There's a lot of things to be said about Trump and economic protectionism, but saying it's entirely fueled by donor pressure is oversimplifying the situation.
There's a lot of things to be said about Trump and economic protectionism, but saying it's entirely fueled by donor pressure is oversimplifying the situation.
Source, please? Given the absurd amount of corruption going on in the administration (i.e. the missing inaugural funds and Mar-a-lago vacations, to name just a tiny fraction) and Trump's own charities, I find the idea that he spent even a penny of his own money on his campaign laughable based on first principles. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, other than his own patently unreliable rhetoric.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/...
"Trump received about $239 million from donors who gave less than $200 in total. That amounts to 69 percent of the Trump campaign’s individual contributions;
Hillary Clinton received about $137 million from $200-or-under donors. That made up 22 percent of the campaign’s individual contributions;"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016...
"President-elect Donald Trump didn't need $100 million of his money to win the White House in the end.
Trump contributed another $10 million to his presidential campaign in the closing days of the election, bringing his total investment in the race to $66.1 million, new filings confirm."
[1] https://www.fec.gov/files/bulk-downloads/index.html?prefix=b... (I wasn't able to load indiv16.zip and analyze it but the total loan amount from the other data is a only few million shy of the $66 million total).