TITLE: Melania Trump Makes Apparent Retaliation For ‘Stormy Daniels’ Affair; Donald In Shambles
SENTENCE 1: SOLAR was among the interests to issue a statement criticizing the president’s decision, posting that they are “devastated to learn Trump has imposed a 30% tariff on solar panels virtually killing the solar industry.”  As the company noted, Solar Energy Industries Association President and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper commented that the tariffs will “create a crisis in a part of our economy that has been thriving, which will ultimately cost tens of thousands of hard-working, blue-collar Americans their jobs.”  Stunningly, the SEIA states that the tariffs “effectively will cause the loss of roughly 23,000 American jobs this year, including many in manufacturing, and it will result in the delay or cancellation of billions of dollars in solar investment.”  The tariffs were imposed after a complaint was filed by the two foreign-owned solar companies Suniva and SolarWorld, and they’re just one step in an already long history of the president deciding to “go it alone” instead of cooperating with our allies and accepting that foreigners aren’t all out to get us.
SENTENCE 2: Grisham had previously told CNN that the first lady intended to attend the World Economic Forum “in a show of support for her husband, who intends to give remarks during his visit.”  President Trump, for his part, remains a controversial figure in contexts like the World Economic Forum, having long established himself as fiercely committed to his “America First” agenda through such means as slapping protectionist tariffs on foreign goods including, most recently, solar panels.
SENTENCE 3: Other infamous instances of the president deciding to “go it alone” include his announcement of his intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, although it takes more than a belligerent announcement from the president to make that happen.

Bias label: highly
Annotator rationales:
If you use 'retaliation' to describe Melania Trump's response, then you are using sensationalist language that aims to create clickbait while also misleading the reader by diverting attention to a different topic than what the article is actually about.
If you say 'Donald in shambles,' then you are using a dramatic, emotional term to stir up drama and grab attention, rather than offering a neutral perspective on the situation.
If you use the phrase 'go it alone' to describe the president's decision, then you are portraying his independent actions negatively, suggesting that choosing not to collaborate with others is detrimental or irresponsible, which can lead to a biased interpretation of the situation.
If you use the word 'stunning' to describe the effects of the tariffs, then you are creating an emotional reaction -using a subjective term with a  sarcastic tone- which leads readers into thinking the situation is  dramatic.
If you use the phrase 'already long history' in reference to  president's actions, then you are implying a negative, ongoing pattern  which can create a biased impression rather than offering a neutral  perspective.
If you use the phrase 'go it alone' to describe the president's decision, then you are portraying his independent actions negatively, suggesting that choosing not to collaborate with others is detrimental or irresponsible, which can lead to a biased interpretation of the situation.
If you use the phrase 'accepting that foreigners aren’t all out to get us,' then you are introducing a sarcastic and dismissive tone implying that the president’s actions are based on the belief that foreign entities are inherently hostile, which leads a biased interpretation.
If you describe as 'fiercely' his commitment, then you are emphasizing his stance with exaggeration, which can portray his actions negatively, affecting people's opinion.