"fight" is probably not the best term. substitute any of the following: investigate, castigate, sanction.
why exactly does he have to fight putin?
Except with Putin
A quick conflict of interest.where's the conflict ? The USFL hasn't existed for 30 years, and that article didn't have anything new that people didn't already know. More clickbait from mainstream media... Fortune literally copy and pasted from trumps wikipedia
Trump always strikes back at anyone he has any perceived slight from. That is Trump's whole agenda. It's like stupid godfather.
Usually so, but regardless of his past involvements I think he would have been happy to pick this particular fight.
I think he's happy picking any fight....
instead, he's doing quite the opposite.
I quote a BBC article from August 3:
"US President Donald Trump has signed a significant piece of legislation to punish Moscow for alleged interference in last year's election. [...] Members of the US Congress wanted to turn existing sanctions, and some new ones, into law. Both houses have Republican majorities, the same party as the president.
The bill tightens existing sanctions around the ongoing situation in Ukraine and imposes new measures including some in response to alleged hacking during the 2016 election and others that target key Russian industries such as the railways, shipping, metals and mining. It would also bring in restrictions on companies doing business with the Russian oil industry.
It [the bill] means getting rid of sanctions becomes much harder, and the power to reverse the sanctions effectively moves from the hands of the president to Congress. Previously, the sanctions were introduced as executive orders, which any president has the power to remove instantly.
Under the new law, Congress must approve any request from the president to ease the financial penalties detailed in the bill. In order to waive individual sanctions, a president would need to submit a report to Congress outlining why it is in the national interest to take that action."
btw, the US cannot impose sanctions against the head of another state - although this euphemism is often used in the media. Sanctions are always at the detriment of another country and its people.
Actually it is more nuanced than that blurb. Trump signed it because he basically had no other choice. For weeks the white house tried to soften / reduce the sanctions. So much so, that lawmakers had to add restrictions on the president's ability to remove the sanctions. Both parties were worried that Trump would ignore all the mounting evidence that Russia was behind the election interference and just remove the sanctions.
I posted this bcs someone was disappointed that Trump did not impose sanctions "on Putin", a false claim on two accounts.
I am not interested in taking a stance in favour or against Trump.
Same applies if you think NYT is a better source for information than BBC.
Greece, I think the problem is you don't have a complete understanding of how the US government works in general, and what specifically happened in this situation. The BBC article gives some info from the day he signed the law, but it does not offer context about what happened up to that point, and what Trump's options were.
Congress, on its own initiative, passed that law with over 99% voting for it. That's an extraordinarily high percentage voting for any law in the US. Despite that 99%, the Trump administration had been actively telling them to not vote for it. They voted for it in spite of him.
Once Congress sent it to him, he had three choices:
1) Sign it
2) Veto it (in which case it would require 2/3 of Congress to override him, but again, 99% voted for it in the first place over his objections, so that would have happened)
3) Wait 10 days. If Congress adjourned before 10 days and he hadn't yet signed it, the bill would be dead. If 10 days passed and Congress stayed in session, the bill would become law without his signature.
After Congress passed the bill, there was confusion as to what he was going to do. For a couple of days, the White House claimed that they didn't receive the bill from Congress, which was a very weird claim, to which Congress responded "Um, yes, we sent it to you. Stop lying." Then they had the bill, and they started the waiting game (option 3 above). Congress was scheduled to go on vacation, but a couple members stayed behind to keep the session active so he couldn't use that loophole (called a "pocket veto" in the US.)
Eventually, when it became clear that he couldn't get a pocket veto, and a regular veto would be overridden, he signed the bill. But when he signed the bill, he also issued a statement saying A) he didn't like it, and B) he didn't think it was Constitutional. These statements have been used in the past by Presidents to set up an argument that says they don't have to enforce portions of the law that they're signing. It in unclear at this time as to whether Trump will do something similar in this case. He's said he wouldn't, but he doesn't have the most trustworthy reputation.
So at the end of the day, yes, he did sign the law, but not before trying very hard to not have the bill passed, and then only after it was going to become law no matter what, and even then not without objection.
Here's an article from when the bill passed the Senate and was sent to Trump. Both Republicans and Democrats felt he might veto it. And also note he waited 6 days to sign it, despite, again, 99% of Congress supporting it.http://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/344221-senate-sends-russia-sanctions-bill-to-trumps-desk
He deserves virtually no credit for signing this bill. He was forced to do so, and complained about iit.