Trump Touts “Great Progress” On North Korea To Media Skepticism, Democratic Criticism.
Following his historic Singapore summit, President Trump tweeted yesterday, “Heading back home from Singapore after a truly amazing visit. Great progress was made on the denuclearization of North Korea. Hostages are back home, will be getting the remains of our great heroes back to their families, no missiles shot, no research happening, sites closing...” He later added, “Got along great with Kim Jong-un who wants to see wonderful things for his country. As I said earlier today: Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace!”
Further, Trump tweeted this morning, “Just landed – a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!” He added in a second tweet this morning, “Before taking office people were assuming that we were going to War with North Korea. President Obama said that North Korea was our biggest and most dangerous problem. No longer – sleep well tonight!” In a later tweet this morning, Trump added, “We save a fortune by not doing war games, as long as we are negotiating in good faith – which both sides are!”
The summit, however, sparked widespread skepticism from the media, which criticized the joint statement signed by the leaders as too vague, and generally cast Trump as having accomplished little. In fact, the coverage is so skeptical that Axios (6/12, Shin) ran an analysis pointing out to its readers that “denuclearization could still happen despite Trump’s lack of a plan.” Reuters (6/12, Spetalnick), however, says the summit “appears to have failed to secure any concrete commitments by Pyongyang for dismantling its nuclear arsenal,” while to Bloomberg News (6/12, Talev, Olorunnipa) the meeting “was unquestionably a success – for Kim.” Another Bloomberg News (6/12, Wadhams) analysis says that the “biggest winner” – aside from Kim – was the government of President Xi Jinping. The AP (6/12, Talmadge) reports that “probably even his own surprise,” Kim “got” what he wanted out of Trump “and a whole lot more,” and the Washington Post (6/12, Hudson) cites “experts” who state the North Korea deals brokered by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were far stronger than the agreement and diplomatic process touted by Trump, and that the Administration handed Kim a big win by agreeing to the summit.
Democrats were of the similar mind. As USA Today (6/12, Gaudiano) reports, “Democratic congressional leaders blasted...Trump...for granting concessions to...Kim...in exchange for a deal to work toward ‘complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula’ that offered scant details on how to achieve it.” Whereas “Republican leaders reacted with cautious optimism,” Senate Minority Leader Schumer said yesterday, “Trump has granted a brutal and repressive dictatorship the international legitimacy it has long craved.” House Minority Leader Pelosi similarly stated, “In his haste to reach an agreement...Trump elevated North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving the regime’s status quo.” Sen. Robert Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN’s The Lead
(6/12), “This is the most anemic communique that has ever come out of a US-North Korea engagement. Very little substance on anything. ... All we got here was a promise for more promises and we’ve been down that road before.”
Townhall (6/12, Brown) highlights the Democratic leaders’ criticism, while Breitbart (6/12, Poor) points out that on CNN’s Inside Politics (6/12), Dana Bash “suggested there is a double standard to the extent there would be a call for impeachment a Democratic president engaging in the style of diplomacy in which Trump has engaged with...Kim.” Said Bash, “There would be a call for impeachment.” Along similar lines, media analyses are uniformly critical both of Trump and of the signed agreement. Mark Landler writes in a New York Times (6/12) analysis that the statement “was as skimpy as the summit was extravagant. It called for the ‘complete denuclearization’ of the Korean Peninsula but provided neither a timeline nor any details about how the North would go about relinquishing its weapons.” The Wall Street Journal (6/12, Bender, Gordon, Cheng) reports that Trump failed to secure specific new commitments from Kim – even as he launched a new phase of personal diplomacy.
NBC Nightly News (6/12, lead story, 5:15, Holt) said “the accomplishments of their first face-to-face meeting are being held up to the light, especially what wasn’t in” the agreement Kim and Trump signed. ABC World News Tonight (6/12, lead story, 4:55, Muir) reported that “Trump headed home today, confident the biggest gamble of his presidency had paid off,” but the agreement he and Kim signed is “short on specifics.” The White House “acknowledges there’s a lot of details to workout.” The CBS Evening News (6/12, lead story, 4:10, Glor) said a “jubilant” Trump left Singapore “with what he said was an historic new relationship with North Korea and a commitment from” Kim “to eventually give up nuclear weapons.” Margaret Brennan said on the CBS Evening News (6/12, story 3, 2:55, Glor) that Trump “gave himself a lot of wiggle room today” by saying, “I may stand up here I six months and say, ‘hey, I was wrong.’” But the President “also gave the North Koreans room to maneuver as well.”
The Washington Post (6/12, Nakamura, Rucker, Fifield, Gearan) says that at “just over a page long,” the statement “was perhaps most notable for its lack of details.” Kim, it says, “made no specific commitment to relinquish his nuclear arms and ballistic missiles and gave no timeline for which he would do so. Rather, he committed solely to abiding by a mostly symbolic agreement he had made during a summit with South Korean President Moon Jae-in in April.” Asked why his negotiating team had not locked down specific promises from Pyongyang, Trump replied: “Because there’s no time. I’m here one day ... But the process is now going to take place.”
Under the headline “Trump, Kim Claim Big Summit Success, But Details Are Scant,” the AP (6/12, Miller, Lucey, Lederman, Klug) says the statement “largely amounts to an agreement to continue discussions, echoing previous public statements and commitments.” Still, the two leaders “left Singapore Tuesday, praising their face-to-face progress.” During a press conference after the talks, Trump “acknowledged that denuclearization won’t happen overnight,” but contended, “Once you start the process it means it’s pretty much over.”
The Los Angeles Times (6/12, Kim) characterizes the framework as “a vaguely worded agreement that contained no concrete plan for disarmament.” While the Times concedes the agreement “is no small achievement considering that the two leaders were threatening each other with nuclear war last summer...it was far less than the ambitious arms control deal Trump hoped to gain when he agreed to the summit in March.” CNN (6/11, Liptak) similarly says Tuesday’s “unprecedented” talks “culminated...with fulsome declarations of a new friendship but just vague pledges of nuclear disarmament.” USA Today (6/12, Jackson) notes the agreement “did not provide specifics about what Kim means by ‘denuclearization.’”
The Washington Free Beacon (6/12, Gertz), however, says that while the “historic meeting...failed to produce a dramatic breakthrough,” it did “set the stage for future talks on what was billed as a new relationship.” To the AP (6/12, Lemire, Pennington), moreover, Trump staged “a shift from the nation’s asserted stance as the globe’s moral leader” and “a sharp break from the position of presidents from both parties to set America as the exemplar shining city on a hill for other nations to emulate.” The AP analysis adds that “it has been much the same at home,” as when “he pointedly refused to exclusively blame neo-Nazis and white supremacists for last summer’s deadly clash with anti-racist demonstrators.”
James Hohmann writes in a Washington Post (6/12) analysis that Trump “expressed a bewilderingly high degree of confidence” after Tuesday’s meeting with Kim. Trump told reporters, “My whole life has been deals. I know when somebody wants a deal. … I just feel very strongly – my instinct… – they want to make a deal.” Hohmann, however, says the President “is giving someone the benefit of the doubt who has done little or nothing to earn it.”
Ben Tracy reported on the CBS Evening News (6/12, story 2, 1:20, Glor) that “the front page of the newspaper in North Korea today...is covered with pictures of Kim...with President Trump. And that’s one of the big things that Kim...got out of this. He looks like a confident world leader on the world stage. He doesn’t look like the leader of an isolated nation.”
A USA Today (6/12, Korte) analysis, meanwhile, says Tuesday’s summit “hearkens back to a bygone era of high-risk summits where the outcome is not preordained,” but it “suits” Trump’s “negotiating style: Size up your adversary, establish a rapport and make a deal.” Ted Anthony writes for the AP (6/12) that the summit “is being vigorously debated across the planet for what it did, what it didn’t do and who emerged on top. ... But what if that’s not the whole point? What if, on a sunny tropical morning in Singapore, the spectacle itself was the most substantial thing of all?”
Kim Accepts Trump’s Invite To Washington. The New York Post (6/12, Hicks) reports that “fresh off the Singapore summit,” Kim “has accepted...Trump’s invitation to visit Washington.” The Daily Caller (6/12, Pickrell) reports the state-run Korean Central News Agency said Kim invited Trump “to visit Pyongyang at a convenient time and Trump invited Kim Jong Un to visit the US. ... The two top leaders gladly accepted each other’s invitation.”
Trump Reiterates Optimism About Denuclearization, US-North Korea Ties. Trump took to Twitter again later on Tuesday, writing, “There is no limit to what NoKo can achieve when it gives up its nuclear weapons and embraces commerce & engagement w/ the world. Chairman Kim has before him the opportunity to be remembered as the leader who ushered in a glorious new era of security & prosperity for his citizens!” He later added, “I want to thank Chairman Kim for taking the first bold step toward a bright new future for his people. Our unprecedented meeting – the first between an American President and a leader of North Korea – proves that real change is possible! ... The World has taken a big step back from potential Nuclear catastrophe! No more rocket launches, nuclear testing or research! The hostages are back home with their families. Thank you to Chairman Kim, our day together was historic!”
During an interview with George Stephanopoulos for ABC’s Good Morning America (6/12) after the summit, moreover, Trump said, “They are going to get rid of their nuclear weapons, and...I think they want to do it relatively quickly. ... I think they will. I really believe that [Kim] will. I’ve gotten to know him well in a short period of time. ... He’s denuking the whole place and he’s going to start very quickly. I think he’s going to start now.” In an interview conducted in Singapore after Tuesday’s summit and aired Tuesday night, Trump said on Fox News’ Hannity (6/12) that without the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, “we could not have had a deal. We want to de-nuke the entire peninsula. We want to de-nuke that whole situation – that is hotbed and you know what has been happening for years and nobody did anything about it. You have to, we have no choice. We had to. The relationship was really good. ... I talked about early on in the relationship and the feeling, well, we had a really good feel right from the beginning and we were able to get something very important done and actually some things happened after that was signed, where we are getting rid of certain missile research areas and certain missile testing sites, we are getting rid of a lot.”
The Washington Times (6/12, Boyer) reports that Trump also told Sean Hannity that “he’s certain that his warlike rhetoric last year against...Kim...convinced Mr. Kim to negotiate over giving up his nuclear weapons.” Trump told Fox News’ Hannity (6/12), “Without the rhetoric we wouldn’t have been here, I really believe that. We did sanctions and all the things that you would do but I think without the rhetoric, other administrations, I don’t want to get specific on that, but they had a policy of silence. If they said something very bad, very threatening and horrible, just don’t answer. That’s not the answer. That’s not what you have to do. I think that rhetoric, I hated to do it. Sometimes I felt foolish doing it. But we had no choice.”
Trump Called Into Senate GOP Lunch To Discuss Summit. The Hill (6/12, Carney) reports Trump “called into the Senate GOP lunch from Air Force One on Tuesday to discuss North Korea, according to a senator who attended the gathering.” Sen. John Barrasso told reporters after the caucus lunch, “We just got off the phone with the President of the United States from Air Force One on his plane back from Singapore. He sounded confident and upbeat, as he should.”
Republicans Offer “Measured Praise,” Rubio Slams Media “Hypocrisy” Over Summit Coverage. Meanwhile, says the Washington Post (6/12, Wagner, Debonis), “leading Republicans in Congress offered measured praise...of...Trump’s high-profile summit” even as “they emphasized the difficult road” ahead. Along those lines, the AP (6/12, Kellman) notes that Senate Majority Leader McConnell, meanwhile, hailed the meeting as a “major first step.” Dana Milbank writes in the Washington Post (6/12) that “Republican lawmakers filled Twitter with applause emojis for Trump after he did the very thing they denounced Obama for even suggesting.” Democrats, “were they inclined to be demagogic, could have attacked Trump for sitting down with a murderous dictator. Most didn’t.” There is an “asymmetrical partisanship in our current politics: Republicans are blithely hypocritical in praising Trump for doing the same thing they blasted Obama for suggesting, but at least some Democrats retain enough integrity not to dismiss diplomacy just because it is being attempted by their opponent.”
The New York Times (6/12, Fandos) reports, however, that “lawmakers from both parties...greeted the joint agreement...coolly on Tuesday,” and “even some Republicans who have largely declined to challenge the president” on this issue saying “it was unclear what, if anything, had been gained by the United States.” The Times backs up that assertion by quoting Sens. Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham, who “called the talks a good ‘first step’ but little more.” Graham told NBC’s Today (6/12, Guthrie), “I don’t think canceling a war game is going to matter over the arc of time,” though “one thing I would violently disagree with is removing our troops. I can’t imagine I would vote for any agreement that requires us to withdraw our forces because that would destabilize Asia.”
The Washington Times (6/12, Chasmar) reports Sen. Marco Rubio “on Tuesday slammed American media for their ‘hypocrisy’ in covering...Trump’s historic meeting with...Kim.” Taking to Twitter, “Rubio said the media’s coverage of the meeting again exposed a double standard in how they cover the Republican president compared to his liberal predecessor, Barack Obama.” Rubio tweeted, “I too have concerns about how all this with #NorthKorea will turn out,” but “I don’t recall all the ‘experts’ criticizing Obama when he met with a brutal dictator in #Cuba who also oversaw a police state & also killed & jailed his opponents. #DoubleStandard” He added, “Presidents meeting with #KJU exposed incredible hypocrisy of many in media. ... When Obama did these things, he was described as enlightened. When Trump does it he is reckless & foolish. 1 yr ago they attacked Trump for leading us towards war, now attack for being too quick for peace.”
Author Paul Brandus writes in USA Today (6/12), “Here’s how hyperpartisan our bizarro world has become: Many of the same folks who, a few years ago, blasted...Obama for going to Cuba and for working with other global powers to rein in Iran’s nuclear program, are gushing over the fact that...Trump just flew 10,000 miles to meet with Kim,” and “conversely, if you praised Obama’s actions then, there’s a good chance you’ve been critical of Trump’s now.”
Sanders, Gabbard Break With Democrats On Summit. In what Breitbart (6/12, Binder) calls “a revolt against the Democratic Party establishment,” Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) “praised Trump’s summit with Kim,” calling it an “important first step” towards peace and a “positive step in de-escalating tensions.”
Editorial Pages Critical Of Trump. Criticism of Trump is also the norm in today’s editorial pages. The Washington Post (6/12) editorializes that the summit “was, without question, a triumph for Kim,” who “was able to parade on the global stage as a legitimate statesman, praised by the president of the United States as ‘very talented’ and worthy of trust.” Washington Post (6/12) columnist Max Boot writes that Kim “won an invaluable propaganda windfall” after being “recognized as an equal by the leader of the world’s sole superpower – not just an equal, indeed, but a valued friend.” The New York Times (6/12) editorializes that “Trump has made major concessions, while Mr. Kim made fewer commitments than North Korea has made to past administrations and merely reaffirmed a goal of ‘denuclearization’ that North Korea first announced in 1992.” And as Trump “gushed about the virtues of the North Korean dictator, just a day after he savaged some of America’s closest democratic allies, he even endorsed the North Korean view of such joint exercises” with South Korea “as ‘provocative.’” To Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times (6/12), meanwhile, “it sure looks as if...Trump was hoodwinked in Singapore.”
The Wall Street Journal (6/12) also expresses skepticism in its editorial, indicating that for all of Trump’s faith in North Korean denuclearization, so far there was been little evidence that Kim is indeed willing to move forward with his commitment.
Less critical was an editorial in the Los Angeles Times (6/12), which says Trump has “de-escalated the rhetoric dramatically” and “may have begun a process that will succeed in reining in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions,” but “for all the spectacle, the meeting was at best a down payment on that change.” Along similar lines, USA Today (6/12) editorializes that that “the world has certainly come a long way since last year,” that the summit was “a welcome relief from all the warmongering,” and that “the agreement signed by Kim and Trump was historic and potentially groundbreaking.” However, “the sense of hopefulness emerging from the summit, however, has to be leavened with a heavy dose of skepticism.”
In a second editorial, the New York Times (6/12) writes that “as a model for diplomacy, the Singapore Summit had its highs and lows. But as a platform for displaying the singular performance art of Donald Trump, it was a solid 10.” The Times adds that “if Mr. Trump can crack this nut, he’ll surely get the adulation – not to mention the Nobel Peace Prize – that he is so desperate for.”
Suspension Of “War Games” Sparks More Criticism. Reports also cast Trump’s decision to suspend joint US-South Korean “war games” as a concession that took Seoul by surprise. The New York Times (6/12, Landler) reports Trump’s decision to suspend the war games, which it calls “a major concession,” “appeared to take South Korea by surprise.” Reuters (6/12, Holland) calls it “an unexpected concession to the North,” and the AP (6/12, Klug) says the decision “rocked the region with the stunning announcement.” It adds that Trump’s “surprise, almost offhand” remarks
