What if a Republican president decided to make it easier for businesses to ignore the president’s threats to take away their workers’ health care and impose tariffs on goods?
This would be an unprecedented abuse of power.
The president can’t take away your healthcare and impose an unnecessary tariff on your product.
This is not a legitimate threat.
So why don’t you take it?
You know what would be the best response?
To fight back.
This isn’t the first time Trump has threatened to do just that.
He has repeatedly threatened to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities and to force the United States to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
But there are signs that Trump’s threat of mass violence has been largely muted by a Democratic president who is seeking to restore U.S. influence in the world.
For example, when he signed the first executive order banning immigrants and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries, he did so with a statement saying that he had “full confidence” in the executive order.
That’s the same kind of confidence the president showed in the first days of his presidency when he promised to sign a “travel ban” that would block immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, as well as from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Trump has also repeatedly suggested that he would “dismantle” the United Nations and even called for a “complete and total shutdown” of the agency he controls, the Office of Management and Budget.
In a March interview with CNN, Trump said that the UN was “trying to impose its will on me” and said that he didn’t want to have to negotiate with it, even though he had said repeatedly that he supported its mission.
What would be Trump’s response if he had actually tried to impose his will?
If he did try to impose an order on the world that would have the effect of stripping federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, it would be his first major foreign policy blunder since becoming president.
This would have devastating consequences.
If the U.N. fails to abide by its obligations under the Geneva Convention, Trump would effectively be violating its charter, which bans international armed conflict.
It also would have a significant impact on U.K. security, which would likely be at risk if Trump were to try to unilaterally declare the country a no-go zone.
If Trump were indeed to go through with this threat, he would not only be making things worse for the United Kingdom, he could be doing the very opposite of what he promised in the campaign: making the United State more dependent on the United Nation.