Trump says he will double tariffs on Canada metals to 50%. - eviltoast
Just a moment...
www.rte.ie

US President Donald Trump has today announced massive new tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium, while threatening to “shut down” its car industry and saying the best way to end the trade war was for Washington’s ally to be absorbed into the US.

  • ceenote@lemmy.worldEnglish
    116·
    21 hours ago

    He’s probably having his stock broker sell off a bunch of stuff, announcing tariffs, then buying back. His stock transactions should be public record while president.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        3 hours ago

        Prior presidents had their assets placed in blind trusts, and they didn’t know where they were invested. They didn’t even know how wealthy they were until they left office.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        28·
        18 hours ago

        Thank you! It’s ridiculous how much even people opposed to Trump have allowed him to frame the debate.

        Fucker should’ve been impeached and removed on Inauguration Day – 2017, let alone 2025 – for Emoluments Clause violations alone.

      • Zink@programming.devEnglish
        13·
        17 hours ago

        Holding public office is supposed to be an act of service. All federal and probably all state politicians and their staff should not be allowed to own any individual stocks or companies, including any mutual funds without diverse holdings. And the right people to lead would be glad to do it and to transparently demonstrate their compliance.

        But nope. The system is designed to attract and reward scumbags. Mainstream society tells us that loathsome narcissistic sociopaths who happen to accumulate a large net worth are the pinnacle of human existence and we should be thanking them for dragging us out of the dark ages.

      • ThePantser@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        162·
        20 hours ago

        This should go for all citizens, if you trade then it should be public record. We should be able to see everyone’s stock history in case they ever run for office we can look at their trading history to look for conflicts of interest.

        • Carmakazi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          171·
          20 hours ago

          That’s a stretch. Normal citizens buying some nominal amount of shares of Company XYZ 5 years ago doesn’t mean there’s a conflict of interest now, especially if they were sold just as long ago. For if someone might run for office? 99.5% of people won’t.

          It’s just undue surveillance on normal people.

    • DarkWinterNights@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      19 hours ago

      Confirmed already; $1-5M lunch buy-ins with corporate execs per head - the topic? Tariff exemptions.

      Who cares about billions and trillions of wealth destruction of the public coffers when he can make millions per day personally?

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      6·
      20 hours ago

      His stock transactions should be public record while president.

      I think that it may be.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

      The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–105 (text) (PDF), S. 2038, 126 Stat. 291, enacted April 4, 2012) is an Act of Congress designed to combat insider trading. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 4, 2012. The law prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading, by members of Congress and other government employees. It confirms changes to the Commodity Exchange Act, specifies reporting intervals for financial transactions.

      The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S. 716. This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, the Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress.[23]

      That being said, my guess is that there are probably trivial ways to game the transparency portion of the bill. Like, if I own a business, and the business holds stock rather than myself directly, I’ll bet that no disclosure is required. And I bet that if you have a spouse or kids doing transactions, no disclosure is required.

      Could still get in trouble for insider trading if it could be proven that you were doing so.

      kagis

      From Trump’s first term:

      https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506497041/trumps-businesses-could-be-tripped-up-by-a-2012-insider-trading-law

      “If he continues to own his businesses and he uses insider information, or information he has as president, then arguably it’s a violation of the STOCK Act,” says Larry Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group.

      Trump has repeatedly said that he plans to turn over management of his businesses to his grown children once he is in the White House and play no role in operations himself.

      “The STOCK Act says all executive branch employees are subject to the securities laws, Trump included,” says New York University Law School professor Stephen Gillers.

      The STOCK Act originally applied to the buying and selling of securities, such as stocks and bonds. But some legal experts say privately held companies such as the Trump Organization could also fall under its purview, especially if Trump transfers ownership to his children.

      Because presidents are privy to an enormous amount of information that could affect stock prices, Trump would risk passing on inside information anytime he talks to his children, even if he doesn’t intend to. That could open Trump, his children and businesses up to nearly constant allegations of insider trading.

      Haven’t been following the issue since then.