Read recent US foreign policy trends? Russia pressed Mr. Trump to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin after the tense exchange of diplomatic expulsions last week. Mr. Trump had floated the idea of meeting with Mr. Putin at the White House in a March 20 phone call, a Russian official said. At the time, Mr. Trump had told reporters that he expected to “be seeing President Putin in the not-too-distant future.” But on Friday, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on seven of Russia’s richest men and 17 top government officials, penalties designed to punish Mr. Putin’s inner circle for Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and other global transgressions. It was another indication that as Congress and much of the administration pushes for increased pressure in response to Mr. Putin’s aggressions, Mr. Trump continues to advocate good relations with his Russian counterpart.
Resistance to this proper understanding of China’s position in the international system remains strong. But it is unquestionably the case that both Republicans and Democrats are starting to see China more as a threat than a partner. And it is Donald Trump who is behind this clarification of vision. (Xi Jinping and the pandemic helped too.) Whatever a President Biden might do about China — and he seems far more interested in repairing our alliances in “Old Europe” than in tackling this paramount challenge of the 21st century — he would operate within the constraints Trump established and on the intellectual terrain Trump landscaped.
US Foreign politics and Brexit 2020 latest : After a spring and summer dominated by the pandemic and the lockdown, the U.K. and the EU are back to fighting about Brexit. In other words, nature is healing. The latest fracas between the two feuding divorcées involves the British Internal Markets Bill, which was introduced by Boris Johnson’s government last week. The purpose of the bill is to ensure barrier-free trade between all four constituent nations of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) and to guarantee that other countries have access to the entirety of the U.K. market when they cut trade deals when the British government.
In every instance we adhered to the process explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend. Is Biden saying that McConnell should ignore his sacred constitutional duty? Biden knew then, as he knows now, that there’s no constitutional duty, nor is there any precedent, either prohibiting or requiring Republicans to fill a vacancy. Nor is there any prohibition (as nearly every Democrat has already argued) against “rushing” such a nomination. Three Supreme Court justices have been confirmed with less than 45 days — including Ginsburg, who was nominated by a Democrat and confirmed by a Democrat-majority Senate. As my colleague Dan McLaughlin points out in meticulous historical detail, every real norm points to the Republicans’ filling the vacancy. Discover extra info on https://zetpress.com/.