Thursday, August 30, 2018

Ronan Farrow’s Ex-Producer Says NBC Impeded Weinstein Reporting




Image
The Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein entering a court in Manhattan in June.CreditCreditJeenah Moon for The New York Times

In October, when Ronan Farrow published his first article in The New Yorker on the alleged transgressions of Harvey Weinstein, people in the media and entertainment industries wondered how NBC had missed the story. After all, Mr. Farrow had spent months gathering material on the mogul when he was with NBC News.
Now a producer who worked closely with Mr. Farrow has accused the network of putting a stop to the reporting, saying the order came from “the very highest levels of NBC.”
Rich McHugh, the producer, who recently left his job in the investigative unit of NBC News, is the first person affiliated with NBC to publicly charge that the network impeded his and Mr. Farrow’s efforts to nail down the story of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged sexual misconduct. He called the network’s handling of the matter “a massive breach of journalistic integrity.”
NBC denied his characterization on Thursday, saying Mr. Farrow’s work was not broadcast-ready when the reporter decided to take his reporting to The New Yorker.



Nearly two months after he stopped working on the story for NBC, Mr. Farrow published the first in his series of articles on Mr. Weinstein — a series won a Pulitzer Prize in public service for The New Yorker, an award the magazine shared with The New York Times.
Mr. McHugh, 43, described NBC as “resistant” throughout the eight-month reporting process, a characterization disputed by the network. Last August, he said, it seemed that the network was no longer supporting the story.
“Three days before Ronan and I were going to head to L.A. to interview a woman with a credible rape allegation against Harvey Weinstein, I was ordered to stop, not to interview this woman,” Mr. McHugh said. “And to stand down on the story altogether.”
The producer would not disclose which executives had given him that direction. But by doing so, the network was, in his view, “killing the Harvey Weinstein story.”
In response to the producer’s account, Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, said, “He was never told to stop in the way he’s implying.”



One problem, in Mr. Oppenheim’s view, was the lack of on-the-record, on-camera interviews.
“We repeatedly made clear to Ronan and Rich McHugh the standard for publication is we needed at least one credible on-the-record victim or witness of misconduct,” Mr. Oppenheim said. “And we never met that threshold while Ronan was reporting for us.”
Mr. Oppenheim added that the day before the planned trip, Mr. Farrow had asked to pursue the story for another outlet.
“Ronan reached out to us and said: ‘I want to get this out now. I have a magazine that’s willing to do it. Will you be O.K. if I take the reporting to this magazine?’” Mr. Oppenheim said. “And we granted him permission to do so.”
Soon after that mid-August conversation, however, Mr. Farrow, whom NBC described as a nonexclusive contributor, requested the use of an NBC camera crew for the interview in Los Angeles. That request seemed to suggest that he was open to staying on the story for the network. Mr. Oppenheim shot down the request, severing the network’s relationship with the reporter.
Mr. Oppenheim recalled the conversation: “We said: ‘You’ve asked for permission to go elsewhere. You can’t use an NBC camera crew for another outlet. You can do whatever you want to do. And you don’t work for us.’”
Mr. Farrow implied that the network had mishandled his work during an appearance on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program that aired shortly after the publication of his first Weinstein article. “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier,” he said.
On Twitter last fall, Mr. Farrow praised Mr. McHugh, saying he had “refused to bow to pressure to stop, through numerous shoots, even when it meant risking his job.” He also called him an “unsung hero of this entire story.”



In a statement for this article, Mr. Farrow said: “Rich is a fantastic producer and journalist. He’s a person of integrity, and he cared deeply about the investigative stories we worked on together and the importance of seeing them through.”
Mr. McHugh left the network almost two weeks ago, after getting a job as a co-executive producer of a climate-change documentary hosted by Al Gore. He has decided to speak out at a moment when there is a harsh spotlight on NBC News and its chairman, Andrew Lack, who sits above Mr. Oppenheim in the corporate chain of command.






Image
Mr. Farrow at a Pulitzer Prize luncheon in May. NBC said his work was not broadcast-ready when he decided to take his reporting to The New Yorker.CreditBebeto Matthews/Associated Press

Mr. Lack, 71, ran NBC News for a time in the 1990s and returned to the network in 2015. During his latest stint, he has overseen ratings gains for its cable network, MSNBC, and has successfully navigated an anchor transition at “NBC Nightly News.” But the division he oversees has faced serious criticism.
In the fall of 2016, as the presidential campaign entered its final, heated weeks, NBC was scooped by The Washington Post, which broke the story of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee, was heard speaking about women in vulgar terms. “Access Hollywood” is part of the NBC Universal family, which gave the network a first shot at the story.
Mr. Lack has also fallen under scrutiny over what network executives may have known about the workplace behavior of the former “Today” anchor Matt Lauer, who was fired in November because of allegations of sexual misconduct against him. In May, an NBC investigation cleared network executives of any wrongdoing in the Lauer matter — but that investigation drew criticism because it was conducted by in-house counsel, rather than an outside law firm.
On Thursday, Mr. Lack became a target of President Trump, who claimed on Twitter that the executive was “about to be fired(?) for incompetence, and much worse.” The tweet was one of many recent presidential statements attacking news organizations, and it appeared three days after The New York Post’s Page Six gossip column reported that Mr. Lack was “facing the boot.”



Before joining NBC, Mr. McHugh spent eight years as a producer for ABC’s “Good Morning America.” He joined forces with Mr. Farrow, a lawyer turned journalist, in 2015 for “Undercovered With Ronan Farrow,” a series that aired on “Today.”
The pair zeroed in on Mr. Weinstein early last year, after Mr. Farrow had locked down an interview with the actress and activist Rose McGowan to speak about allegations of sexual harassment in Hollywood.
“From that point on, I think it’s fair to say Ronan and I felt resistance,” Mr. McHugh said. “We were told to put the story on the back burner.”
Mr. Oppenheim said that he had encouraged Mr. Farrow to interview Ms. McGowan. “I said to him, ‘You know, there’s an actress, Rose McGowan, who’s been tweeting she was attacked by a studio executive,’” Mr. Oppenheim said. “There are rumors circulating that it might be Harvey Weinstein. You should look into that.”
Rich Greenberg, the executive editor of the NBC News investigative unit, added that Ms. McGowan did not give an ideal interview, for the network’s purposes.
“The problem was, we didn’t have a credible accuser on the record, on camera,” Mr. Greenberg said. “The one we had the closest hope of getting, Rose McGowan, pulled out. She’d never say Harvey Weinstein’s name on camera with us.”
Mr. Oppenheim said Mr. Weinstein had no influence on the network’s handling of the Weinstein story.
The NBC executives’ comments echoed findings contained in a 12-page internal report that the network provided to The Times.



But there was a big story to be gotten, and the reporting continued into the spring and summer, albeit “discreetly,” Mr. McHugh said. Mr. Farrow gained access to a recording of a New York Police Department sting operation in which Mr. Weinstein admitted to groping the model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez. Even with the addition of that tape, Mr. McHugh said, executives at NBC News seemed unpersuaded.
“I think it’s fair to say that there was a point in our reporting where I felt there were obstacles to us reporting this externally, and there were obstacles to us reporting this internally,” the producer said. “Externally, I had Weinstein associates calling me repeatedly. I knew that Weinstein was calling NBC executives directly. One time it even happened when we were in the room.”
On Oct. 5, The Times published the first of its articles detailing allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Weinstein. That evening, CBS and ABC gave airtime to the explosive story on their newscasts. NBC did not. The next morning, “Today” gave it scant attention.
Mr. Farrow published his first New Yorker article on Mr. Weinstein on Oct. 10. Since then, Mr. McHugh has questioned how NBC handled things.
“I don’t believe they’ve told the truth about it,” he said. “That’s my opinion. I’ve asked that question, and to this day I still have not been given a good answer.”
Asked why it had taken him so long to leave the network, Mr. McHugh said he had stayed on so he could continue providing for his family and out of a fear that NBC could retaliate against him.
He has retained the Washington-based lawyer Ari Wilkenfeld. Mr. Wilkenfeld also represents women who have made allegations against Mr. Lauer and another NBC luminary, Tom Brokaw, who has been accused of making unwanted advances toward women he worked with.
In addition to his continuing work for The New Yorker, Mr. Farrow is writing a book, “Catch and Kill,” which is expected to include his account of NBC’s role in the reporting of the Weinstein story.



A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Ex-Producer Claims NBC Stood Down On Weinstein. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

NYT

For Whom the Economy Grows

Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist

Image
Not all Americans are benefiting from the stock markets' record highs.CreditCreditAndrew Kelly/Reuters

“What’s in a name?” asked Shakespeare. But hey, I’m an economist, so let me ask a somewhat different question: What’s in a number?
Quite a lot, suggest Senators Chuck Schumer and Martin Heinrich. This week they introduced a bill that would direct the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which produces estimates of gross domestic product, to produce estimates telling us who benefits from growth — for example, how much is going to the middle class.
This is a really good idea.
Now, I’m not one of those people who think G.D.P. is a terribly flawed or useless statistic. It’s a number we need for many purposes. But on its own it isn’t an adequate measure of economic success.
There are a number of reasons this is true, but one key issue is that it tells you only what’s happening to average income, which isn’t always relevant to how most people live. If Jeff Bezos walks into a bar, the average wealth of the bar’s patrons suddenly shoots up to several billion dollars — but none of the non-Bezos drinkers have gotten any richer.

There was a time when asking who benefits from economic growth didn’t seem urgent, because income was rising steadily for just about everyone. Since the 1970s, however, the link between overall growth and individual incomes seems to have been broken for many Americans. On one side, wages have stagnated for many; adjusted for inflation, the median male worker earns less now than he did in 1979. On the other side, some have seen their incomes grow much faster than the income of the nation as a whole. Thus C.E.O.s at the largest companies now make 270 times as much as the average worker, up from 27 times as much in 1980.
A similar disconnect between overall growth and individual experience seems to lie behind the public’s lack of enthusiasm for the current state of the economy and its disdain for the 2017 tax cut. G.D.P. numbers have been good in recent quarters, but much of the growth has gone to soaring corporate profits, while median real wages have gone nowhere.
But how do facts like these fit into the overall story of economic growth? To answer this question, we need “distributional national accounts” that track how growth is allocated among different segments of the population.
Producing such accounts is hard but not impossible. In fact, the economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have already produced estimated accounts with considerable detail over the past half century. The main message is one of growth going disproportionately to the top and not shared with the bottom half of the population, but there are also some surprises in the other direction. For example, the middle class, while still lagging, has done better than some common measures indicated thanks to fringe benefits.
But there’s a big difference between estimates produced by independent economists and regular reports from the U.S. government, both because the government has the resources to do the job more easily, and because people (and politicians) will pay more attention. That’s why the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a progressive think tank, has been campaigning for something like the Schumer-Heinrich bill.

So why not do this?
Some might argue that creating distributional accounts is tricky, that it requires making some educated guesses about how to pool different sources of information. But that’s true of the process used to create existing national accounts, including estimates of G.D.P., too! Economic numbers don’t have to be perfect or above all criticism to be extremely useful.
In a reasonable world, then, something like the Schumer-Heinrich bill would become law in the near future. In the real world, of course, the proposal will go nowhere for the time being — because Republicans don’t want anyone to know what distributional national accounts might reveal.
By now everyone knows that conservatives routinely yell “socialist!” whenever anyone proposes doing something to help less fortunate members of our society — which is a key reason so many Americans now think favorably of socialism: If guaranteed health care is socialism, bring it on. But the right doesn’t just cry foul at any attempt to limit inequality; it does the same thing whenever anyone tries to talk about economic class, or measure how different classes are faring.
My favorite example here is still former senator Rick Santorum, who denounced the term “middle class” as “Marxism talk.” But that was just an especially ludicrous version of a general attempt on the right to suppress talk about and research into where the economy’s money goes. The G.O.P.’s basic position is that what you don’t know can’t hurt it.
And to be fair, progressives like the idea of distributional accounts in part because they believe that more knowledge in this area would help their own cause. But here’s the thing: Knowledge is objectively better than ignorance. And in modern America, knowing who actually benefits from economic growth is really, truly important. So let’s make finding that out, and disseminating the results, part of the government’s job.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

NYT

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

What if Trump Did Actually Shoot Someone on Fifth Avenue?

Your vote in the midterms matters, because Republicans in Congress won’t restrain the president’s excesses.
Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist

Image
CreditCreditAl Drago for The New York Times

Sept. 3 (AP) — President Trump stopped his motorcade in Manhattan today, jumped out of his limousine and shot a man on Fifth Avenue who was shouting anti-Trump epithets. The shooting was recorded by the White House press pool as well as by dozens of bystanders with cellphones and by security cameras in the area. When asked for his reaction, House Speaker Paul Ryan said, We will need more information than is available at this point.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said through pursed lips that he was not going to comment on every up and down with this president. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he already had information indicating that the man whom Trump shot worked for the Clinton Foundation and may have been a relative of former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Fox News did not cover Trump’s shooting at the top of its broadcast, which focused instead on the killing of an Iowa woman by an undocumented immigrant. Fox’s only reference to the fact that the president shot a man on Fifth Avenue was that a New York City man died today when he ran right into a bullet fired by the president.
Senator Lindsey Graham quipped that Trump shoots as well as he putts and that this incident would not cause the South Carolina senator to cancel his coming golf round with the president at his Bedminster, N.J., course.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that she was looking the other way when the shooting happened so she had no comment, adding: I haven’t had a chance to discuss it with the president. I’ll get back to you if I have something. But the president has stated many times that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. So he’s just keeping a campaign promise. He did nothing wrong. There are no charges against him. And even though I have no comment, and he has no comment, we’ve commented on this extensively.
Hours later, though, the president tweeted: Actually, some people are saying that a man who looked a lot like Barack Obama did the shooting. I’m not saying that — but some people are. It also could have been somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds who fired that shot. Like Rudy said: Truth is not truth — unless I say so.
Jerry Falwell Jr., a top evangelical leader, announced that his movement would be holding a vigil this evening, praying that the president had not stressed himself too much by having to shoot a man on Fifth Avenue. Falwell added, “This would never have happened if Jeff Sessions were doing his job.”
The day ended with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos declaring that the fact that the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight only proves again why we need to arm all our schoolteachers.
My biggest challenge in writing all of the above? Worrying that readers wouldn’t realize it was made up.

That’s because we all now know that Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would stick with him. We’ve seen him get away with too much by now. No restraint on Trump will ever come from his party or his base — especially after the passing of John McCain. So save your breath. Trump will be restrained only if his party loses the House or the Senate. That’s what is at stake in the midterm elections — so vote accordingly.
And for those Republican moderates, independents and suburban white women who voted for Trump in 2016 and are considering voting against G.O.P. House and Senate candidates in November to put some limits on the president and show their disapproval at G.O.P. lawmakers’ failure to act as an independent branch of government, let me describe the stakes in another way:
America, we all know, won the Cold War. Our values and economic system proved superior to Russia’s. But what is at stake in the 2018 midterms is who is going to win the post-Cold War.
Yes, that question is back on the table. Because what we are seeing in the behavior of Trump and his toadies in the G.O.P. is the beginnings of the Russification of American politics. Vladimir Putin could still win the post-Cold War.
At the Cold War’s height, noted Marina Gorbis, executive director of the Institute for the Future and an immigrant from the Soviet Union, Americans took seriously the notion that we had to serve “as a contrast” to the Russians.
Because the Soviets claimed to have built a worker’s paradise, it was important that we had strong unions, a strong middle class, less inequality and an adequate social safety net. The Soviets did not have the rule of law. So we had to have it more than ever.
“I came here from Russia in ’75,” Gorbis added, “and it was remarkable to me that in this society there were laws and norms and principles, and people abided by them. The idea that people actually paid their taxes was kind of remarkable to me.” In the Russia she grew up in, said Gorbis, “we did not have that; if there was a law, there was always a way to bribe and get around it.
But with the Cold War now far back in our rearview mirror, Trump has not only insisted on bringing America closer to Putin’s Russia geopolitically, but also politically. This, despite the fact that our intelligence agencies and biggest internet companies have confirmed multiple times that Russia interfered in our 2016 election and continues to meddle.

Trump still refuses to show us his tax returns long after his “audit,” which can only mean he is hiding something. His campaign chairman Paul Manafort is a convicted tax cheat who was trying to keep Putin’s stooge in power in Ukraine. Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen is another confessed tax cheat.
And the first two House Republicans to endorse Trump in 2016 — Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins — were both just indicted on corruption charges. They are hardly the first government officials to be arrested; Democrats have not been immune to fittings for handcuffs. But one has a stronger feeling than ever that with a moral vacuum at the heart of the Trump White House — and with the president assaulting the media and the judiciary on a regular basis, not unlike Putin — everything goes, so grab what you can, because no one’s looking. The cat’s away.
“The Russification of America under Trump, it’s not just about collusion, corruption and money laundering,” said Gorbis. “It is about his behavior” — crass language, simplistic slogans reminiscent of the Soviet rhetoric, use of terms such as “enemy of the people,” and his insistence on personal loyalty over loyalty to the Constitution or institutions.
Maybe that’s why Trump and Putin understand and appreciate each other — and why so many Russians like Trump. They say, “He is just like us — no better and no worse.”
There are other parallels between Trumpism and Putinism: the glorification of oil, gas and mining over science and technology; the elevation of white, Christian, nationalist values; and the neutering of the legislative branch — today’s G.O.P.-dominated Congress behaves just like the rubber-stamp Russian Duma. Worse, this Russification of politics is also spreading — to the Philippines, Turkey, Hungary, Poland and maybe soon to Brazil.
A few more years of this Russification of America and the rot will be everywhere. Russia will have won the post-Cold War, and the fictional story at the top of this column will become nonfiction — just like that. Remember that when you vote in the midterms.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Correction:
An earlier version of this article misspelled the given name of the White House spokeswoman. She is Sarah Huckabee Sanders, not Sara.
Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs Op-Ed columnist. He joined the paper in 1981, and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. He is the author of seven books, including “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” which won the National Book Award.
  @tomfriedman Facebook

Advertisement

Monday, August 27, 2018

Why It Can Happen Here

We’re very close to becoming another Poland or Hungary.
Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist



Image
Admirers of President Trump saw him speak last week at an Ohio Republican Party dinner.CreditCreditGabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a friend of mine — an expert on international relations — made a joke: “Now that Eastern Europe is free from the alien ideology of Communism, it can return to its true historical path — fascism.” Even at the time, his quip had a real edge.
And as of 2018 it hardly seems like a joke at all. What Freedom House calls illiberalism is on the rise across Eastern Europe. This includes Poland and Hungary, both still members of the European Union, in which democracy as we normally understand it is already dead.
In both countries the ruling parties — Law and Justice in Poland, Fidesz in Hungary — have established regimes that maintain the forms of popular elections, but have destroyed the independence of the judiciary, suppressed freedom of the press, institutionalized large-scale corruption and effectively delegitimized dissent. The result seems likely to be one-party rule for the foreseeable future.
And it could all too easily happen here. There was a time, not long ago, when people used to say that our democratic norms, our proud history of freedom, would protect us from such a slide into tyranny. In fact, some people still say that. But believing such a thing today requires willful blindness. The fact is that the Republican Party is ready, even eager, to become an American version of Law and Justice or Fidesz, exploiting its current political power to lock in permanent rule.



Just look at what has been happening at the state level.
In North Carolina, after a Democrat won the governorship, Republicans used the incumbent’s final days to pass legislation stripping the governor’s office of much of its power.
In Georgia, Republicans tried to use transparently phony concerns about access for disabled voters to close most of the polling places in a mainly black district.
In West Virginia, Republican legislators exploited complaints about excessive spending to impeach the entire State Supreme Court and replace it with party loyalists.
And these are just the cases that have received national attention. There are surely scores if not hundreds of similar stories across the nation. What all of them reflect is the reality that the modern G.O.P. feels no allegiance to democratic ideals; it will do whatever it thinks it can get away with to entrench its power.
What about developments at the national level? That’s where things get really scary. We’re currently sitting on a knife edge. If we fall off it in the wrong direction — specifically, if Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress in November — we will become another Poland or Hungary faster than you can imagine.



This week Axios created a bit of a stir with a scoop about a spreadsheet circulating among Republicans in Congress, listing investigations they think Democrats are likely to carry out if they take the House. The thing about the list is that every item on it — starting with Donald Trump’s tax returns — is something that obviously should be investigated, and would have been investigated under any other president. But the people circulating the document simply take it for granted that Republicans won’t address any of these issues: Party loyalty will prevail over constitutional responsibility.
Many Trump critics celebrated last week’s legal developments, taking the Manafort conviction and the Cohen guilty plea as signs that the walls may finally be closing in on the lawbreaker in chief. But I felt a sense of deepened dread as I watched the Republican reaction: Faced with undeniable evidence of Trump’s thuggishness, his party closed ranks around him more tightly than ever.
A year ago it seemed possible that there might be limits to the party’s complicity, that there would come a point where at least a few representatives or senators would say, no more. Now it’s clear that there are no limits: They’ll do whatever it takes to defend Trump and consolidate power.
This goes even for politicians who once seemed to have some principles. Senator Susan Collins of Maine was a voice of independence in the health care debate; now she sees no problem with having a president who’s an unindicted co-conspirator appoint a Supreme Court justice who believes that presidents are immune from prosecution. Senator Lindsey Graham denounced Trump in 2016, and until recently seemed to be standing up against the idea of firing the attorney general to kill the Mueller investigation; now he’s signaled that he’s O.K. with such a firing.
But why is America, the birthplace of democracy, so close to following the lead of other countries that have recently destroyed it?
Don’t tell me about “economic anxiety.” That’s not what happened in Poland, which grew steadily through the financial crisis and its aftermath. And it’s not what happened here in 2016: Study after study has found that racial resentment, not economic distress, drove Trump voters.
The point is that we’re suffering from the same disease — white nationalism run wild — that has already effectively killed democracy in some other Western nations. And we’re very, very close to the point of no return.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.



Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

NYT

U.S. and Mexico Agree to Preliminary Nafta Deal


Image
Automobiles outside Toyota’s assembly plant in Tijuana, Mexico. President Trump’s advisers have pressed for new trade rules to bring more car production back to the United States from Mexico.CreditCreditJorge Duenes/Reuters

WASHINGTON — The United States and Mexico have reached agreement to revise key portions of the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement and a preliminary deal could be announced on Monday, a crucial step toward revamping a trade pact that has appeared on the brink of collapse during the past year of negotiations.
Reaching an agreement on how to revise some of the most contentious portions of what President Trump has long called the worst trade pact in history would give Mr. Trump a significant win in a trade war he has started with countries around the globe, including Mexico, Canada, the European Union and China.
Still, a preliminary agreement between the United States and Mexico would fall far short of actually revising Nafta. The preliminary agreement still excludes Canada, which is also a party to Nafta but has been absent from talks held in Washington in recent weeks.
The agreement with Mexico centers on rules governing the automobile industry, resolving a big source of friction, but leaves aside other contentious issues that affect all three countries.

The revised Nafta would also need congressional approval before it can go into effect, including votes by Republican lawmakers who have criticized some of the president’s plans for remaking the deal.
On Monday morning, Mr. Trump tweeted, “A big deal looking good with Mexico!”
That followed other tweets the president sent over the weekend trumpeting the renewed talks with Mexico.


Finalizing a revised Nafta will now hinge on bringing Canada back into the talks. While Canada has not been a party to recent discussions, the potential for a two-country deal appears highly unlikely, given opposition by Mexico, American lawmakers and North American industries whose supply chains rely on all three countries. Both Mexican and American officials have said they hope their progress encourages Canada to come back to the negotiations quickly.
America’s trade relations with Canada have chilled in recent months, as Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized the country’s trade practices and Canadian leaders have insisted they will not rush to sign a deal that does not work in their favor.

On Monday, a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, said that Canada is “encouraged” by progress between Mexico and the United States but that “we will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class.”
On Friday, Ms. Freeland said that Canada would be “happy” to rejoin the talks once the United States and Mexico had made progress on their specific issues. “Once the bilateral issues get resolved, Canada will be joining the talks to work on both bilateral issues and our trilateral issues,” Ms. Freeland said.
Many of the most significant changes agreed to by Mexico and the United States simply update the pact to take into account the rise of the internet and the digital economy since the agreement was negotiated. But Mr. Trump’s advisers have also pressed for big alterations to the rules governing automobile manufacturing, in an effort to bring more car production back to the United States from Mexico.
To qualify for zero tariffs under Nafta, car companies would be required to manufacture at least 75 percent of an automobile’s value in North America under the new rules, up from 62.5 percent previously. They will also be required to use more local steel, aluminum and auto parts, and have a certain proportion of the car made by workers earning at least $16 an hour, a boon to both the United States and Canada.
Talks in recent days had stumbled over how these rules would overlap with additional auto tariffs that the president has threatened, as well as new measures that would open Mexico’s oil and gas sector to foreign companies, provisions that are controversial within the new elected Mexican administration that is poised to take office in December.
Speaking Sunday, Ildefonso Guajardo, the Mexican economy secretary, said that Jesus Seade, the designated chief negotiator of Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, had worked out an agreement on energy with his American counterparts in recent days.
Both the Mexicans and Americans have been eager to reach a fully revised Nafta deal by the end of August, a date that would give the Trump administration enough time to notify Congress that a deal had been finalized and still have that deal be signed by the outgoing Mexican administration of Enrique Peña Nieto. That goal now looks doubtful, given Canada’s recent absence from the negotiating table.

Still, progress in the negotiations with Mexico will come as a relief to American businesses that depend on trade agreements and have been shaken by Mr. Trump’s confrontational approach to America’s biggest trading partners.
Mr. Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum has put American manufacturers, farmers, retailers and other industries in the middle of the trade war as other countries fire back with retaliatory taxes of their own. That has driven up costs for American businesses and reduced access to foreign markets.
Mr. Trump has continued to inject uncertainty into the Nafta talks, believing that the strategy gives his advisers an upper hand at the negotiating table. He has hit Canada and Mexico with hefty tariffs on their shipments of steel and aluminum and threatened further taxes on their cars.

Elisabeth Malkin contributed reporting.
Follow Ana Swanson on Twitter: @AnaSwanson.
Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.

NYT

Twitter Updates

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews