Example collocations logo

Administration in sentence

4645 examples of Administration in a sentence

The Republicans were then presenting the Democrats as the party who "lost" Russia, so it was not to the Clinton/Gore Administration's advantage to second this by themselves feuding with the Putin administration.
Rather, China wanted to shift the international community’s attention away from its own potential leverage over the Kim regime, and toward the Trump administration’s erratic and worrying policy approach.
The announcement by President Donald Trump’s administration that it is ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which President Barack Obama established by executive order in 2012, threatens to upend the lives of an entire generation.
The administration announced that it would continue to renew permits for those already in the DACA program for another six months, and then stop.
Further assuming a relatively generous 20% administration overhead, the total cost of the scheme would be approximately $600 million – equivalent to a fifth of the reported aid flow to these countries in 2004 and to 3.5-4% of their combined GDP.
A recent case in point is the imbroglio in Andhra Pradesh in India, where the administration has moved to curb microfinance.
The Andhra Pradesh administration accused the industry of charging usurious interest rates, urging the gullible poor to over-borrow, and then driving some delinquent borrowers to commit suicide.
Donald Trump’s incoming US administration, for its part, should focus on opening up competition, not just cutting regulations.
Second, the state’s administration of justice adopted and encouraged non-violent ways of resolving grievances, thus allowing cooperation and the expansion of commerce.
Europe’s Asian PivotCAMBRIDGE/OXFORD – The Obama administration’s so-called “pivot to Asia” is the most important strategic shift that the United States has undertaken since the end of the Cold War – and it has profound implications for Europe.
The Obama administration seems to understand the potential benefits of such a “joint rebalancing,” with the EU-US statement on the Asia-Pacific region issued last July suggesting a move toward policy coordination.
“I don’t believe the Trump administration will do the same,” he predicted.
EUGENE – In 2010, I sat across the table from Assistant US Trade Representative Barbara Weisel, who was responsible for negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the mega-regional free-trade treaty among Vietnam, Malaysia, and ten other Pacific Rim countries that President Barack Obama’s administration wants to conclude in the coming weeks.
The purpose of the meeting was for Congress to understand what steps the Obama administration was taking to protect American workers from being forced into unfair competition with workers from low-wage trading partners.
At least for the Obama administration, the rush to conclude the TPP negotiations is doubtless driven by the desire to close the deal well ahead of America’s midterm election in November.
Indeed, though the US Constitution stipulates that the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” lies solely in the hands of Congress, the Obama administration is pressing legislators to approve so-called fast-track authority, under which they would have no say over either the TPP’s terms or the parties to it – or even the power to amend the treaty text in any way.
Donald Trump’s election as US president has triggered a surge in positive economic sentiment, because he pledged that his administration would aggressively pursue the policy trifecta of deregulation, tax cuts and reform, and infrastructure construction.
By deciding to begin with health-care reform – an inherently complicated and highly divisive issue in US politics – the Trump administration risks losing some of the political goodwill that could be needed to carry out the kinds of fiscal reform that markets are expecting.
Even if a bump in the economic data does arrive, it may not last, unless the Trump administration advances policies that enhance longer-term productivity, through, for example, education reform, apprenticeship programs, skills training, and labor retooling.
The Trump administration would also have to refrain from pursuing protectionist trade measures that would disrupt the “spaghetti bowl” of cross-border value chains for both producers and consumers.
In such a scenario, the US engine could sputter, causing the entire global economy to suffer, especially if these economic challenges prompt the Trump administration to implement protectionist measures.
Indeed, by animating the economy’s animal spirits, the Trump administration has laid the groundwork for the private sector to do a lot of the heavy lifting.
Unless the Trump administration can work well with a cooperative Congress to translate market-motivating intentions into well-calibrated actions soon, the lagging hard data risks dragging down confidence, creating headwinds that extend well beyond financial volatility.
Moon’s administration has also been eager to increase social-welfare expenditure.
There are no signs that the Bush administration is relenting on, for example, the UN, the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the ban on land mines, or the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The Bush administration is fiercely opposed to lifting the embargo, pointing out that in the event of a military clash over Taiwan, US troops would face weapons provided to China by America’s own allies.
Even after the detention of thousands of anti-corruption protesters in more than 100 cities across Russia in March, the Trump administration issued only a tepid statement.
But Russia took that deal out of self-interest, not because of the Trump administration’s obsequiousness.
In fact, it is American interests that are being undermined by the Trump administration’s determination not to poke the Russian bear.
By extending public support to election monitors and activists working to uphold democratic principles, the Trump administration could hearten the Russian opposition and advance a different vision for Russia’s future.
BackNext