a shortage of police officers. That will harm all Americans. It’s an untenable principle. And it’s unacceptable when you have people like Representative Ocasio-Cortez really suggesting where the Democrat Party stands today — because taking a billion away from NYPD police officers wasn’t enough for her. She wants to take it all away. She doesn’t want police officers. And that’s a really unacceptable proposition.

Q On the USMCA also: It takes effect at midnight. What immediate changes is the White House hoping to see immediately starting tomorrow? And then, are there any elements of the USMCA that may be hindered because of COVID-19?

MS. MCENANY: The USMCA — today, that goes into effect. It’s a huge deal. For years, for decades, NAFTA wreaked havoc on American society — closing our factories, hemorrhaging American manufacturing jobs.

And the USMCA is a massive win. It will create 176,000 jobs, add $68 billion to the U.S. economy, 28,000 manufacturing jobs are expected to be added, and agricultural — agricultural and food exports will increase by 2.2 billion — a big win for our farmer — farmers.

So we expect to see that start to take effect. It’s a big deal, and it’s a reversal of decades of failed U.S. policy, with the [DEL: USMCA :DEL] [NAFTA], the Trans-Pacific Partnership — horrible trade deals that betrayed America’s workers. Under President Trump, the forgotten man and woman is forgotten no longer.

Thank you, guys.

END 5:04 P.M. EDT

President Trump Interview on Current Political Events – COVID-19, Economic Reopening, Stimulus, Russia Nonsense, Joe Biden…


President Trump holds an interview with Fox Business News’ Blake Burman. The president hits on a variety of current headlines including ongoing COVID-19 mitigation, a potential fourth round of stimulus, the nonsensical Russia conspiracy nonsense and the 2020 election campaign.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Discusses China and Hong Kong – Companies Likely to Leave Hong Kong…


During an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross notes that companies with headquarters in Hong Kong are likely to rethink those offices with China now taking control under Beijing’s sweeping new security law.

This is a significant statement and underpins the U.S. strategy that is dismantling the Chinese influence on global trade and manufacturing.  As Secretary Ross noted: “I believe that there’s a good chance that all companies who have Hong Kong as their headquarters for Asia will begin rethink whether the new rules – the new relationship between Hong Kong and mainland China – whether those rules let Hong Kong be as favorable a place to have headquarters as it used to be.”  WATCH (listen closely):

.

There is a deliberate and blunt focus in the statements by Ross that will have a significant impact.  Globally the world needs to accept the future of Hong Kong as a communist state, and disavow the notion of any semblance of an autonomous region.  Secretary Ross just threw a bucket of cold water in the face of those who refuse to accept the reality as it exists.

President Trump has been methodically advancing an economic position for several years that showcases a remarkable duality.

On one hand President Trump demands that China increase purchases from the U.S. to offset the trade imbalance; this approach is Trump using a deliberate panda mask and includes praise each time Beijing responds positively. China expected this approach.

However, on the other hand President Trump has been removing the tentacles of Chinese economic influence both in the U.S. and globally. This approach deconstructs the One Belt – One Road plan of Beijing; this approach is Trump using the dragon strategy. China did not see this part coming.

The duality of President Trump’s panda mask and the dragon strategy is very unique problem for Beijing to confront because it is the exact same strategy used by China. By expressing a public panda mask, yet concealing the underlying dragon moves, President Trump’s policy to China is a mirror of their own geopolitical scheme.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Discusses Why FCC Designated Huawei and ZTE as National Security Threats…


Lou Dobbs had an interview with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai tonight discussing why the FCC designated Huawei and ZTE as national security threats.

Another Step in a Much Bigger Picture – FCC Formally Designates Hauwei and ZTE Technology as National Security Risks…


~ Why We Must Re-Elect President Trump ~

Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) formally designated Chinese’s Huawei Technologies Co and ZTE Corp as posing as posing national security threats to the United States. This designation and declaration blocks U.S. firms from tapping an $8.3 billion government fund to purchase equipment from either company.

(Source pdf)

This is an important step toward eliminating Huawei 5G data risks within U.S. telecommunication networks.  Additionally, the designation will have the forward impact of restricting U.S. allies from linking networks if they use Huawei/ZTE components.

(Via Reuters) – The U.S. telecommunications regulator voted in November 5-0 to issue the declaration and proposed requiring rural carriers to remove and replace equipment from the two Chinese companies from existing U.S. networks. “We cannot and will not allow the Chinese Communist Party to exploit network vulnerabilities and compromise our critical communications infrastructure,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement Tuesday. (more)

This is another policy alignment from the Trump administration toward the ongoing confrontation with China.  Beijing will not be happy; and this follows only a day after the Trump administration removed the ‘special trade status’ afforded to Hong Kong.

President Trump and all executive branch offices are strategically targeting China from multiple simultaneous angles.  The scale of the strategy is very comprehensive.

This FCC position today aligns with the Commerce Department (Wilbur Ross) setting up new advanced chip manufacturing in the U.S. which will facilitate further decoupling from China.   Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) announced in May they will build an advanced chip manufacturing facility in Arizona. A manufacturing facility for advanced 5 nanometer chip manufacturing is a steep investment decision costing around $10 billion.

Economic decoupling by a thousand paper cuts.

President Trump has been methodically advancing an economic position for several years that showcases a remarkable duality.

On one hand President Trump demands that China increase purchases from the U.S. to offset the trade imbalance; this approach is Trump using a deliberate panda mask and includes praise each time Beijing responds positively.  China expected this approach.

However, on the other hand President Trump has been removing the tentacles of Chinese economic influence both in the U.S. and globally.  This approach deconstructs the One Belt – One Road plan of Beijing; this approach is Trump using the dragon strategy.  China did not see this part coming.

The duality of the panda mask and the dragon strategy is very unique for Beijing to confront because it is the exact same strategy used by China.  By expressing a public panda mask, yet concealing the underlying dragon moves, President Trump’s policy to China is a mirror of their own economic plan.

Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.

Each time China takes aggressive action (dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues.

The CCP dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately.  The Art of War.

President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the CCP dragon hides behind the panda mask.  He has now exposed that historic playbook to the world.

First President Trump got their attention with tariffs.  Then… On one hand President Trump has engaged in very public and friendly trade negotiations with China (panda approach); yet on the other hand, long before the Wuhan virus, Trump fractured their global supply chains, influenced the movement of industrial goods to alternate nations, and incentivized an exodus of manufacturing (dragon result).

It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.

In essence Trump is mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.

There is no doubt in my mind that President Trump has a very well thought out long-term strategy regarding China. President Trump takes strategic messaging toward the people of china very importantly. President Trump has, very publicly, complimented the friendship he feels toward President Xi Jinping; and praises Chairman Xi for his character, strength and purposeful leadership.

To build upon that projected and strategic message – President Trump seeded the background by appointing Ambassador Terry Branstad, a 30-year personal friend of President Xi Jinping.

To enhance and amplify the message – and broadcast cultural respect – President Trump used Mar-a-Lago as the venue for their first visit, not the White House.  And President Trump’s beautiful granddaughter, Arabella, sweetly serenaded the Chinese First Familytwice in Mandarin Chinese song showing the utmost respect for the guests and later for the hosts.

All of this activity mirrors the duplicity of China.  From the November 2017 tour of Asia to the January 2020 China phase-1 trade deal, President Trump has been positioning, for an economic decoupling and a complete realignment of global trade and manufacturing.

Remarkably, at the same time… inch by inch… President Trump has been able to keep the international financial markets stable while he has moved to completely reset global trade.

For those who follow carefully, you can see President Trump advancing public positions against China at strategic times that keeps the multinational corporations on the U.S. stock exchange from major losses.  Forward policy, then pause.  Forward policy, then pause.  Within this process the financial markets pull back, then regain… pull back, then regain.

This very strategic approach keeps the overall wealth (value) within the U.S. market, while the decoupling is fundamentally taking place.   Smart U.S. corporations have made, and/or are making, shifts in their forward business decisions to offset the inevitable end.

It is quite remarkable to stand back and watch how the Trump administration is accomplishing the reversal of decades of exfiltration of wealth, and returning jobs and manufacturing back to the U.S through the America First agenda.   No other person could have ever accomplished this.

Unfortunately, this success also explains the opposition. Those who have aligned their personal affluence by selling the wealth of the U.S. are fighting like hell to stop President Trump from Making America Great Again.

Kayleigh McEnany White House Press Briefing – 3:30pm ET Livestream…


White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is holding a press briefing from the Brady room.  Anticipated start time 3:30pm ET.

UPDATE: Video Added

.

[Transcript] – MS. MCENANY: Hello, everyone. The front page of the New York Times is not the venue for discussing classified information. The White House podium is not the venue for discussing classified information. We are here today, having this discussion, because of an irresponsible, anonymous leak to the New York Times. There is no good scenario as a result of this New York Times report.

Who’s going to want to cooperate with the United States intelligence community, who’s going to want to be a source or an asset, if they know that their identity could be disclosed? Which allies will want to share information with us if they know that some rogue intelligence officer can go splash that information on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper?

Specifically, there are two bad scenarios that emerge from this report: Number one, this report makes it more difficult to come to a consensus on this matter, to verify intelligence. And number two, this level of controversy and discord plays directly into the hands of Russia and, unfortunately, serves their interests.

Since before President Trump assumed office, damaging and oftentimes erroneous leaks seeking to undermine or delegitimize the duly elected president have been published. According to the DOJ, classified leaks surged in this administration. There were, under President Obama, just 39, on average, criminal leak referrals. In this administration, we’ve seen 100 criminal leak referrals to the DOJ in 2017, 88 in 2018, and 104 on average per year.

We have seen targeted leaks of classified information against this President, and it is irresponsible: phone calls with foreign leaders, meetings with government officials, and now reports of alleged intelligence. Make no mistake: This damages our ability, as a nation, to collect intelligence.

As the National Security Council noted just yesterday, “To those government officials who betray the trust of the people of the United States by leaking classified information, your actions endanger our national security.”

The ODNI said, “The selective leaking of any classified information disrupts the vital interagency work to collect, assess, and mitigate threats, and places our forces at risk. It is also, simply put, a crime.”

And finally, the CIA said this: that “Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability.”

To the anonymous sources who leak classified information, you should know this: You may seek to undermine our President, but in fact, you undermine our country’s safety and our country’s security.

And with that, I’ll take questions.

Kristin.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh. When did White House officials first learn that this intelligence about Russian bounties existed?

MS. MCENANY: I will say this: The President was never briefed on this, this intelligence still has not been verified, and there is no consensus among the intelligence community.

Q Does the President wish that he had been briefed sooner? I mean, today, Joe Biden called it a “dereliction of duty.”

MS. MCENANY: This is a piece of intelligence information that had no consensus, has not been verified. Still, to this day, has not been verified. And there are several intelligence agencies on the record noting that. You have the Department of Defense saying that there has — they have no corroborating evidence to validate [sic] — validate the recent allegations. The NSC: “…Allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substantiated by the intelligence community…” And the ODNI: “We are still investigating the alleged intelligence referenced in recent media reportings.”

But that didn’t stop the New York Times from putting it on the very first page of their newspaper and stopping us from getting to an ultimate conclusion and an ultimate place of having a consensus on the alleged intelligence.

Darlene.

Q You said that —

Q Just one more question. If this intelligence does turn out to be true, is the President prepared to take some serious action against Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin?

MS. MCENANY: The President has always taken tough, unadulterated action against Russia. We saw that there’s no diplomatic presence on the West Coast of our country, of Russia, because the President closed the consulates. We saw he expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers; sanctioned hundreds of targets; withdrew from the INF Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty; tried to halt Nord Stream — still trying to do that; impose visa sanctions, and many other actions.

So make no mistake: This President is prepared to act and will always act in protecting our American troops. We saw in Syria, in the strikes in 2018, that dozens of Russian mercenaries were killed. He will always act, prot- — to protect American troops. That is indeed his track record.

Darlene.

Q There’s a briefing — an intel briefing on the President’s schedule today. Will this matter be part of his briefing this afternoon?

MS. MCENANY: The President has been briefed on what is unfortunately in the public domain because of the New York Times and the irresponsible leak. Yes, he has been briefed, but that does not change the fact that there is no consensus on this intelligence that still has yet to be verified.

Q I have one more question.

MS. MCENANY: Yeah. Darlene?

Q On another subject: Republican allies of the President, like Kevin McCarthy and Lamar Alexander, have said that it would be great if the President would wear a mask in public, sometimes, to set an example. How much weight do words from McCarthy and Lamar Alexander carry with the President?

MS. MCENANY: The President has said he has no problem with masks; that he encourages people to make whatever decision is best for their safety and to follow what their local jurisdictions say. CDC guidelines are still recommended, but not required. And the President is the most tested man in America. It’s his decision whether to wear a mask.

Justin.

Q But to set an example?

MS. MCENANY: Justin.

Q I wanted to look back on you saying that the President had never been briefed. There’s, I think, some dispute over whether, in February, his PDB included this intelligence information. And so I’m wondering if you can say whether or not, you know, he may not have read the briefing book that he was presented with, but was he at some point at least given access to this information.

MS. MCENANY: So the PDB is a top-secret document that is widely disseminated among government. I will never sit here and confirm or deny what is in a top-secret document. So I’ll leave it at that.

One thing I will say that is routine is when there is intelligence — and I was speaking with some folks over at NSC about this earlier and some other folks around the White House — when we get intelligence — verified or unverified, deemed credible or not credible, deemed consensus or no consensus — if that information in any way impinges upon the safety of our troops, that information goes to our troops on the ground and to our allies so they can take the appropriate measures.

What is briefed up to the President — and in this case, it was not the case; was never briefed to the President of the United States because there was no consensus — what is briefed to the President is when there’s a strategic decision to be made. So in this case, if there was a strategic decision to be made vis-à-vis Russia, those are the kind of things that are briefed to the President when they’re deemed credible. But in this case, it was not briefed to the President, there is no consensus, it was not credible.

But make no mistake: This President will always protect American troops.

Q I mean — sorry, just — just to follow on that. I think there’s two points. One, I would say that press secretaries in the past have disclosed, in certain instances, what was in the PDB.

But secondly, I mean, this is a relevant issue because — and I think critics have seized on this and said, “Well, if the President isn’t reading his PDB, he might not know that there are these policy decisions to be made,” right? If a President was presented with this information, it’s unverified, he could be alarmed; change his posture towards Russia; conceivably ask intelligence officials to work harder to determine whether or not this was true; make, you know, a series of judgments.

And so, I guess more broadly, you know, I would re-ask the question of whether it was in his material, but asking maybe to defend why the President isn’t necessarily reading his PDB when there are these types of issues that could arise.

MS. MCENANY: The President does read, and he also consumes intelligence —

Q So, then it wasn’t in his PDB?

MS. MCENANY: — verbally. This President, I’ll tell you, is the most informed person on planet Earth when it comes to the threats that we face. You have Ambassador O’Brien, who sees him in person twice a day, who sometimes takes the upwards of half a dozen calls with this President. He’s constantly being informed and briefed on intelligence matters.

But I’m not going to allow the New York Times to dictate when we give top-secret information and don’t give top-secret information. That’s —

Q But let me just square the —

MS. MCENANY: — an untenable proposition.

Q Just to square the circle there, then —

MS. MCENANY: Yes, Emerald.

Q Thanks, Kayleigh. Does the White House have any comment on Bruce Ohr testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Hill today?

MS. MCENANY: So, no comment on that specifically. But what I would say more generally is that what Bruce Ohr and others in the Obama-era government have to answer for is quite substantial: When you had a dossier full of lies weaponizing against this President — Bruce Ohr’s wife, of course, being involved in the creation of that dossier, which was funded by the Democrat National Committee and in coordination with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and was used to spy on the Trump campaign, to be the basis for two FISA warrants, to launch a three-year investigation into Russia collusion that ultimately ended in an exoneration of this President and an immense waste of taxpayer dollars — Mr. Ohr and many others have a whole lot of questions to answer for.

Q So why wasn’t it — why was it behind closed doors? Why wasn’t it televised, given the public interest in these players in the Russia investigation?

MS. MCENANY: That would be a question for Congress, but I think the public deserves to know Mr. Ohr’s answers on those matters.

Q And then one more, if I may. You opened about leakers. Democrat lawmakers are calling for a briefing from intelligence officials. They aren’t satisfied with the White House personnel today. Is there a concern to brief Democrat lawmakers, especially Adam Schiff, given the leaks out of his committee?

MS. MCENANY: Look, I mean, I think that Democrats should come forward in good faith. And if anyone has politicized intelligence — we’ve had the New York Times acting entirely irresponsibly, and you have the Democrat Party politicizing this information, which I think is absolutely disgraceful.

Alayna.

Q Hi. Yes. Thank you, Kayleigh. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should, quote, “absolutely not,” unquote, be allowed back into the G7. Does President Trump agree with Mitch McConnell?

MS. MCENANY: Look, I haven’t spoken to him on that matter. The President believes that we have to have diplomatic relationship — relations with the top economies of the world. But there’s been no one that’s been tougher on Russia than this President. I went through several of those actions.

And also, I would note that when it comes to acting on viable, actionable, credible intelligence, there has been no one who has acted more forcefully than this President. He has a track record of that. He has made protecting our American troops overseas his highest and strongest priority.

As you know, Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and thousands maimed from, quote, “explosively formed penetrators, other improvised explosive devices, improvised rocket-assisted munitions, rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, small-arms, snipers, and other attacks in Iraq.” This is what Soleimani did to our American troops.

You had President Bush, who declined to strike Soleimani, who was, quote “in the crosshairs,” according to the New York Times. You had Obama-Biden who, quote, “never made an effort to strike Soleimani.”

But you had this President who, when he had actionable intelligence to protect American troops, he did it. He took that option. He was criticized by Democrats. “Democrats condemn Trump’s strike on Soleimani,” as your publication, Axios, had in a headline. NBC said, “Democrats demand answers on Soleimani killing.” Politico, “Top Democrats blast Trump’s ‘false’ justification for Soleimani killing.” And the Atlantic asked, “Why Kill Soleimani Now?”

We removed Soleimani from the battlefield — President Trump did — to protect our American troops, based on credible intelligence. He did the same with al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for 300 public beheadings, who killed thousands of captured prisoners of war. When this President had actionable intelligence, he took action, criticized by Democrats for it, but that’s what this President does: He acts in defense of our American troops.

David.

Q You said it was “targeted leaking” in the New York Times. Who’s doing the targeting and why are they doing it?

MS. MCENANY: It’s a — it’s a great question. But these are rogue intelligence officers who are imperiling our troops’ lives. We will not be able to get — very likely not be able to get a consensus on this intelligence because of what was leaked to the New York Times. And you have both the NSC, ODNI, and CIA all noting what damage this leaks does, not just to the safety of our troops, which is paramount, but to the ability of the United States to aggregate information from our allies and have assets and have — get this valuable information. So who’s doing it? It’s —

Q Are you saying members of the IC are going after Trump? Is that what you’re saying?

MS. MCENANY: It very possibly could be. And if that’s the case, it is absolutely despicable.

Q Kayleigh —

MS. MCENANY: Yes.

Q On that note, is the Trump administration doing anything or taking any action, like an audit of the IC? Or what steps are you planning on taking to try to find the source of the leaks?

MS. MCENANY: Well, make no mistake: The DOJ has done several criminal leak referrals — 120 in 2017, 88 in 2018, 104 on average, per year, under President Trump. So we do take those steps.

And we do have a President who, ultimately, when it comes down to the safety of our troops, he doesn’t take impulsive action, he takes deliberate action. And we saw that in the killing of Soleimani and the killing of al-Baghdadi and the protecting of our troops. And at the same time, when you had Iran, who shot down a drone, he chose not to strike back in that instance. He chose to protect civilians, protect our troops. It was the measured response; it was a proportionate response.

And ultimately, the ultimate way to protect American troops is to not get into needless foreign wars. This President is on record for decades and decades and decades opposing — opposing foreign wars. And Iraq is a great example, a 20 — nearly two-decade war. You have this President who, when Washington was unanimous in saying, “We’re going into Iraq,” this President said, “No, that’s not the right decision.”

He’s wound down our troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. And he’s ultimately protected American troops and kept this country safe. And this President has a very strong foreign policy record to be incredibly proud of.

Thank you.

END 4:04 P.M. EDT

White House Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream – PBS Livestream Link

.

.

.

Secretary Wilbur Ross Begins Revocation of Hong Kong Special Trade Status…


In a statement earlier today, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has announced the U.S. is revoking the special trade status of Hong Kong in response to escalating encroachment by China in violation of the prior agreement for autonomy.

It is a challenging status to modify because the administration does not want to reduce the ability of Hong Kong to operate as an autonomous economic region.  However, at the same time Beijing is taking control of all systems within Hong Kong and as such policies must be adjusted.  It would be an exercise in futility to expect China to retreat.

WILBUR ROSS – “With the Chinese Communist Party’s imposition of new security measures on Hong Kong, the risk that sensitive U.S. technology will be diverted to the People’s Liberation Army or Ministry of State Security has increased, all while undermining the territory’s autonomy. Those are risks the U.S. refuses to accept and have resulted in the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status.”

“Commerce Department regulations affording preferential treatment to Hong Kong over China, including the availability of export license exceptions, are suspended. Further actions to eliminate differential treatment are also being evaluated. We urge Beijing to immediately reverse course and fulfill the promises it has made to the people of Hong Kong and the world.”

The biggest issue surrounds Hong Kong’s exemptions to tariffs the administration has placed against China.  The statement by Wilbur Ross does not address that key aspect, yet.

As accurately noted: “The end of Hong Kong’s special status became a real possibility once the security law came into play, since its implementation will likely render “one country, two systems” nothing more than a slogan, and the U.S. had already announced it no longer considers the city autonomous from Beijing. The move will likely place Hong Kong’s role as a leading global financial hub in jeopardy. ”

Moving forward, as we previously have discussed, there primary entity who should/could assemble a coalition to defend Hong Kong’s interests would be the United Kingdom.  However, as with most geopolitical issues involving European politics, the British government prefers to abdicate their role and hope the U.S. will fill the gap.

Trump administration detractors will likely use the Hong Kong issue to criticize President Trump for not doing enough to curb Beijing’s aggression, while simultaneously ignoring their own 3 decades of inaction -and support for China- which created the crisis.

President Trump is the first U.S. President to stand up to the aggressive Chinese Communist Party (CCP), while most U.S. politicians and their Wall Street multinational allies have done everything possible to support the same communist economic system they now claim has become dangerous for the world.  There is a lot of insufferable hypocrisy in/around all things China.

Bottom line – It is better to accept the situation as it exists, rather than pretend it could be something else.  With that in mind, the move by Secretary Ross is a step in the right direction.   It’s time to accept Hong Kong as part of China, modify all policies toward that end, accept Beijing is going to take full control, and offer support for the people of Hong Kong as they deal with the reality of their new communist rulers.

Freedom is a tenuous proposition; and we seem to have our hands full in the U.S. trying to retain our own.

Supreme Court Rules Law Creating Director of CFPB Unconstitutional – Severs Removal Clause, Retains Agency…


The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) was originally created by congress (Elizabeth Warren lead) as a quasi-constitutional watchdog agency to reach into the banking and financial system, under the guise of oversight, and extract money by fining entities for CFPB defined regulatory and/or compliance violations.

Essentially, the CFPB is a congressionally authorized far-left extortion scheme in the banking sector.  The CFPB levies fines; the fines generate income; however, unlike traditional fines that go to the U.S. treasury, the CFBP fines are then redistributed to left-wing organizations to help fund their political activism.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren as an outcome of the Dodd-Frank legislation. Within the CFPB Warren tried to set up the head of the agency, the Director, in a manner that that he/she would operate without oversight. Unfortunately, her dictatorial-fiat-design collapsed when challenged in court.  Backstory #1– Backstory #2

A federal court found the CFPB Director position held too much power and deemed it unconstitutional. The court decision noted that giving the President power to fire the Director would fix the constitutional problem.  This issue was argued extensively after President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as interim Director.  Elizabeth Warren declaring the CFPB Director could not be fired by the executive.  The legal battle worked its way to the Supreme Court.

♦ Today the Supreme Court ruled (full pdf here) the structure of the CFPB Director position is unconstitutional and the President can fire the head of the agency.  However, SCOTUS kept the CFPB agency in place by severing the part of the law that created the agency head from the rest of the law.

The CFPB remains as a quasi-constitutional agency; the CFPB remains an extortion racket to target any organization within the banking and finance sector; however, the president can fire and appoint the Director of the CFPB.

The decision could have significant implications for the future of the similarly structured Federal Housing Finance Agency, the overseer of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. like the head of the CFPB, the FHFA director is appointed to a five-year term and can only be removed for cause. ~ Politico

BACKSTORY:  When Senator Elizabeth Warren and crew set up the Director of the CFPB, in the aftermath of the Dodd-Frank Act, they made it so that the appointed director can only be fired for cause by the President.

This design was so the Director could operate outside the control of congress and outside the control of the White House.  In essence the CFPB director position was created to work above the reach of any oversight; almost like a tenured position no-one could ever remove.

The position was intentionally put together so that he/she would be untouchable, and the ideologue occupying the position would work on the goals of the CFPB without any oversight.

Elizabeth Warren herself wanted to be the appointed director; however, the reality of her never passing senate confirmation made her drop out.

The CFPB Director has the power to regulate pensions, retirement investment, mortgages, bank loans, credit cards and essentially every aspect of all consumer financial transactions.

However, in response to legal challenges by Credit Unions and Mortgage providers, in October 2016 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that placing so much power in a single Czar or Commissioner was unconstitutional:

[…]  The five-year-old agency violates the Constitution’s separation of powers because too much power is in the hands of its director, found the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Giving the president the power to get rid of the CFPB’s director and to oversee the agency would fix the situation, the court said. (more)

After the November 8, 2016, election (during the lame-duck Obama period), the CFPB sought an en banc review of the decision by the circuit court panel.  However, in March 2017 the Trump administration reversed the government’s position.

Today the Supreme Court finally settled the issue.

Kayleigh McEnany White House Press Briefing – 1:30pm ET Livestream


White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany holds a press briefing.  Anticipated start time 1:30pm ET.

White House Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream

.

.