Noam Chomsky on Midterms: Republican Party Is the “Most Dangerous Organization in Human History”

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. With the U.S. midterm elections a day away, we continue our conversation with the world-renowned linguist, dissident, author Noam Chomsky. Democracy Now!'s Nermeen Shaikh and I interviewed him from Tucson, Arizona, where he now teaches at the University of Arizona. Noam Chomsky is also institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he's taught for more than 50 years.
During Part 1 of the conversation, that we played on Friday, Noam Chomsky talked about what’s at stake in tomorrow’s midterm elections.

NOAM CHOMSKY: So, is it the most gravest moment in my life? Yes. But also in all of human history. And things like the election will have an impact on this.

AMY GOODMAN: During our conversation on Thursday, I asked Professor Chomsky to outline some of the issues he thinks should be followed most closely.

NOAM CHOMSKY: What are the domestic policies of the Trump administration? They’re very straightforward: lavish gifts on the rich, powerful corporate sector and try to undermine and destroy anything that might be of benefit to the general population. That’s quite explicitly what’s happening before our eyes.

So, take the legislative achievement that the Republican Party is most proud of: their tax bill—as economist Joseph Stiglitz described it, the donor relief plan of 2017. It’s an enormous gift to wealth, corporate power, including real estate interests, incidentally. Enormous gift, frankly. And it has the secondary advantage—as the Republican leadership was quick to point out, it has the advantage of creating a huge deficit, which can be used as a pretext for getting rid of social spending. U.S. social spending is already very meager by world standards. We’re down at the bottom of the OECD, the 30 rich countries, along with Greece and Turkey, in social benefits spendings. But there’s something there, so let’s get rid of it. Let’s undermine Medicaid, which goes to the undeserving poor; let’s undermine Social Security, which working people just rely on for survival—all because we have to lavish gifts on the super-rich and ensure that the corporations have profits bulging out of their ears. The claim of the pretext for the tax scam was that it was going to sharply increase investment. That was pretty outlandish. To start with, corporations already have—are just overflowing with profits and wealth. And predictably, it did nothing of the sort.

Those are the domestic programs. Then come all of these international horrors that we’re talking about. I shouldn’t—don’t want to suggest that the mainstream Democrats are all that better in these respects. Somewhat. And there is a progressive wave among the sectors of the Democratic Party that could lead in a much more constructive direction. But the midterms next week are going to have a critical impact on how the country goes and, given the enormous power and wealth of this country, what happens to the world.

AMY GOODMAN: And on that issue, you have been extremely critical of Democrats. But with this whole discussion of whether the House will turn Democrat, and possibly the Senate, do you think it matters?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I think it matters. Yes, we have every reason to be critical of the Democrats. These policies of the last generation, the neoliberal policies that have led to these conditions we’ve been talking about, the so-called New Democrats, the Clinton Democrats, have been right at the forefront. Say, deregulation of financial institutions, one of Clinton’s great achievements, which led directly to the financial crisis, along with—one of the factors that led to it—his attack on the welfare program. Lots that we can blame them for.

In fact, I should say that some of the things that Trump has done, which are—which merit praise, are bitterly attacked by the Democrats and by the Republican hawks, in particular, with regard to Korea. In April, last April, the two Koreas, North and South, issued a historic declaration, Panmunjom Declaration, in which they laid out for the first time fairly detailed plans and moves towards a reduction of tension, reconciliation, a reduction of weaponry, denuclearization. Very sensible, detailed plans. And they virtually pleaded with the outside world, meaning the United States, not to interfere. What they said is, the two Koreas will proceed with these plans on their own accord—crucially. In other words, let us do it.

Trump, to his credit, has not interfered. The Singapore summit, for which he was lambasted, was one of his more—one of his very few admirable achievements. He not only did not intervene, but he even withdrew what he correctly described as provocative U.S.-South Korean military operations. Well, all of that should be supported. I don’t know what his reasons were, maybe ridiculous reasons, but doesn’t matter. These are moves that should be supported. Those are the things for which he’s being bitterly attacked. So, it’s not an entirely, you know, sort of clear issue.

Nevertheless, overwhelmingly, the Republican Party is simply a major threat to—not only to the country, but to human survival. I’ve said in the past that I think they’re the most dangerous organization in human history, on the issue of climate change alone, and I think that’s worth repeating.

AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned linguist, dissident and author Noam Chomsky. We’ll return to our conversation with him in a minute to talk about the threats of nuclear war and climate change. But tune in Tuesday night for Democracy Now!'s live coverage of the midterm elections. We're teaming up with The Intercept for this special broadcast from 7 p.m. Eastern time to 1:00 in the morning. Check your local listings or simply go to democracynow.org. Back with Noam Chomsky in a minute.

Trump’s Crony Capitalists Plot a New Heist

The Treasury secretary floats a plan to hand $100 billion in capital gains tax savings to his moneyed friends. It’s almost certainly illegal. 

By The Editorial Board

It seems that last year’s $1.5 trillion tax-cut package, despite heavily favoring affluent investors and corporate titans over workers of modest means, was insufficiently generous to the wealthy to satisfy certain members of the Trump administration. So now Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin offers an exciting plan to award an additional $100 billion tax cut to the richest Americans. 

Specifically, Mr. Mnuchin has directed his department to explore allowing investors to take inflation into account when calculating their capital gains tax bill. (Instead of determining how much value a stock had gained by subtracting its selling price from its original purchase price, investors would first adjust the purchase price to reflect what it would be in inflation-adjusted dollars.) Fans of the move argue that it would benefit the wide swath of middle-class Americans who own stocks, along with all those older Americans whose homes have appreciated in value over the decades. And, indeed, many middle-class Americans could wind up with a sliver of savings. But not all investors are equal. 

Independent analyses say that a whopping 97 percent of the savings from Mr. Mnuchin’s plan would go to the highest 10 percent of income earners. (For the severely math challenged, that would leave a paltry 3 percent to be divvied up by the remaining 90 percent of the country.) Two-thirds of all savings would go to the top 0.1 percent of income earners.

 

So in rough dollar terms, the administration is looking to hand $66 billion-plus to the ultrarich like — just to name a few — Mr. Mnuchin, who did very, very well during his years at Goldman Sachs (and already has a net worth estimated at $252 million); Wilbur Ross, the loaded secretary of commerce (estimated net worth: $506.5 million); Betsy DeVos, the even richer secretary of education (about $1.1 billion); and, of course, the extended Trump-Kushner clan. (To be sure, Ivanka Trump could use a financial pick-me-up to help take the sting out of having to close down her clothing brand.)

Thus die the final vestiges of this president’s pretty little narrative about being a populist hero. 

Hard-core economic conservatives and anti-tax activists have long pushed to index capital gains taxes for inflation under the dubious argument that it would bolster the overall economy. Unsurprisingly, this crusade has failed to catch fire in Congress, where even anti-tax lawmakers can be skittish about so blatantly playing to the plutocrats.

But here’s where Mr. Mnuchin’s plan is so politically inspired. He hopes to cut Congress out of this deal altogether by declaring it a regulatory matter and allowing Treasury to unilaterally redefine the term “cost.” No need to subject this process to the messiness of the legislative process when it is so much more efficient to claim jurisdiction for oneself and change the meaning of words to suit one’s purpose. Behold Trumpian logic at its purest. 

One potential sticking point is that Mr. Mnuchin’s proposal may not be, strictly speaking, legal. Congress has never authorized the Treasury Department to interpret tax law in the bizarre way the secretary is advocating. And the last time such a possibility was floated, in 1992, President George Bush’s Justice Department shot it down with extreme prejudice. The department’s Office of Legal Counsel went so far as to issue a 23-page opinion laying out in excruciating detail why the Treasury Department does not have the legal authority to index capital gains for inflation by means of regulation. 

So there’s that.

But the Trump administration isn’t one to fret about legal niceties when pursuing its pet projects. It much prefers to plow forward and let the court challenges shake out as they will. You win some. (Think travel ban, eventually, after multiple revisions.) You lose some. (Snatching migrant kids from their families at the border.) But as the adage goes, it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. 

Mr. Mnuchin may well figure that the risk is worth the potential gain for himself, his wealthy friends and, more broadly, members of the Republican Party’s donor class who might very well show their gratitude by channeling some of their tax savings into party coffers. Besides, a case like this could take a while to wend its way through the courts, and who knows how many millions could be saved in the meantime. 

Beyond pure greed and a desire to suck up to the 0.1 percent, it’s hard to see any real-world logic behind this move. As political messaging goes, it seems flat-out bonkers to position Republicans as the party of the superrich — especially during a critical midterm election campaign with control of both houses of Congress on the line.

But at this point, President Trump may have decided that it doesn’t much matter what economic policies he pursues so long as he can keep the base distracted and fired up with his relentless culture warring. (Build the wall! Lock her up! Gorsuch! Kavanaugh! Stand for the anthem or be fired!) In early 2016, candidate Trump famously boasted that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not lose any voters. Since becoming president, he has been given little cause by his base — or by Republicans in Congress — to doubt his political infallibility. As such, with Mr. Mnuchin’s proposal, as with so many other moves undertaken by this administration, Mr. Trump’s thinking may boil down to little more than, “Why the heck not?” 

This may strike some as a depressingly cynical reading of what is being proposed. What, you thought their motives were pure?

Donald Trump and narcissism: What's behind his big ego?

Narcissists don't accept any criticism. They consider themselves infallible. That sounds suspiciously like Donald Trump. Behind such a big mouth is often a very troubled person, says therapist Bärbel Wardetzki.

Remote diagnosing is a controversial practice among psychologists. But for a while now, many in the field have been concerned about US President Donald Trump's seemingly dire mental state. In February last year, a letter written by 33 psychiatrists and psychologists was published in The New York Times. They warned of the risks the US president poses. In "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump", a book published in October, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts describe the president's severe personality disorder. The most frequent diagnosis in the book is narcissistic personality disorder.

Read more: New book paints strange picture of Trump family ties
Bärbel Wardetzki is a psychotherapist in Germany who has written several books about narcissism. In an interview with DW, she explains what narcissism is.

 DW: Am I a narcissist if I like myself?

Bärbel Wardetzki: No, the term narcissism is not easy to define. I see narcissism as a way of dealing with the world. It ranges from positive narcissism to pathological narcissism. People who say "I like myself" simply have high self-esteem. They do not experience self-doubt but they are still able to structure their inner life, help and comfort themselves. They are aware of their capabilities and limits. Actually, many people view this attitude as negative narcissism but it is actually positive. A narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by a deeply disturbed sense of self-esteem that is compensated for by creating a larger-than-life image of oneself.

What about negative narcissism? Does US President Donald Trump suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder?

It is difficult to diagnose Trump as I do not actually know him and can only interpret his behavior. Maybe he suffers from a completely different personality disorder but the narcissistic aspect is what catches the eye. He's a prime example of narcissism. His behavior and way of dealing with others by simply dividing the world into good and evil is typical of this disorder.

What type of behavior do psychologists associate with a narcissistic personality disorder?

There are several criteria that must be met before one can speak of a disorder. Criticism is met with anger as it is associated with shame and humiliation. People with this disorder are manipulative. Relationships with others are exploited for personal gain. Another factor is overblown self-esteem. The person feels unique and great. Those who have a personality disorder constantly fantasize about infinite success, power, beauty, brilliance and idealized love. They make great demands on themselves and others. They constantly expect attention and admiration. Furthermore, narcissists lack empathy. This point however, is a topic of contention at the moment. People with a personality disorder can show empathy but not in the sense of compassion, which means feeling for others. Last but not least, people with a narcissistic personality disorder are extremely envious of others.

You say that a narcissistic personality disorder is based on low self-esteem. So if Trump brags about having a bigger nuclear button than Kim Jong Un, does he actually fear having a smaller one?

Exactly. "I am not good enough" is the underlying fear in this disorder and it can be an existential fear. People who develop narcissistic structures often do not even know who they are. They have often been manipulated as children who had to live up to a specific image. They draw their self-esteem from external accomplishments: power, big cars or important positions. But all this conceals an emotionally neglected child who was never given the attention it actually needed.

What's the best way to deal with a narcissist like Trump?

Well, that's the million dollar question. When dealing with people like that, your own self-esteem is challenged. After all, they can quickly make you feel worthless and miserable and no longer the person you are. It is important to learn to take a stand against them, to raise your voice and not be intimidated. And to leave when the relationship becomes too destructive. Which, unfortunately, we cannot do in this case.

Bärbel Wardetzski is a psychotherapist and the author of the book "Narzissmus, Verführung und Macht in Politik und Gesellschaft" ("Narcissism, seduction and power in politics and society")
The interview was conducted by Julia Vergin.

Trump’s War on the Environment, from Attacking California Fuel Standards to Destroying Public Lands

While climate change denier Scott Pruitt has been ousted as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency over a slew of corruption scandals and his close ties to industry lobbyists, the Trump administration’s war on the environment and environmental regulations continues unabated. For more on the government’s attacks on public land protections and key regulations like California’s fuel emissions standards, we speak with Kierán Suckling, executive director and a founder of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Transcript

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, you mentioned greenhouse gas emissions, but the Trump administration is also seeking to revoke California’s authority to set its own tougher automobile emissions standards. On Tuesday, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the U.S. needs a single standard for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks.

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah, this is really outrageous, because the way our Clean Air Act works is it allows states to set standards if they’re higher than the federal government. And so, for 48 years running now, California has had a higher standard. It’s had that through administrations Democratic and Republican, conservative and liberal. No one’s had a problem with it, until Trump. And so, partly, this is his effect—efforts to reduce any attempt to control global warming, but it’s also clearly a personal agenda to attack California, which he believes is just generally a hostile element to him personally, and so, consequently, we have this incredibly irrational act, especially when, for example, you’ve got Barrasso talking about state’s rights: “Let’s empower the states.” Well, these Republicans only want to empower the states when the states have a lower protective standard. The second a state has a higher standard, all of a sudden all concerns about state rights go out the window, and we have to go to a federal single authority that’s going to reduce environmental protection.

AMY GOODMAN: Kierán, what about the record of the interior secretary, Ryan Zinke? You have ThinkProgress saying documents released by the Department of Interior, then retracted a day later, revealed the agency officials dismissed evidence that public lands provide numerous benefits in favor of prioritizing fossil fuel interests, along with ranching and logging, and then CNN reporting Zinke is meeting with people that are not on the public record. For example, met with Congressman Chris Collins, a New York Republican, who was the first in Congress to endorse Trump’s presidential candidacy. That was according to the official calendar. But Zinke’s calendar didn’t show who else was in the room: three representatives of a company that do business with the National Park Service—one of about of a dozen instances uncovered by CNN of Zinke’s calendar omitting who he’s actually meeting with.

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah. Zinke, I think, is going to go down as one of the worst interior secretaries in history. And his actions are very, very similar to what Scott Pruitt was doing over at EPA before he was forced to resign. And that is that he’s aggressively trying to avoid all environmental laws. He’s meeting with industry groups constantly and then hiding that, rather than simply admitting to what he’s doing in public. And the agenda is always the same: You know, what can he do to allow public lands to be destroyed? What can he do to allow more oil and gas drilling, even if it’s polluting local communities, poisoning children? It’s really a disaster.

He has turned this agency, which is supposed to be in charge of America’s land, air, water and species, into a handout program for industry, and then going so far as to just erase all this from his calendar, from his meeting notes, to take decisions from lower officials who are trying to do their job, and erase all references to issues which harms their agenda. And in particular what you’ll see is that protecting public lands, especially on national monuments, is really good for local economies, but instead they’ll erase all that information and say, “Oh, this is hurting local economies.” And it’s not just immoral, it’s illegal. And it’s the reason why this agency gets sued so much.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And staying on the Interior Department and Zinke, the department has also commissioned an expedited environmental review of the impact of leasing part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, this is a decades-long battle that the industry, the oil and gas industry, has not been able to win. What is happening here? And what could be the potential impact of this new expedited review?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah, this is very concerning. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off the coast of Alaska, has been sought after by the oil industry for many, many decades now and has always been stopped, because it’s such a crown jewel of environmental protection, and there are so many other areas available for drilling. So, Zinke now has expedited efforts to review proposed drilling up there, brought on millions of dollars of new money, which apparently don’t exist to do anything else in government, more staff, and he wants to push through, at a very rapid clip, a decision to open this up to more drilling. And he’s throwing all the environmental standards, review processes out the window. And I think it’s partly because he knows time is limited up there for him, and he wants this to become his legacy, the guy who opened up America’s biggest, most important wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

AMY GOODMAN: Kierán Suckling, we are speaking to you in Portland, Oregon. In Yosemite right now, the national park, thousands of people are being evacuated because of terrible wildfires. I want to ask you about something else that happened in Oregon. Earlier this month, Donald Trump pardoned Dwight Hammond and his son Steven Hammond, two Oregon cattle ranchers who were convicted in 2012 of committing arson on federal lands. Prosecutors say the Hammonds set the fires to cover up their illegal deer poaching. Their conviction sparked armed right-wing militiamen, led by Ammon Bundy, to take over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, provoking a 41-day armed standoff in 2016. Can you comment on this and what message President Trump was sending with this, these pardons?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: This is very disturbing, because the Hammonds not only were arsonists who set fire to our public lands, threatening firefighters who were out there, but have a long history of threatening to kill federal officials. And when the Bundy militia group came up to support them when they were prosecuted, they came up there with the message of not just let’s help the Hammonds, but let’s give all of America’s public lands away to industry and state groups.

And so, when Trump is pardoning these people, he’s really signaling—sending a signal to this right-wing base to say, “Hey, anti-government extremism, threats of violence against those you don’t like, against the government, are acceptable.” They’re encouraged. And, in fact, earlier, when he pardoned Joe Arpaio, another very controversial action, well, it turns out Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Joe, was also a supporter of this Bundy group and this radical, violent agenda. And I think it goes along with Trump gearing up this violent undercurrent in America to support him and to drive fear into others.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Last week, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh submitted to the Senate his responses to a lengthy questionnaire as part of the confirmation process. Responding to a question about the 10 most significant cases over which he sat, Kavanaugh cited his dissenting opinion in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, in which he argued that the EPA must consider financial costs when deciding whether to regulate emissions from power plants. Kavanaugh wrote in the questionnaire, quote, “In my view, it was unreasonable—and therefore unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act—for EPA not to consider the costs imposed by regulations in determining whether such regulations were 'appropriate and necessary.'” I’m wondering your thoughts on, if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed for the Supreme Court, what the impact of this would be on environmental laws in the future.

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Well, it would be extraordinary. I mean, Trump has already had one appointee on the Supreme Court. If he gets the second, he will likely be able to control the whole judicial agenda for environmental protection in this country. And that’s incredibly important, because right now the strongest, most powerful force of resistance against Trump is our legal system. And that’s because virtually everything he wants to do is illegal. The people he’s put in place, like Zinke and Pruitt, to carry out his agenda have such disdain for governance. They don’t even know how to do governmental process properly, so they’re continually sued, they’re continually found guilty. And that’s keeping America on track, this independent judiciary. So, if Trump captures the Supreme Court, we’re going to find he’s got an open agenda to do whatever he wants. And so, it’s very, very dangerous and disheartening.

AMY GOODMAN: We just have a few seconds, but, Kierán Suckling, your organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, has sued the Trump administration 81 times in this last year and a half? Have you had any success?

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Yeah, we’ve actually won most of those cases. It’s been about one a week. And of those that have completed, we’ve won most of those cases. And it just shows you the power of our independent legal system and our independent judiciary to address excesses of power, even by the president of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Kierán Suckling, we thank you so much for being with us, from Portland, Oregon, executive director and founder of the Center for Biological Diversity.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back—

KIERÁN SUCKLING: Thanks for having me on.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you. When we come back, as records are broken, heat records around the country and around the world, we’ll look at a new medical study that indicates suicide will go up by tens of thousands as a result of climate change. Stay with us.

Trump’s Businesses Show Mixed Returns During Campaign and Presidency

By STEVE EDER, ERIC LIPTON and ANDREW W. LEHREN

The Trump International Hotel in Washington and the Mar-a-Lago private resort in Florida have been among President Trump’s favorite spots to visit in the months since he became president. And both were among the most lucrative properties in his portfolio during what otherwise was a mixed year for the Trump family businesses, according to a financial disclosure report released Friday.

The 98-page report is the first official look at how Mr. Trump’s private finances fared during his campaign and the early months of presidency, even as he has stepped away from the day-to-day management duties of his company. They show Mr. Trump and his related business entities reported revenue of at least $597 million, down about 3 percent from the $615 million in the period a year before. Mr. Trump reported assets valued at a minimum of $1.4 billion, down slightly from $1.5 billion in 2016.

One place where his revenue fell considerably was at Trump National Doral, a golf resort near Miami and his biggest cash flow generator. It reported revenue of $116 million, down 12 percent from Mr. Trump’s 2016 disclosure, even though the Trump Organization recently completed a major renovation there.

Revenues at his aircraft company, which the Trump campaign used to move him around the country during his presidential bid, more than doubled to $7.7 million.

 

Revenues also jumped at Mar-a-Lago, which Mr. Trump has called the “Winter White House,” reaching $37.3 million. That was an increase from $29.8 million in a roughly corresponding 16-month period that began in January 2015, and $15.6 million in a similar time period that began in early 2014. The Trump Organization doubled the initiation fee that new members must pay to join the club, shortly after Mr. Trump was elected president.

The document released Friday provides no new information about any possible ties to Russia, echoing the statement released last month by Mr. Trump’s lawyers. Mr. Trump’s business interests, which already have been the source of constitutional challenges and ethics complaints, are more complicated than those of any previous president. Even with the disclosure offered Friday, the picture of his finances is far from complete as they lack the level of detail normally provided in tax returns, which Mr. Trump has refused to make public.

As president, Mr. Trump has helped highlight his family’s properties by repeatedly visiting his golf courses and Mar-a-Lago. Since he was sworn in, he has visited family business properties on at least 42 different days, with 25 of those at Mar-a-Lago, according to a tally by The New York Times.

Mr. Trump filed the disclosure, which generally covers a period from January 2016 to April 2017, with the assistance of the Office of Government Ethics to follow a practice set by President Barack Obama. He was technically not required to make the filing until next year. It is not known how profitable the golf clubs and resorts are, because The Trump Organization is a private business and Mr. Trump only releases revenue figures in his public disclosures. “President Trump welcomed the opportunity to voluntarily file his personal financial disclosure form; while this filing is voluntary (as no report was due until May 2018), it has been certified by the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to its normal procedures,” White House representatives said in a statement.

One of the Trump Organization’s new endeavors, Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., set up in a once rundown federal building that the Trump family spent $200 million to renovate, had revenue of about $20 million, the disclosure said.

The hotel opened its doors in September and since Election Day it has become a magnet for foreigners and lobbyists, with executives explicitly pitching the hotel as smart place for foreign diplomats to hold events. The hotel has been the site of Bahrain’s National Day celebration, and a prominent conference on United States-Turkey relations. It also served as the host of the American Petroleum Institute board meeting in March — an event that drew two members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet — while also making the family company a considerable fee.

Revenue from his international operations — including residential buildings, golf courses and hotels in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East — did not change significantly in the last year even though several properties, for which he collects a licensing fee, opened recently including in Manila and Dubai. There were some exceptions, including a new tower in Vancouver, which produced at least $5 million in revenue, and an entity affiliated connected to Kolkata, India, which brought in $100,000 to $1 million.

Renewed sales of his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, also increased. The title brought in at least $100,000, double the minimum revenue listed last year.

Lawyers involved in suing Mr. Trump, based on allegations that he is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution because his businesses are accepting payments from foreign governments, said that the financial disclosure, while helpful, left many of their questions unresolved. “It just elevates questions,” said Maryland state Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, who this week sued Mr. Trump, along with the attorney general from Washington, D.C., in what is one of at least three such lawsuits. “Just how much money is he getting from foreign sources, who is he getting it from and what impact does it have on his foreign policy and his actions as president?”

Mr. Trump has vowed to donate profits that his hotel makes from foreign governments and officials. But his company has found that to be more difficult in practice, because it is hard to identify foreign government officials who conduct business there.

In total, he listed at least $310 million in liabilities, about the same amount as last year, although that is debt held only by companies that his family has majority control over. His creditors include a range of financial companies and banks, from big names like Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch, to lesser-known ones like Amboy Bank in New Jersey.

Mr. Trump has said his net worth is more than $10 billion, but other analyses have concluded that he is worth less. In March, Forbes estimated Mr. Trump’s net worth at $3.5 billion, $200 million less than a year earlier. It attributed the decrease to money he spent on the campaign, the real estate conditions around Trump Tower and other factors, such as the sale of his liquid assets, like stocks.

Noam Chomsky says Republican Party is the 'most dangerous organisation in human history'

By  Ben Kentish

The US Republican Party is “the most dangerous organisation in human history”, Noam Chomsky has said. 

The academic and author made the claim during an interview with the BBC.

“It’s an outrageous statement and when I said it, I said ‘Look, this is a very outrageous statement’”. he said. “But it’s true.”

Asked by Newsnight host Evan Davis whether the party was really worse than an organisation like Isis, the author and academic replied: “Is Isis dedicated to trying to destroy the prospects for organised human existence?

“What does it mean to say not only are we not doing anything about climate change but we’re trying to accelerate the race to the precipice?

“It doesn’t matter whether they genuinely believe it or not… if the consequence of that is ‘let’s use more fossil fuels, let’s refuse to subsidise developing countries, let’s eliminate regulations that reduce greenhouse gases’. If that’s the consequence, that’s extremely dangerous.”

The academic has previously claimed the Republicans are “overwhelmingly” committed to destroying human life on earth.

Asked about the consequences of Donald Trump’s presidency, Mr Chomsky replied: “The main damage he’ll do is to the world, and it’s already happening.

"The most significant aspect of the Trump election – and it’s not just Trump, it’s the whole Republican Party – is their departing from the rest of the world on climate change.

“It’s a crucial issue. It’s an existential threat. Now we have this astonishing spectacle of the United States alone in the world, not only refusing to participate in efforts to deal with climate change but dedicated to undermining them.

“It’s not just Trump - every single Republican leader is the same…In the Republican primaries, every single candidate either denied that climate change was happening or, when you get to the so-called moderates like Jeb Bush or [John] Kasich, they say ‘well maybe it’s happening but we shouldn’t do anything about it’. It’s 100 per cent refusal.”

Explaining the popularity of Mr Trump to US voters, the academic said: “The Democrats gave up on the working class 40 years ago. The working class is just not their constituency. 

“The Republicans claim to be but they’re basically their class enemy. However, they can appeal to people on the basis of non-economic claims about religion, white supremacy…identity politics.

“White supremacy is very deeply rooted in the United States… it ranks higher than even South Africa. There’s no doubt there was a racist motivation behind [Mr Trump’s victory].”