Heat wave in Mexico hits the country's most vulnerable

A scorching heat wave in Mexico has hit the elderly, laborers and migrants hard, underscoring the disproportionate effects climate change is having on some of the world’s most vulnerable.

 (AP Video Félix Márquez. Produced by Julián Trejo Bax). 

Read more: https://bit.ly/4c6kX5p 

 

Heat wave claims lives of at least 125 in Mexico this year, hitting country’s most vulnerable


VERACRUZ, Mexico (AP) — When the nursing home in southern Mexico began to bake in the country’s ongoing heat wave, staff cycled their elderly residents through the few cooling options they had.

Pedro Murillo, a diver, jumps into the sea amid the heat in Veracruz, Mexico, Saturday, June 15, 2024. Victims in Veracruz have made up nearly a third of Mexico’s heat-related deaths as temperatures have reached 100 degrees in the humid Mexican gulf state. (AP Photo/Felix Marquez)

By Félix Márquez And Megan Janetsky 

The Associated Press

June 20, 2024

VERACRUZ, Mexico (AP) — When the nursing home in southern Mexico began to bake in the country’s ongoing heat wave, staff cycled their elderly residents through the few cooling options they had.

First, some would sit in front of fans buzzing in the sweltering heat of Veracruz. Then they’d be moved in front of the building’s few treasured air conditioning units. Then it was back to the record-breaking temperatures roiling the Veracruz state.

Anything to get through the climate change-fueled heat wave, which has left much of Mexico grappling with the mounting human toll of the heat.

“We have never before experienced a heat wave this intense, this powerful, this pervasive and this persistent,” said María Teresa Mendoza, director of the Cogra nursing home, operating for decades in the port of Veracruz. “This heat wave has killed many people here in Veracruz.”

At least 125 people in the Latin American nation have died due to the heat this year, according to data from the country’s health ministry. More than 2,300 more have suffered heat stroke, dehydration and sunburns.

The heat deaths and larger ripple effects in Mexico have underscored the disproportionate effects climate change and rising global temperatures are having on some of the world’s most vulnerable.

Victims in Veracruz have made up nearly a third of the deaths as temperatures have reached 100 degrees in the humid Mexican gulf state. Caregivers like Mendoza have been left scrambling to ease the suffering of her patients.

On Sunday, Mendoza stood in front of a group of elderly women in rocking chairs, many with their heads nodding downward due to the heat, which was hardly pierced by a set of fans rotating in front of them.

“We’re going to drink a bit of water. Sounds good?” she said. “Those are my girls.”

The heat has had cascading effects across Mexico. Howler monkeys and tropical birds have dropped dead from trees in southern Mexico. Residents scramble to fill up jugs of water, concerned about the heat compounding ongoing drought. Migrants walk north with little to ease the beating sun.

Emergency services in Veracruz have been responding to a greater number of heat-related emergencies in areas like warehouses and even open air spaces.

David Zebadúa Escalante, coordinator of state relief for the Mexican Red Cross in Veracruz, said medics respond to as many as five heat strokes a day. As a result, teams began rigging ambulances with ice and other equipment in an effort to save lives.

“We had to take certain measures in the ambulances, like putting ice packs inside, cold liquids, cold compresses so we could treat people who have had heat stroke,” he said.

He said medics often attend to people working long hours in the sun, with few breaks and little water, which makes people more vulnerable to heat stroke.

Meanwhile, construction workers like Jorge Misael Rodríguez keep on working. Drenched in sweat, Misael Ródriguez carries heavy equipment, bricks and planks on the site.

“You feel feverish, feel pain, and get tons of headaches. Once you’re at home, the pain starts. In your shoulders, back and arms,” Rodríguez said, gulping down water during a break. “It hits you hard.”
___


Janetsky contributed from Mexico City.

Mexico's incoming president announces first Cabinet picks: academics and former public servants

Mexico's incoming President Claudia Sheinbaum has begun naming her Cabinet, presenting an even gender distribution and a heavy presence from academia and her prior administration as Mexico City’s mayor

ByThe Associated Press
June 20, 2024

MEXICO CITY -- MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico's incoming President Claudia Sheinbaum began naming her Cabinet Thursday, presenting an even gender distribution, as well as a heavy presence from academia and her prior administration as Mexico City's mayor.

Sheinbaum, herself a climate scientist and former academic, appointed former Foreign Affairs Secretary Marcelo Ebrard as her administration’s economy secretary. Ebrard stepped down from that post in 2023 to run against Sheinbaum for their party’s nomination.

Sheinbaum romped to victory in the June 2 election.

Ebrard, 63, was the official President Andrés Manuel López Obrador placed in charge of obtaining foreign-made vaccines for Mexico during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

He also served from 2006 to 2012 as mayor of Mexico City, traditionally the launching pad for the presidency.

While he was once viewed as the second-most important figure in the Morena party, his standing was tarnished by two key events. First, a subway line that was hastily and poorly constructed while he was mayor collapsed in 2021, killing 26 passengers. Second, he engaged in a bare-knuckle primary race against Sheinbaum in 2023 for Morena’s presidential nomination, but instead of conceding defeat quickly, he alleged irregularities and continued with legal challenges.

Still, the appointment of Ebrard appeared to be welcomed by investors, who were spooked earlier in the month following a number of proposed judicial reforms by Sheinbaum, which caused the peso to drop. After Thursday's Cabinet picks were announced, the Mexican currency showed a slight appreciation.

Ebrard will have to take on the renewal of a free trade agreement with the United States and Canada and increase foreign investment, another well-received announcement, said Gabriela Siller, director of economic analysis of the local financial group Banco Base.

However, Siller said the markets' concern “has not disappeared” as worries mount around the proposed controversial judicial reform.

Sheinbaum chose Juan Ramón de la Fuente as her secretary of foreign affairs.


De la Fuente, 72, is the former rector of Mexico’s largest university, the public National Autonomous University of Mexico, or UNAM, which Sheinbaum attended and worked at.

He has served as Mexico’s ambassador to the United Nations under López Obrador and is known for a calm and diplomatic demeanor.

He was health secretary in the late 1990s. Trained as a psychiatrist, De la Fuente is good at listening and has an academic air, like Sheinbaum herself. He served in the key position as her transition coordinator, so he's as close to her as anyone.

Mexico's current foreign affairs secretary, Alicia Bárcena, will now serve as secretary of environment and natural resources.

Sheinbaum said Thursday she will create a new ministry overseeing science, humanities, technology and innovation. For that role, she chose Rosaura Ruiz Gutiérrez, a biologist who previously led the school of sciences at UNAM. Ruiz Gutiérrez had also been Mexico City’s secretary of education while Sheinbaum was mayor.

Sheinbaum tapped Ernestina Godoy, who was the chief prosecutor for Mexico City when Sheinbaum was mayor, to be her administration’s legal adviser.

Julio Berdegué Sacristán, an agronomist with a long academic trajectory, was her choice for the secretary of agriculture and rural development.

Sheinbaum said she would present more Cabinet picks next week.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-americ



IDENTIFIES THE NEWLY-NAMED MINISTERS - Incoming President Claudia Sheinbaum, center, poses for a group photo with members of her newly named Cabinet, in Mexico City, Thursday, June 20, 2024. Pictured from left to right: Ernestina Godoy, legal advisor, Alicia Bárcena, secretary of environment and natural resources, Juan Ramón de la Fuente, foreign affairs secretary, Marcelo Ebrard, economy secretary, Rosaura Ruiz, appointed to a new ministry overseeing science, humanities, technology and innovation, and Julio Berdegué Sacristán, secretary of agriculture and rural development. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)Read More


Mexico’s former Foreign Affairs Secretary Marcelo Ebrard speaks at the press conference announcing incoming President Claudia Sheinbaum’s Cabinet members, in Mexico City, Thursday, June 20, 2024. Sheinbaum, right, chose Ebrard as her administration’s economy secretary. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)


Juan Ramón de la Fuente, appointed as foreign affairs secretary, attends the press conference announcing incoming President Claudia Sheinbaum’s Cabinet members, in Mexico City, Thursday, June 20, 2024. De la Fuente, 72, is the former rector of Mexico’s largest university, the public National Autonomous University of Mexico, which Sheinbaum attended and worked at. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

Alicia Bárcena, appointed as secretary of environment and natural resources, attends the press conference announcing incoming President Claudia Sheinbaum’s Cabinet members, in Mexico City, Thursday, June 20, 2024. Bárcena is the current foreign affairs secretary. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

What Putin and Kim’s military pact means for the rest of the world

In a pool photograph distributed by the Russian state agency Sputnik, Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un toast during a reception at the Mongnangwan Reception House in Pyongyang on June 19, 2024. Putin enjoyed a red carpet welcome, a military ceremony and an embrace from North Korea’s Kim Jong Un during a state visit to Pyongyang where they both pledged to forge closer ties. 

(Vladimir Smirnov/Pool/AFP) / — Editor’s note : this image is distributed by the Russian state owned agency Sputnik

By TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE | Tribune News Service
PUBLISHED: June 20, 2024 
Soo-Hyang Choi and Jon Herskovitz | (TNS) Bloomberg News

Russia and North Korea revived a deal struck during the Cold War when their leaders met in Pyongyang this week and agreed to come to each other’s defense if they are ever attacked. The deal is likely a reward for Kim Jong Un for supplying massive amounts of munitions to help Vladimir Putin in his war on Ukraine. How it will be actually implemented is still a question, but the pact sets Russia and North Korea on a path that keeps them in lockstep as they try to vex the U.S. and its partners.

1. What did the two agree to?

They agreed to immediately provide “military and other assistance” if either of them is attacked. Dubbed the Treaty on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, it is similar to a 1961 deal signed during the Cold War which was scrapped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The level of assistance the two sides will provide each other is unclear. Putin and Kim also agreed to take joint measures to strengthen their defense capabilities and expand cooperation in trade and investment — all of which could be in violation of international sanctions. The treaty will be effective indefinitely until either of them seeks its expiration.

2. What’s in it for North Korea?

Kim gets an ally with a nuclear arsenal to back him up. It also means he can continue to pursue his own atomic ambitions with Russia using its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block any new sanctions. Putin said the treaty sets the stage for boosting their cooperation in trade, investment as well as in security matters for the long term, all of which are what North Korea wants. Kim needs cash, commodities and technology to help with his plans to build a nuclear-powered submarine and deploy an array of spy satellites. North Korea’s economy was estimated by South Korea’s central bank to have been worth about $24.5 billion in 2022, and any assistance makes a big difference. Russia has so far provided North Korea with food, raw materials and parts used in weapons manufacturing, South Korean Defense Minister Shin Wonsik has said. If the arms transfers grow, Russia will likely send more military technology, increasing Pyongyang’s threat to the region, Shin said.

3. Why did Putin reach the deal?

In the near term, Putin rests assured that he can tap North Korea for weapons that allow him to keep up his grinding war on Ukraine. He has already received millions of artillery shells and scores of ballistic missiles, Shin said in an interview with Bloomberg News. The pact is a way to show defiance of the U.S. and its partners in the face of sanctions. How much Putin will commit to the actual defense of North Korea is another matter. The Soviet Union did not fully commit to fight on behalf of North Korea during the 1950-1953 Korean War, and stepping into a conflict now would almost certainly mean taking on a U.S.-led coalition.


“Russian diplomats will likely be telling other governments not to worry and that they won’t do anything stupid — that Putin is just paying Kim off with a show, with meaningless gestures,” Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations said in comments posted on a CFR webpage. “What we don’t know is what’s been promised in secret — or will be promised over time,” he wrote.

4. How does this affect the U.S.?

The U.S. has to recalculate what might happen if it uses weapons against North Korea. An option discussed during the Trump administration was a “bloody nose” strike on North Korea designed to hit a key facility or two and remind Kim that his antiquated military is no match for America’s might. The deal means the U.S. has to plan for the contingency of a Russian response. The pact also makes it easier for Kim to ignore Washington’s call to return to nuclear talks, where aid is offered in exchange for him winding down his atomic arsenal. “What we’re most worried about — Russian sharing and transfer of weapons technology to North Korea and the consequential proliferation — would also be in the realm of possibilities,” said Soo Kim, a former Korea analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency who now works at U.S.-based management consulting firm LMI.

5. Does this mean North Korea will send soldiers to fight in Ukraine?

North Korea for years has supplied workers to Russia — mostly in its Far East for forestry and construction projects — in return for hard cash. But sending troops to fight against Ukraine may be a bridge too far for Kim. Instead, he could dispatch workers to parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia. Since Putin demands that his invasion be called a “special military operation” it could be difficult for him to invoke the pact, unless there is a significant attack on the Russian homeland.

___

©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Why the deal between North Korea and Russia falls short in bid to create ‘axis of impunity’ to rival Nato

Analysis: Experts say deal between Putin and Kim could have major military implications, despite its limitations

Shweta Sharma

THE INDEPENDENT UK

June 20,2024

Vladimir Putin’s military pact with Kim Jong-un represents a “pariah partnership” between two countries that are emerging as key components of an autocratic, anti-Western “axis of impunity”, experts say.

During his meeting with the North Korean leader on Wednesday, Putin signed a “comprehensive partnership agreement”, marking a significant breakthrough and upgrade in a relationship that had been gathering dust until Russia launched the Ukraine war.

Isolated on the international stage with Western sanctions taking a toll on the Russian economy, Putin has been casting around for ways to alleviate the pressure and feed his war machine. Western intelligence agencies say Moscow has begun importing large volumes of North Korean arms in exchange for basic food supplies and technological knowhow.

Rachel Lee, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center’s Korea programme, told The Independent that the treaty “has the potential to have major military implications in the region”.

Putin, left, speaks as Kim listens to him during a state reception after their talks in Pyongyang, North Korea, on Wednesday (AP)

The agreement includes a clause where the two countries have agreed to provide "mutual assistance in the event of aggression" against either country, said Putin.

But the Russian leader, who has continued to call his full-scale war against Ukraine a “military operation” since 2022, did not spell out what would constitute aggression or what assistance would be required under the treaty.

North Korean state media published the text of the deal on Thursday but it provides only a little more clarity. Article 4 of the deal states that if either of the countries is invaded and pushed into a state of war, the other must deploy “all means at its disposal without delay” to provide “military and other assistance”.

Dr Colin Alexander, a political communications expert at Nottingham Trent University, told The Independent that the wording of the deal was kept deliberately vague.

“This is to encourage caution by those who may wish to attack Russia or North Korea either in direct military confrontation or in underhand moves that Moscow and Pyongyang have the liberty of interpreting as aggression,” Alexander said, adding that this could be anything from a cyberattack to reconnaissance surveillance or sabotage.

Putin and Kim Jong-un talk to each other as they walk after a signing ceremony in Pyongyang, North Korea (AP)

Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul, said the deal was “a cynical effort to legitimise cooperation between Russia and North Korea in evading sanctions”.

But while their collaboration is often presented as a counterweight to the West, North Korea and Russia’s ability to uphold such a deal is neither credible nor durable like the US alliances with Japan, South Korea and Nato countries, Easley says, given “Pyongyang and Moscow lack the [necessary] shared institutions, rule of law, and functional interdependence” to be considered genuine allies.

The deal has angered South Korea, which has said it will review its decision not to supply arms to Ukraine in response.

It describes the agreement as a direct threat to its security. Bolstered by the backing it has received from Russia since Putin and Kim’s last summit in September in Vladivostok, the Kim regime has intensified military activities on its border with South Korea and a 2019 peace agreement has been suspended by both sides.

All smiles as the leaders’ fledgling friendship is on full display at a rally in Pyongyang (Getty)

Pyongyang has since begun frenzied development at the Military Demarcation Line, already a heavily armed border that separates the two Koreas.

On the eve of Putin’s visit, “multiple” North Korean soldiers were killed in land mine blasts while laying explosives. That was just days after the South Korean military fired warning shots after some North Korean soldiers crossed the MDL and entered the demilitarised zone, a 2.5-mile-wide buffer between the two countries.

Easley said that while attention was focused on “Putin‘s pariah partnerships”, the Kim regime is “recklessly endangering soldiers with rushed construction work at the inter-Korean border”.

Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un drive an Aurus car in Pyongyang (KCNA/ AP)

Alexander said a “stronger or emboldened North Korea” could potentially increase the threat level in the Korean peninsula, though ultimately this deal does not change the fundamental dynamics in the region – Beijing remains the most important ally for both Russia and North Korea.

“The main powerbroker in the region remains China and they continue to desire a buffer state between themselves and the 30,000 US troops and armaments in South Korea,” he said.

The treaty has drawn comparisons to Nato, but Alexander said it “does not appear to be one of the same strength of what Nato has, which says ‘an attack on one member is an attack on all members’”.

The wording of Article 4 of the new treaty restores a near-identical clause from a USSR-North Korea treaty signed in 1961, which was replaced by one in 2000 that offered weaker security assurances.

Lee said we should be “level-headed about the practical implications” of this change, however, given that earlier security clause was never actually invoked.

Has France's far right really changed? National Rally revises past positions 

• FRANCE 24 English

French President Emmanuel Macron decided to take a punt by calling snap elections. Now will voters do the same? For all its insistence that it’s no longer far right, for all its reversals and reviews on issues like pension reform and support for Ukraine, the cornerstone of Marine Le Pen’s party remains identity politics and the notion of national preference – a brand unseen in France’s high halls of power since the Nazi occupation of World War II.

 

Most Ukrainians displaced by the war plan to return home when it is safe, research shows

by King's College London

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

More than 4 million Ukrainians were forced to flee following the invasion of their homeland by Russian forces in February 2022, with the vast majority heading to neighboring countries and other European nations.

Research tracking the evolving plans and integration outcomes of Ukrainians across Europe shows that around the start of this year, 58% said they still plan to return home when it is safe and 7% want to go back to Ukraine soon. Only 8% planned to settle outside of Ukraine.

The study, for which 11,783 Ukrainian refugees were surveyed, was launched in June 2022. It was led by Dr. Cevat Giray Aksoy, of the Department of Political Economy at King's, in partnership with the research and survey agency Verian. Dr. Aksoy and his team tracked the changing plans of the refugees over a period of 18 months, recording their location, return plans, and integration efforts such as work, training, or study.

Their work revealed that, initially, two-thirds of those surveyed intended to return home when conditions became safe, though that percentage continued to fall as time passed. Notably, 33% of those who planned to return soon have already done so, while none who intended to settle permanently abroad have returned.

The survey also showed the liberation of a refugee's home district significantly increased their likelihood of returning. However, intense conflict in their home municipalities reduced the probability of returning to those specific areas, although it did not deter return to Ukraine in general.

Using the same survey, a study by Dr. Aksoy and his-co-authors also highlighted that refugees who do not intend to return to Ukraine invested more in acquiring local human capital, such as language skills and labor market integration, with those whose districts remained occupied by Russians were more likely to invest in their integration due to lower return intentions.

The study authors said, "The success of post-war reconstruction and development efforts in Ukraine will depend crucially on the quantity and quality of the available human capital. The Ukrainian population had been declining even before the Russian invasion, with deaths outnumbering births annually since 1991.

"Furthermore, pervasive corruption and low confidence in the judiciary—underscored by Ukraine's ranking of 104th out of 180 countries in the 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index—act as deterrents to return migration."

"A critical challenge for Ukraine will be to leverage the common purpose fostered by the war to drive broader institutional and cultural changes. By addressing these challenges, Ukraine can enhance the appeal of returning for refugees and effectively utilize their human capital in the post-war rebuilding process," said Dr. Aksoy and co-authors.

More information: Understanding return intentions and integration of Ukrainian refugees. cepr.org/voxeu/columns/underst … n-ukrainian-refugees

Provided by King's College London 

Specific characteristics of Ukrainian refugees linked to tendency to move farther west

Dictator on Day One?
Trump’s grand plans for
the federal bureaucracy

The aim to gut the US civil service and install
political appointees could happen. But not overnight.

Former president Donald Trump hands out MAGA hats during an off-the-record stop at a McDonald’s restaurant in East Palestine, Ohio, 22 February 2023 (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

SAMUEL GARRETT

LOWY INSTITUTE

Published 21 Jun 2024

United States

In his last months as president, Donald Trump signed an executive order with the potential to upend the modern US federal bureaucracy. Known as “Schedule F”, the order laid out sweeping plans to strip upwards of 50,000 public servants of civil service protections and convert them into easily fireable political appointees. Joe Biden repealed the executive order just days after taking office in 2021, but four years later, Schedule F is back in the headlines. In Trump’s bid for re-election, the reinstatement of Schedule F appointments has become a key part of his plan to “dismantle the Deep State”, and Trump-aligned organisations have pre-vetted thousands of candidates who could fill such positions.

Reinstating Schedule F appointments on Day One of a second Trump presidency would not be so simple.

The creation of Schedule F appointments could represent more than a ten-fold increase in the number of political appointees in the civil service, ostensibly increasing Trump’s personal and ideological sway over government functioning. Some suggest that such an increase in political appointments could damage government accountability and capacity, compromise a nonpartisan bureaucracy, and precipitate a return to the US political spoils system of a century ago.

But reinstating Schedule F appointments on Day One of a second Trump presidency would not be so simple.
The bureaucratic hurdles to reshaping the bureaucracy

Trump’s 2020 order provided 210 days for agencies to finalise lists of “policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating” bureaucrats who could be reclassified as newly created “Schedule F” employees, with preliminary lists to be submitted within three months. Just two agencies managed to draft and submit proposed lists of affected employees within the three-month deadline. Seven more agencies requested additional time to comply with the order.

Biden’s upcoming inauguration and expected repeal of Schedule F undoubtedly slowed compliance with the order (and likely explains the apparent inaction of the vast majority of other federal agencies). But the haphazard agency submissions also reflect the enormously time-consuming administrative task of reviewing tens of thousands of positions. These lengthy bureaucratic hurdles would again have to be cleared if Schedule F were reinstated, which would require another months-long period for agencies to have sufficient time to finalise affected staff. This would delay the implementation of a Day One order by months, even in a best case scenario for a second Trump administration.

Over the last four years, Congress has failed to pass multiple bills that would have insulated the civil service from Schedule F reforms entirely (Louis Velazquez/Unsplash)
Unwinding new rules would take time

Under Biden, the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which manages the federal civil service, issued a new federal rule in April 2024 that is directly aimed at preventing the reinstatement of Schedule F. The rule specifies that career protections cannot be involuntarily removed from federal employees, narrowly defines policy-relevant positions, and creates an appeals process for employees whose positions are involuntarily reclassified. Unless and until the rule is rescinded, Schedule F would be impossible to implement in its previous form. Biden administration officials have lauded the change, with Biden calling it a “step toward combatting corruption and partisan interference”.

A future Trump administration would undoubtedly seek to unwind the Biden-era rule. Yet legally this would require a lengthy formal process of public notice, comment and drafting, unless the administration could demonstrate that doing so is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”. A Trump-led OPM would also have to show (potentially before a court) that the repeal of the rule is justified and beneficial. At each stage, legal challenges from unions and civil society groups are likely, potentially limiting the order’s reach and almost certainly further delaying its implementation.

Trump’s repeated attacks on “Deep Staters” and “rogue bureaucrats” would likely provoke uncertainty and turnover in the wider bureaucracy, as was the case during his first term.

A Trump administration’s ability to fill tens of thousands of positions also remains to be seen. Slowed by a dysfunctional White House Presidential Personnel Office and Trump’s apparent disinterest, Trump had filled just half of the existing 4,000 political appointments already available to him by the end of his first year in office, despite having received tens of thousands of applications. This suggests that a second Trump administration would struggle to fill all 50,000 slated Schedule F positions with political loyalists, even with the benefit of pre-vetting. Nevertheless, Trump’s repeated attacks on “Deep Staters” and “rogue bureaucrats” would likely provoke uncertainty and turnover in the wider bureaucracy, as was the case during his first term.
The limits of federal regulation

While federal rules may delay implementation, it is legislation that would be most effective at limiting Schedule F reforms. Over the last four years, Congress has failed to pass multiple bills that would have insulated the civil service from Schedule F reforms entirely, including when Democrats controlled both chambers. The 2023 Saving the Civil Service Act currently before the Republican-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Accountability faces little prospect of passing a Congress that is filled with Republican lawmakers — including House Speaker Mike Johnson — who have expressed their support for Schedule F.

In the absence of legislation that constrains executive action, administrative hurdles would likely ensure that the federal government’s current overarching structure remains intact for at least the first year of a second Trump term. But beyond that, without Congressional action, the chief executive’s authority over the federal workforce could be set to dramatically expand if Trump wins re-election in November.

A second Trump term could actually make inflation worse 

BY NICHOLAS SARGEN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/24/24 - THE HILL

With the presidential election less than six months away and Donald Trump leading in key swing states, investors and the public are fixated on high inflation. 

The prevalent view is that inflation was low during Trump’s presidency, and Biden’s economic policies are to blame for the substantial price increases during the past three years. Consequently, many people presume inflation will be lower if Trump wins the presidency than if Biden is reelected. 

This assessment may not pan out, however, for two reasons.  

One consideration is that global inflation was much lower during Trump’s presidency than today. For example, from 2017 to 2020, consumer price inflation averaged only 1.5 percent per annum in the advanced economies (versus 1.8 percent in the U.S.) according to International Monetary Fund data.  

Moreover, both the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank were concerned about the threat of price deflation then, and they pursued negative interest-rate policies, while U.S. interest rates were low but positive.

During the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation subsequently spiked in the U.S. and abroad due to supply chain shortages and policies to counter higher unemployment. While the pace eased considerably last year, U.S. inflation has proved sticky of late and is running at about 3-3.5 percent. If it stays elevated and Trump wins the election, he would have to contend with inflation that is above the Fed’s 2 percent target for the first time. 

The second consideration is that the economic policies Trump and his advisors are considering could exacerbate inflation. 

In a recent Project Syndicate commentary, Maurice Obstfeld, former chief economist of the IMF, contends that several policy proposals that Trump’s advisors have floated would revive 1970s-style inflation. One proposal would increase presidential influence over Fed interest-rate decisions and rulemaking, while another calls for weakening the U.S. dollar to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. 

The proposal relating to the Fed’s independence was cited in a Wall Street Journal story. It claimed a group of Trump allies produced a secret document that outlined a way for Trump to be consulted on interest rate decisions while Fed regulations would be subject to White House review.  

Although the story has not been corroborated, Trump has long favored low-interest rate policies to spur the economy. During his presidency, he criticized the Fed openly for not pursuing negative interest rate policies as Japan and the European Union had done. However, Trump stopped short of challenging the independence of the Fed in order not to roil financial markets. 

The proposal on international trade and the dollar has been linked to Robert Lighthizer, who served as special trade representative in Trump’s administration and is a potential candidate for Treasury secretary. He was also the architect of the decision to increase tariffs on China and other trading partners that Trump pursued.  

More recently, Lighthizer wrote a book that foresees taking an even bolder stance in which the goal would be to eliminate global trade imbalances altogether. He would do so by devaluing the dollar and increasing tariffs across the board.  

Obstfeld counters that with the U.S. economy already at full employment and the Fed seeking to contain inflation, policies designed to weaken the dollar and/or to increase tariffs would drive up import prices and boost inflation. They would also pose a risk to the bond market and stock market in my view. 

Nor is massive currency market intervention a viable way to depreciate the dollar. The last attempt to do so was the Plaza Accord of 1985. Since then, the daily turnover in foreign exchange markets has soared close to $8 trillion, which makes coordinated intervention impractical today. 

This leaves changes in monetary policies as the most effective way to impact the dollar. However, if the Fed were to ease monetary policy prematurely it could backfire and cause investors to sell dollar-denominated bonds, which would boost yields on them. 

As Obstfeld observes, the principal reason inflation has receded from its highs is the Federal Reserve raised interest rates aggressively and has kept them at elevated levels.  

He concludes: “These positive developments would have been impossible in a world where monetary policy was politicized, under presidential control and focused on the dollar’s external value than its far more crucial internal value.” 

The clearest example of White House interference in monetary policy occurred ahead of the 1972 election when President Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low as money supply growth and the economy accelerated. When wage and price controls were eliminated in 1973, inflation spiked to nearly 10 percent. It contributed to the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates and was followed by a decade of financial market turbulence. 

Weighing these considerations, investors should assess how committed Donald Trump would be to rein in inflation if he is elected president. While Trump was the beneficiary of a benign inflation environment globally during his presidency, there is little to indicate his policies contributed to low U.S. inflation: Witness the $8.4 trillion increase in federal debt that occurred, his jawboning of the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and the increase in tariffs that raised import prices.   

Looking ahead, the key risks are that the Fed could face political pressure to lower interest rates and global investors could lose confidence in the dollar if the proposals of Trump’s advisors are implemented. 

Nicholas Sargen, Ph.D. is an economic consultant and is affiliated with the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. He has written three books including “Investing in the Trump Era: How Economic Policies Impact Financial Markets.” 

Opinion

Trump's plans for a second term: Raise prices on everything

The former president keeps proposing ideas that would make inflation worse.


By Ryan Teague Beckwith, 

Newsletter Editor

MSNBC
May 9, 2024

Donald Trump has long cited his economics degree from the prestigious Wharton School as evidence of his “super genius stuff” skills in business.

But if he were a student there right now, he’d get a failing grade for his proposals’ effects on rising prices.

With polls showing that inflation remains a top concern among voters, the presumptive Republican nominee has somehow put together a campaign platform featuring multiple proposals that would raise prices on everything from groceries to new cars, both directly and indirectly.

Some of the ideas would lead to higher prices as a side effect of tackling some other issue. Some might make sense if economic conditions were different. And some come from the oddball theories of his motley assortment of advisers.

Lowering interest rates in the current environment would supercharge spending, spurring demand and, again, leading to higher prices for consumers.

But added together, they amount to a massive own goal on one of the most important policy issues in the 2024 presidential election, with Trump undercutting one of his strongest arguments against President Joe Biden’s performance.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but stick with us and we’ll walk through it step by step.

Lesson No. 1: Tariffs lead to higher prices

In recent decades, tariffs fell out of favor as the U.S. embraced free trade, allowing other countries to sell their goods cheaply here in return for American companies selling their wares overseas.

Trump, who brought tariffs back into the mainstream, now wants to impose a 10% “universal tariff” on all imports, plus a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and a 100% tariff on foreign cars.

But, as I’ve explained before, foreign companies respond to tariffs by raising the prices on their products sold in the U.S. The result? American consumers would pay more.

Lesson No. 2: Low interest rates lead to higher prices

When inflation is high, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, making loans more expensive. That helps cool the economy, reducing the demand that is driving prices higher.

Some Trump allies are reportedly drawing up plans to put the traditionally independent Federal Reserve more under the president’s control. And Trump has long made clear that he would actually prefer lower interest rates.

But lowering interest rates in the current environment would supercharge spending, spurring demand and, again, leading to higher prices for consumers.

Lesson No. 3: Tax cuts can lead to higher prices

When taxes go down, people have more money in their pocket, and they’re likely to spend more of it. That’s not a bad thing; governments facing a recession will often cut taxes to boost spending and get things back on track.

In his campaign, Trump has proposed making permanent the individual and estate tax cuts from his 2017 bill that are set to expire and keeping the corporate income tax rate at 21%.

There are all kinds of arguments on both sides about the wisdom of these proposals (and Biden wants to cut some taxes, too) but suffice to say, they would probably end up boosting spending and increasing demand. Coming on top of Trump’s other inflationary proposals, that would likely lead to higher prices as well.


MAGA sales tax: The Trump plan to make everything more expensive
06:59

Trump promises to extend tax cuts for billionaires

Lesson No. 4: Fewer workers leads to higher prices

When you buy something at the store, a big chunk of the price is determined by how much the company had to pay its workers. When the labor pool is tight, as it is right now, salaries go up, and so do prices. Again, not always a bad thing.

But Trump’s hard-line immigration plans would further shrink the labor force. He’s proposed tightening worker visas, changing immigration laws, cutting the number of refugees and rolling back Temporary Protected Status designations. He has also proposed large-scale raids and deportations of potentially millions of undocumented immigrants.

Depending on the scale and success of these various proposals, the U.S. labor force could be reduced dramatically as a result, again, leading to higher prices.
Lesson No. 5: A weak dollar leads to higher prices

Everyone loves the dollar. When foreign investors get nervous, they exchange their own currency for the greenback. When foreign leaders want to keep their currency stable, they tie its value to the dollar. All of this has led to what is called the “strong dollar.”

A top Trump adviser has called for undoing that, seeking to devalue the dollar in an effort to boost U.S. exports.

The resulting “weak dollar” would have complicated effects on the global economy, but a major side effect here in the U.S. would be to make imports even more expensive. Again: higher prices.

In conclusion, prices would rise under Trump

On their own, these proposals can be defended by reasonable people. Economics is complex, and there are always trade-offs. But each of them just happens to have a downside of raising prices at a time when high inflation is a major concern for voters. As the terminally online might put it: Tariffs? In this economy?

These proposals also wouldn’t happen in isolation. If Trump succeeds with all of these plans, American consumers will pay more for imported goods, while the economy overheats due to increased spending, right as domestic manufacturers find themselves paying more in labor costs due to worker shortages. Then there’s the risk of trade wars and global economic turmoil caused by massive shifts in U.S. policy. All of this points to higher and higher prices.

The economic misery that would bring would end up being studied for years to come in textbooks bought by students at Trump’s alma mater of Wharton.

“Super genius stuff” indeed.

Ryan Teague Beckwith
Ryan Teague Beckwith is a newsletter editor for MSNBC. He has previously worked for such outlets as TIME magazine, Bloomberg News and CQ Roll Call. He teaches journalism at Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies.

5 Reasons a Trump Second Term Could Be a Financial Headache for Millennials AND THE REST

Vance Cariaga
Sun, Jun 16, 2024,

Millennials represent a key voting bloc in the 2024 presidential election — and one with a lot at stake. The oldest millennials are heading into their mid-40s, while the youngest are approaching their 30s. Regardless of whether President Joe Biden or ex-President Donald Trump wins, their policies will have a major impact on millennials as they enter an important life stage in terms of earning power, taxes, home ownership and family expenses.

Trending Now: 5 Changes That Could Be Coming for the Middle Class If Biden Is Reelected in 2024

Although younger voters tend to favor Democrats, many millennials are disenchanted with both Biden and Trump. The age gap between the candidates and millennials has something to do with that, but so does a disconnect between what the candidates propose and what millennials value culturally, politically and financially.

Should Trump win a second term in November, some of his policies could lead to a number of financial headaches for millennials.

Here’s a look at some of them.

An End to Student Loan Relief

The Biden administration has already canceled more than $150 billion in student debt for 4.3 million borrowers, Business Insider reported — and that’s without Biden’s ambitious loan forgiveness plan making it into law. The administration intends to pursue other student loan forgiveness options in the future if Biden wins another term. But if Trump should win, those efforts will likely come to a screeching halt, meaning millennials with heavy student debt will have few, if any, options for relief.

Learn More: What Is the Median Household Income for the Upper Middle Class in 2024?

Support for Tariffs Could Keep Inflation High…

One cornerstone of the Trump campaign is his promise to impose tariffs on trillions of dollars’ worth of imports. Such a move is designed to strengthen U.S.-based industries and jobs by discouraging foreign imports. But it could also lead to higher prices on products that are much cheaper to source overseas. Continued high prices would be especially damaging to millennials, who now have mortgages to pay and families to support.

….And So Could Other Trump Policies

As The Hill reported, former International Monetary Fund chief economist Maurice Obstfeld argued that several policy proposals from Trump’s advisors would “revive 1970s-style inflation.” One proposal would give the president more influence over Federal Reserve interest-rate decisions and rulemaking, while the other would weaken the U.S. dollar to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. Again, continued high inflation comes at a bad time for millennials with so many other bills to pay.

Downsized Government

Trump has made no secret of his dislike of the federal government and has promised to abolish whole agencies and fire tens of thousands of government workers. The most immediate impact is that these former government workers — including millennials — would suddenly find themselves unemployed. An indirect result would be more competition for private-sector jobs.

No More Obamacare

Trump has said he hopes to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare, though he has not publicly unveiled an alternate affordable healthcare plan, Business Insider reported. Millions of millennials currently enrolled in Obamacare would have to find alternative healthcare plans, and many of those will cost more money.

What a Second Trump Presidency Could Mean for Your Debt

Andrew Lisa
Mon, May 27, 2024



Between home loans, car loans, student loans, credit card bills and the rest, America owes an arm and a leg. According to the New York Fed, household debt increased by $184 billion in the first quarter of 2024, reaching a record $17.69 trillion.

It’s not hard to understand why.

The defining economic storylines of the Biden economy have been high inflation and the interest rate hikes the Fed has used to tamp it down. However, since the president directly controls neither prices nor rates, will anything change if Donald Trump ousts President Biden in November and wins another four years in the White House?

“A second Trump term could have significant implications for personal debt, based on his past policies and current campaign promises,” said Ryan Jacobs, founder and managing partner of Jacobs Investment Management.

Here’s a look at what a second Trump presidency could mean for your debt.

Deregulation Could Empower Credit Card Companies To Make Revolving Debt More Expensive

The inflation that defined much of the Biden economy forced America to take on more credit card debt to keep up with rising prices. To make matters worse, just as they started charging more frequently, high interest rates made the debt more expensive.

The quarterly New York Fed report from the final quarter of last year indicated widespread financial distress as credit card debt grew by $50 billion to hit a record $1.13 trillion. But what impact could a second Trump term have?

“Trump’s administration previously rolled back certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, which may have impacted consumer protections,” Jacobs said in reference to President Obama’s landmark 2010 banking bill that imposed strict regulations on lenders in the wake of the Great Recession. “A second term might continue this trend, potentially leading to fewer regulations for credit card companies. This could result in higher interest rates and fees for consumers, although supporters argue it could also increase credit availability.”

Reduced Red Tape Could Make Mortgages Easier To Obtain but Riskier To Hold

According to the Cato Institute, one of Dodd-Frank’s “unintended consequences” for housing was that the law “imposed more overhead costs on each specific loan” and took away the incentive for banks to process smaller loans for lower-income borrowers.

Like many Republicans, Trump was on record as despising Dodd-Frank and worked to undermine it early in his presidency.

“Under Trump, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department focused on reducing regulations to stimulate housing markets,” said Jacobs.

More of the same in 2024 could make it easier for you to take on housing debt, which is good if you’re struggling to get a loan you can responsibly assume but bad if it enables dangerous borrowing.

“A continued emphasis on deregulation could make obtaining mortgages easier for some, but it might also increase the risk of higher interest rates and fewer consumer protections, potentially impacting those with less favorable credit,” said Jacobs.

Student Borrowers Should Expect Little Relief From an Adversarial Administration

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the “student debt crisis would likely worsen under a second Trump administration.”

The organization reports that for the first time, America’s $1.6 trillion college debt actually declined over the last year thanks to President Biden’s policies, which forgave a significant amount of student debt and made it easier for borrowers to repay. The president achieved these measures despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of his 2021 plan to cancel more than $400 billion in federal student aid.

Those policies are almost certain to stop if Trump is re-elected, as the former president has vowed to roll back Biden’s initiatives and quash any attempt to let student borrowers off the hook for loans they signed for and agreed to repay.

“Changes to federal student loan forgiveness programs could affect those relying on these benefits,” said Jacobs.

Deregulation Will Spur the Most Change, and the Results Will Be a Mixed Bag

Interest rates have the most immediate impact on borrowers. When they’re low, loans are cheap and people can afford to borrow more. When they’re high, borrowers have to pinch their budgets and settle for less home, less car and less college to make room for hefty finance charges — but presidents don’t control interest rates.

Therefore, any impact Trump has on the system will come mostly from his ability to loosen regulations.

“Overall, Trump’s focus on deregulation could lead to a mixed impact on personal debt,” said Jacobs. “While some consumers might benefit from easier access to credit and loans, others might face higher costs and reduced protections. It’s essential for individuals to stay informed about policy changes and manage their personal finances accordingly.”