Example collocations logo

Administration in sentence

4645 examples of Administration in a sentence

The conflict phase of codependency frames it as a zero-sum battle: US allegations of Chinese intellectual property theft are portrayed by the Trump administration as nothing less than an existential threat to America’s economic future.
As if that’s not bad enough, a protectionist Trump administration has elevated anti-China tariffs to a central role in its international policy agenda.
Similarly, the mandated purchase of insurance in the Obama administration’s health-care bill is an attempt to prevent the young and the healthy from remaining uninsured and turning to the government for support only when they discover that they need it.
My colleague, Richard Thaler, along with Cass Sunstein, who currently serves in the Obama administration, wrote a best-selling book, Nudge, in which they suggest a way to reduce our uneasiness with paternalism.
The Trump administration’s stated objective in pursuing protectionist policies is to reduce the US trade deficit.
A few weeks after unveiling the tariffs, the Trump administration announced that it had “renegotiated” the KORUS.
According to The Economist, the Trump administration expects to spend 24,000 worker hours processing 4,500 exemption requests.
For US steel-exporting allies like South Korea and Japan, the fact that the Trump administration is justifying its tariffs in the name of “national security” adds insult to injury.
After all, the Trump administration recently declared North Korea to be America’s top strategic threat, and it is now working with the South Korean government to hold a summit with North Korea’s leader this May.
In response, US President Barack Obama’s administration has been working through the United Nations Security Council to impose tougher economic sanctions.
With Iran having spurned Obama’s offers of compromise, it is tempting for the US administration to turn its back on dialogue.
President Mauricio Macri’s year-old administration is naturally inclined toward economic liberalism, and Argentina is caught today in the straitjacket of the external tariff of the Mercosur regional trade agreement with Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
And one senior US administration official was quoted accusing the UK of “constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power."
And though I am not the British ambassador, I will be happy to state my belief that the UK government was wise to join the AIIB, and that the US administration, in voicing its opposition, was not.
Unaffordable tax cuts and wars, a major recession, and soaring health-care costs – fueled in part by the commitment of George W. Bush’s administration to giving drug companies free rein in setting prices, even with government money at stake – quickly transformed a huge surplus into record peacetime deficits.
Despite its professed strategic pivot toward Asia, US President Barack Obama’s administration has done little to address China’s increasingly assertive efforts to stake its territorial claims in the South and East China Seas or North Korea’s affronts to the status quo on the Korean Peninsula.
Many of the law’s supporters want it to replace the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment, a Cold War-era law that restricts US trade with Russia – and that the Obama administration is pushing to repeal.
The Bush administration, however, refuses to disclose information which would show the role of corporate interests in setting its energy policy.
The Obama administration’s efforts to deal with the real-estate market have been a dismal failure, perhaps succeeding only in postponing further declines.
China is becoming increasingly assertive, and US President Donald Trump’s administration has made clear its disdain for the European Union and its suspicions of Germany’s economic strength.
But with Britain in such a desperate negotiating position, even an administration headed by Hillary Clinton would have driven a hard bargain on behalf of American industry.
The Trump administration will drive an even harder bargain.
Shortly before the current Iraq war, when Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, other officials quickly demurred.
Concerned that the Bush administration might be misleading everyone about the Iraq war’s costs, just as it had about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaida, I teamed up with Linda Bilmes, a budget expert at Harvard, to examine the issue.
Our analysis starts with the $500 billion that the Congressional Budget Office openly talks about, which is still ten times higher than what the administration said the war would cost.
For example, the Bush administration has been doing everything it can to hide the huge number of returning veterans who are severely wounded – 16,000 so far, including roughly 20% with serious brain and head injuries.
Nor does the administration want to face up to the military’s recruiting and retention problems.
The Bush administration once claimed that the Iraq war would be good for the economy, with one spokesperson even suggesting that it was the best way to ensure low oil prices.
We do not attempt to explain whether the American people were deliberately misled regarding the war’s costs, or whether the Bush administration’s gross underestimate should be attributed to incompetence, as it vehemently argues is true in the case of weapons of mass destruction.
But such considerations appear to be beyond the Bush administration’s reckoning.
BackNext