Trumps Arms America

On Wednesday, President Trump heard emotional stories and pleas from people affected by school shootings to procure higher levels of school safety. Trump brought up the idea of arming teachers and school staff. His idea was met with support from many of those in attendance. 

Some quotes recorded from Trump's meeting were, "If you had a teacher who was adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly," he said, saying that schools could potentially arm up to 20% of their teachers to stop "maniacs" who might try and attack them. "This would be obviously only for people who were very adept at handling a gun, and it would be, it's called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They'd go for special training and they would be there and you would no longer have a gun-free zone" and "Gun-free zone to a maniac -- because they're all cowards -- a gun-free zone is 'let's go in and let's attack because bullets aren't coming back at us.' "

Trump offered some solutions, suggesting more mental institutions and hospitals in addition to the idea of handing weapons to teachers. That to me doesn't sound like enough. Adding mental institutions only helps if there are people around that will be willing to help those children in need. 

One boy said, "I'm not here to debate, but I lost my sister. And like Mr. President said, if you could find 20% of maybe retired law enforcement officers, or a teacher who could go through discreet training to carry a firearm around his waist, it could've been a very different situation," Hunter Pollack, one of Meadow Pollack's brothers. "We need more security, we need more firearms on campus, we need better background checks, and we need to study more on mental health." 

But, like me, others didn't agree with that route. Nicole Hockley, mother of a six-year-old who was killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, told Trump she would rather "arm" teachers with ways to prevent shootings in the first place rather than with a firearm.

We need prevention, not more guns. We need ways to help these violent people before it gets to the point of school shootings. there are ways to fix this without adding more weapons to the equation. Many still seemed to support the President's idea though. Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the 17 victims who died in last week's Florida shooting, said he was speaking Wednesday because his daughter couldn't. "We as a country failed our children," he said. "This shouldn't happen."

He asked how it's possible that America could protect its airports, embassies and even concerts, but not its schools. "How many schools, how many children have to get shot? It stops here with this administration and me. I'm not going to sleep until it is fixed. And Mr. President, we'll fix it. Because I'm going to fix it. I'm not going to rest," he said. Pollack, becoming more upset, said "I'm pissed. It was my daughter I am not going to see again. She is not here. She is not here. She is in North Lauderdale at whatever it is, King David Cemetery, that is where I go to see my kid now."

Any action Trump will take on guns would be a matter of pleasing both parties. His political base of Republican voters largely approves of less gun control actions and the President has obviously enjoyed the support of the NRA.

Trump hasn’t always been affiliated with the NRA. "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun," he wrote in his 2000 book, "The America We Deserve." "With today's Internet technology, we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."

Though he refuted those statements during the campaign, polls show Americans placing blame on Trump and Congress for not doing more on guns. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday found that 62% of respondents said Trump is not doing enough to prevent mass shootings and 77% say Congress is doing an inadequate job on the issue.

Trump guaranteed on Wednesday that his administration would investigate gun purchase ages, as well as the "mental health aspect."

"We're fighting hard for you and we will not stop... I just grieve for you, I feel so -- to me, there could be nothing worse than what you've gone through." He went on saying, "Thank you for pouring out your hearts because the world is watching and we're going to come up with a solution."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/politics/trump-shooting-response-poll/index.html

The U.N. Needs to Address Iran

      A published report from the U.N. released that a panel of experts has revealed they found evidence to confirm that Iran is violating a U.N. weapons embargo. The missiles that were fired by Houthi rebels from Yemen into Saudi Arabia were made in Iran. A number of groups don't want to hear this new information that has been made official. Leaders in Iran don't want this information out because it shows how Iran is violating an international agreement. Supporters of the Iran nuclear deal don’t want to hear this information because it shows, once again, how Iran cannot be trusted. Members of the U.N. don’t want to hear it because it shows that Iran is breaking Security Council Resolutions. There is obviously pressure on the U.N. to do something, and the U.N. should do something. For Iran not to face repercussions for supplying the missiles to Houthi rebels, they would be further enabled to do whatever they want.  

This report has shed light on a whole host of information on what has been going on in Yemen and more intel on the Houthi rebels. Iran’s making of missiles have further contributed to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Over the course of the past 3 years, Yemen has been in a civil war. Roughly 75 percent of the population needs assistance and the Yemen government hardly exists anymore. Iran has supplied weaponry to a more than awful cause. The Houthi rebels have been using the people of Yemen as human shields and kidnapping children to fight in the war. If the U.N. wants to prevent further conflict in the Middle East, they need to address that Iran is the source of the missiles fired into Saudi Arabia. By the U.N. addressing this problem, it gives the world the opportunity to act and intervene to help the people of Yemen. 

The U.N. can even use what the United States has done as an example to the rest of the world. The United States has declassified evidence from missile attacks in Yemen that were carried out from the missiles that were made in Iran that are in violation of the United Nation’s Resolutions. The U.S. has also put pieces of the missile that was intended to hit  civilian airport, Riyadh, on display in the nation’s capitol. On display, you can see how the logos of Iranian manufacturers are on missile pieces. With this evidence and the report published by the U.N., the U.S. has concluded that the missiles were supplied by the Tehran regime. With the United Nations showing that they are on the same page as the world’s superpower, it may provoke other countries to follow suit. 

When the United Nations speaks out against Iran, it would seem they hold responsibility in stopping Iran. If the U.N. speaks out against Iran, but does nothing after, opposers would say there be no point in doing anything at all. This argument has merit, but, Iran has broken an agreement that they said they would uphold. If Iran is not held accountable it shows bad precedent for other nations and the U.N.’s authority. Iran may also have a resurgence of power that makes them feel like they can do whatever they want. Opposers also say that openly discussing how Iran is providing missiles will make things worse for Yemen. There is a fear that Iran could retaliate even further than the embargo if Iran feels like the rest of the world is against them. Their fear is that this could lead to more chaos in Yemen, chaos that is closer to a war, but this fear is short sighted. If the U.N. doesn’t speak out against Iran, they will continue to make the wrong decisions and it will end up in the same place they are fearful of, if not worse. The United Nation’s speaking out against Iran will provide a pathway for forces to join together to stop Iran from creating and supplying missiles. 

If the U.N. confirms that Iran is the supplier of the missiles, it gives the world a chance to act before more civilians are attacked, inciting a military escalation. Iran’s support of dangerous rebel groups has just increased since the sighing of the nuclear agreement that they are now in violation of. Their weapons have turned up in a wide variety of war zones all across the Middle East. Iran continues to perpetuate violence where there should be peace. Speaking out against Iran gives the chance to hold Iran accountable for their agreement to disengage in conflict. If the United Nations does not speak out against the Iran regime, more innocent lives will be lost and the freedom from war will be unattainable. 

Macron's Vision of Sovereignty

      There is a theory in political science that democracy comes in "waves". That is, it comes full force, reaches a climactic peak, and then dies down. This can realistically be said of any trend, from fashion, to food, to even political ideology. Currently, democracy is on the uptick in Europe. After decades of extreme radicalism on both sides of the ideological spectrum, the continent, with the help of French president Emmanuel Macron, is looking to create a single European de facto state that holds democratic values similar to the ones the United States of America was founded on. While Macron can certainly be admired for his passion and idealism, I fear I am going to have to play devil's advocate here. In other words, I refer back to the "waves" theory and, like a true cynic, apply it to this idea proposed by Macron. In other words, it's just a phase.
      For starters, Macron wants to attain this sovereignty, not at a gradual pace, but essentially at the speed of light. In fact, he already has a process of constitutional conventions lined out! As any political scientist knows, you can not obtain legitimacy overnight. State building needs to occur at a slow and steady rate in order to smooth out any rough edges in the making of the constitution. While Macron is a well-known socialist and is clearly a vehicle for change, whether positive or negative, it is also known that Europe has a long-standing history with abuses of power. While I do not believe Macron will lead the European Union into a radical socialist movement, I do believe that it is necessary that Macron not work in isolation. Like American democracy, there must be a process of checks and balances. Unfortunately, if Macron focuses more on speed than content, it is guaranteed that there will be loopholes.
      In addition, Macron must be prepared to deal with collective action problems. Latvia, Hungary, and the Netherlands are hesitant to join, most likely due to fears of losing national identity. He blatantly blew off Britain by claiming that they could not "cherry-pick" the EU rules that it favored. Granted, there is something to be said for cooperation. It ensures that there are no free riders and it also provides a civil opportunity for concerns to be voiced. However, it is clear that that ship has sailed for Britain as they are looking to finalize their exit from the European Union.
      This whole scenario, however toothless, does call into argument the foundation of democracy itself. Emmanuel Macron is a man of the people and for the people. His idea is pure and innocent. He wants all member countries to have a say in the reshaping process, and even for underrepresented states to have a seat at the table after Britain leaves. It has been studied by social scientists that democracy is, unfortunately, on the decline globally, and Macron is definitely aware of this, as his idea stems from all the far-right nationalist movements occurring worldwide. He is going about this in a peaceful way. He does not strike me as one to be keen on adopting George Kennan's policy of containment toward the Soviets, and essentially coercing the members to concede to the change.
      So why should we as Americans invest our time in learning about this process? The answer pertains to author and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. While critical of American exceptionalism, he believes Americans go around and, with an almost religious fervor, attempt to convince Eastern states that democracy is the way to go. This story ought to show Americans that other countries need to experiment with democratic ideals for themselves. While it may not be stable, it still gives other places a chance to get a feel for the ideology without feeling as if their identities have been threatened.

The Russian government lead by Vladimir Putin will not admit to anything, and will deny every allegation put forth, even when there is clear evidence. The Russians meddling in our social media during an election cycle, Crimea, and now Russian’s denying that forces were on the ground in Syria. This disinformation campaign is a new way of warfare, especially now, since these claims involve evidence that had taken place during a war. This is the second time in five years since the Russian government has openly co-sponsored Russian separatist and mercenaries. What I mean by openly is that they do not even care that their citizens are going to Syria; they openly know this and do nothing about it. This should be very alarming to the United States since Syria is foreign policy nightmare. If Russian mercenaries are on the ground and the United States are backing Syria rebels then this officially a proxy war. This action taken by the Russian government also raises many questions. For example: If there weren’t as many that have been killed, would we know about this? Does Putin care if the United States knows? How long before this proxy war becomes war?

I find it very interesting that Russian citizen are doing this, it would be like if private citizens went and fought in Iraq during that war. Even though in recent history private contractors are profiteers on conflict, and the United States being a main beneficiary, this will be escalating. The criticism of Putin shouldn’t be in a form of a question of, “are or is” he doing it, it should be what he is going to do about the 300 Russian citizens that were killed or injured fighting in Syria by United States and Syria Rebels. This information is publicly available, Moscow admits it.  I have not seen one politician say this, the United Nations can assert itself, and maybe it will since they are having a security council meeting soon, but It looks pessimistic.

The United States is also handling this situation terribly, for it is us who are escalating too, for if it was on the flip side, and United States citizens were killed fighting Russian rebels. The international community or at least the United Nations would flare up. We continue to push in that region because our cause seems just. However, this is naive, I can officially say that since my conception the United States military has been in the Middle East, and it doesn’t even come close to a short end. Escalating has been the status quo, and both sides are engaging in an arm wrestle over something that won’t and will never be theirs. At Least in America it is perceived that the public expresses deep resentment toward the military industrial complex, I wonder if in Russia it’s the same.

What we should do about this is to develop an isolationist approach to the Middle East; these have certain conditions that I hope to see. The first is that Isis has to be taken care of soon, second that Kurdish people have some autonomous region, and third that the territory that was taken by Isis or are uninhabitable due to war be redrawn by the international community at large. Then slowly step back from the region, we can still sell them guns, they can still have conflict but we don’t have to be involved, or be responsible for provoking another Cold War. Since Putin will deny anything, the current government must have a tactical approach with micro and macro implications, or in other words stop getting pushed by Putin.

Right now the Syrian conflict has the biggest implications for foreign policy in America since 9-11. To many actors are involved in this dangerous play, the people of that region are mere puppets to the elites of the world. Hopefully this next United States Security Council meeting goes well enough to provide humanitarian aid, since that seems to be the last thing on Trump and Putin’s mind, in that regard they are similar.

What the Indictment of 13 Russians Means for Democracy

In February of this year, FBI director Robert Mueller charged multiple Russian actors with interfering with the presidential election of businessman Donald Trump versus then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Having been kept under wraps during the 2016 election by the Obama administration, it is just now coming to light just how much the actions of the Putin regime have affected the institutions of American democracy and elections. The modern invention of social media is now a tool used to instill diviseness in the land of glorified liberalism. Now, our own citizens are mere pawns in the game of a foreign adversary. The impact of Russian interference is much grander than that of who wins in a single election cycle.

The majority of Americans who could vote in our elections often opt out. The reason I have heard all too many times is that your vote “doesn’t really make a difference.” While I agree that the members of the electoral college’s ability to vote freely is quite counter-productive to democracy, I still find it quite shocking how many people do not exercise their ability to vote. Among developed nations, America has a very poor attendance record for those who actually show up to the voting polls. However, now I would not blame anyone for not voting in the next election. It makes complete sense for an American to lose faith in the process of voting in elections if they believe that some foreign agent is going to throw the election one way yet again.

In the 2016 presidential election, Russian leader Vladimir Putin supported both candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, while working to discredit Hillary Clinton. When the candidates were narrowed down to Trump versus Clinton, Russian bots took to Trump’s side during their persuasion of American voters. Despite American authorities knowing Russian involvement to have truly happened, President Trump has denied in the past that Putin and his people would have done anything like that. This only adds to the distrust and confusion among Americans. An open discussion from the president would stop this whole debacle from seeming like it is Russia and the president versus the FBI. When in actuality, this is truly Russia versus the United States.

FBI Director Mueller’s first steps to investigate the Russian hacking have proven to be solid choices for America. However, indicting people who will probably never again step foot in the U.S. is more for show than anything else. This indictment may show Putin that we are on to him, but it will not actually accomplish much more than that. Certainly, with evidence that with the upcoming midterm elections are being influenced once again, he will not cease his involvement with American institutions anytime soon. Advertisements will continue to be bought under fake companies. Meanwhile, fabricated American personas will attempt to incite rallies and divisive social media posts. It looks as if democracy is facing its worst enemy since the first Cold War took place.

To a computer novice, it would be easy to say that all peoples purchasing Facebook ads would have to register their IP addresses, but those can easily be made to portray a fake location. You could ban Russians from certain social media or have to be flagged as such, but that would be considered discrimination. As President Obama learned, confronting Putin is of no help as his administration adamantly denies any involvement. As Putin brilliantly predicted it would, this leaves the American government between a rock and a hard place. How does an investigator place a foreign national as the kingpin behind a masterful hacking ring that leave no traces that tie back to Putin?

Now that the government is aware that Russian hacking has and is taking place in regards to American elections, full disclosure to the American public is necessary. While it has been taking place in subtle ways on some social media platforms, there needs to be complete transparency of who is funding what types of advertisements. Spam accounts on any platform or “news” sites need to be better regulated by bigger companies like Facebook and Google. Regulating the free press does not mean dictating the opinions expressed; it means revealing the sources that put out blatant lies as a means to manipulate Americans. There is no simple fix to this issue but taking the actions to raise awareness can actually go quite a long way.

How do we stop countries from meddling with U.S affairs?

Jacob Walls

How do we stop countries from meddling with U.S affairs?

Last Friday, Robert Mueller and his team indicted 13 Russian nationals for allegedly meddling with the 2016 presidential election. These Russian nationals are hackers who were hired by businesses in Russia (under the guidance of Russian government officials like Putin) to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. These hackers were paid to make posts on various social media sites that were negative towards Hilary Clinton. In contrast, they were also supposed to make positive posts about candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. These hackers main goal was to defame Hilary Clinton’s name and make her first years as President controversial. However, these hackers exceeded this expectation by interfering so much that Donald Trump ended up winning the 2016 presidential election who was favored by the Russian government. It was no surprise that the Russian government denied all allegations of meddling with our 2016 presidential election. Nonetheless, Mueller’s team found an abundance of evidence that showed these 13 Russian nationals created fake social media accounts and divided the American public. These 13 indictments however is not the big takeaway from this story. These Russian hackers don’t live in the U.S and will likely never come back to the United States if they’re smart. Plus, Russian will never extradite these individuals. So, this means that this investigation won’t likely have any type of punishment handed on these people. The big takeaway from this investigation is that another country interfered with our presidential election and ultimately shaped the outcome. So, the big question is how do we stop this from happening again? There is already evidence that Russian hackers are trying to inflame the U.S public on hot button issues. For example, hackers have been posting about gun violence right after the horrific murders of 17 students at Douglas High School in Florida.  We are virtually under attack and it is not by drones, tanks, or missiles. This is a type of warfare that is being carried out online. The only way to stop these hackers from meddling with our affairs is to regulate political ads.

Political ads have become very prevalent over the past few decades. Some political ads have catapulted candidates to the White House while destroying other candidates’ chances at the presidency. For example, look at the 1988 election between George H.W Bush and Michael Dukakis. Former Vice President Bush was losing some ground to his opponent Dukakis. This was until a negative ad was ran against Dukakis. This infamous and controversial “Willie Horton Ad” showed that Dukakis was soft on crime. This ad wasn’t made nor paid for by the Bush administration. Instead this ad was funded by the National Security PAC. This ad single-handedly gave Bush the 1988 presidential election. This ad tapped into the publics’ fear of criminals being loose in the streets and showed that Dukakis wouldn’t keep the people safe. However, as I stated above this ad wasn’t funded by Bush’s campaign but by a Political Action Committee. These PAC’s don’t have limitations on what they spend. This is due to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the 1^st amendment. This means that money is essentially speech and with this money, PAC’s can use it to fund negative ads towards other candidates. Because of this, political ads are virtually unregulated and are funded by outside sources. This opened the door for Russian hackers to create ads on social media that completely bashed Hilary Clinton. Ways to regulate political ads is to limit the amount of negative ads being aired on media outlets. This means that Citizens United should be overturned so it is harder for outside sources to fund and create negative ads. If candidates want to make negative ads against their opponents they surely can. But, corporations and outside sources shouldn’t be involved in this process.

We as a country looked very weak in the light of this investigation. No outside country should be able to infiltrate our elections and possibly change the outcome of them. By regulating political ads we can limit the amount of access these outside sources have to our political elections. This then doesn’t make us look vulnerable to foreign countries.  

Problem in Syria

Taylor Sikora

Op-ed week 8

Syria needs our help.

In eastern Ghouta, Syria, since Sunday at least 300 people have died, and more than 60 of which were children. 1,400 people, at least, have been injured due to the pro-government forces, backed by Russia attacks. The Syrian military says it is trying to liberate the area from terrorists, but it has also been accused of targeting civilians. This past Sunday the pro-government forces intensified their efforts to retake the last major rebel held area. The bombs that were being dropped were filled with explosives and shrapnel. The Syrian military is claiming that they are carrying out “precision strikes” but with the death toll rising and a majority being civilians we see that their plan is not working. They targeted almost everything: shops, markets, hospitals, schools, mosques basically everything. With 14 medical facilities being taken out by the bombings there is an extreme need for medical services and facilities to help in the effort to treat all the wounded. Humanitarian aid is also not able to get in and the Syrian government has only allowed one humanitarian convoy into the Eastern Ghouta area since late November. Because of this, the residents are severely malnourished and are lacking aid.

Today, the International Committee of the Red Cross joined the UN and called for emergency humanitarian access to allow the much-needed aid to be delivered and for the wounded to be evacuated to safety for treatment. In some areas of Ghouta there are entire families with nowhere to go and on the other side of Easter Ghouta, in Damascus, people are in constant fear that their children will be hit by falling mortars. The UN has called for a ceasefire, and this line of attacks are the worst since 2013, when a chemical attack killed hundreds of Syrians. The UN has also called the areas where the Syrian government’s bombing campaign has destroyed “hell on earth”.

If Syria is now “hell on earth” and we know that Russia is backing the government and its campaign, why is no one doing anything about it? We can condemn Syria for their actions all we want but they still stand firm in their stance that they are fighting a war on terrorism and is not targeting citizens. There must be other ways for them to fight the war on terrorism that does not kill and injure so many civilians. But we are also talking about the government who used chemical weapons on its own people in 2013. Are we scared of confronting Syria in more direct ways because of their ally, Russia? These are two governments who have continued to murder their own citizens and deny their actions to the world community. Both regimes must be dealt with. The global community needs to come together to stop such atrocities. If we allow this to continue to happen, what does it make us? Cautious and conservative, or cowardly and weak? 

President Trump's Potential Tariffs on Foreign Steel

February 21, 2018

President Trump’s Potential Tariffs on Steel

This week President Trump has had several propositions set out in front of him that would place tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. Reportedly there are several options, ranging from a worldwide tariff, to tariffs targeting certain countries, specifically China. The tariff proposal supposedly drafted for national security reasons is largely meant to eliminate Chinese steel from entering the U.S. market, directly and indirectly. Chinese steel has developed a reputation for being “cheap” and poorly manufactured. The economic rationale behind the tariff is also meant to increase the American steel industry and bring jobs to the industry. Walking through some options, specifically for steel (the aluminum tariffs are quite similar), and seeing which one, if any, is a clear choice in order to protect the interests of the American economy, both short-term and long-term.

            One option, to set a universal 24% tariff on steel that is applicable to all countries, seemingly is the most fair in a moral sense, if there were to be any tariff at all. This is meant to protect the U.S. from importing unfinished Chinese steel products that are polished up and finished in other countries, being branded as say North Korean or Vietnamese steel, rather than the Chinese steel that they actually are. This option could prove most damaging to the U.S. economy, as countries like Canada and Mexico could retaliate against the U.S., imposing steep tariffs of their own on U.S. products such as agricultural goods. Another option, tariffs of at least 53% on steel imports in 2018 that exceeded the amount of imports from 2017 from Brazil, China, South Korea, Vietnam, and Russia, among others, also poses the threat for foreign retaliation. And the third option, limiting the amount of imported steel the U.S. receives also has negative connotations for the global steel market, more than likely hurting the global economy and increasing the price of steel within the U.S.

            The most troubling part about these new, potential tariffs is that President Trump has proposed them on the basis of national security, which has raised more questions than answers. Phil Levy, trade expert at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, warns, “You now open up the door for anybody to do anything as long as they say ‘national security.’ That could open the door for a global trade war” (CNN, 2018). Levy brings up a daunting, yet valid point that holds true, especially in an American society where national security has become a top priority in the years since 9/11. Trump has been able to cite the national security argument by invoking a “little-used 1962 trade law” that has not been used since 2001 (Reuters, 2018). Trump has been cautioned by U.S. lawmakers, steel, and aluminum users that restrictions may cause price spikes on raw materials, leading to American consumers just importing the finished product and leading to significant job loss in the United States. The reasons behind the tariff are just as troubling as the potential consequences that could ensue.

            Trump must tread lightly here, as international trade and economics is supposed to be his forte. The most viable option, it appears, is a combination of the limits on imported steel and the 53% tariff on excess imported steel from the 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India Malaysia, South Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam). This would definitely offend those particular countries, but if their steel exports were able to remain the same from 2017, then the damage would be minimal while also looking like a foreign policy win for Trump. In addition, the quota on U.S. steel imports would serve as a catalyst for the American steel market, while also allowing the market to remain competitive on a global level, keeping the price of steel in the U.S. market reasonable. As opposed to the blanket-tariff that would certainly offend many countries, leading to retaliation on the U.S. export market, while also leading the U.S. to a more isolationist market, moving away from the global economy. With the global tariff policy also comes the mention of a threatened national security; is the U.S. threatened by every other country? What does that say about the integrity of the Commander in Chief of the world’s most powerful military? President Trump has until April 11 to make a decision on the steel tariffs and April 20 to make a decision on the aluminum tariffs, which are very similar in nature.

Lawder, David, and Lesly Wroughton. 2018. U.S. Commerce Department proposes hefty import curb on steel, aluminum. In Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-steel/u-s-commerce-department-proposes-hefty-import-curbs-on-steel-aluminum-idUSKCN1G01QB

Julia Horowitz. Trump Tariffs on Steel would hit China- and the entire global trading system. In CNN Money. http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/18/news/economy/us-imports-steel-tariff-effect/index.html