<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:inherit;}
@font-face
{font-family:adrianna;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
span.quickedit-field
{mso-style-name:quickedit-field;}
span.visually-hidden
{mso-style-name:visually-hidden;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1147819575;
mso-list-template-ids:-1706238656;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<h1 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:22.5pt;margin-left:0in;background:white">
<span class="quickedit-field"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"adrianna",serif;color:#333333;font-weight:normal"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/incoherence-and-uncertainty"><b>https://www.iatp.org/documents/incoherence-and-uncertainty</b></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<h1 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:22.5pt;margin-left:0in;background:white">
<span class="quickedit-field"><span style="font-size:36.0pt;font-family:"adrianna",serif;color:#333333;font-weight:normal">Incoherence and Uncertainty<o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<h1 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:22.5pt;margin-left:0in;background:white">
<span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">Trump’s Trade Policy</span><span style="font-size:36.0pt;font-family:"adrianna",serif;color:#333333;font-weight:normal"><o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">By Karen Hansen-Kuhn<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">This piece is part of an assessment of damage wrought in the first year of Donald Trump’s presidency and the 115th Congress, including thoughts about what we might expect next and what we can and must do about it.
In six articles, we offer a critical assessment of the impact of gale-force political winds on agriculture and trade, farmers and rural communities. We consider the storm’s impacts on food system workers, the environment, food safety, and food security. And
we describe how the actions of the Trump Administration and Congress have, in one year, established a pattern of cynical disregard for rural communities, hostility toward science, and an unbridled scorn for the principles and practice of democratic governance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="mso-margin-top-alt:15.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;text-align:center">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">President Trump’s insistence that he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he called the worst deal ever, has resulted in a reckless and secretive process with no clear end in sight.
The prospect that he could withdraw from NAFTA with no plan to replace it has generated anxiety among farm groups and trading partners. Trade has been held out as a solution to the current farm crisis, but the focus on increasing exports is dangerously incomplete.
In fact, a Trump-negotiated NAFTA could well bring in some of the worst aspects of the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), while reinforcing trade rules that have increased corporate power over farming systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">NAFTA began just before the game-changing 1996 Farm Bill. U.S. farmers were promised that past policies that set floor prices and managed supply were no longer necessary: Instead, they were encouraged to expand production
and export their way to prosperity. Crop prices plunged almost immediately following the ’96 Farm Bill, and since then prices have been volatile, but mostly low. IATP has calculated the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/counting-costs-agricultural-dumping"><span style="color:#224186">extensive
dumping of major commodity crops</span></a> (i.e., exports at below the cost of production) over the last 20 years. Since NAFTA, more than 2 million Mexican farmers, unable to compete with these cheap agricultural imports, have been driven off their land,
often moving north to find work. At the same time, more than 200,000 small and medium-scale U.S. farmers have left agriculture since NAFTA, all while corporate concentration in seeds, processing and other aspects of production increased dramatically.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">The Trump administration began its trade policy with action civil society groups had been demanding for years: <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/iatp-statement-derailment-of-tpp-is-a-victory-for-fair-trade-advocates"><span style="color:#224186">Withdrawal
from the TPP</span></a>. That agreement included measures that would have weakened food safety standards, undercut Canada’s successful dairy supply management program, expanded unregulated trade in products of agricultural biotechnology, and eviscerated rules
to allow farmers to save and share seeds to promote biodiversity. Civil society groups from around the world and across sectors opposed TPP provisions that would have extended Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which allows corporations to sue governments
over public interest laws, including those on the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/blog/201712/nafta-negotiations-eliminate-isds-food-and-water-security"><span style="color:#224186">right to water</span></a>. While the U.S. withdrawal from TPP was a victory for
civil society groups in all 12 countries, talks to revive it continue, both among the other 11 countries, and with the insertion of many of its worst provisions into the renegotiation of NAFTA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">Family farm groups began 2017 with a <a href="https://www.iatp.org/blog/201705/principles-new-us-trade-policy-north-american-agriculture"><span style="color:#224186">call for new priorities</span></a> for NAFTA renegotiation,
starting with opening up the process to greater participation by all sectors. They also demanded the restoration of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat (which was abandoned following Canada and Mexico’s successful challenge to the program at the World
Trade Organization), reforms to anti-dumping mechanisms to promote fair trade in farm goods, and new measures to protect the rights of farmworkers. They also rejected ISDS and the inclusion of TPP proposals that favor the interests of agribusinesses. So far,
the Trump Administration’s record on NAFTA renegotiation is dismal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:33.0pt;box-sizing: border-box;color:inherit">
<span style="font-size:22.5pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">Transparency<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">While nearly <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USTR%20Overwhelmed%20by%20NAFTA%20Comments%20Including%20Ours.%20By%20Sharon%20Anglin%20Treat.%20June%2016%2C%202007.pdf"><span style="color:#224186">50,000
civil society groups submitted comments</span></a> on the objectives for NAFTA’s renegotiation, the administration has provided very little feedback on progress to date. The talks initially advanced at a breathless pace, with discussions every two to three
weeks, without any of the stakeholder events that had informed previous trade negotiations. While some information on Canadian proposals for new chapters on labor and environment or U.S. ideas about limiting ISDS have leaked to the media, there has been virtually
no information on whether the TPP+ proposals made by corporations are being considered in the trade talks. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:33.0pt;box-sizing: border-box;color:inherit">
<span style="font-size:22.5pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">Investor State<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">This has been a bright spot in the trade talks, with the administration setting out objectives to allow countries to opt out of the controversial mechanism. While this could be a positive development, civil society
groups and legislators have demanded that it is simply eliminated. News reports indicate that the Canadian and Mexican governments have resisted even the opt-out mechanism, and corporate interests have launched a full-scale assault against the proposal. The
effective U.S. withdrawal from ISDS in NAFTA would still leave the mechanism intact in other trade agreements like the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement and scores of Bilateral Investment Treaties, but it would be a major step forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:33.0pt;box-sizing: border-box;color:inherit">
<span style="font-size:22.5pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">Despite initial indications that some administration officials supported calls to Canada and Mexico to withdraw their WTO complaint on the past COOL policy in the U.S. and to reform NAFTA to facilitate consumers’ right
to know about where meat is produced, that idea seems to have vanished from the NAFTA talks. COOL is a high priority for U.S. farmers and ranchers, as well as the United Food and Commercial Workers union. FarmAid’s Alicia Harvey explained that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) is a win-win for farmers and eaters. Without it, U.S. farmers have a harder time getting a fair price because corporate meat processors can import cheaper meat and pass it off as a
domestic product. Eaters want to support America’s family farmers. With COOL they can be sure they’re doing that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:33.0pt;box-sizing: border-box;color:inherit">
<span style="font-size:22.5pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">TPP in NAFTA<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">There are indications that negotiators behind closed doors are quietly agreeing to insert corporate-friendly policies into NAFTA that even go beyond those agreed to in the TPP. These policies may include a proposal
from the biotech industry to enable imports of products with “low-level” genetically engineered content, even <a href="https://www.iatp.org/blog/201709/nafta-20-doing-harm-ag-biotech-approval-shortcuts"><span style="color:#224186">when not yet approved</span></a> in
the NAFTA member countries.<em><span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif"> Inside U.S. Trade</span></em> <a href="https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/nafta-negotiators-move-forward-biotech-canada-tables-indigenous-rights-chapter"><span style="color:#224186">has
reported</span></a> that biotech negotiations for NAFTA 2.0 have “moved ahead” and that provisions could go farther than TPP “because NAFTA countries are more prepared to implement new measures than some TPP countries were.” Mexico, <a href="http://www.bnamericas.com/news/oilandgas/canada-backs-mexicos-proposal-to-create-nafta-energy-chapter"><span style="color:#224186">with
the blessing of Canada</span></a>, is actually seeking an energy chapter similar to the “proportionality rule” binding Canada under the current version of NAFTA, a <a href="http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/common-frontiers/2017/12/nafta-puts-mexican-energy-privatization-beyond-reach-voters"><span style="color:#224186">rule
that would tie its hands</span></a> by requiring exports of fossil fuels, both undermining its sovereignty and constraining its ability to reduce carbon energy exports to cut greenhouse gases (GHGs). Negotiators from all three countries have expressed support
for <a href="https://www.iatp.org/blog/201709/will-trump-use-nafta-institutionalize-wholesale-delay-and-repeal-public-protections"><span style="color:#224186">sweeping regulatory harmonization and consultation</span></a>procedures that go beyond the TPP and
strike at the heart of the democratic process to give corporations even more influence over regulatory decisions. These procedures would incorporate a preference for deregulation and voluntary standards across government including for food safety, <a href="https://www.iatp.org/blog/201709/organics-nafta-who-sets-standards"><span style="color:#224186">organic
foods</span></a> and <a href="https://www.canadianchemistry.ca/library/uploads/CIAC_NAFTA_Submission-Final.pdf"><span style="color:#224186">chemical policy</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:33.0pt;box-sizing: border-box;color:inherit">
<span style="font-size:22.5pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">Canadian Dairy Supply Management<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">One of the bright spots in North American agriculture, Canadian supply management programs for dairy and poultry has supported stable rural economies and fair prices for producers and consumers in that country. Canada
exempted dairy and poultry from market openings under NAFTA, but agribusiness firms and the Trump Administration have targeted that program in the NAFTA renegotiation, an approach that will do nothing to fix the current crisis for U.S. dairy farmers. Jim Goodman,
a Wisconsin dairy farmer and member of the <a href="http://nffc.net/"><span style="color:#224186">National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC)</span></a>, <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/family-farm-groups-three-countries-slam-nafta-reboot-based-tpp"><span style="color:#224186">rejected
that proposal</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">Federal and state governments and land-grant universities, at the behest of the dairy industry, have done all they can to encourage U.S. dairy farmers to produce more milk, never questioning how much milk might be
too much or how the subsequent cheap prices affect farmers. We cannot expect Canada, at the expense of their dairy farmers, to bail us out. Farmers—whether U.S. or Canadian—are nothing more than parts of the machine to the industry and NAFTA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:33.0pt;box-sizing: border-box;color:inherit">
<span style="font-size:22.5pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">Looking Forward: More Uncertainty<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">Despite the potential impacts on farmers and ranchers, the administration does not appear to have assessed the impacts of leaving NAFTA. If Trump were to give notice of withdrawal, it would trigger a six-month process.
That notice would not obligate it to actually withdraw, but there could be impacts on many sectors. Tariffs would revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) Most Favored Nation levels. Under WTO rules, Canada and Mexico have the right to raise tariffs substantially
on many farm goods. The U.S. has mostly committed to lower tariff ceilings, but there are some exceptions, such as imports of red meat, for which the U.S. currently applies an 18 percent tariff on imports from non-NAFTA countries. However, all three countries
could decide to apply tariff rates that are much lower than the ceilings they have committed to under the WTO’s global trade rules. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">The real question is not NAFTA or no NAFTA but what trade rules do we need to achieve fairer, more sustainable food and farm systems. NAFTA has failed family farmers on both sides of the border, but there are no indications
that President Trump understands that basic fact or that he is taking effective actions to resolve it. Nor that a better NAFTA should be coupled with a better Farm Bill. NAFTA should not solely be assessed by how it affects agricultural exports by multinational
agribusiness firms, but instead for its overall impacts on farmers, rural communities and our economies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;box-sizing: border-box">
<span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif">For more information, see: <a href="https://www.iatp.org/nafta-renegotiation"><span style="color:#224186">NAFTA Renegotiation: What's at stake for food, farmers and the land?</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h3 style="mso-margin-top-alt:15.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:18.0pt;box-sizing: border-box;color:inherit">
<span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:inherit;font-weight:normal">Read our full analysis:<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;box-sizing: border-box"><span style="font-family:"adrianna",serif"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/agribusiness-first"><span style="color:#224186">Agribusiness First: Trump's Farm Policy</span></a><br>
<a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/incompetent-and-unprepared"><span style="color:#224186">Incompetent and Unprepared: Trump's Government Agencies</span></a><br>
<a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/right-sizing-regulation-and-regulatory-programs"><span style="color:#224186">“Right-Sizing” Regulation and Regulatory Programs: The Wrong Way to Protect Food and Agriculture</span></a><br>
<a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/raising-risk-limiting-opportunity"><span style="color:#224186">Raising Risk, Limiting Opportunity: Trump's Climate Denial</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.iatp.org/trump-one-year-in"><span style="color:#224186">Hurricane Trump</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>