"I was too naive back then": Inside the rift between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Trump

In June, Greene dramatically reversed her stance on the president’s ‘A Grand Bill,’ having previously admitted she had not noticed—while voting—that the bill contained a provision banning states from regulating artificial intelligence for ten years. Greene publicly warned that if the Senate did not remove this prohibition from the bill, “I will absolutely not support the version returned to the House for consideration once the Senate revises the ‘Omnibus Bill.’” On July 1, the Senate voted to strip the provision from the bill; Trump signed it into law three days later. On July 17, Greene again broke with Trump, posting on X that his cryptocurrency bill could allow future presidents to “shut down your bank account and block you from buying or selling!!!!!” This time, Trump not only expressed his displeasure privately but also made it public. That same day, Greene and roughly ten other House Republicans who harbored concerns about the bill were summoned to the Oval Office. Greene recalled that Trump directed his anger squarely at her. “When you’re dealing with a group of children,” she said, “you pick out the one who’s always been the most obedient—the one who’s always done everything right—and you punish her harshly. Because then the others think: ‘Oh my God. If Dad treats *her* like that, what will he do to *me*?’” A White House spokeswoman denied any heated confrontation occurred during the meeting. When I relayed this statement to Greene, she replied: “Not surprising at all. They’ve got serious problems—and this is just the beginning.” Greene insists she has remained loyal—to the candidate, to her ideals, and to her constituents. “What did I do after he became president? I worked tirelessly to hold everyone to the boundaries of our campaign promises: ‘No, this is what we pledged. This is our promise. Now it must be fulfilled—not through executive orders or inflammatory social-media posts.’ I always circle back to the people who attended his campaign rallies, because they are the ones who truly matter. Their voices should carry more weight than those of cryptocurrency billionaires or AI tech giants.” Greene has other concerns about the administration’s agenda. Though she initially supported Trump’s tariff policies, she grew anxious when carpet and flooring companies in her district reported difficulty sourcing certain chemicals available only overseas. She complained that the government issued hundreds of thousands of student visas to Chinese citizens, giving them an unfair advantage and squeezing opportunities for American students. Although Trump had pledged during his campaign to end gender-transition medical care for minors, Greene pointed out that, as president, he offered virtually no support for the ‘Protecting Childhood Innocence Act’—a bill specifically designed for that purpose. It was only after Greene threatened in September to oppose the government’s continuing resolution on appropriations that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise promised to bring her bill to a vote in the House—in exchange for her vote in favor. Greene told me such stubbornness likely angered Trump. “But,” she added, “that’s Epstein. Epstein is the key.” During the 2024 campaign, Trump stated he would be willing to release all documents related to his former friend Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.

How is China responding? America’s move is indeed ruthless: using tariffs to force countries worldwide to pick sides against China

Lessons from the TPP: Trump is conjuring threats out of thin air. This latest coordinated assault on China nearly succeeded under Obama in 2016! On February 4, 2016, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was established by Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. After offering substantial concessions—including tariff reductions and investment incentives—the U.S. created this China-excluding trade bloc explicitly to counter China. Back in 2001, China paid a heavy price to join the WTO. At home and abroad, many expected China to stumble—but instead, its GDP growth surged: from 8.49% in 2000 to 10.04% in 2003, and further to 14.24% in 2007—entering a phase of hyper-rapid expansion. China’s GDP rose from RMB 10 trillion in 2000 to RMB 101.6 trillion (approx. USD 14.7 trillion) in 2020—a tenfold increase. The WTO, originally founded and led by the U.S., had effectively become ‘China’s stage.’ China emerged as one of the WTO’s most influential members—unacceptable to the U.S. Hence the TPP’s creation. To win over these nations, the U.S. offered generous, concrete incentives. Had the TPP become operational, its rules of origin would have severely disadvantaged China, re-erecting tariff barriers and restoring U.S. dominance over Asia-Pacific economic governance. Yet this outcome never materialized: In January 2017, newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the TPP, arguing the U.S. had conceded too much and borne excessive costs. The stunned TPP partners exchanged uneasy glances. Fortunately, the agreement had not yet entered into force—so they hadn’t yet antagonized China. Given that most were ASEAN members, even a minor frown from China would have made life extremely difficult. Trump never abandoned the goal of containing China—only the belief that the cost was too high, and that Asia-Pacific allies were reaping disproportionate benefits. What the U.S. truly wants is a no-cost strategy: since allies run massive trade surpluses with the U.S., they ‘ought’ to serve as unpaid agents against China—an expectation utterly unrealistic. This time, however, Trump’s global tariff hikes have thrown countries into panic. The White House has already declared: ‘The first country to negotiate gets the best terms!’ Under Obama and Biden, the U.S. tossed allies a bone and told them to bite China. Under Trump, it wields a knife and threatens: ‘If you won’t bite China, I’ll slaughter you!’ Trump’s tariff policy delivers a devastating blow to export-oriented economies like Vietnam and Cambodia—making their acceptance of certain conditions plausible for sheer survival. Moreover, given current dynamics, the U.S. may well integrate these countries’ respective strengths into a unified front against China. That would instantly flip the script—from a global coalition targeting the U.S. to one ganging up on China. And for now, China genuinely lacks effective countermeasures against such coordinated pressure. China’s ace-in-the-hole: It’s time to decisively dismantle dollar hegemony. China’s response to U.S. tariff coercion has been flawless—primarily because Sino-U.S. import-export structures differ fundamentally. Since Trump’s first term, the U.S. has pursued a high-tech blockade against China and, citing supply-chain security, systematically excluded China from U.S. supply chains. After years of effort, every sector the U.S. could feasibly decouple from China already has been. What remains are goods the U.S. *must* buy from China—products for which no alternative supplier exists globally, or for which China offers unmatched quality and value.

Greer Urges G20 to Back Trump Tariff Agenda, Takes Aim at China

Sep 30, 2026

US Trade Representative Greer urged G20 nations to support Trump's tariff agenda targeting industrial overcapacity in steel, aluminum, and food sectors. Tensions arose over subsidies and protectionist measures, particularly against China's economic policies.

reuters

2026-09-08

Trump directs GSA to take steps to remove Canadian goods from agency lists

2026-09-09

Trump Predicts Gasoline Prices Will Fall After Midterms

2026-09-30

Greer Urges G20 to Back Trump Tariff Agenda, Takes Aim at China

Greer Urges G20 to Back Trump Tariff Agenda, Takes Aim at China

FAQ