WSJ What’s News - South Korean President Drops Martial-Law Order After Opposition Backlash

Episode Date: December 3, 2024

P.M. Edition for Dec. 3. Political turmoil in South Korea after the country’s president declared and then lifted a martial-law order. And WSJ White House reporter Annie Linskey on how U.S. President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden undercuts the Democrats’ fight against President-elect Donald Trump. Plus, WSJ reporter Esther Fung on what Trump’s looming tariffs might mean for a railroad connecting the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Tracie Hunte hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amazon Q Business is the generative AI assistant from AWS because business can be slow, like wading through mud. But Amazon Q helps streamline work so tasks like summarizing monthly results can be done in no time. Learn what Amazon Q Business can do for you at aws.com slash learn more. Political turmoil in South Korea after the president declares martial law and then lifts it after opposition from parliament. And how President Biden's pardon of his son threatens his legacy and the Democrats fight against president-elect Donald Trump.

It's not the most, but it is among the most controversial decisions that this president has made in his four years. Plus, what Trump's looming tariffs might mean for a railroad that connects Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. It's Tuesday, December 3rd. I'm Tracy Hunt for The Wall Street Journal. This is the PM edition of What's News, the top headlines and business stories

that move the world today. We'll begin today with the political turmoil unfolding in South Korea. Protests broke out in the capital Seoul after South Korea's President Yoon Suk-yul declared martial law, accusing opposition parties of making the nation vulnerable to North Korean communist forces. A few hours later, the country's parliament voted unanimously to end martial law, and eventually the president backtracked

and said he would lift his declaration. South Korea is home to the U.S.'s largest overseas military base and hosts roughly 28,500 American military personnel. A spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council said the U.S. had not been notified in advance of the Marshall Rule decision. And a State Department spokesman said the U.S.'s diplomatic posture towards South Korea

had not changed. Look, this is an incredibly fluid situation. I'm not going to jump to any immediate conclusions at this point. What I can say is that we are watching these developments with grave concern. We're staying in close appropriate touch with our ROK counterparts and I'm sure we'll have more to say as the situation continues to unfold. I just don't want to get ahead of that. The surprising and unusual series of events came as President Yuhn's approval ratings hit fresh lows amid a bitter budget

showdown with the opposition and infighting over political scandals inside his own conservative party. For updates to this developing story, go to wsj.com. U.S. job openings increased in October, bucking a trend of falling vacancies from most of the past two years. The Labor Department today said in its latest job openings and labor turnover survey, or JOLTS, that the number of openings on the last day of October was 7.7 million, up from a revised 7.4 million in September. The department's separate monthly employment report has shown

solid job creation figures and a stable unemployment rate of 4.1 percent, no higher than it was in June. But Jolt's data has suggested the labor market is cooling, the number of openings has trended lower since mid-2022, and September's reading was the weakest figure since January 2021. In US markets, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ hit new records today, up less than 0.1% and 0.4% respectively, as investors grew more confident that the Federal Reserve is heading toward an interest rate cut in two weeks. The Dow ticked lower by 0.2%.

We've been talking about the impact of tariffs that President-elect Donald Trump has said he will impose. Well, a railroad that connects the US, Canada, and Mexico is already feeling the heat. The Canadian Pacific Kansas City, CPKC was created last year from a merger of two major railroads. The rail network is the only freight railroad that connects factories and ports across the three countries and is the ultimate bet on the promise of the free flow of goods. Now that bet is

looking riskier. Trump's election victory sparked a small sell-off of CPKC shares. My colleague Alex Oseles spoke with WSJ reporter Esther Fung and asked her why investors are worried. They are concerned that the tariffs, if implemented, would stymie the flow of goods between these three countries. One of the premise for CPKC's creation was the free flow of trade between Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

So anything that throws a wrench into this could make some investors nervous. Some have said that Trump is using tariffs as a negotiation tactic. It might not come to fruition, or if it does come to fruition, it might be something that's really short-lived. So the last time Trump was in office he

introduced tariffs and the amount of freight moving over railroads was actually boosted. So why would this be any different this time around? The last time around Trump introduced tariffs mostly on goods made in China and when I talked to some railroad executives, they told me that impacted some of the freight flows, both coming into the United States and going out, because there's also retaliatory tariffs that China imposed on the US. And then the three countries signed this new NAFTA called the MCA. And then the pandemic hit.

It was mostly the pandemic that caused more companies to try and do more near-shoring. They didn't want to rely too much on China, and so they brought some manufacturing capabilities to Mexico and that fueled the trade between Mexico and the US. So actually it's more the MCA and the pandemic that improved freight flows between these three countries rather than the Trump tariffs during the first administration. That was WSJ reporter Esther Fung

speaking with Alex Osala. Coming up, President Biden's decision to pardon his son is facing backlash from Republicans and Democrats. That's after the break. Your teen requested a ride, but this time, not from you. It's through their Uber Teen account. It's an Uber account that allows your teen to request a ride under your supervision

with live trip tracking and highly rated drivers. Add your teen to your Uber account today. The political fallout from President Biden's decision to pardon his son Hunter continues. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against the pardon, accusing the president of presiding over a, quote, two-tiered justice system and that it was an improper use of power. The pardon also threatens Biden's political legacy as a leader who promised to restore democratic norms.

Annie Linsky is a White House reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Annie, some Democrats are saying that the president's pardon will make it hard to criticize Trump for pardons he issued during his first term, or about his use of the justice system when he returns to office. Why is that? This move has been very controversial by the president. One of the main criticisms that the president is getting from his own party is that this interference with a Department of Justice investigation and prosecution makes it a lot harder for Democrats to criticize Trump if he were to do the same in his second

term. So it's putting Democrats on unsteady ground. And that's one of the reasons that the president is being criticized for this decision. How does this pardon of his son fit into his legacy? President Biden, when he won and when he beat Donald Trump, he came into office with this promise and pledge to restore democratic norms. And that included an independent judiciary. He

made a really big deal when he came into office that he was not going to replace David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for the state of Delaware. When presidents come in, the U.S. attorneys all by tradition resign. And in this case, the White House decided proactively to keep Weiss on the Trump appointee because he was overseeing an investigation into his son and President Biden did not want to be seen as interfering in any way with that investigation. Over the course of the you know the next four years the president and the White House repeatedly said that they would not interfere. And then once Hunter Biden was found guilty on gun charges in Delaware earlier this year, the president repeatedly said he would not pardon or use his clemency powers to absolve

his son. I say all that because Biden's agenda was about restoring norms and this action undercuts that agenda. And so that is why this pardon is different than when other presidents have pardoned family members. This has happened before, but in those cases you did not have a president who had made such a major plank of his agenda being this idea of independent judiciary and restoring norms. That was our reporter Annie Linsky. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you. The U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow will hear arguments about whether states can block doctors from prescribing gender treatments

to patients under the age of 18. The case, which pits transgender rights against the traditional power of the states to regulate the practice of medicine, implicates one of the most divisive social issues in today's political environment, one that President-elect Donald Trump leveraged in the final weeks of the election. Jess Braven is the Wall Street Journal's Supreme Court Correspondent. First off, Jess, let's just lay out the details of the case. Who were the plaintiffs and what issues are they bringing before the court? The private plaintiffs involve three families with transgender children and a doctor who treats transgender children in the state of Tennessee. And they are also supported by

the Biden administration's Justice Department. On the other side, we have the state of Tennessee represented by their Attorney General, Jonathan Skirmetti. The plaintiff's chances aren't great given this court, but it's a more complicated issue than just whether or not you believe transgender children should have hormone treatments or should have those available if their doctors prescribe them. It's a question of what does the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment mean. What is the state of Tennessee going to be arguing? Well, Tennessee argues that hormone treatments or puberty blockers are risky and not fully understood techniques that could potentially have lifelong effects on children. They say the real classification here is based on age and that states traditionally can restrict things for minors, people under 18, that adults may have a right to do. The court's ruling on this case will be handed down when Trump is in office. How might that

affect the outcome? Well, one thing that we expect is that the Department of Justice will change its position. The Biden administration took the view that the Equal Protection Clause protects the right of these parents and minors to make this decision under its prohibition of sex discrimination. We expect the Trump administration Department of Justice will reverse that position, will say, this is not what sex discrimination is about and no one is being discriminated based on sex because these treatments are being prohibited to both boys and girls. However, the case doesn't go away because there are private individuals who are involved

in it and their claim would remain valid. Jess Braven covers the U.S. Supreme Court for the Wall Street Journal. And that's what's news for this Tuesday afternoon. Today's show was produced by Pierre Bienneme and Anthony Bancy with supervising producers Catherine Millsot and Michael Kuzmitis. Additional audio from Reuters. I'm Tracy Hunt for the Wall Street Journal. We'll be back with a new show tomorrow morning. Thanks for listening.