Trump: South Korea should pay for $1B missile defense system
by Alec Macfarlane and Taehoon Lee
President Trump wants South Korea to foot the bill for a $1 billion U.S. missile defense system and is threatening to kill the free trade deal between the two countries.
His comments aren't sitting well with officials in South Korea, a key American ally in Asia. One foreign policy expert called the remarks "shameless."
"I informed South Korea it would be appropriate if they pay," Trump said in an interview with Reuters on Thursday. "That's a billion dollar system."
He was talking about the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which is being deployed in South Korea in an effort to reduce the threat from North Korean missiles.
The THAAD deployment has already caused tensions inside South Korea and hurt the country's relations with China. Trump's comments are likely to further complicate the situation.
"It's collateral damage to the [U.S.-South Korea] alliance," said Euan Graham, director of the Lowy Institute's international security program.
South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo has repeatedly said his country won't bear the cost of the system.
"There has been no change in our basic position that the South Korean government provides the site and infrastructure for THAAD ... and the U.S. side shoulders the cost of its deployment, operation and maintenance," the Defense Ministry said in a statement Friday.
In addition, a South Korean official told CNN on Friday that a "confidential agreement" signed last year by senior U.S. and South Korean military officials states that "the U.S. bears the cost of deploying THAAD."
Washington and Seoul first announced plans for the deployment of the THAAD system in July, before Trump's election. The two countries have a mutual defense treaty, and more than 28,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea.
"We're going to protect them," Trump told Reuters. "But they should pay for that, and they understand that."
On the campaign trail, Trump frequently said South Korea and other key U.S. allies should pay more for the defense provided by the U.S.
THAAD is unpopular among a significant portion of the South Korea public and has become a key issue ahead of the country's presidential election on May 9. Parts of the system arrived at the deployment site this week, with officials saying it would be operational "in the coming days."
The current frontrunner in the election, Moon Jae-in, has taken a lukewarm stance on THAAD and argued the system should not be installed until a new administration is elected.
"It is shameless for the U.S. to ask South Korea to pay for THAAD given that they are deploying it not only to protect South Koreans but also Americans in South Korea, American territory and for the security" of the region, said Kim Ki-jung, a foreign policy adviser to Moon and a professor at Yonsei University in Seoul.
The THAAD battery in Asia is part of a broader network of defense systems in East Asia. None of them would be able to protect Seoul, South Korea's biggest city that lies only about 35 miles from the border with North Korea. That distance means it's vulnerable to shorter-range rockets and artillery.
China has made clear its opposition to THAAD, which it says is a threat to its security and destabilizing for the region, by putting pressure on South Korean companies and the country's tourism industry.
Trump also caused confusion in South Korea by telling Reuters he intends to renegotiate or terminate the free trade pact between the U.S. and South Korea, describing it as a "horrible" deal. The agreement will be targeted for renegotiation after his government finishes an overhaul of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico, he said.
His comments were more combative than those of his Vice President Mike Pence, who earlier this month told business leaders in South Korea that the U.S. government would work with them to "reform" the trade deal.
South Korea has yet to receive an official request to negotiate the trade deal, a senior official of the country's Trade Ministry told CNN. The ministry is trying to figure out why Trump made his latest remarks about the agreement, said the official, who declined to be identified by name.
April 28, 2017
Some of these people are straight up HIGH...
Trump's report card: His best, his worst and what he should do next
From CNN
President Donald Trump is coming to the end of his first 100 days in office, and everyone has an opinion about his performance. We asked CNN contributors and analysts to weigh on the good, the bad and the what comes next of Trump's first 100 days. The opinions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of the authors.
Errol Louis: Trump missed the honeymoon because there was never a marriage
President Trump's low public approval numbers suggest that the early-term honeymoon is already over. Only 44% of adult Americans approve of his performance so far, with 54% disapproving -- by far the worst numbers of any president at this point in his term since modern polling began.
Trump missed the honeymoon because there was never a marriage. Instead of reaching out to Democratic leaders in Congress or trying to woo supporters of Hillary Clinton, Trump spent much of his first three months antagonizing Democrats on social media, scrambling to organize his staff and squelch nagging questions about Russian interference in the 2016 elections. That didn't leave much time or energy to focus on his main agenda items.
It's telling that the Trump's top aides who appear to be getting the most done are the men with substantial Washington experience, especially Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who spent a dozen years in the Justice Department and a decade as a senator on Capitol Hill.
While Beltway newcomers like Treasury chief Steve Mnuchin and Secretary of State Tillerson have stumbled out of the gate, Sessions has made aggressive moves to curb funding for sanctuary cities and review Obama-era consent decrees and other reforms.
Trump's single best move for the future will be to tone down the anti-Democratic antagonism by staging meaningful blue-state visits and policy speeches aimed at core Democratic constituencies, including women, blacks, Latinos, and young people. It's never too late to hope for a honeymoon.
Grade: B-
SE Cupp: Until his supporters care, what we say about Trump matters very little
It's clear by most any metric, President Trump's first 100 days in office have amounted to a fairly anemic success record. But as a limited government conservative, I'm hardly disappointed. That the era of big government programs, sweeping reform and overreach has seemingly come to an abrupt halt -- whether by design or default -- is nothing to mourn.
For those of us who never thought Trump could make good on many of his promises -- to rip up various "bad deals" on day 1, to replace Obamacare quickly, to build a wall that Mexico pays for, to stamp out ISIS easily -- our measure of his first few months is irrelevant. Nor does it really matter what his critics on the left and in the media think of how he's doing. All that matters is whether or not his supporters approve.
And by that measurement, he's doing just fine. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, Trump's approval is at record lows. But among his supporters? Ninety-six percent say they would vote for him again. That is a staggering figure, considering how few promises he's managed to keep. Further, the poll indicates that if the election were held today, he could beat Hillary Clinton again and win the popular vote.
The pundit class can hem and haw all it wants about how earth-shattering it is that Trump's accomplished so little in his first 100 days. And it's inarguable that he has. But until his supporters care, our assessments matter little.
Grade: B
Van Jones: This sin will prove hardest to forgive
100 years from now, Americans will have harsh words about Trump's first 100 days. But no day will more represent the lasting damage than day 89.
That is really saying something. After all, this president is embroiled in scandal, from Russia's undue influence to business conflicts of interest. He has tried and failed three times to ban Muslims from America. Turnout at protests dwarfed his meager inaugural crowd. His hand-picked attorney general perjured himself and has pushed outdated criminal justice policies opposed by many in both parties. Nominees have withdrawn, his close ally Michael Flynn resigned in disgrace, and health care went down in flames in the face of town hall outrage.
In fact, Sen. Mitch McConnell can claim more credit for the sole bright spot for Republicans -- now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch -- than can Trump.
But on Tuesday, April 18 -- day 89 -- scientists recorded the first carbon dioxide reading above 410 parts per million. On that day, one thing became clear: the potentially catastrophic impact of Trump's decision to single out the Environmental Protection Agency for the greatest budget cuts of any agency. Now is the worst time for a US president to deny the reality of climate science. Of all his sins, this one will prove the hardest to forgive.
Grade: F minus (the minus is because he let down his own followers, too)
Kayleigh McEnany: A truly post-partisan president
Buried beneath the salacious headlines is the portrait of a president who has defied his party, not only in word but in action. Tax credits for health care, preservation of preexisting conditions provisions and withdrawing from free trade deals combine to tell the story of a president who puts people before party.
Despite initial blips with the temporary travel halt and health care, President Trump is well on his way to changing his party and country. Trump is truly a post-partisan president.
Grade: A-
Aaron David Miller: What Trump has learned -- and not learned -- so far
There's a lot you can do in 100 days: begin taking guitar lessons, lose weight or start an exercise program.
But the 100-day metric really can't tell you much about what kind of foreign policy president Donald Trump might become.
It is a useful indicator of whether he's learning anything on the job. Here are my takeaways of the learned and unlearned -- so far:
Campaigning was fun. But I can't run foreign policy that way. I've changed my views on almost every issue -- from scuttling the Iran nuclear accord to declaring NATO obsolete to questioning the value of the One China policy -- and tacked back to more traditional positions in line with Obama and the Republican party establishment, too. The question now is can my administration develop not positions but policies to navigate a complex world.
Foreign policy isn't the real estate business; I need help. This foreign policy stuff is harder than I thought. I really needed adult supervision; and, I'm getting it from Mattis; McMaster; Tillerson. I actually listen to them -- most of the time.
America first doesn't mean America only. I can't just beat up or bully other nations. I may actually need their help, like China on North Korea; who knows maybe even NATO. And I 'm still looking to do a deal with that guy Putin.
I'm still Donald Trump. And I intend to continue tweeting and saying all kinds of inappropriate things that will confuse and worry our allies and hurt US credibility. Just today I retweeted Nigel Farage's criticism of Emmanuel Macron. I sure hope that Le Pen lady wins.
Grade: "Incomplete minus"
Jen Psaki: Trump's biggest failure is not reaching out
Washington, D.C. is the only place in the country that marks the lead up to the first 100 days of a presidency with such fanfare. But this short period of time does give a hint as to how any president will approach his time in office. How he will govern and lead the country.
Despite the fact that Trump has not passed a single piece of significant legislation, has proposed a health-care bill that would leave tens of millions without access, his supporters are loyal and they appear to be sticking with him.
But governing is not about just speaking to your hardcore supporters, it is about reaching out to the entire country. And of all of the ups and downs of the first 100 downs, that is his biggest failure.
Alice Stewart: It's a work in progress
If you lay down a marker in Gettysburg, you need to mean it. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln made meaningful history addressing freedom, equality and unity in Gettysburg; in 2016, President Trump outlined his 100-day action plan to "Make America Great Again" -- it's safe to say that's a work in progress.
To date, President Trump has followed through on policy initiatives by signing executive orders, but has yet to achieve meaningful legislative success.
President Trump's five biggest accomplishments include:
1. Following through on his commitment to confirm a Scalia-like justice with Justice Neil Gorsuch;
2. Withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership;
3. Moving forward with construction of the Keystone Pipeline;
4. Reducing federal regulations;
5. Curtailing funding to Planned Parenthood.
Five most significant unfulfilled promises:
1. Repealing and replacing Obamacare;
2. Providing "the biggest tax cut since Ronald Reagan" (he's provided some ideas in this direction, but it's unclear how he intends to organize and get a plan passed by Congress);
3. Labeling China a currency manipulator;
4. Building a wall that Mexico will pay for;
5. Suspending visas from "terror prone regions."
While President Trump's road to the White House was paved with good intentions; it's time to make inroads on legislative accomplishments. I expect the second 100 days to include progress in health care and tax reform. It's clear; President Trump has learned that governing is more difficult than campaigning.
Grade: C+
Michael D'Antonio: Willing to be presidential, but sometimes beneath his office
We saw the best of the Donald Trump presidency when he met with China's President Xi Jinping and then announced that suddenly China was not a currency manipulator.
This announcement, amid worsening tensions with North Korea, showed Trump was willing to be presidential and pursue the interest of the nation and the world by abandoning a campaign slogan.
Likewise, Trump's recognition that NATO is not obsolete demonstrated he could play well with others. His worst moment came with his unsubstantiated tweet alleging that President Obama tapped the phones at Trump Tower.
This was a destructive and self-defeating use of his old rope-a-dope tactic, intended to confuse and distract the press and public. It was beneath his office.
Grade: A gentleman's C-, below average but above failing
Yascha Mounk: The gap between Trump's words and actions matters most
If you look at Donald Trump's words over the last 100 days, all of the worst fears have come true. After an unorthodox inaugural address, Trump continued to break every basic democratic norm: He has spread "alternative facts," railed against "so-called" judges, and called major news outlets "enemies of the American people."
The presidency has not made Donald Trump more presidential.
If you look at Donald Trump's actions over the last 100 days, by contrast, the record is much more mixed. I strongly disagree with Trump on many of his policies, from immigration to health care. But he has also seemed to moderate on key issues, including NATO and his relationship with key allies.
More importantly, he has so far respected the independence of institutions even as he has loudly criticized them. Instead of vowing to disobey the Ninth Circuit's rulings against his executive orders, for example, he merely tweeted: "See you in the Supreme Court!"
Looking forward, a lot will depend on whether or not Trump starts to act on his rhetoric. If his extreme statements will continue to be but so much hot air, important democratic norms will continue to take a beating, but the worst damage will be avoided. But if Trump starts to walk his scary talk, the next four years could get a lot worse than the first 100 days have been.
The best decisions Trump made in his first 100 days were nominating Gen. Mattis as defense secretary and replacing Michael Flynn with Gen. McMaster as National Security Adviser. In a volatile and complex security environment, having strategic and experienced leaders like McMaster and Mattis within the administration is reassuring.
They are, unfortunately, the exception to the rule. President Trump has reneged on one of his most basic and important campaign promises, which was to "drain the swamp." Between the investigations into Russia's involvement in the election; surrounding himself with people like Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos; refusing to release his taxes and restricting access to the White House visitors' logs, the swamp has become a sewer.
As Day 101 approaches, President Trump must begin to reach across the aisle, not only to Democrats in Congress, who he will need in order to pass legislation to keep the government functioning -- but to regular Americans who did not vote for him.
There is still a large portion of the American public that feel alienated by him and the rhetoric and policies he has advanced. If he wants to be a successful leader, he doesn't need everyone's support, but he needs more people in his corner than the members of the Freedom Caucus.
Finally, remember this: No Member of Congress cares about a president's first 100 days. They're focused on the last 100 days before their midterm elections. And right now, for many Republicans, those days are getting dark.
Grade: D
Jeffrey Lord: Napoleon would be jealous
Somewhere Napoleon is wistful.
Exiled to Elba, he escaped his island prison in 1815, marching on Paris. The Congress of Vienna declared him an outlaw, armies massed, and Napoleon soon met his Waterloo.
This period of turbulent French history immediately acquired a name: "les Cent Jours" - the Hundred Days. Over a century later, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in the middle of the Great Depression, the press of the day resurrected the term to describe the whirlwind of activity that was the opening act of FDR's New Deal. Fairly or unfairly, the term has been applied to every president since.
Now, it's President Trump's turn. While the President calls the measurement "ridiculous," the White House has still put out volumes listing accomplishments. A Supreme Court appointment has been his best achievement. The new Justice Gorsuch will presumably be there for decades as a conservative.
There are 24 executive orders on the Trump list, with seriously important ones such as green-lighting the Keystone Pipeline. Military action in Syria is certainly on the list.
Health care will come, but not by the 100-day deadline. But there will still be 1,341 days to go in Trump's term. Napoleon could only wish for that much time.
Grade: Thanks to the health care delay, an A-
Sally Kohn: Still sad
CNN asked me to write 100 words that describe Donald Trump's first 100 days. Here they are:
Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Diddly. Squat. Nought. Zippo. Zot. Negatory. Nada. Nil. Nix. Nyet. Hot air. Nothingburger. Goose egg. Broken promises. Empty promises. Also: Calamitous. Irresponsible. Inexperienced. Unprepared. Undisciplined. Uninformed. Unimproved. Unpopular. Bumbling. Embarrassing. Flimsy. Flailing. Failing. Harmful. Hurtful. Hateful. Shortsighted. Half-baked. Irrelevant. Puny. Piddling. Paltry. Petty. Immature. Infantile. Impulsive. Trite. Tiresome. Stale. Superficial. Small. Meager. Impotent. Limp. Obstructive. Destructive. Damaging. Distracted. Despised.
Backwards. Reckless. Bumbling. Bungling. Blind. Arrogant. Rude. Mean. Tacky. Trigger happy. Evasive. LYING. Vacuous. Vapid. Vacant. Vacationing. Meaningless. Frivolous. Oblivious. Sloppy. Silly. Empty. Outvoted. Overruled. Overturned. Null. Void. Inane. Inept. Negligent. Negligible. Naïve. Juvenile. Trivial. Disappointing. Underwhelming. And sad.
And PS -- the next 100 days, and even 1,000 days, don't look much better. Trump has so far shown he doesn't have the patience to translate any of his bluster into action and, meanwhile, keeps hurting America's standing in the world with his petty short tempered arrogance. Still sad.
Grade: F
Salena Zito: Accomplishments are in the eyes of the beholder
Donald J. Trump's presidency is under the microscope by the press for his accomplishments in his first 100 days in office; for my profession, his measurement is taken by the campaign promises that he pledged during the 2016 campaign.
But for voters who supported him, that measurement was always going to be different. As Brad Todd once noted and I reported, voters took his rhetoric seriously, but not literally.
The press took every word literally and his candidacy not very seriously.
If you are judging his presidency by his literal use of words -- something he does casually and without the same meaning as journalists or traditional politicians -- he has fallen behind on his pledge on a number of things; reforming Obamacare, the travel restrictions from countries with known terrorist activities and building a wall between the US and Mexico.
But if you voted for him you view his actions differently. Voters have told me in hundreds of interviews across the country that they understand that negotiations take time on Capitol Hill (health care, the wall, the budget), that activist judges have always been a thorn in every president's side (travel restriction executive order and sanctuary cities).
Their view of his accomplishments is optimistic; they are thrilled that he is constantly meeting with company executives, union and trade groups and car manufacturers. They like his executive orders on regulations, Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and his willingness to hold open discussion with the leaders of China and Egypt.
Accomplishments are in the eyes of the beholder and voters are willing to give the president time to accomplish his goals as long as he is viewed as rolling up his sleeves and fighting for them and their community's needs.
Washington will always measure him differently -- essentially because he is so disruptive to the status quo, does not view the political class with the same chumminess that other presidents have and he does not value words with the same reverence that they do.
Grade: D
From CNN
President Donald Trump is coming to the end of his first 100 days in office, and everyone has an opinion about his performance. We asked CNN contributors and analysts to weigh on the good, the bad and the what comes next of Trump's first 100 days. The opinions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of the authors.
Errol Louis: Trump missed the honeymoon because there was never a marriage
President Trump's low public approval numbers suggest that the early-term honeymoon is already over. Only 44% of adult Americans approve of his performance so far, with 54% disapproving -- by far the worst numbers of any president at this point in his term since modern polling began.
Trump missed the honeymoon because there was never a marriage. Instead of reaching out to Democratic leaders in Congress or trying to woo supporters of Hillary Clinton, Trump spent much of his first three months antagonizing Democrats on social media, scrambling to organize his staff and squelch nagging questions about Russian interference in the 2016 elections. That didn't leave much time or energy to focus on his main agenda items.
It's telling that the Trump's top aides who appear to be getting the most done are the men with substantial Washington experience, especially Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who spent a dozen years in the Justice Department and a decade as a senator on Capitol Hill.
While Beltway newcomers like Treasury chief Steve Mnuchin and Secretary of State Tillerson have stumbled out of the gate, Sessions has made aggressive moves to curb funding for sanctuary cities and review Obama-era consent decrees and other reforms.
Trump's single best move for the future will be to tone down the anti-Democratic antagonism by staging meaningful blue-state visits and policy speeches aimed at core Democratic constituencies, including women, blacks, Latinos, and young people. It's never too late to hope for a honeymoon.
Grade: B-
SE Cupp: Until his supporters care, what we say about Trump matters very little
It's clear by most any metric, President Trump's first 100 days in office have amounted to a fairly anemic success record. But as a limited government conservative, I'm hardly disappointed. That the era of big government programs, sweeping reform and overreach has seemingly come to an abrupt halt -- whether by design or default -- is nothing to mourn.
For those of us who never thought Trump could make good on many of his promises -- to rip up various "bad deals" on day 1, to replace Obamacare quickly, to build a wall that Mexico pays for, to stamp out ISIS easily -- our measure of his first few months is irrelevant. Nor does it really matter what his critics on the left and in the media think of how he's doing. All that matters is whether or not his supporters approve.
And by that measurement, he's doing just fine. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, Trump's approval is at record lows. But among his supporters? Ninety-six percent say they would vote for him again. That is a staggering figure, considering how few promises he's managed to keep. Further, the poll indicates that if the election were held today, he could beat Hillary Clinton again and win the popular vote.
The pundit class can hem and haw all it wants about how earth-shattering it is that Trump's accomplished so little in his first 100 days. And it's inarguable that he has. But until his supporters care, our assessments matter little.
Grade: B
Van Jones: This sin will prove hardest to forgive
100 years from now, Americans will have harsh words about Trump's first 100 days. But no day will more represent the lasting damage than day 89.
That is really saying something. After all, this president is embroiled in scandal, from Russia's undue influence to business conflicts of interest. He has tried and failed three times to ban Muslims from America. Turnout at protests dwarfed his meager inaugural crowd. His hand-picked attorney general perjured himself and has pushed outdated criminal justice policies opposed by many in both parties. Nominees have withdrawn, his close ally Michael Flynn resigned in disgrace, and health care went down in flames in the face of town hall outrage.
In fact, Sen. Mitch McConnell can claim more credit for the sole bright spot for Republicans -- now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch -- than can Trump.
But on Tuesday, April 18 -- day 89 -- scientists recorded the first carbon dioxide reading above 410 parts per million. On that day, one thing became clear: the potentially catastrophic impact of Trump's decision to single out the Environmental Protection Agency for the greatest budget cuts of any agency. Now is the worst time for a US president to deny the reality of climate science. Of all his sins, this one will prove the hardest to forgive.
Grade: F minus (the minus is because he let down his own followers, too)
Kayleigh McEnany: A truly post-partisan president
Buried beneath the salacious headlines is the portrait of a president who has defied his party, not only in word but in action. Tax credits for health care, preservation of preexisting conditions provisions and withdrawing from free trade deals combine to tell the story of a president who puts people before party.
Despite initial blips with the temporary travel halt and health care, President Trump is well on his way to changing his party and country. Trump is truly a post-partisan president.
Grade: A-
Aaron David Miller: What Trump has learned -- and not learned -- so far
There's a lot you can do in 100 days: begin taking guitar lessons, lose weight or start an exercise program.
But the 100-day metric really can't tell you much about what kind of foreign policy president Donald Trump might become.
It is a useful indicator of whether he's learning anything on the job. Here are my takeaways of the learned and unlearned -- so far:
Campaigning was fun. But I can't run foreign policy that way. I've changed my views on almost every issue -- from scuttling the Iran nuclear accord to declaring NATO obsolete to questioning the value of the One China policy -- and tacked back to more traditional positions in line with Obama and the Republican party establishment, too. The question now is can my administration develop not positions but policies to navigate a complex world.
Foreign policy isn't the real estate business; I need help. This foreign policy stuff is harder than I thought. I really needed adult supervision; and, I'm getting it from Mattis; McMaster; Tillerson. I actually listen to them -- most of the time.
America first doesn't mean America only. I can't just beat up or bully other nations. I may actually need their help, like China on North Korea; who knows maybe even NATO. And I 'm still looking to do a deal with that guy Putin.
I'm still Donald Trump. And I intend to continue tweeting and saying all kinds of inappropriate things that will confuse and worry our allies and hurt US credibility. Just today I retweeted Nigel Farage's criticism of Emmanuel Macron. I sure hope that Le Pen lady wins.
Grade: "Incomplete minus"
Jen Psaki: Trump's biggest failure is not reaching out
Washington, D.C. is the only place in the country that marks the lead up to the first 100 days of a presidency with such fanfare. But this short period of time does give a hint as to how any president will approach his time in office. How he will govern and lead the country.
Despite the fact that Trump has not passed a single piece of significant legislation, has proposed a health-care bill that would leave tens of millions without access, his supporters are loyal and they appear to be sticking with him.
But governing is not about just speaking to your hardcore supporters, it is about reaching out to the entire country. And of all of the ups and downs of the first 100 downs, that is his biggest failure.
Alice Stewart: It's a work in progress
If you lay down a marker in Gettysburg, you need to mean it. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln made meaningful history addressing freedom, equality and unity in Gettysburg; in 2016, President Trump outlined his 100-day action plan to "Make America Great Again" -- it's safe to say that's a work in progress.
To date, President Trump has followed through on policy initiatives by signing executive orders, but has yet to achieve meaningful legislative success.
President Trump's five biggest accomplishments include:
1. Following through on his commitment to confirm a Scalia-like justice with Justice Neil Gorsuch;
2. Withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership;
3. Moving forward with construction of the Keystone Pipeline;
4. Reducing federal regulations;
5. Curtailing funding to Planned Parenthood.
Five most significant unfulfilled promises:
1. Repealing and replacing Obamacare;
2. Providing "the biggest tax cut since Ronald Reagan" (he's provided some ideas in this direction, but it's unclear how he intends to organize and get a plan passed by Congress);
3. Labeling China a currency manipulator;
4. Building a wall that Mexico will pay for;
5. Suspending visas from "terror prone regions."
While President Trump's road to the White House was paved with good intentions; it's time to make inroads on legislative accomplishments. I expect the second 100 days to include progress in health care and tax reform. It's clear; President Trump has learned that governing is more difficult than campaigning.
Grade: C+
Michael D'Antonio: Willing to be presidential, but sometimes beneath his office
We saw the best of the Donald Trump presidency when he met with China's President Xi Jinping and then announced that suddenly China was not a currency manipulator.
This announcement, amid worsening tensions with North Korea, showed Trump was willing to be presidential and pursue the interest of the nation and the world by abandoning a campaign slogan.
Likewise, Trump's recognition that NATO is not obsolete demonstrated he could play well with others. His worst moment came with his unsubstantiated tweet alleging that President Obama tapped the phones at Trump Tower.
This was a destructive and self-defeating use of his old rope-a-dope tactic, intended to confuse and distract the press and public. It was beneath his office.
Grade: A gentleman's C-, below average but above failing
Yascha Mounk: The gap between Trump's words and actions matters most
If you look at Donald Trump's words over the last 100 days, all of the worst fears have come true. After an unorthodox inaugural address, Trump continued to break every basic democratic norm: He has spread "alternative facts," railed against "so-called" judges, and called major news outlets "enemies of the American people."
The presidency has not made Donald Trump more presidential.
If you look at Donald Trump's actions over the last 100 days, by contrast, the record is much more mixed. I strongly disagree with Trump on many of his policies, from immigration to health care. But he has also seemed to moderate on key issues, including NATO and his relationship with key allies.
More importantly, he has so far respected the independence of institutions even as he has loudly criticized them. Instead of vowing to disobey the Ninth Circuit's rulings against his executive orders, for example, he merely tweeted: "See you in the Supreme Court!"
Looking forward, a lot will depend on whether or not Trump starts to act on his rhetoric. If his extreme statements will continue to be but so much hot air, important democratic norms will continue to take a beating, but the worst damage will be avoided. But if Trump starts to walk his scary talk, the next four years could get a lot worse than the first 100 days have been.
The best decisions Trump made in his first 100 days were nominating Gen. Mattis as defense secretary and replacing Michael Flynn with Gen. McMaster as National Security Adviser. In a volatile and complex security environment, having strategic and experienced leaders like McMaster and Mattis within the administration is reassuring.
They are, unfortunately, the exception to the rule. President Trump has reneged on one of his most basic and important campaign promises, which was to "drain the swamp." Between the investigations into Russia's involvement in the election; surrounding himself with people like Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos; refusing to release his taxes and restricting access to the White House visitors' logs, the swamp has become a sewer.
As Day 101 approaches, President Trump must begin to reach across the aisle, not only to Democrats in Congress, who he will need in order to pass legislation to keep the government functioning -- but to regular Americans who did not vote for him.
There is still a large portion of the American public that feel alienated by him and the rhetoric and policies he has advanced. If he wants to be a successful leader, he doesn't need everyone's support, but he needs more people in his corner than the members of the Freedom Caucus.
Finally, remember this: No Member of Congress cares about a president's first 100 days. They're focused on the last 100 days before their midterm elections. And right now, for many Republicans, those days are getting dark.
Grade: D
Jeffrey Lord: Napoleon would be jealous
Somewhere Napoleon is wistful.
Exiled to Elba, he escaped his island prison in 1815, marching on Paris. The Congress of Vienna declared him an outlaw, armies massed, and Napoleon soon met his Waterloo.
This period of turbulent French history immediately acquired a name: "les Cent Jours" - the Hundred Days. Over a century later, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in the middle of the Great Depression, the press of the day resurrected the term to describe the whirlwind of activity that was the opening act of FDR's New Deal. Fairly or unfairly, the term has been applied to every president since.
Now, it's President Trump's turn. While the President calls the measurement "ridiculous," the White House has still put out volumes listing accomplishments. A Supreme Court appointment has been his best achievement. The new Justice Gorsuch will presumably be there for decades as a conservative.
There are 24 executive orders on the Trump list, with seriously important ones such as green-lighting the Keystone Pipeline. Military action in Syria is certainly on the list.
Health care will come, but not by the 100-day deadline. But there will still be 1,341 days to go in Trump's term. Napoleon could only wish for that much time.
Grade: Thanks to the health care delay, an A-
Sally Kohn: Still sad
CNN asked me to write 100 words that describe Donald Trump's first 100 days. Here they are:
Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Diddly. Squat. Nought. Zippo. Zot. Negatory. Nada. Nil. Nix. Nyet. Hot air. Nothingburger. Goose egg. Broken promises. Empty promises. Also: Calamitous. Irresponsible. Inexperienced. Unprepared. Undisciplined. Uninformed. Unimproved. Unpopular. Bumbling. Embarrassing. Flimsy. Flailing. Failing. Harmful. Hurtful. Hateful. Shortsighted. Half-baked. Irrelevant. Puny. Piddling. Paltry. Petty. Immature. Infantile. Impulsive. Trite. Tiresome. Stale. Superficial. Small. Meager. Impotent. Limp. Obstructive. Destructive. Damaging. Distracted. Despised.
Backwards. Reckless. Bumbling. Bungling. Blind. Arrogant. Rude. Mean. Tacky. Trigger happy. Evasive. LYING. Vacuous. Vapid. Vacant. Vacationing. Meaningless. Frivolous. Oblivious. Sloppy. Silly. Empty. Outvoted. Overruled. Overturned. Null. Void. Inane. Inept. Negligent. Negligible. Naïve. Juvenile. Trivial. Disappointing. Underwhelming. And sad.
And PS -- the next 100 days, and even 1,000 days, don't look much better. Trump has so far shown he doesn't have the patience to translate any of his bluster into action and, meanwhile, keeps hurting America's standing in the world with his petty short tempered arrogance. Still sad.
Grade: F
Salena Zito: Accomplishments are in the eyes of the beholder
Donald J. Trump's presidency is under the microscope by the press for his accomplishments in his first 100 days in office; for my profession, his measurement is taken by the campaign promises that he pledged during the 2016 campaign.
But for voters who supported him, that measurement was always going to be different. As Brad Todd once noted and I reported, voters took his rhetoric seriously, but not literally.
The press took every word literally and his candidacy not very seriously.
If you are judging his presidency by his literal use of words -- something he does casually and without the same meaning as journalists or traditional politicians -- he has fallen behind on his pledge on a number of things; reforming Obamacare, the travel restrictions from countries with known terrorist activities and building a wall between the US and Mexico.
But if you voted for him you view his actions differently. Voters have told me in hundreds of interviews across the country that they understand that negotiations take time on Capitol Hill (health care, the wall, the budget), that activist judges have always been a thorn in every president's side (travel restriction executive order and sanctuary cities).
Their view of his accomplishments is optimistic; they are thrilled that he is constantly meeting with company executives, union and trade groups and car manufacturers. They like his executive orders on regulations, Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and his willingness to hold open discussion with the leaders of China and Egypt.
Accomplishments are in the eyes of the beholder and voters are willing to give the president time to accomplish his goals as long as he is viewed as rolling up his sleeves and fighting for them and their community's needs.
Washington will always measure him differently -- essentially because he is so disruptive to the status quo, does not view the political class with the same chumminess that other presidents have and he does not value words with the same reverence that they do.
Grade: D
Pissing Off South Korea
Why Is President Trump Trying So Hard to Piss Off South Korea?
KEVIN DRUMAPR.
Let me get this straight. First, Donald Trump pisses off South Korea by parroting the Chinese president's claim that Korea was once part of China. Then he pisses them off again by saying the USS Carl Vinson is on its way to the Yellow Sea when, in fact, it's cruising around in Indonesia. Then, today, he pisses them off again by saying he might terminate our trade agreement with them, and then demanding that they pay us a billion dollars for the anti-missile system we're installing there.
But...we need good relations with South Korea if we're planning to take on North Korea in some way. Right? Why would we be going out of our way to piss them off repeatedly?
It is a mystery. It is a Trumpism. Perhaps Trump still doesn't realize that it's not like the old days, when doing something stupid would get him some attention for a couple of news cycles and then go away. I thought maybe he'd finally figured that out after the whole Obama wiretapping fiasco.1 I guess not.
1In retrospect, it's pretty obvious that he was delighted with those tweets at first because they turned the spotlight back on him and that's all he wanted. He figured it would be like the campaign, when he'd do this kind of stuff, bluff his way through it for a couple of days, and then everyone would get tired and let it go. I imagine he was pretty shocked that everyone took it seriously for weeks on end. Come on! It was a weekend tweet! It's not like I'm the presi— Oh.
KEVIN DRUMAPR.
Let me get this straight. First, Donald Trump pisses off South Korea by parroting the Chinese president's claim that Korea was once part of China. Then he pisses them off again by saying the USS Carl Vinson is on its way to the Yellow Sea when, in fact, it's cruising around in Indonesia. Then, today, he pisses them off again by saying he might terminate our trade agreement with them, and then demanding that they pay us a billion dollars for the anti-missile system we're installing there.
But...we need good relations with South Korea if we're planning to take on North Korea in some way. Right? Why would we be going out of our way to piss them off repeatedly?
It is a mystery. It is a Trumpism. Perhaps Trump still doesn't realize that it's not like the old days, when doing something stupid would get him some attention for a couple of news cycles and then go away. I thought maybe he'd finally figured that out after the whole Obama wiretapping fiasco.1 I guess not.
1In retrospect, it's pretty obvious that he was delighted with those tweets at first because they turned the spotlight back on him and that's all he wanted. He figured it would be like the campaign, when he'd do this kind of stuff, bluff his way through it for a couple of days, and then everyone would get tired and let it go. I imagine he was pretty shocked that everyone took it seriously for weeks on end. Come on! It was a weekend tweet! It's not like I'm the presi— Oh.
It's Impossible for Republicans to Investigate
Why It's Impossible for Republicans to Investigate the Trump-Russia Scandal
Is Lindsey Graham the only hope?
DAVID CORN
On Monday, Yahoo News broke an important—but unsurprising—story: the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal has made little progress, with its Republican chairman, Richard Burr of North Carolina, refusing to sign off on subpoenas and witness interviews and failing to devote to the inquiry sufficient staff power and resources.
This was the latest blow to the effort to scrutinize Russia's effort to disrupt the 2016 election and the connections between Donald Trump's inner circle and Russians. Several weeks earlier, the House Intelligence Committee led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) imploded, when Nunes discredited himself with a bizarre stunt: He claimed he had obtained from secret sources classified evidence that Obama administration officials had improperly obtained the identities of Trump associates who were unintentionally picked up in intelligence intercepts, and he dashed to the White House to inform President Trump before sharing (and evaluating) this information with his staff and committee colleagues. It turned out Nunes' sources were White House officials and his conspiratorial characterization of the material was inaccurate and overblown. This curious episode led to the House Ethics Committee launching a probe into whether Nunes had revealed sensitive information, and Nunes recused himself from his committee's Russia investigation.
All of this rigmarole leads to an obvious question: Can the Republicans mount an independent and effective investigation of Moscow's hacking during the 2016 campaign and the interactions between Trump's crew and Russia? There is now a good argument that the answer is no.
From the start, it appeared this would be a dicey assignment for the GOP. An investigation of these matters threatened to taint Trump's victory by providing more information to back up the intelligence community's assessment that Vladimir Putin launched an extensive covert operation to subvert the 2016 elections in order to help Trump become president. Worse for Republicans, a probe could possibly produce evidence of contacts between Russians and Trump's political and business associates that might be related to Moscow's assault on American democracy.
No wonder that Burr and Nunes were not eager to accept this mission. Burr only agreed to examine the Trump-Russia interactions after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a select committee to be created to explore the subject. In order to maintain control of the inquiry, Burr expanded his committee's inquiry into the Russian hacking to cover the Trump-Russia connection. Certainly, he was not enthusiastic about this endeavor.
Nunes, too, displayed no passion for the main issues of this scandal. At the one hearing his committee held on the subject—before he self-defenestrated—Nunes devoted more time in his opening statement to echoing Trump's assertion that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia than he did to decrying Putin's effort to influence the US election. (An investigator is not supposed to echo the self-serving assertions of an involved party before the investigation is conducted.) Nunes then handed a chunk of his questioning time to another Republican who fixated on leaks—not the Moscow operation or any possible Trump link to Russians. (And the leaks this congressman was upset about were the revelations that showed that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.) After the hearing, Nunes told me that he had never heard of Roger Stone or Carter Page, two Trump advisers who were prominent players in the Trump-Russia scandal. His performance at the hearing and these remarks suggested Nunes did not—and perhaps did not want to—have a strong handle on the job.
It might have been unrealistic to expect Burr and Nunes to act as crusading investigators. They both are invested in Trump's success—maybe more so than the average Republican. During the presidential campaign, Burr served on Trump's national security advisory council and helped burnish Trump's foreign policy credentials. Days after the election, Trump named Nunes to his transition team's executive committee. And the leaders they each answer to in Congress—Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for Burr, and House Speaker Paul Ryan for Nunes—have not been cheerleaders for a vigorous investigation. McConnell stubbornly resisted calls for a select committee. (He did not want McCain, who, as chair of the Armed Services Committee, would have had a good claim to be included as a member, anywhere near this investigation, because McCain is one of the few GOPers who has called this inquiry an important priority.) And Ryan advised Nunes to make his public run to the White House when Nunes was clumsily trying to pull off a distraction to help Trump. In February, Burr and Nunes were enlisted by the Trump White House to knock back news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia—a development that undercut their independence.
And look at the House Republicans whom Nunes tapped to replace him as the managers of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation: Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas, who will be assisted by Reps. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina and Tom Rooney of Florida. In January, Conaway dismissed the Moscow hacking with an absurd comparison: "Harry Reid and the Democrats brought in Mexican soap opera stars, singers and entertainers who had immense influence in those communities into Las Vegas, to entertain, get out the vote, and so forth. Those are foreign actors, foreign people, influencing the vote in Nevada. You don't hear the Democrats screaming and saying one word about that." Yes, the fellow in charge of the inquiry into how a foreign power subverted a US presidential election through hacking and leaking essentially said this was no big deal and no different than standard campaign maneuvers.
At that one hearing the committee held, Rooney showed he was obsessed with the leaks in the Flynn case and the issue of "unmasking"—when the identity of an American incidentally captured in a US intelligence intercept is revealed to a senior US official authorized to receive this information. Gowdy, too, zeroed in on this side matter, and he also suggested that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing classified information. Moreover, Gowdy's past performance as a congressional investigator does not inspire confidence. He ran the House special committee investigation on Bengahzi that went on endlessly—after other House probes had examined the topic—and that was marred by partisan moves and leaks from the Republican side of the committee.
Under this new leadership, the House inquiry has restarted, with the committee announcing it will soon hold hearings featuring former CIA chief John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. But it's unclear what is happening with the actual investigation.
There are a few small but encouraging signs in other corners of the Capitol. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has joined McCain in demanding a robust inquiry, is using the subcommittee on crime and terrorism he chairs to keep this issue front and center. This week, he announced his subcommittee will hold a hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 election with Yates and Clapper on May 8. And Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chair of the House government oversight committee, has been pressing the White House to release documents related to payments Flynn received from Russia.
But the big picture is still not reassuring: Most of the men with responsibility for pursuing the truth in the Trump-Russia scandal do not have much credibility at this point. Nunes compromised himself out of the job. His successors have demonstrated no commitment to the core issues. Burr, who claimed he would follow the evidence wherever it led, was touted as the non-Nunes. But he is hardly pursuing the case aggressively. (FBI Director James Comey has said the bureau has been investigating interactions between Trump associates and Russians since last July, but there is no telling if that probe will yield any criminal cases or any public accounting.)
It is never easy for a member of Congress to conduct an investigation that affects a president from his or her own party. Republicans had a difficult time during Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair. But this time around, they face an impulsive and vengeful president who has asserted that this whole business is a hoax. During the campaign, Trump repeatedly denied the Russians had anything to do with the hacking—even after the intelligence community concluded Moscow was behind it. He weirdly praised Putin. In the months after the election, Trump attacked the intelligence community, comparing it to Nazi Germany. He insisted that the Russian story was "fake news." He claimed, without any evidence, that President Barack Obama had wiretapped him during the campaign and that this was the real story. He has signaled over and over that he will not look kindly upon anyone who treats the Trump-Russia scandal seriously.
It would take a Republican of tremendous fortitude and independence to withstand all the political pressure and lead a thorough, come-what-may probe that could end up blemishing if not endangering the Trump presidency. So far, no GOPer has assumed this role. And in today's hyperpartisan political environment, that may be too much to ask for. The alternatives, then, would be an independent, nonpartisan commission that was not part of Congress or a bipartisan select committee of Congress. The problem: Either one would have to be backed by the Republican leaders of Congress. (A commission, if created by an act of Congress, would have to be signed into existence by Trump.) That, too, would take more guts than most Republicans can muster when it comes to uncovering the truth about Putin's operation and Trump links to the regime that waged covert political warfare against the United States.
Is Lindsey Graham the only hope?
DAVID CORN
On Monday, Yahoo News broke an important—but unsurprising—story: the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal has made little progress, with its Republican chairman, Richard Burr of North Carolina, refusing to sign off on subpoenas and witness interviews and failing to devote to the inquiry sufficient staff power and resources.
This was the latest blow to the effort to scrutinize Russia's effort to disrupt the 2016 election and the connections between Donald Trump's inner circle and Russians. Several weeks earlier, the House Intelligence Committee led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) imploded, when Nunes discredited himself with a bizarre stunt: He claimed he had obtained from secret sources classified evidence that Obama administration officials had improperly obtained the identities of Trump associates who were unintentionally picked up in intelligence intercepts, and he dashed to the White House to inform President Trump before sharing (and evaluating) this information with his staff and committee colleagues. It turned out Nunes' sources were White House officials and his conspiratorial characterization of the material was inaccurate and overblown. This curious episode led to the House Ethics Committee launching a probe into whether Nunes had revealed sensitive information, and Nunes recused himself from his committee's Russia investigation.
All of this rigmarole leads to an obvious question: Can the Republicans mount an independent and effective investigation of Moscow's hacking during the 2016 campaign and the interactions between Trump's crew and Russia? There is now a good argument that the answer is no.
From the start, it appeared this would be a dicey assignment for the GOP. An investigation of these matters threatened to taint Trump's victory by providing more information to back up the intelligence community's assessment that Vladimir Putin launched an extensive covert operation to subvert the 2016 elections in order to help Trump become president. Worse for Republicans, a probe could possibly produce evidence of contacts between Russians and Trump's political and business associates that might be related to Moscow's assault on American democracy.
No wonder that Burr and Nunes were not eager to accept this mission. Burr only agreed to examine the Trump-Russia interactions after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a select committee to be created to explore the subject. In order to maintain control of the inquiry, Burr expanded his committee's inquiry into the Russian hacking to cover the Trump-Russia connection. Certainly, he was not enthusiastic about this endeavor.
Nunes, too, displayed no passion for the main issues of this scandal. At the one hearing his committee held on the subject—before he self-defenestrated—Nunes devoted more time in his opening statement to echoing Trump's assertion that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia than he did to decrying Putin's effort to influence the US election. (An investigator is not supposed to echo the self-serving assertions of an involved party before the investigation is conducted.) Nunes then handed a chunk of his questioning time to another Republican who fixated on leaks—not the Moscow operation or any possible Trump link to Russians. (And the leaks this congressman was upset about were the revelations that showed that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.) After the hearing, Nunes told me that he had never heard of Roger Stone or Carter Page, two Trump advisers who were prominent players in the Trump-Russia scandal. His performance at the hearing and these remarks suggested Nunes did not—and perhaps did not want to—have a strong handle on the job.
It might have been unrealistic to expect Burr and Nunes to act as crusading investigators. They both are invested in Trump's success—maybe more so than the average Republican. During the presidential campaign, Burr served on Trump's national security advisory council and helped burnish Trump's foreign policy credentials. Days after the election, Trump named Nunes to his transition team's executive committee. And the leaders they each answer to in Congress—Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for Burr, and House Speaker Paul Ryan for Nunes—have not been cheerleaders for a vigorous investigation. McConnell stubbornly resisted calls for a select committee. (He did not want McCain, who, as chair of the Armed Services Committee, would have had a good claim to be included as a member, anywhere near this investigation, because McCain is one of the few GOPers who has called this inquiry an important priority.) And Ryan advised Nunes to make his public run to the White House when Nunes was clumsily trying to pull off a distraction to help Trump. In February, Burr and Nunes were enlisted by the Trump White House to knock back news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia—a development that undercut their independence.
And look at the House Republicans whom Nunes tapped to replace him as the managers of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation: Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas, who will be assisted by Reps. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina and Tom Rooney of Florida. In January, Conaway dismissed the Moscow hacking with an absurd comparison: "Harry Reid and the Democrats brought in Mexican soap opera stars, singers and entertainers who had immense influence in those communities into Las Vegas, to entertain, get out the vote, and so forth. Those are foreign actors, foreign people, influencing the vote in Nevada. You don't hear the Democrats screaming and saying one word about that." Yes, the fellow in charge of the inquiry into how a foreign power subverted a US presidential election through hacking and leaking essentially said this was no big deal and no different than standard campaign maneuvers.
At that one hearing the committee held, Rooney showed he was obsessed with the leaks in the Flynn case and the issue of "unmasking"—when the identity of an American incidentally captured in a US intelligence intercept is revealed to a senior US official authorized to receive this information. Gowdy, too, zeroed in on this side matter, and he also suggested that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing classified information. Moreover, Gowdy's past performance as a congressional investigator does not inspire confidence. He ran the House special committee investigation on Bengahzi that went on endlessly—after other House probes had examined the topic—and that was marred by partisan moves and leaks from the Republican side of the committee.
Under this new leadership, the House inquiry has restarted, with the committee announcing it will soon hold hearings featuring former CIA chief John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. But it's unclear what is happening with the actual investigation.
There are a few small but encouraging signs in other corners of the Capitol. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has joined McCain in demanding a robust inquiry, is using the subcommittee on crime and terrorism he chairs to keep this issue front and center. This week, he announced his subcommittee will hold a hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 election with Yates and Clapper on May 8. And Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chair of the House government oversight committee, has been pressing the White House to release documents related to payments Flynn received from Russia.
But the big picture is still not reassuring: Most of the men with responsibility for pursuing the truth in the Trump-Russia scandal do not have much credibility at this point. Nunes compromised himself out of the job. His successors have demonstrated no commitment to the core issues. Burr, who claimed he would follow the evidence wherever it led, was touted as the non-Nunes. But he is hardly pursuing the case aggressively. (FBI Director James Comey has said the bureau has been investigating interactions between Trump associates and Russians since last July, but there is no telling if that probe will yield any criminal cases or any public accounting.)
It is never easy for a member of Congress to conduct an investigation that affects a president from his or her own party. Republicans had a difficult time during Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair. But this time around, they face an impulsive and vengeful president who has asserted that this whole business is a hoax. During the campaign, Trump repeatedly denied the Russians had anything to do with the hacking—even after the intelligence community concluded Moscow was behind it. He weirdly praised Putin. In the months after the election, Trump attacked the intelligence community, comparing it to Nazi Germany. He insisted that the Russian story was "fake news." He claimed, without any evidence, that President Barack Obama had wiretapped him during the campaign and that this was the real story. He has signaled over and over that he will not look kindly upon anyone who treats the Trump-Russia scandal seriously.
It would take a Republican of tremendous fortitude and independence to withstand all the political pressure and lead a thorough, come-what-may probe that could end up blemishing if not endangering the Trump presidency. So far, no GOPer has assumed this role. And in today's hyperpartisan political environment, that may be too much to ask for. The alternatives, then, would be an independent, nonpartisan commission that was not part of Congress or a bipartisan select committee of Congress. The problem: Either one would have to be backed by the Republican leaders of Congress. (A commission, if created by an act of Congress, would have to be signed into existence by Trump.) That, too, would take more guts than most Republicans can muster when it comes to uncovering the truth about Putin's operation and Trump links to the regime that waged covert political warfare against the United States.
Crack Down
Texas Is About to Crack Down on Undocumented Immigrants
The state is debating a bill to outlaw sanctuary cities.
ASHLEY DEJEAN
Texas is about to become the second state to outlaw sanctuary cities, jurisdictions that refuse to fully comply with federal enforcement of immigration laws. On Thursday, lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives gave approval to legislation that would make it a misdemeanor crime for local law enforcement to not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, with penalties of up to $25,500 in fines for local governments and jail time for individual law enforcement officials who maintain sanctuary cities. The legislation would also allow local police officers to inquire about someone's immigration status during routine encounters such as traffic stops. A slightly different version of the bill already passed in the state senate, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who has made passing legislation banning sanctuary cities a top priority this legislative session, will likely sign the final measure.
Texas became one of the battlegrounds in the national debate over sanctuary cities when Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, after taking office earlier this year, instituted a new policy for her department to not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Gov. Abbott cut off funding in retaliation and even threatened to oust the sheriff. In a parallel effort, the Trump administration is also trying to cut off federal funding to jurisdictions that refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Thursday's vote followed an initial 16-hour overnight hearing on the House floor. State Rep. Mary González, a Democrat who was once an undocumented immigrant herself, told her colleagues that she was a victim of sexual assault, and that the proposal would actually make Texas less safe by discouraging immigrants from talking to the police when a crime has been committed. "We aren't exaggerating when we say the people empowered by this piece of the amendment will be criminals," Gonzalez said. "We aren't exaggerating when we say the people who will feel the biggest effects of this are the most vulnerable—the women and children who are victims of rape, sexual assault, human trafficking."
González also beseeched other lawmakers to limit questioning about immigration status to those who were under arrest. "If you ever had any friendship with me, this is the vote that measures that friendship," González pleaded during the hearing.
According to the Texas Observer, hundreds protested in the Capitol rotunda, where their chants opposing the legislation could be heard during the marathon debate. The protest didn't dissuade Republican Rep. Matt Schaefer, who added language to the bill that would allow police to check someone's immigration status during routine "detainments" like traffic stops. "This was about making sure that our law enforcement officers can continue to do what they have a duty to do, which is to make sure that we're safe," he said. "That means using every reasonable tool available under the law to inquire about criminal activity."
State Rep. Ana Hernandez, a Democrat who was also undocumented as a child, fought back tears as she described her fears growing up. "I knew I wasn't a U.S. citizen, and I feared the reactions from my classmates if they knew I wasn't a citizen," Hernandez said. "I see myself in many of those students now that share the same fear of being deported, or having their parents deported."
Sanctuary city legislation is expected to head to the governor's desk soon, but local leaders and civil rights advocates opposing the bill say the fight is only getting started, and they plan to file lawsuits challenging the legality of the measure. "The legislature is attempting to blackmail cities into violating our own resident's constitutional rights," Austin City Council member Greg Casar said on a press call. "I believe we have no responsibility to follow an unconstitutional law, and we should not be complying with a law that is so discriminatory and dangerous in its mandate."
The state is debating a bill to outlaw sanctuary cities.
ASHLEY DEJEAN
Texas is about to become the second state to outlaw sanctuary cities, jurisdictions that refuse to fully comply with federal enforcement of immigration laws. On Thursday, lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives gave approval to legislation that would make it a misdemeanor crime for local law enforcement to not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, with penalties of up to $25,500 in fines for local governments and jail time for individual law enforcement officials who maintain sanctuary cities. The legislation would also allow local police officers to inquire about someone's immigration status during routine encounters such as traffic stops. A slightly different version of the bill already passed in the state senate, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who has made passing legislation banning sanctuary cities a top priority this legislative session, will likely sign the final measure.
Texas became one of the battlegrounds in the national debate over sanctuary cities when Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, after taking office earlier this year, instituted a new policy for her department to not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Gov. Abbott cut off funding in retaliation and even threatened to oust the sheriff. In a parallel effort, the Trump administration is also trying to cut off federal funding to jurisdictions that refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Thursday's vote followed an initial 16-hour overnight hearing on the House floor. State Rep. Mary González, a Democrat who was once an undocumented immigrant herself, told her colleagues that she was a victim of sexual assault, and that the proposal would actually make Texas less safe by discouraging immigrants from talking to the police when a crime has been committed. "We aren't exaggerating when we say the people empowered by this piece of the amendment will be criminals," Gonzalez said. "We aren't exaggerating when we say the people who will feel the biggest effects of this are the most vulnerable—the women and children who are victims of rape, sexual assault, human trafficking."
González also beseeched other lawmakers to limit questioning about immigration status to those who were under arrest. "If you ever had any friendship with me, this is the vote that measures that friendship," González pleaded during the hearing.
According to the Texas Observer, hundreds protested in the Capitol rotunda, where their chants opposing the legislation could be heard during the marathon debate. The protest didn't dissuade Republican Rep. Matt Schaefer, who added language to the bill that would allow police to check someone's immigration status during routine "detainments" like traffic stops. "This was about making sure that our law enforcement officers can continue to do what they have a duty to do, which is to make sure that we're safe," he said. "That means using every reasonable tool available under the law to inquire about criminal activity."
State Rep. Ana Hernandez, a Democrat who was also undocumented as a child, fought back tears as she described her fears growing up. "I knew I wasn't a U.S. citizen, and I feared the reactions from my classmates if they knew I wasn't a citizen," Hernandez said. "I see myself in many of those students now that share the same fear of being deported, or having their parents deported."
Sanctuary city legislation is expected to head to the governor's desk soon, but local leaders and civil rights advocates opposing the bill say the fight is only getting started, and they plan to file lawsuits challenging the legality of the measure. "The legislature is attempting to blackmail cities into violating our own resident's constitutional rights," Austin City Council member Greg Casar said on a press call. "I believe we have no responsibility to follow an unconstitutional law, and we should not be complying with a law that is so discriminatory and dangerous in its mandate."
Ditsy Failed the 100-Day Test
9 Ways Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump Failed the 100-Day Test
Slashing budgets and rolling back Obama-era directives are just the start.
EDWIN RIOS
In one of his less-heralded campaign promises, Donald Trump vowed to work with Congress to introduce something called the School Choice and Education Opportunity Act in his first 100 days in office. The expansive piece of legislation would send taxpayer money to private and religious schools, get rid of Common Core standards, expand vocational education, and make college more affordable.
So far, a bill has failed to materialize. Instead, the beginning of the Betsy DeVos era has been marked by decisions that could hurt low-income college students and students from marginalized communities, strip rules on accountability for states, and slash the Department of Education's budget. And Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order directing an Education Department task force to evaluate regulations from previous administrations for federal overreach—even as the administration devises a way to direct public dollars toward funding private schools.
Here's a look at what Trump and DeVos have tackled in their first 100 days.
Nixed transgender bathroom protections.
On February 22, the White House reversed an Obama-era directive allowing transgender students to use bathrooms that aligned with their gender identity. While the Obama administration determined last May that stopping transgender students from doing so amounted to discrimination and violated Title IX, the Trump administration's position leaves the decision to accommodate students to states and school boards.
The move served as one of the first tests for DeVos, who had been recently become education secretary after a contentious confirmation process. Despite her initial opposition, DeVos eventually agreed to side with the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in signing off on the directive, the New York Times reported at the time. Following the White House's decision, 11 states that had challenged the Obama administration's stance in court dropped their lawsuit.
Alienated HBCUs.
Black History Month wasn't so good for the White House. After a listening session with leaders from historically black colleges and universities, DeVos issued a controversial statement that referred to HBCUs as the "real pioneers when it comes to school choice," despite the fact that those institutions arose because black Americans were excluded from traditionally white universities thanks to state-sanctioned segregation. DeVos corrected herself at a HBCU luncheon the following day amid a flurry of criticism. "Bucking [the] status quo, and providing an alternative option to students denied the right to attend a quality school, is the legacy of HBCUs," DeVos told leaders.
And, despite insisting that his support for historically black colleges and universities would far surpass that of his predecessors, Trump signed an HBCU-related executive order on February 28 that didn't stray from the norm. The directive moved a White House initiative on HBCUs to the president's executive office and stated the initiative should work with the private sector to strengthen historically black colleges and universities. But the order didn't include a commitment to boost federal funding—a request HBCU leaders are still hoping for.
Set aside big money for school choice…
In his first address to Congress in February, Trump called for a bill to fund "school choice for disadvantaged youth." On March 16, the administration requested $1.4 billion more for expanding charter schools and vouchers for private schools in its proposed 2017-18 budget. That included a $168 million increase for charters, $250 million for a private school choice program, and a $1 billion increase for Title I funding, which goes toward funding school districts with high percentages of poor children. All told, the administration's investment would go toward adopting a system that allows money to follow students to the school of their choice, a politically charged policy known as portability.
…on top of a 13 percent budget cut.
Under the proposed budget, the Education Department would face $9.2 billion in cuts and would eliminate the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which supports teacher training; the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which provides afterschool and summer programs to kids; and the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, which helps low-income college students pay for school. It would also reduce funding for federal work-study and the Pell Grant program, which provides financial support for low-income college students, by $3.9 billion.
Withdrew protections for student debt default.
On March 17, the Education Department tossed out another Obama-era directive that had forbid debt collectors from charging fees for up to 16 percent of the principal and accrued interest owed on overdue student loans. The measure was meant to protect students in default of federal loans participating in the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
Stripped accountability regulations under Every Student Succeeds Act.
Late last November, the Obama administration finalized rules on how states should evaluate schools when devising their accountability plans under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The 2015 law, which replaced No Child Left Behind, shifted more authority over testing and accountability to states and school districts and restricted the education secretary's power to dictate the standards adopted by states.
Trump signed a bill to scrap the accountability rules on March 27, less than a month before the deadline for states to submit their ESSA plans. Critics argued that the changes would cause confusion over whether the state plans would comply with ESSA.
Overturned rules on teacher preparation programs.
On March 28, Trump signed a separate bill eliminating a more controversial Obama-era rule that required states to rate and evaluate the effectiveness of training programs for elementary- and secondary-school teachers. The rule, put in place late last year, drew opposition from colleges, teachers' unions, and lawmakers who saw the guidance as federal overreach
Ended a program promoting diversity.
On March 29, the Education Department discontinued a $12 million grant program meant to help school districts make plans for boosting socioeconomic diversity in schools. The grant program, announced by former Education Secretary John B. King Jr. late last year, was seen by advocates as a symbol of the Obama administration's commitment to diversity in schools. In an interview with the Washington Post, former Education Department official Tonya Clay House called the move a "slap in the face."
Rescinded protections for student loan borrowers.
On April 11, DeVos revoked Obama-era policy guidances meant to bolster consumer protections for student loan borrowers and deter servicer misconduct.
The previous memos required the Education Department's Federal Student Aid office, which handles $1.1 trillion in student loan debt, to establish financial incentives for loan serving companies to assist people at risk of defaulting on loans and devise contracts that could punish companies that provide inadequate services. DeVos argued that the rollout process was riddled with shortcomings and that the department should find a way to provide high-quality service and increase accountability while "also limiting the cost to taxpayers."
The Department of Education is in the middle of negotiating new debt collection contracts, which are set to expire in 2019. Earlier this year, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and attorneys general in Illinois and Washington sued Navient, the nation's biggest student loan servicer, for allegedly mishandling loan payments and "systematically and illegally failing borrowers at every stage of repayment."
Nearly two dozen state attorneys general criticized DeVos this week and called for her to reconsider the department's position. "The Department's decision to roll back essential protections," the coalition of attorneys general note in the letter, "imperils millions of student loan borrowers and families."
Slashing budgets and rolling back Obama-era directives are just the start.
EDWIN RIOS
In one of his less-heralded campaign promises, Donald Trump vowed to work with Congress to introduce something called the School Choice and Education Opportunity Act in his first 100 days in office. The expansive piece of legislation would send taxpayer money to private and religious schools, get rid of Common Core standards, expand vocational education, and make college more affordable.
So far, a bill has failed to materialize. Instead, the beginning of the Betsy DeVos era has been marked by decisions that could hurt low-income college students and students from marginalized communities, strip rules on accountability for states, and slash the Department of Education's budget. And Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order directing an Education Department task force to evaluate regulations from previous administrations for federal overreach—even as the administration devises a way to direct public dollars toward funding private schools.
Here's a look at what Trump and DeVos have tackled in their first 100 days.
Nixed transgender bathroom protections.
On February 22, the White House reversed an Obama-era directive allowing transgender students to use bathrooms that aligned with their gender identity. While the Obama administration determined last May that stopping transgender students from doing so amounted to discrimination and violated Title IX, the Trump administration's position leaves the decision to accommodate students to states and school boards.
The move served as one of the first tests for DeVos, who had been recently become education secretary after a contentious confirmation process. Despite her initial opposition, DeVos eventually agreed to side with the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in signing off on the directive, the New York Times reported at the time. Following the White House's decision, 11 states that had challenged the Obama administration's stance in court dropped their lawsuit.
Alienated HBCUs.
Black History Month wasn't so good for the White House. After a listening session with leaders from historically black colleges and universities, DeVos issued a controversial statement that referred to HBCUs as the "real pioneers when it comes to school choice," despite the fact that those institutions arose because black Americans were excluded from traditionally white universities thanks to state-sanctioned segregation. DeVos corrected herself at a HBCU luncheon the following day amid a flurry of criticism. "Bucking [the] status quo, and providing an alternative option to students denied the right to attend a quality school, is the legacy of HBCUs," DeVos told leaders.
And, despite insisting that his support for historically black colleges and universities would far surpass that of his predecessors, Trump signed an HBCU-related executive order on February 28 that didn't stray from the norm. The directive moved a White House initiative on HBCUs to the president's executive office and stated the initiative should work with the private sector to strengthen historically black colleges and universities. But the order didn't include a commitment to boost federal funding—a request HBCU leaders are still hoping for.
Set aside big money for school choice…
In his first address to Congress in February, Trump called for a bill to fund "school choice for disadvantaged youth." On March 16, the administration requested $1.4 billion more for expanding charter schools and vouchers for private schools in its proposed 2017-18 budget. That included a $168 million increase for charters, $250 million for a private school choice program, and a $1 billion increase for Title I funding, which goes toward funding school districts with high percentages of poor children. All told, the administration's investment would go toward adopting a system that allows money to follow students to the school of their choice, a politically charged policy known as portability.
…on top of a 13 percent budget cut.
Under the proposed budget, the Education Department would face $9.2 billion in cuts and would eliminate the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which supports teacher training; the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which provides afterschool and summer programs to kids; and the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, which helps low-income college students pay for school. It would also reduce funding for federal work-study and the Pell Grant program, which provides financial support for low-income college students, by $3.9 billion.
Withdrew protections for student debt default.
On March 17, the Education Department tossed out another Obama-era directive that had forbid debt collectors from charging fees for up to 16 percent of the principal and accrued interest owed on overdue student loans. The measure was meant to protect students in default of federal loans participating in the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
Stripped accountability regulations under Every Student Succeeds Act.
Late last November, the Obama administration finalized rules on how states should evaluate schools when devising their accountability plans under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The 2015 law, which replaced No Child Left Behind, shifted more authority over testing and accountability to states and school districts and restricted the education secretary's power to dictate the standards adopted by states.
Trump signed a bill to scrap the accountability rules on March 27, less than a month before the deadline for states to submit their ESSA plans. Critics argued that the changes would cause confusion over whether the state plans would comply with ESSA.
Overturned rules on teacher preparation programs.
On March 28, Trump signed a separate bill eliminating a more controversial Obama-era rule that required states to rate and evaluate the effectiveness of training programs for elementary- and secondary-school teachers. The rule, put in place late last year, drew opposition from colleges, teachers' unions, and lawmakers who saw the guidance as federal overreach
Ended a program promoting diversity.
On March 29, the Education Department discontinued a $12 million grant program meant to help school districts make plans for boosting socioeconomic diversity in schools. The grant program, announced by former Education Secretary John B. King Jr. late last year, was seen by advocates as a symbol of the Obama administration's commitment to diversity in schools. In an interview with the Washington Post, former Education Department official Tonya Clay House called the move a "slap in the face."
Rescinded protections for student loan borrowers.
On April 11, DeVos revoked Obama-era policy guidances meant to bolster consumer protections for student loan borrowers and deter servicer misconduct.
The previous memos required the Education Department's Federal Student Aid office, which handles $1.1 trillion in student loan debt, to establish financial incentives for loan serving companies to assist people at risk of defaulting on loans and devise contracts that could punish companies that provide inadequate services. DeVos argued that the rollout process was riddled with shortcomings and that the department should find a way to provide high-quality service and increase accountability while "also limiting the cost to taxpayers."
The Department of Education is in the middle of negotiating new debt collection contracts, which are set to expire in 2019. Earlier this year, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and attorneys general in Illinois and Washington sued Navient, the nation's biggest student loan servicer, for allegedly mishandling loan payments and "systematically and illegally failing borrowers at every stage of repayment."
Nearly two dozen state attorneys general criticized DeVos this week and called for her to reconsider the department's position. "The Department's decision to roll back essential protections," the coalition of attorneys general note in the letter, "imperils millions of student loan borrowers and families."
Making It Worse
Pollution Harms People of Color the Most. Trump Is Making It Worse.
The administration attacks environmental justice.
NATHALIE BAPTISTE
On Thursday, environmentalists and a handful of congressional Democrats gathered at the US Capitol to launch the United for Climate Task Force, a new group for marginalized communities who are facing new threats to the air they breathe and the water they drink. It was Day 98 of Donald Trump's presidency, and the timing doesn't appear to have been an accident. As the president's first 100 days in office draw to a close, environmentalists have grown increasingly alarmed at the administration's efforts to eliminate regulations and cut programs that promote environmental justice.
From the start, the Trump administration made clear that it planned to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency. Most notably, the White House has proposed massive budget cuts that could fundamentally change the way agency operates. "Over the past few months we've seen how quickly this administration is rolling back progress we've made on the environment," Rep. Pramila Jayapral (D-Wash.) said at the Thursday event. "Budget cuts to the EPA will devastate communities of color across the country." Indeed, people of color and low-income communities face the highest risks from toxic spills, hazardous air, and dirty drinking water, according to the Center for American Progress.
Mustafa Ali, the longtime head of the agency's Office of Environmental Justice, resigned in March. Ali, whose office was charged with reducing the disproportionate environmental dangers facing marginalized groups, told Mother Jones at the time that the administration's actions sent "a signal that communities with environmental justice concern may not get the attention they deserve." Weeks later, the Washington Post obtained a 64-page budget memo from the EPA detailing a slew of proposed cuts. They included the outright elimination of the environmental justice office.
In its rush to gut the EPA, the Trump administration also proposed eliminating two programs designed to limit children's exposure to lead-based paint, which can cause brain damage. One program focuses on training workers in the removal of lead-based paint; the other is public education campaign about the risk. Lead-based paint was banned in 1978, but it's still common in houses built before then and can be often found in poor and predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods. The EPA estimates that 38 million homes contain lead paint.
The administration has also proposed cutting funding for the cleanup of Superfund sites, which are some of the most polluted places in the country. Those cuts could leave millions of people, many of them in marginalized communities, with little hope that the toxic waste polluting their neighborhoods will ever be removed. In East Chicago, where a Superfund site is causing multiple problems, activists were angered when EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who visited the city earlier this month, failed to meet with residents and environmental justice groups about the cleanup and other environmental issues.
A hamstrung EPA is not the only concern of environmental justice activists. The White House dealt a particularly stinging blow to indigenous communities with the stroke of a pen. One of Trump's first actions in office was signing an executive order to expedite the approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The 1,172 mile-long pipeline will carry crude oil from North Dakota, through the Standing Rock Sioux's land. If the pipeline were to leak, it could threaten the tribe's water source. The tribe and its allies began fighting the pipeline's construction in 2015 but faced a serious setback after Trump signed the order and a federal judge refused to halt construction. Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that the developers could keep some information about spill risks secret. North Dakota has averaged four pipeline spills per year since 1996.
Meanwhile, Congress has waged its own assault on environmental justice initiatives. Less than a month into Trump's term, congressional Republicans voted to strike down an Obama-era rule intended to prevent coal-mining debris from polluting thousands of miles of streams. That pollution primarily impacts poor and rural Americans living in Appalachia. Trump eagerly signed the repeal legislation.
Despite these defeats, environmental justice advocates are digging in for a long fight. "There's been a disparity of treatment," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said at the Thursday press conference. Communities of color, he added, "tend to be forgotten, and the well-being of this nation depends on the those communities."
The administration attacks environmental justice.
NATHALIE BAPTISTE
On Thursday, environmentalists and a handful of congressional Democrats gathered at the US Capitol to launch the United for Climate Task Force, a new group for marginalized communities who are facing new threats to the air they breathe and the water they drink. It was Day 98 of Donald Trump's presidency, and the timing doesn't appear to have been an accident. As the president's first 100 days in office draw to a close, environmentalists have grown increasingly alarmed at the administration's efforts to eliminate regulations and cut programs that promote environmental justice.
From the start, the Trump administration made clear that it planned to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency. Most notably, the White House has proposed massive budget cuts that could fundamentally change the way agency operates. "Over the past few months we've seen how quickly this administration is rolling back progress we've made on the environment," Rep. Pramila Jayapral (D-Wash.) said at the Thursday event. "Budget cuts to the EPA will devastate communities of color across the country." Indeed, people of color and low-income communities face the highest risks from toxic spills, hazardous air, and dirty drinking water, according to the Center for American Progress.
Mustafa Ali, the longtime head of the agency's Office of Environmental Justice, resigned in March. Ali, whose office was charged with reducing the disproportionate environmental dangers facing marginalized groups, told Mother Jones at the time that the administration's actions sent "a signal that communities with environmental justice concern may not get the attention they deserve." Weeks later, the Washington Post obtained a 64-page budget memo from the EPA detailing a slew of proposed cuts. They included the outright elimination of the environmental justice office.
In its rush to gut the EPA, the Trump administration also proposed eliminating two programs designed to limit children's exposure to lead-based paint, which can cause brain damage. One program focuses on training workers in the removal of lead-based paint; the other is public education campaign about the risk. Lead-based paint was banned in 1978, but it's still common in houses built before then and can be often found in poor and predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods. The EPA estimates that 38 million homes contain lead paint.
The administration has also proposed cutting funding for the cleanup of Superfund sites, which are some of the most polluted places in the country. Those cuts could leave millions of people, many of them in marginalized communities, with little hope that the toxic waste polluting their neighborhoods will ever be removed. In East Chicago, where a Superfund site is causing multiple problems, activists were angered when EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who visited the city earlier this month, failed to meet with residents and environmental justice groups about the cleanup and other environmental issues.
A hamstrung EPA is not the only concern of environmental justice activists. The White House dealt a particularly stinging blow to indigenous communities with the stroke of a pen. One of Trump's first actions in office was signing an executive order to expedite the approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The 1,172 mile-long pipeline will carry crude oil from North Dakota, through the Standing Rock Sioux's land. If the pipeline were to leak, it could threaten the tribe's water source. The tribe and its allies began fighting the pipeline's construction in 2015 but faced a serious setback after Trump signed the order and a federal judge refused to halt construction. Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that the developers could keep some information about spill risks secret. North Dakota has averaged four pipeline spills per year since 1996.
Meanwhile, Congress has waged its own assault on environmental justice initiatives. Less than a month into Trump's term, congressional Republicans voted to strike down an Obama-era rule intended to prevent coal-mining debris from polluting thousands of miles of streams. That pollution primarily impacts poor and rural Americans living in Appalachia. Trump eagerly signed the repeal legislation.
Despite these defeats, environmental justice advocates are digging in for a long fight. "There's been a disparity of treatment," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said at the Thursday press conference. Communities of color, he added, "tend to be forgotten, and the well-being of this nation depends on the those communities."
Exploring the Antennae
Some 60 million light-years away in the southerly constellation Corvus, two large galaxies are colliding. Stars in the two galaxies, cataloged as NGC 4038 and NGC 4039, very rarely collide in the course of the ponderous cataclysm that lasts for hundreds of millions of years. But the galaxies' large clouds of molecular gas and dust often do, triggering furious episodes of star formation near the center of the cosmic wreckage. Spanning over 500 thousand light-years, this stunning view also reveals new star clusters and matter flung far from the scene of the accident by gravitational tidal forces. The remarkable mosaicked image was constructed using data from the ground-based Subaru telescope to bring out large-scale and faint tidal streams, and Hubble Space Telescope data of extreme detail in the bright cores. The suggestive visual appearance of the extended arcing structures gives the galaxy pair its popular name - The Antennae.
A better life...
Jumping the fence to Europe
At Europe’s only land border with Africa, would-be migrants dream of a better life in Spain.
By GUY HEDGECO
The immigrant temporary stay center in Melilla is a long way from John Masal’s glamorous idea of life in Europe. But the 19-year-old from Sierra Leone says he’s happy because this is Europe — Spain, to be precise.
Situated on the edge of Melilla, one of two Spanish cities — the other is Ceuta — perched on the North African coast, it is a functional-looking building with a large green gate that occasionally emits distorted loudspeaker announcements. Masal says it is crowded inside and there is a shortage of drinking water. Meanwhile, 100 meters or so away, a six-meter-high triple security fence stretches into the distance.
Separated from Morocco only by those imposing fences, Melilla and Ceuta represent Europe’s only land border with Africa.
Sitting in the shade outside the stay center, Masal tells POLITICO his knowledge of Spain is based mainly on football.
“My dream is playing football,” he says. “I love Real Madrid and Barcelona.”
It’s a common aspiration among the thousands of sub-Saharan Africans who journey north each year in a bid to reach Melilla or Ceuta, either by water, hidden in a vehicle or by scaling one of the fences. Masal spent three months living in a makeshift camp in a forest on the Moroccan side of the border, repeatedly trying to get over the Melilla fence, despite being thwarted by the police each time. He recalls not washing for a month and being bitten by ants at night. Eventually, in March, he and a group of fellow migrants got through a hole in the fence.
“I’m happy because I’m here,” he says. “I want a better life for me and my family.”
This border is tightly controlled by Morocco, with the cooperation of Spain. Although this route to Europe has also been popular with Syrian refugees, in recent years the two countries have managed to reduce the numbers of those who manage to reach Ceuta and Melilla. Only 7 percent of the 4,000 migrants who tried to jump the Melilla fence in 2016 were successful, according to the Spanish government. Those who do make it are usually taken to the mainland after several months in the immigrant stay center, although Spain’s bilateral accords with a number of African nations mean some are then returned home.
Despite the controls, Spain’s twin African cities are still a magnet for those who are prepared to endure desperate conditions in the hope that they, like Masal, will one day make it to the other side. Moreover, the anomalous geographical status of Ceuta and Melilla gives these migrants a crucial role in the often tense relationship between Morocco and its European partners to the north. Like Turkey, the North African country sees its control of migration as a powerful bargaining chip with the EU.
The king’s annoyance
On February 17, 498 sub-Saharan migrants reached Ceuta by breaching the border fence, a record-breaking number, which was followed by another 356 three days later.
One Spanish civil guard, who was on duty on the first of those nights, told El País newspaper that the Moroccan police, normally quick to act when they suspect migrants are attempting to get through, had appeared to ignore the attempt altogether. In recent weeks, many more migrants have reached Ceuta, mainly by boat, leaving its migrant temporary stay center at over triple its capacity of 500. Meanwhile, the Spanish government has reinforced security along the Melilla border.
“Eight hundred and fifty-five people have jumped the fence [to Ceuta] in just a few days, while all of last year around 1,000 did so,” notes Ignacio Cembrero, a Spanish journalist and author who covers Morocco. “Something is up.”
Cembrero and many others believe Morocco deliberately relaxed its border controls as a way of channeling King Mohammed VI’s annoyance at a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on an agricultural issue in December. That decision treated Western Sahara as separate from Morocco, which has claimed sovereignty of the 266,000-square-kilometer territory since 1975 despite resistance from the Polisario Front independence movement.
The Moroccan government immediately voiced its concern at the ruling, and a few weeks later, on February 6, Aziz Akhannouch, the minister of agriculture, hinted that Rabat would use its management of migration as retribution.
“How do you [Europeans] want us to do the job of stopping African — and even Moroccan — emigration if today Europe doesn’t want to work with us?” he told Spanish news agency EFE.
A communiqué from his ministry was even more explicit, warning that the ECJ decision risked “a resumption of the migration flows that Morocco, through sustained efforts, has managed to contain.”
This came as little surprise to many Morocco observers, who say Spain, in particular, is frequently the recipient of such treatment.
“When it comes to doing business with Spain, Morocco uses immigration as if it were a currency,” Ramón Carrasco, of the Spanish Civil Guard’s representative body, the AUGC, tells POLITICO. Based in Melilla, Carrasco and his colleagues there and in Ceuta are on the front line when it comes to Spain’s management of its southernmost border.
“Every time a fishing or agricultural accord is imminent, the pressure increases a lot and a lot more people start arriving than normal,” he says, convinced that the rise in numbers of migrants crossing since earlier this year is yet another instance of Morocco using its “currency.”
Another oft-cited example of this took place in August 2014, when the Spanish civil guard riled King Mohammed VI by intercepting his yacht in the waters off Ceuta. In the following days, 1,200 migrants arrived in Spain from Morocco.
Just weather
The Spanish government, predictably, plays down any such link between Moroccan chagrin and an increase in migration numbers. Despite the confrontational rhetoric of the Moroccan agriculture, minister, others close to the government insist the recent spike in arrivals has been a coincidence.
“What happens in Ceuta is related only to weather conditions,” Abdelali Hammidine, a senior member of Morocco’s Justice and Development Party (PJD), which has governed since 2011, tells POLITICO. He was referring to how a calm sea often encourages migrants to attempt the water crossing to Spain’s two African cities or its mainland.
Hammidine is also quick to point out that Morocco has started helping sub-Saharans to settle in his country rather than using it merely as a stepping stone to the north. Since 2014, 12,000 migrants have been granted residency papers, he says, allowing them to work legally in cities such as Rabat and Casablanca.
“There is a new development in that Morocco is now a country of residence for immigrants and not only of transit to Europe,” he says.
It is a successful policy, which again appears to have been driven at least in part by the Western Sahara issue. With the international community mostly refusing to acknowledge Morocco’s claim on the territory, Rabat is seeking diplomatic support from countries to its south by offering residency to their citizens.
“Immigration is used by Morocco as a card in order to have a better negotiating position with Europe, regarding Sahara and the development of Morocco,” says Maati Monjib, a political historian. “But it is also used in order to have better relations with other African countries.”
Hazardous crossing
The wages may be lower in Morocco than in Europe, but by staying in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africans can avoid the dangers that trying to reach countries such as Spain and Italy can entail.
In 2016, an average of 14 migrants died each day attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, according to the United Nations’ refugee agency UNHCR. And Spain’s handling of migration came under scrutiny in 2014, after 15sub-Saharan Africans who were trying to swim around the border fence to Ceuta drowned. An investigation is still open after it was revealed that civil guards with anti-riot gear who were waiting on the shore had fired rubber bullets into the water, possibly causing the panic that led to the tragedy.
Meanwhile, other hazards await those who attempt to get over or through the fences surrounding Ceuta and Melilla. In the multiple attempts that migrants usually make before succeeding, the fence’s razor wire can inflict ugly wounds and the Moroccan police are often waiting.
Alasan Barry, a 20-year-old from Sierra Leone, spent five months camping out in the forests of Mt. Gourougou, overlooking Melilla, during which time he made three unsuccessful attempts at climbing the fence. He says the Moroccan police beat him and his friends each time they were caught.
“The fourth time, that was my lucky day,” he says, speaking outside Melilla’s immigrant stay center.
“It’s very difficult, very, very difficult,” he says of the whole ordeal. “If I had the chance I would tell my brother or my friends not [to do it].”
He is now waiting for the Spanish authorities to take him to the Spanish mainland where, like thousands of others from sub-Saharan Africa, he will try to eke out a living. After three monotonous months living in the crowded stay center, his excitement at arriving in Europe has been dampened, but he expects his compatriots and others to keep coming.
“It’s not good to come over the fence, it’s not good,” he says. “[But] if they have to come, they have to come — and take their chances.”
At Europe’s only land border with Africa, would-be migrants dream of a better life in Spain.
By GUY HEDGECO
The immigrant temporary stay center in Melilla is a long way from John Masal’s glamorous idea of life in Europe. But the 19-year-old from Sierra Leone says he’s happy because this is Europe — Spain, to be precise.
Situated on the edge of Melilla, one of two Spanish cities — the other is Ceuta — perched on the North African coast, it is a functional-looking building with a large green gate that occasionally emits distorted loudspeaker announcements. Masal says it is crowded inside and there is a shortage of drinking water. Meanwhile, 100 meters or so away, a six-meter-high triple security fence stretches into the distance.
Separated from Morocco only by those imposing fences, Melilla and Ceuta represent Europe’s only land border with Africa.
Sitting in the shade outside the stay center, Masal tells POLITICO his knowledge of Spain is based mainly on football.
“My dream is playing football,” he says. “I love Real Madrid and Barcelona.”
It’s a common aspiration among the thousands of sub-Saharan Africans who journey north each year in a bid to reach Melilla or Ceuta, either by water, hidden in a vehicle or by scaling one of the fences. Masal spent three months living in a makeshift camp in a forest on the Moroccan side of the border, repeatedly trying to get over the Melilla fence, despite being thwarted by the police each time. He recalls not washing for a month and being bitten by ants at night. Eventually, in March, he and a group of fellow migrants got through a hole in the fence.
“I’m happy because I’m here,” he says. “I want a better life for me and my family.”
This border is tightly controlled by Morocco, with the cooperation of Spain. Although this route to Europe has also been popular with Syrian refugees, in recent years the two countries have managed to reduce the numbers of those who manage to reach Ceuta and Melilla. Only 7 percent of the 4,000 migrants who tried to jump the Melilla fence in 2016 were successful, according to the Spanish government. Those who do make it are usually taken to the mainland after several months in the immigrant stay center, although Spain’s bilateral accords with a number of African nations mean some are then returned home.
Despite the controls, Spain’s twin African cities are still a magnet for those who are prepared to endure desperate conditions in the hope that they, like Masal, will one day make it to the other side. Moreover, the anomalous geographical status of Ceuta and Melilla gives these migrants a crucial role in the often tense relationship between Morocco and its European partners to the north. Like Turkey, the North African country sees its control of migration as a powerful bargaining chip with the EU.
The king’s annoyance
On February 17, 498 sub-Saharan migrants reached Ceuta by breaching the border fence, a record-breaking number, which was followed by another 356 three days later.
One Spanish civil guard, who was on duty on the first of those nights, told El País newspaper that the Moroccan police, normally quick to act when they suspect migrants are attempting to get through, had appeared to ignore the attempt altogether. In recent weeks, many more migrants have reached Ceuta, mainly by boat, leaving its migrant temporary stay center at over triple its capacity of 500. Meanwhile, the Spanish government has reinforced security along the Melilla border.
“Eight hundred and fifty-five people have jumped the fence [to Ceuta] in just a few days, while all of last year around 1,000 did so,” notes Ignacio Cembrero, a Spanish journalist and author who covers Morocco. “Something is up.”
Cembrero and many others believe Morocco deliberately relaxed its border controls as a way of channeling King Mohammed VI’s annoyance at a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on an agricultural issue in December. That decision treated Western Sahara as separate from Morocco, which has claimed sovereignty of the 266,000-square-kilometer territory since 1975 despite resistance from the Polisario Front independence movement.
The Moroccan government immediately voiced its concern at the ruling, and a few weeks later, on February 6, Aziz Akhannouch, the minister of agriculture, hinted that Rabat would use its management of migration as retribution.
“How do you [Europeans] want us to do the job of stopping African — and even Moroccan — emigration if today Europe doesn’t want to work with us?” he told Spanish news agency EFE.
A communiqué from his ministry was even more explicit, warning that the ECJ decision risked “a resumption of the migration flows that Morocco, through sustained efforts, has managed to contain.”
This came as little surprise to many Morocco observers, who say Spain, in particular, is frequently the recipient of such treatment.
“When it comes to doing business with Spain, Morocco uses immigration as if it were a currency,” Ramón Carrasco, of the Spanish Civil Guard’s representative body, the AUGC, tells POLITICO. Based in Melilla, Carrasco and his colleagues there and in Ceuta are on the front line when it comes to Spain’s management of its southernmost border.
“Every time a fishing or agricultural accord is imminent, the pressure increases a lot and a lot more people start arriving than normal,” he says, convinced that the rise in numbers of migrants crossing since earlier this year is yet another instance of Morocco using its “currency.”
Another oft-cited example of this took place in August 2014, when the Spanish civil guard riled King Mohammed VI by intercepting his yacht in the waters off Ceuta. In the following days, 1,200 migrants arrived in Spain from Morocco.
Just weather
The Spanish government, predictably, plays down any such link between Moroccan chagrin and an increase in migration numbers. Despite the confrontational rhetoric of the Moroccan agriculture, minister, others close to the government insist the recent spike in arrivals has been a coincidence.
“What happens in Ceuta is related only to weather conditions,” Abdelali Hammidine, a senior member of Morocco’s Justice and Development Party (PJD), which has governed since 2011, tells POLITICO. He was referring to how a calm sea often encourages migrants to attempt the water crossing to Spain’s two African cities or its mainland.
Hammidine is also quick to point out that Morocco has started helping sub-Saharans to settle in his country rather than using it merely as a stepping stone to the north. Since 2014, 12,000 migrants have been granted residency papers, he says, allowing them to work legally in cities such as Rabat and Casablanca.
“There is a new development in that Morocco is now a country of residence for immigrants and not only of transit to Europe,” he says.
It is a successful policy, which again appears to have been driven at least in part by the Western Sahara issue. With the international community mostly refusing to acknowledge Morocco’s claim on the territory, Rabat is seeking diplomatic support from countries to its south by offering residency to their citizens.
“Immigration is used by Morocco as a card in order to have a better negotiating position with Europe, regarding Sahara and the development of Morocco,” says Maati Monjib, a political historian. “But it is also used in order to have better relations with other African countries.”
Hazardous crossing
The wages may be lower in Morocco than in Europe, but by staying in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africans can avoid the dangers that trying to reach countries such as Spain and Italy can entail.
In 2016, an average of 14 migrants died each day attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, according to the United Nations’ refugee agency UNHCR. And Spain’s handling of migration came under scrutiny in 2014, after 15sub-Saharan Africans who were trying to swim around the border fence to Ceuta drowned. An investigation is still open after it was revealed that civil guards with anti-riot gear who were waiting on the shore had fired rubber bullets into the water, possibly causing the panic that led to the tragedy.
Meanwhile, other hazards await those who attempt to get over or through the fences surrounding Ceuta and Melilla. In the multiple attempts that migrants usually make before succeeding, the fence’s razor wire can inflict ugly wounds and the Moroccan police are often waiting.
Alasan Barry, a 20-year-old from Sierra Leone, spent five months camping out in the forests of Mt. Gourougou, overlooking Melilla, during which time he made three unsuccessful attempts at climbing the fence. He says the Moroccan police beat him and his friends each time they were caught.
“The fourth time, that was my lucky day,” he says, speaking outside Melilla’s immigrant stay center.
“It’s very difficult, very, very difficult,” he says of the whole ordeal. “If I had the chance I would tell my brother or my friends not [to do it].”
He is now waiting for the Spanish authorities to take him to the Spanish mainland where, like thousands of others from sub-Saharan Africa, he will try to eke out a living. After three monotonous months living in the crowded stay center, his excitement at arriving in Europe has been dampened, but he expects his compatriots and others to keep coming.
“It’s not good to come over the fence, it’s not good,” he says. “[But] if they have to come, they have to come — and take their chances.”
Wishful thinking
Kremlin says Trump, Putin meeting is ‘wishful thinking’
Russian media reported on US-Russia meeting before July’s G20.
By CYNTHIA KROET
A Kremlin spokesman on Thursday said a media report that Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump were going to meet in May was “wishful thinking,” Reuters reported.
Russian newspaper Kommersant, citing Russian and U.S. government sources, reported that the two leaders were set to meet next month for the first time, prior to July’s G20 summit in Germany.
Last month, Putin said he would be “glad” to meet Trump at an Arctic nations summit in Finland in May, the BBC reported.
“Both sides should prepare such events,” Putin said. “If not, then such a meeting could take place within the framework of the usual meetings, at the G20.”
Relations between the U.S. and Russia cooled in recent weeks following a U.S. air strike in Syria, and Russia’s crackdown on anti-corruption protests.
Russian media reported on US-Russia meeting before July’s G20.
By CYNTHIA KROET
A Kremlin spokesman on Thursday said a media report that Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump were going to meet in May was “wishful thinking,” Reuters reported.
Russian newspaper Kommersant, citing Russian and U.S. government sources, reported that the two leaders were set to meet next month for the first time, prior to July’s G20 summit in Germany.
Last month, Putin said he would be “glad” to meet Trump at an Arctic nations summit in Finland in May, the BBC reported.
“Both sides should prepare such events,” Putin said. “If not, then such a meeting could take place within the framework of the usual meetings, at the G20.”
Relations between the U.S. and Russia cooled in recent weeks following a U.S. air strike in Syria, and Russia’s crackdown on anti-corruption protests.
Fux & Friends
The Strange Psychological Power of ‘Fox & Friends’
Unrelenting positivity has a powerful warping effect on your thinking. So how is that affecting Viewer No. 1?
By JOANNA WEISS
(It is easy to tell why Fux gets high ratings, There is only one ultra-right network, all the nuts watch it. The Liberal minded have so many choices of true information that no one network gets them all..)
It was a typical Tuesday in March, and President Donald Trump was getting hammered by the press. One of his signature campaign promises, repealing Obamacare, had just collapsed. The Republican co-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, investigating ties between Trump associates and Russia during the 2016 campaign, was under fire for a secret meeting on the White House grounds. And Gallup’s recent poll numbers showed Trump at 36 percent approval, a historic low for a new president.
But Trump was starting his day, as usual, with “Fox & Friends,” where the world looked decidedly sunnier.
Here was an ultrasound image of his ninth grandchild, in utero. His meeting with women business owners, described in glowing terms. And his enemies defanged: According to the hosts, it was Hillary Clinton’s cronies—not Trump’s—who had the problematic Russia contacts, prompting Trump to tweet: “Watch @foxandfriends now on Podesta and Russia!”
Trump’s cozy relationship with “Fox & Friends” has become one of the great curiosities of his unusual presidency. A well-known cable TV devotee, Trump has found inspiration for his Twitter timeline in various programs—but none so much as Fox News Channel’s 6-9 a.m. talk show. A man with access to the highest levels of the national security apparatus regularly uses this gabfest as an unimpeachable source of information, most notably when he spawned a mini diplomatic crisis by repeating an unfounded theory—delivered by a Fox News analyst from a “Fox & Friends” armchair—that the British spied on Trump on behalf of the Obama administration.
It’s not hard to understand the show’s appeal. While the rest of the media frets and wails over Trump’s policies and sounds the alarm over his tweets, “Fox & Friends” remains unrelentingly positive. It’s pitched to the frequency of the Trump base, but it also feels intentionally designed for Trump himself—a three-hour, high-definition ego fix. For a president who no longer regularly receives adulation from screaming crowds at mega rallies, “Fox & Friends” offers daily affirmation that he is successful and adored, that his America is winning after all.
Psychology suggests that the program’s particular trappings have effects on viewers that go beyond ego stroking. The fast pace, the cheerfulness and the breezy confidence are a combination tailor-made for maximum persuasion, experts say. “If I tuned in to watch that show, I would feel simultaneously happy, reassured and smart,” says Dannagal Young, a professor at the University of Delaware who studies the way people process political information. “When we are feeling happy and people are smiling around us, it ignites a primal response that is, ‘Things are good! Things are great! I don’t have to be careful. I don’t have to think carefully.’” The show is a ticket to a kind of self-perpetuating state of complacency, where its 1.7 million viewers become less likely to question their own beliefs and more likely to come back for more.
For an everyday voter blinking awake at 6 a.m. in uncertain, hyperpartisan times, that state of mind has obvious allure, and maybe minimal consequences. But for the leader of the free world—someone who should, in theory, crave truth more than affirmation—a “Fox & Friends” obsession is a different matter altogether.
***
It’s hard to imagine Trump, an aficionado of flash, sitting compliantly in front of “The PBS NewsHour.” And indeed, “Fox & Friends”—expeditious and entertaining, scored with pumped-up pop music and fueled by amiable banter—is the polar opposite of a sober public television program. Co-hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade and Ainsley Earhardt, who assumed the designated blonde female slot last year, report from the signature cream-colored “curvy couch” in front of a virtual view of New York City. They list political headlines, marvel at viral internet sensations and perform cutesy product-placement stunts like dunking Oreos with a magnet. In between, the three rib each other gently about on-set foibles and nonthreatening squabbles at home. Their small talk, as when Kilmeade couldn’t resist pointing out Earhardt’s skin-tight dress, is sometimes cringeworthy—a hint of the fraught gender dynamics that have given the show trouble in the past—but on the air, no one seems to mind. It’s all good cheer among friends.
The infotainment format doesn’t feel markedly different from other morning shows. What sets “Fox & Friends” apart is its deliberate boosterism. The hosts find ways to weave praise of Trump into almost every segment, however unrelated. (Kilmeade once managed to pivot a lesson on work-life balance into a testament to the president’s charisma.) The hosts refer to campaign promises fulfilled. They air testimonials from the Trump children and “Celebrity Apprentice” winners. Time and again, they highlight places where their coverage diverges from the mainstream media narrative. They even appropriate Trump’s language: On the day after the Syrian airstrikes in April, as the hosts showed off newspaper headlines, guest host Pete Hegseth declared, “Even the failing New York Times got it right this morning.”
To occupy a world this rose-colored, you have to willfully ignore certain news events, and even entire subjects, such as climate change. You also have to be ready with a rationale for everything the president does. Doocy, in particular, always seems on the verge of leaping from the couch to translate one of Trump’s cryptic statements—or, as he did throughout the March health care debate, to reassure viewers that Trump is a brilliant negotiator, that he’s in command and that everything will work out.
When the show does acknowledge critiques of the president, the moment passes quickly. Take this discussion of street demonstrations on International Women’s Day:
Kilmeade: A lot of women protests early on. Why is Donald Trump always to blame for something? People are always whining about something.
Doocy: They just don’t like Donald Trump.
Kilmeade: I guess so. So two major protests in 40 days?
Doocy: But people like Ivanka Trump.
What’s striking about “Fox & Friends” is that even when the show gets political, it never loses its morning-show buoyancy. The programming is partisan, yes, but cheerfully, cheekily so, without the combative stance of Breitbart or even Fox’s brass-knuckled evening shows. It’s an us-against-them mentality, delivered with a smile, the hosts so relentlessly cheerful that they sometimes seem giddy, as if they’ve just stepped out of a party at Mar-a-Lago.
Even the show’s name—“Fox & Friends”—is an invitation into the information bubble of the virtuous and right-minded.
The hosts treat their political enemies not as formidable foes, but as curiosities to be mocked and diminished—the kind of attitude Trump had toward “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted” on the campaign trail. Stories about liberal angst are introduced with playful chyrons like DEMS IN DISTRESS or MAD LIBS. The tone is often gentle condescension—the way you might talk about a child who has said something absurd.
On CNN, you’ll see panels of partisans teed up at long tables, with the expectation that sparks will fly. But “Fox & Friends” isn’t set up for confrontation, and it rarely bothers to put opposing points of view on screen at the same time. When talking heads do collide, there’s often a surrounding schtick: two Southern brothers, one Democrat and one Republican, debating the American Health Care Act. In one odd but adorable moment, Geraldo Rivera made a pitch for single-payer health care by singing a few bars of a Peter, Paul and Mary song. (Despite the policy difference, Rivera still made clear that he was on Team Trump.)
Some Fox personalities passing through the set have trouble adjusting to the jovial atmosphere. Jeanine Pirro, who hosts a judicial-themed show on Saturday nights, once seemed overcome with bile as she criticized a misstep on a left-leaning late-night show. “We are good people!” Pirro shouted. “The people on the left who are demonizing us, they are not! I’m sorry! I’m done with them!” A few moments later, Pirro seemed to realize that her tone was a little off; this is “Fox & Friends,” where everything’s more chill. She cracked a smile. The hosts moved on.
***
Positivity, it turns out, is a key source of power for “Fox & Friends.” According to Young, the University of Delaware professor, the show is a perfect illustration of the “elaboration likelihood model” of persuasion. Developed in the 1980s by a psychologist and neuroscientist, the model describes two ways listeners are persuaded by an argument. The first involves thoughtful processing, in which a motivated listener engages with and challenges a message before reaching a conclusion. In the second path, persuasion stems from cues that have little to do with the logic of the argument itself—for example, the quality of the production or the presenter’s tone and attractiveness. Distracted by these secondary factors, the listener becomes more passive and less skeptical.
“Fox & Friends,” she says, seems tailor-made to lull viewers down that second path, where they swallow information without scrutiny. There’s the quick morning-show pacing: You’re less likely to think carefully if you’re distracted or under a time constraint. There are the emotional cues: When people around you are cheerful and calm, you’re prompted to avoid wasting energy on deep thought. And there’s the mockery of “others,” a reassuring signal that the listener is superior and safe.
The clubbiness of “Fox & Friends” is hardly a Fox or right-wing innovation; it’s also at work in, say, Rachel Maddow’s wonky progressive lectures. Neither is the show’s consistent partisanship, says University of Texas professor Talia Stroud, who studies media and political behavior. Research shows that viewers across the political spectrum who consume partisan shows develop increasingly polarized views, as like-minded commentators offer ready-made rebuttals and call into question the trustworthiness of the other side. It creates a built-in reason to tune in day after day. “If you’re listening to a news media source that’s telling you, ‘The other side is going to make this argument, and the mainstream media never covered topic X,’” Stroud says, “it keeps you going back. Because you now see a value proposition.”
But “Fox & Friends” weaves those strands together to maximum effect, using the upbeat, reassuring approach to Trumpism as deftly as Oprah used empathy, or Glenn Beck used righteous outrage, to pull in an audience. The show praises its viewers for their generosity and wisdom, and invites them to engage: Send us a tweet! Contribute to a guest’s GoFundMe page! The day after Earhardt interviewed the author of a book called Reasons to Vote for Democrats (all of the pages were blank), the hosts crowed that their viewers had brought the book to the top of Amazon’s best-seller list. Even the show’s name—“Fox & Friends”—is an invitation into the information bubble of the virtuous and right-minded.
And now the U.S. president is in the bubble, too. “Trump is the ideal viewer for ‘Fox & Friends,’” says Young. “He is someone who loves to feel right. He loves to feel reassured in his worldview. But most importantly, he loves to be told that he’s smart.” It’s extraordinary, and also dangerous. As Boston College political science professor Emily Thorson notes, Trump “literally has a staff whose job it is” to give him verified information about national security and the inner workings of Washington. But “instead of relying on his staff, he is relying on television.” And not just television—programming whose first priority is not measured commentary, or even fact. Much of the time, the show’s first priority seems to be keeping the president watching.
In the annals of press-president relationships, this is a new paradigm. “I wouldn’t even say this is a symbiotic relationship,” Young says. “I would say this is a codependent relationship. This is beyond the beyond.”
It’s also a perfect foundation for impenetrable feedback loops like the one involving a British spy agency supposedly surveiling Trump. It would be hard to understate the strangeness of that episode, which culminated when White House press secretary Sean Spicer, channeling his boss, read a “Fox & Friends” transcript from his podium, prompting the Washington intelligence establishment, the British government, and even Fox anchors Shepard Smith and Bret Baier to publicly debunk the claim. Here was the mind merge at its zenith: official Washington spin and chummy morning show material, twisted into one.
The mainstream media and the Washington establishment eventually began chasing other stories. But the White House never officially backed down; Trump just referred all questioners to Fox. The morning show didn’t back down either. Within the bubble of “Fox & Friends,” the world continued to be precisely as the president imagined.
Unrelenting positivity has a powerful warping effect on your thinking. So how is that affecting Viewer No. 1?
By JOANNA WEISS
(It is easy to tell why Fux gets high ratings, There is only one ultra-right network, all the nuts watch it. The Liberal minded have so many choices of true information that no one network gets them all..)
It was a typical Tuesday in March, and President Donald Trump was getting hammered by the press. One of his signature campaign promises, repealing Obamacare, had just collapsed. The Republican co-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, investigating ties between Trump associates and Russia during the 2016 campaign, was under fire for a secret meeting on the White House grounds. And Gallup’s recent poll numbers showed Trump at 36 percent approval, a historic low for a new president.
But Trump was starting his day, as usual, with “Fox & Friends,” where the world looked decidedly sunnier.
Here was an ultrasound image of his ninth grandchild, in utero. His meeting with women business owners, described in glowing terms. And his enemies defanged: According to the hosts, it was Hillary Clinton’s cronies—not Trump’s—who had the problematic Russia contacts, prompting Trump to tweet: “Watch @foxandfriends now on Podesta and Russia!”
Trump’s cozy relationship with “Fox & Friends” has become one of the great curiosities of his unusual presidency. A well-known cable TV devotee, Trump has found inspiration for his Twitter timeline in various programs—but none so much as Fox News Channel’s 6-9 a.m. talk show. A man with access to the highest levels of the national security apparatus regularly uses this gabfest as an unimpeachable source of information, most notably when he spawned a mini diplomatic crisis by repeating an unfounded theory—delivered by a Fox News analyst from a “Fox & Friends” armchair—that the British spied on Trump on behalf of the Obama administration.
It’s not hard to understand the show’s appeal. While the rest of the media frets and wails over Trump’s policies and sounds the alarm over his tweets, “Fox & Friends” remains unrelentingly positive. It’s pitched to the frequency of the Trump base, but it also feels intentionally designed for Trump himself—a three-hour, high-definition ego fix. For a president who no longer regularly receives adulation from screaming crowds at mega rallies, “Fox & Friends” offers daily affirmation that he is successful and adored, that his America is winning after all.
Psychology suggests that the program’s particular trappings have effects on viewers that go beyond ego stroking. The fast pace, the cheerfulness and the breezy confidence are a combination tailor-made for maximum persuasion, experts say. “If I tuned in to watch that show, I would feel simultaneously happy, reassured and smart,” says Dannagal Young, a professor at the University of Delaware who studies the way people process political information. “When we are feeling happy and people are smiling around us, it ignites a primal response that is, ‘Things are good! Things are great! I don’t have to be careful. I don’t have to think carefully.’” The show is a ticket to a kind of self-perpetuating state of complacency, where its 1.7 million viewers become less likely to question their own beliefs and more likely to come back for more.
For an everyday voter blinking awake at 6 a.m. in uncertain, hyperpartisan times, that state of mind has obvious allure, and maybe minimal consequences. But for the leader of the free world—someone who should, in theory, crave truth more than affirmation—a “Fox & Friends” obsession is a different matter altogether.
***
It’s hard to imagine Trump, an aficionado of flash, sitting compliantly in front of “The PBS NewsHour.” And indeed, “Fox & Friends”—expeditious and entertaining, scored with pumped-up pop music and fueled by amiable banter—is the polar opposite of a sober public television program. Co-hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade and Ainsley Earhardt, who assumed the designated blonde female slot last year, report from the signature cream-colored “curvy couch” in front of a virtual view of New York City. They list political headlines, marvel at viral internet sensations and perform cutesy product-placement stunts like dunking Oreos with a magnet. In between, the three rib each other gently about on-set foibles and nonthreatening squabbles at home. Their small talk, as when Kilmeade couldn’t resist pointing out Earhardt’s skin-tight dress, is sometimes cringeworthy—a hint of the fraught gender dynamics that have given the show trouble in the past—but on the air, no one seems to mind. It’s all good cheer among friends.
The infotainment format doesn’t feel markedly different from other morning shows. What sets “Fox & Friends” apart is its deliberate boosterism. The hosts find ways to weave praise of Trump into almost every segment, however unrelated. (Kilmeade once managed to pivot a lesson on work-life balance into a testament to the president’s charisma.) The hosts refer to campaign promises fulfilled. They air testimonials from the Trump children and “Celebrity Apprentice” winners. Time and again, they highlight places where their coverage diverges from the mainstream media narrative. They even appropriate Trump’s language: On the day after the Syrian airstrikes in April, as the hosts showed off newspaper headlines, guest host Pete Hegseth declared, “Even the failing New York Times got it right this morning.”
To occupy a world this rose-colored, you have to willfully ignore certain news events, and even entire subjects, such as climate change. You also have to be ready with a rationale for everything the president does. Doocy, in particular, always seems on the verge of leaping from the couch to translate one of Trump’s cryptic statements—or, as he did throughout the March health care debate, to reassure viewers that Trump is a brilliant negotiator, that he’s in command and that everything will work out.
When the show does acknowledge critiques of the president, the moment passes quickly. Take this discussion of street demonstrations on International Women’s Day:
Kilmeade: A lot of women protests early on. Why is Donald Trump always to blame for something? People are always whining about something.
Doocy: They just don’t like Donald Trump.
Kilmeade: I guess so. So two major protests in 40 days?
Doocy: But people like Ivanka Trump.
What’s striking about “Fox & Friends” is that even when the show gets political, it never loses its morning-show buoyancy. The programming is partisan, yes, but cheerfully, cheekily so, without the combative stance of Breitbart or even Fox’s brass-knuckled evening shows. It’s an us-against-them mentality, delivered with a smile, the hosts so relentlessly cheerful that they sometimes seem giddy, as if they’ve just stepped out of a party at Mar-a-Lago.
Even the show’s name—“Fox & Friends”—is an invitation into the information bubble of the virtuous and right-minded.
The hosts treat their political enemies not as formidable foes, but as curiosities to be mocked and diminished—the kind of attitude Trump had toward “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted” on the campaign trail. Stories about liberal angst are introduced with playful chyrons like DEMS IN DISTRESS or MAD LIBS. The tone is often gentle condescension—the way you might talk about a child who has said something absurd.
On CNN, you’ll see panels of partisans teed up at long tables, with the expectation that sparks will fly. But “Fox & Friends” isn’t set up for confrontation, and it rarely bothers to put opposing points of view on screen at the same time. When talking heads do collide, there’s often a surrounding schtick: two Southern brothers, one Democrat and one Republican, debating the American Health Care Act. In one odd but adorable moment, Geraldo Rivera made a pitch for single-payer health care by singing a few bars of a Peter, Paul and Mary song. (Despite the policy difference, Rivera still made clear that he was on Team Trump.)
Some Fox personalities passing through the set have trouble adjusting to the jovial atmosphere. Jeanine Pirro, who hosts a judicial-themed show on Saturday nights, once seemed overcome with bile as she criticized a misstep on a left-leaning late-night show. “We are good people!” Pirro shouted. “The people on the left who are demonizing us, they are not! I’m sorry! I’m done with them!” A few moments later, Pirro seemed to realize that her tone was a little off; this is “Fox & Friends,” where everything’s more chill. She cracked a smile. The hosts moved on.
***
Positivity, it turns out, is a key source of power for “Fox & Friends.” According to Young, the University of Delaware professor, the show is a perfect illustration of the “elaboration likelihood model” of persuasion. Developed in the 1980s by a psychologist and neuroscientist, the model describes two ways listeners are persuaded by an argument. The first involves thoughtful processing, in which a motivated listener engages with and challenges a message before reaching a conclusion. In the second path, persuasion stems from cues that have little to do with the logic of the argument itself—for example, the quality of the production or the presenter’s tone and attractiveness. Distracted by these secondary factors, the listener becomes more passive and less skeptical.
“Fox & Friends,” she says, seems tailor-made to lull viewers down that second path, where they swallow information without scrutiny. There’s the quick morning-show pacing: You’re less likely to think carefully if you’re distracted or under a time constraint. There are the emotional cues: When people around you are cheerful and calm, you’re prompted to avoid wasting energy on deep thought. And there’s the mockery of “others,” a reassuring signal that the listener is superior and safe.
The clubbiness of “Fox & Friends” is hardly a Fox or right-wing innovation; it’s also at work in, say, Rachel Maddow’s wonky progressive lectures. Neither is the show’s consistent partisanship, says University of Texas professor Talia Stroud, who studies media and political behavior. Research shows that viewers across the political spectrum who consume partisan shows develop increasingly polarized views, as like-minded commentators offer ready-made rebuttals and call into question the trustworthiness of the other side. It creates a built-in reason to tune in day after day. “If you’re listening to a news media source that’s telling you, ‘The other side is going to make this argument, and the mainstream media never covered topic X,’” Stroud says, “it keeps you going back. Because you now see a value proposition.”
But “Fox & Friends” weaves those strands together to maximum effect, using the upbeat, reassuring approach to Trumpism as deftly as Oprah used empathy, or Glenn Beck used righteous outrage, to pull in an audience. The show praises its viewers for their generosity and wisdom, and invites them to engage: Send us a tweet! Contribute to a guest’s GoFundMe page! The day after Earhardt interviewed the author of a book called Reasons to Vote for Democrats (all of the pages were blank), the hosts crowed that their viewers had brought the book to the top of Amazon’s best-seller list. Even the show’s name—“Fox & Friends”—is an invitation into the information bubble of the virtuous and right-minded.
And now the U.S. president is in the bubble, too. “Trump is the ideal viewer for ‘Fox & Friends,’” says Young. “He is someone who loves to feel right. He loves to feel reassured in his worldview. But most importantly, he loves to be told that he’s smart.” It’s extraordinary, and also dangerous. As Boston College political science professor Emily Thorson notes, Trump “literally has a staff whose job it is” to give him verified information about national security and the inner workings of Washington. But “instead of relying on his staff, he is relying on television.” And not just television—programming whose first priority is not measured commentary, or even fact. Much of the time, the show’s first priority seems to be keeping the president watching.
In the annals of press-president relationships, this is a new paradigm. “I wouldn’t even say this is a symbiotic relationship,” Young says. “I would say this is a codependent relationship. This is beyond the beyond.”
It’s also a perfect foundation for impenetrable feedback loops like the one involving a British spy agency supposedly surveiling Trump. It would be hard to understate the strangeness of that episode, which culminated when White House press secretary Sean Spicer, channeling his boss, read a “Fox & Friends” transcript from his podium, prompting the Washington intelligence establishment, the British government, and even Fox anchors Shepard Smith and Bret Baier to publicly debunk the claim. Here was the mind merge at its zenith: official Washington spin and chummy morning show material, twisted into one.
The mainstream media and the Washington establishment eventually began chasing other stories. But the White House never officially backed down; Trump just referred all questioners to Fox. The morning show didn’t back down either. Within the bubble of “Fox & Friends,” the world continued to be precisely as the president imagined.
Interview with an Orangutan...
In interview Trump says 'major conflict' with North Korea is possible
By BIANCA PADRÓ OCASIO
President Donald Trump said Thursday there was a chance the U.S. could face a “major, major conflict” with North Korea, though his administration is still not discarding a diplomatic approach to restraint the country’s nuclear and missile programs.
"There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely,” Trump said in an interview with Reuters.
“We'd love to solve things diplomatically but it's very difficult," he added.
Trump’s statements come just a day after his top national security advisers gathered U.S. lawmakers for a rare briefing on the North Korean nuclear proliferation dispute.
The president also sympathized with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. saying it must have been a “very hard thing” to take over his country at an early age.
"I'm not giving him credit or not giving him credit, I'm just saying that's a very hard thing to do. As to whether or not he's rational, I have no opinion on it. I hope he's rational," he said.
During his presidential campaign, Trump did “give credit” to the North Korean leader for having taken office at such a young age.
“If you look at North Korea — this guy, he’s like a maniac, OK? And you have to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?” he said in early 2016.
The president also praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for attempting to keep the dispute with North Korea under control, but admitted his efforts could prove unsuccessful.
“I believe he is trying very hard. He certainly doesn’t want to see turmoil and death. He doesn’t want to see it. He is a good man. He is a very good man and I got to know him very well,” Trump said.
“With that being said, he loves China and he loves the people of China. I know he would like to be able to do something, perhaps it's possible that he can’t,” the president added.
As for a future phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, Trump said he wouldn’t want to do so without first consulting with President Xi, to avoid tensions with Beijing.
“My problem is that I have established a very good personal relationship with President Xi," said Trump. "I really feel that he is doing everything in his power to help us with a big situation. So I wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him.”
Trump’s tone contrasted with his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who said in an interview earlier Thursday the U.S. would prefer to resolve the North Korean conflict through diplomatic talks, and didn’t think the North Korean dictator was “insane.”
“He may be ruthless. He may be a murderer. He may be someone who in many respects we would say by our standards is irrational. But he is not insane,” Tillerson told Fox News.
By BIANCA PADRÓ OCASIO
President Donald Trump said Thursday there was a chance the U.S. could face a “major, major conflict” with North Korea, though his administration is still not discarding a diplomatic approach to restraint the country’s nuclear and missile programs.
"There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely,” Trump said in an interview with Reuters.
“We'd love to solve things diplomatically but it's very difficult," he added.
Trump’s statements come just a day after his top national security advisers gathered U.S. lawmakers for a rare briefing on the North Korean nuclear proliferation dispute.
The president also sympathized with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. saying it must have been a “very hard thing” to take over his country at an early age.
"I'm not giving him credit or not giving him credit, I'm just saying that's a very hard thing to do. As to whether or not he's rational, I have no opinion on it. I hope he's rational," he said.
During his presidential campaign, Trump did “give credit” to the North Korean leader for having taken office at such a young age.
“If you look at North Korea — this guy, he’s like a maniac, OK? And you have to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?” he said in early 2016.
The president also praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for attempting to keep the dispute with North Korea under control, but admitted his efforts could prove unsuccessful.
“I believe he is trying very hard. He certainly doesn’t want to see turmoil and death. He doesn’t want to see it. He is a good man. He is a very good man and I got to know him very well,” Trump said.
“With that being said, he loves China and he loves the people of China. I know he would like to be able to do something, perhaps it's possible that he can’t,” the president added.
As for a future phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, Trump said he wouldn’t want to do so without first consulting with President Xi, to avoid tensions with Beijing.
“My problem is that I have established a very good personal relationship with President Xi," said Trump. "I really feel that he is doing everything in his power to help us with a big situation. So I wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him.”
Trump’s tone contrasted with his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who said in an interview earlier Thursday the U.S. would prefer to resolve the North Korean conflict through diplomatic talks, and didn’t think the North Korean dictator was “insane.”
“He may be ruthless. He may be a murderer. He may be someone who in many respects we would say by our standards is irrational. But he is not insane,” Tillerson told Fox News.
The Orangutan Caves...
Trump caves on the wall — and Democrats think he will again
The game of chicken between the White House and Democrats over government funding ended before it began.
By BURGESS EVERETT
President Donald Trump was supposedly girding for battle. Not even a week ago, ahead of a possible government shutdown, his aides said the president would insist on funding his border wall and the president himself was prepared to sabotage Obamacare to gain leverage.
But after several days of chest-beating from his administration, Trump backed away from both positions in short order, ending the game of chicken before it began. Democrats were not forced to take a single tough vote and suffered no defections from their ranks. The president deferred his fight for wall funding until the fall and grudgingly agreed to continue funding Obamacare subsidies.
The episode has left Democratic leaders with the impression that Trump may never go full bore to get his wall funding, no matter his administration’s future threats. Indeed, Democrats believe that Trump himself is coming to the realization that he won't get Congress to pay for the wall.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he spoke to Trump several times during the monthlong funding saga, but Trump never brought up his public demands that Schumer give the president a down payment on the wall as a condition of funding the government.
“He’s called me a few times during this. But he never brought it up,” Schumer said in an interview. “I have found that to be a pattern. He talks to me occasionally now, but it’s not on the main issues.”
As for the broader funding standoff, “I thought one of two things. I thought he’d either back down. Or he’d do [a shutdown], and it would be a fight we’d win,” said Schumer. “When the president just puts together his own plan, which is almost always hard-right given who the people around him are, he has problems.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. But in a tweetstorm Thursday, Trump excoriated Democrats for wanting “illegals to pour through our borders” and trying to “bail out their donors from insurance companies,” a reference to the party’s insistence on continuing Obamacare payments.
“I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!” Trump wrote.
Lawmakers in both parties are struggling to reconcile Trump’s blustery public persona with his flexibility on his signature campaign pledge of getting Mexico to pay for the wall, which has morphed into a demand that Congress do so. Schumer deliberated this winter over whether to make public his caucus’ specific opposition to the wall, ultimately deciding to send Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a letter vowing explicitly to block a spending bill that includes funding for it.
Now that that strategy has succeeded, with little more required than sticking to their message, emboldened Democrats say they're taking the president’s threats with a big dollop of salt.
“His folks are beginning to recognize that getting a deal done in Congress requires listening, engaging and sometimes strategic or tactical retreats,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). “The more he does draw red lines that aren’t reasonably accomplishable, the more he simply harms his own credibility with his own party.”
Republicans, and even some moderate Democrats, are hoping the president is transforming from an erratic candidate into a more deliberative commander in chief. They view his retreat from a potential government shutdown over the wall as a cause for optimism.
“He’s evolving,” said a Republican senator. “Somebody told him you don’t have to build a wall next to the Rio Grande River.”
“I’m going to cut him slack. I don’t know if caved is the right term. Maybe it is,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). In the fall, “there’s a possibility he’ll get more educated and make the right decision" and not inject the issue into funding talks again.
If Trump does forgo such a fight, the president could face a backlash from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who are frustrated that the president gave in this time around.
Trump's moves on the wall and Obamacare subsidies could be instructive as to how he'll square off with congressional Democrats in the future. There are at least two more major leverage points this year, the debt ceiling and a September spending bill, that will allow both parties to try to insert their priorities in must-pass legislation.
But if Trump does demand money for the wall or other priorities later this year, Democrats say they won’t take his public statements at face value.
“You can’t trust anything that comes out. Because he’s going to change his position on everything,” said Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.). “He flip-flops on so many things.”
The wall fight was always going to be difficult for Trump to win. He faces significant skepticism among border-state Republicans, and the GOP has been divided as Trump and his emissaries demanded that Congress provide funding.
It’s a stark contrast to a confrontation in 2015, when Republicans were mostly united behind a hard-line approach aimed at gutting former President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. That gambit failed, but the House at least passed a bill with such a provision, and McConnell forced Democrats to vote on it.
The fact that few Republicans in the Capitol backed Trump’s strategy for the wall only strengthened Democrats’ resolve.
“Republicans in Congress don’t want the wall. And that is the most under-reported aspect of this whole skirmish,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “Republicans in the leadership of both chambers actually hate that idea. They know it’s dumb.”
If Trump forces the issue again in September, when a new spending bill must be negotiated, the political dynamics on Capitol Hill will be the same.
“I don’t see the Democrats getting more agreeable,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Cornyn said he is working with Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on developing a comprehensive border security plan that would rely on technology and manpower rather than only a massive concrete physical barrier intended at keeping out undocumented immigrants.
Eventually, Democrats are prepared to vote on whether to fund the border wall, but not as part of a government spending bill. They expect that there will be bipartisan opposition to it, revealing the lack of support for one of the president’s top priorities.
“It certainly won’t get 60 votes. It wouldn’t get 50,” Schumer predicted.
For all his administration’s talk about Trump’s insistence on the border wall in spending bills, Trump never used his strongest piece of leverage: A threat to veto any bill that didn’t include a down payment on his wall. But even if he does, Democrats say the result will be the same.
“The wall is broadly unpopular in the public. People would rather spend money on other priorities. And there’s unified Democratic opposition," added Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “None of that changes in September.”
The game of chicken between the White House and Democrats over government funding ended before it began.
By BURGESS EVERETT
President Donald Trump was supposedly girding for battle. Not even a week ago, ahead of a possible government shutdown, his aides said the president would insist on funding his border wall and the president himself was prepared to sabotage Obamacare to gain leverage.
But after several days of chest-beating from his administration, Trump backed away from both positions in short order, ending the game of chicken before it began. Democrats were not forced to take a single tough vote and suffered no defections from their ranks. The president deferred his fight for wall funding until the fall and grudgingly agreed to continue funding Obamacare subsidies.
The episode has left Democratic leaders with the impression that Trump may never go full bore to get his wall funding, no matter his administration’s future threats. Indeed, Democrats believe that Trump himself is coming to the realization that he won't get Congress to pay for the wall.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he spoke to Trump several times during the monthlong funding saga, but Trump never brought up his public demands that Schumer give the president a down payment on the wall as a condition of funding the government.
“He’s called me a few times during this. But he never brought it up,” Schumer said in an interview. “I have found that to be a pattern. He talks to me occasionally now, but it’s not on the main issues.”
As for the broader funding standoff, “I thought one of two things. I thought he’d either back down. Or he’d do [a shutdown], and it would be a fight we’d win,” said Schumer. “When the president just puts together his own plan, which is almost always hard-right given who the people around him are, he has problems.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. But in a tweetstorm Thursday, Trump excoriated Democrats for wanting “illegals to pour through our borders” and trying to “bail out their donors from insurance companies,” a reference to the party’s insistence on continuing Obamacare payments.
“I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!” Trump wrote.
Lawmakers in both parties are struggling to reconcile Trump’s blustery public persona with his flexibility on his signature campaign pledge of getting Mexico to pay for the wall, which has morphed into a demand that Congress do so. Schumer deliberated this winter over whether to make public his caucus’ specific opposition to the wall, ultimately deciding to send Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a letter vowing explicitly to block a spending bill that includes funding for it.
Now that that strategy has succeeded, with little more required than sticking to their message, emboldened Democrats say they're taking the president’s threats with a big dollop of salt.
“His folks are beginning to recognize that getting a deal done in Congress requires listening, engaging and sometimes strategic or tactical retreats,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). “The more he does draw red lines that aren’t reasonably accomplishable, the more he simply harms his own credibility with his own party.”
Republicans, and even some moderate Democrats, are hoping the president is transforming from an erratic candidate into a more deliberative commander in chief. They view his retreat from a potential government shutdown over the wall as a cause for optimism.
“He’s evolving,” said a Republican senator. “Somebody told him you don’t have to build a wall next to the Rio Grande River.”
“I’m going to cut him slack. I don’t know if caved is the right term. Maybe it is,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). In the fall, “there’s a possibility he’ll get more educated and make the right decision" and not inject the issue into funding talks again.
If Trump does forgo such a fight, the president could face a backlash from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who are frustrated that the president gave in this time around.
Trump's moves on the wall and Obamacare subsidies could be instructive as to how he'll square off with congressional Democrats in the future. There are at least two more major leverage points this year, the debt ceiling and a September spending bill, that will allow both parties to try to insert their priorities in must-pass legislation.
But if Trump does demand money for the wall or other priorities later this year, Democrats say they won’t take his public statements at face value.
“You can’t trust anything that comes out. Because he’s going to change his position on everything,” said Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.). “He flip-flops on so many things.”
The wall fight was always going to be difficult for Trump to win. He faces significant skepticism among border-state Republicans, and the GOP has been divided as Trump and his emissaries demanded that Congress provide funding.
It’s a stark contrast to a confrontation in 2015, when Republicans were mostly united behind a hard-line approach aimed at gutting former President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. That gambit failed, but the House at least passed a bill with such a provision, and McConnell forced Democrats to vote on it.
The fact that few Republicans in the Capitol backed Trump’s strategy for the wall only strengthened Democrats’ resolve.
“Republicans in Congress don’t want the wall. And that is the most under-reported aspect of this whole skirmish,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “Republicans in the leadership of both chambers actually hate that idea. They know it’s dumb.”
If Trump forces the issue again in September, when a new spending bill must be negotiated, the political dynamics on Capitol Hill will be the same.
“I don’t see the Democrats getting more agreeable,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Cornyn said he is working with Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on developing a comprehensive border security plan that would rely on technology and manpower rather than only a massive concrete physical barrier intended at keeping out undocumented immigrants.
Eventually, Democrats are prepared to vote on whether to fund the border wall, but not as part of a government spending bill. They expect that there will be bipartisan opposition to it, revealing the lack of support for one of the president’s top priorities.
“It certainly won’t get 60 votes. It wouldn’t get 50,” Schumer predicted.
For all his administration’s talk about Trump’s insistence on the border wall in spending bills, Trump never used his strongest piece of leverage: A threat to veto any bill that didn’t include a down payment on his wall. But even if he does, Democrats say the result will be the same.
“The wall is broadly unpopular in the public. People would rather spend money on other priorities. And there’s unified Democratic opposition," added Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “None of that changes in September.”
Trump loves corporate tax cuts
Trump loves corporate tax cuts. Voters, not so much
By BRIAN FALER
President Donald Trump loves the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate, but voters?
The proposal, the centerpiece of the administration's new tax plan, is hardly a political winner, with recent polling showing that most Americans — including 44 percent of Republicans — believe corporations are not paying enough already.
“It just doesn’t sell,” said one former longtime Republican tax aide. “Most [Republican lawmakers] come from rural districts. They don’t have big corporate headquarters in their districts, and their constituents don’t care if GE gets a 25 percent rate.”
“If anything, there could be a backlash,” he said.
The only way to make a Trump-sized cut in the corporate rate — which he’d reduce to 15 percent, from the current 35 percent — politically salable is to slather on lots of other tax cuts for everyone else, tax veterans say.
Historically, going back to at least Ronald Reagan, lawmakers have rarely cut business taxes without simultaneously offering far bigger tax cuts for individual taxpayers — though in this case, that would send the price of Trump's already costly plan soaring.
Trump appears to be giving more to businesses, and his Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday he couldn’t guarantee the middle class would see a tax cut.
“This is a partisan plan to give advantages to the most influential special interests in the country and crumbs for working people,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the tax-writing Finance Committee.
Details are still sketchy, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) figures Trump’s plan would dole out roughly $3.7 trillion in tax cuts to businesses, between his plan to cut the corporate rate and offer a similar tax reduction to unincorporated businesses.
He’s also offering individuals a number of tax cuts, including lower rates, a bigger standard deduction and expanded breaks for child care expenses. But he’s simultaneously taking away breaks, including most itemized deductions, including a long-standing write-off for the state and local taxes.
That would net out to a roughly $1.8 trillion tax cut for individuals, the CRFB estimates.
Asked about the plan’s emphasis on corporations, National Economic Director Gary Cohn said: “This tax reform package is about growing the economy, creating jobs.”
“That’s how we’re looking at this plan,” he said in a briefing with reporters.
On Thursday, Mnuchin said he hoped — but couldn’t guarantee — the plan would mean a tax cut for the middle class.
“That’s our objective absolutely,” Mnuchin told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I can’t make any guarantees until this is done and on the president’s desk.”
Many economists applaud the focus on the corporate rate — now the highest among 34 industrialized democracies — calling it one of the biggest problems with the tax code. Lawmakers have not cut the corporate rate in 30 years.
“Lowering the corporate rate is like the chicken soup of tax policy — it makes everything better,” said Marty Sullivan, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Analysts. “There’s more incentives to invest in the United States and there’s less incentive to engage in tax shelters.”
The problem for lawmakers is all the people who aren’t economists.
Sixty-two percent said they are bothered “a lot” by a sense that corporations don’t pay enough in taxes, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, making it a bigger concern than the code’s complexity or how much they pay in taxes.
And if lawmakers agree to cut the corporate tax, they will face enormous pressure from other types of businesses or complaints they are helping Home Depot but not their local hardware stores.
Trump's plan to cut rates on those “pass through” companies — whose profits are passed directly to the owners and taxed as personal income — will cost an additional $1.5 trillion, on top of the $2.2 trillion cost of the corporate-rate cut, the CRFB says.
But that won’t be enough for many Republicans who, for all their friendliness to the business community, don’t want to be see cutting business taxes without doing something commensurate for individual taxpayers.
When Reagan pushed through massive tax cuts in 1981, he was careful to include more than twice as much for individuals than businesses. When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 he almost entirely ignored businesses, focusing on cutting individual taxes.
Even the last big cut in the corporate rate — in 1986 — was actually a tax increase in disguise that lawmakers used to finance tax cuts for everyone else.
That seminal legislation slashed the corporate rate to 34 percent from 46 percent, but lawmakers simultaneously took away so many business tax deductions and other narrow preferences that corporations ended up swallowing a $120 billion tax increase. Lawmakers used that money to offset the cost of similarly sized breaks for individuals.
But not everyone agrees that lawmakers must follow that formula.
Stephen Moore, a former Trump tax adviser, says Republicans ought to focus on simply cutting taxes on corporations and individuals, throw in some infrastructure spending, and sell it to the public as a jobs bill.
“The big beneficiaries of business tax cuts will be workers,” he said. “We’re cutting taxes for employers so they can create more jobs — that’s the argument.”
By BRIAN FALER
President Donald Trump loves the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate, but voters?
The proposal, the centerpiece of the administration's new tax plan, is hardly a political winner, with recent polling showing that most Americans — including 44 percent of Republicans — believe corporations are not paying enough already.
“It just doesn’t sell,” said one former longtime Republican tax aide. “Most [Republican lawmakers] come from rural districts. They don’t have big corporate headquarters in their districts, and their constituents don’t care if GE gets a 25 percent rate.”
“If anything, there could be a backlash,” he said.
The only way to make a Trump-sized cut in the corporate rate — which he’d reduce to 15 percent, from the current 35 percent — politically salable is to slather on lots of other tax cuts for everyone else, tax veterans say.
Historically, going back to at least Ronald Reagan, lawmakers have rarely cut business taxes without simultaneously offering far bigger tax cuts for individual taxpayers — though in this case, that would send the price of Trump's already costly plan soaring.
Trump appears to be giving more to businesses, and his Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday he couldn’t guarantee the middle class would see a tax cut.
“This is a partisan plan to give advantages to the most influential special interests in the country and crumbs for working people,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the tax-writing Finance Committee.
Details are still sketchy, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) figures Trump’s plan would dole out roughly $3.7 trillion in tax cuts to businesses, between his plan to cut the corporate rate and offer a similar tax reduction to unincorporated businesses.
He’s also offering individuals a number of tax cuts, including lower rates, a bigger standard deduction and expanded breaks for child care expenses. But he’s simultaneously taking away breaks, including most itemized deductions, including a long-standing write-off for the state and local taxes.
That would net out to a roughly $1.8 trillion tax cut for individuals, the CRFB estimates.
Asked about the plan’s emphasis on corporations, National Economic Director Gary Cohn said: “This tax reform package is about growing the economy, creating jobs.”
“That’s how we’re looking at this plan,” he said in a briefing with reporters.
On Thursday, Mnuchin said he hoped — but couldn’t guarantee — the plan would mean a tax cut for the middle class.
“That’s our objective absolutely,” Mnuchin told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I can’t make any guarantees until this is done and on the president’s desk.”
Many economists applaud the focus on the corporate rate — now the highest among 34 industrialized democracies — calling it one of the biggest problems with the tax code. Lawmakers have not cut the corporate rate in 30 years.
“Lowering the corporate rate is like the chicken soup of tax policy — it makes everything better,” said Marty Sullivan, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Analysts. “There’s more incentives to invest in the United States and there’s less incentive to engage in tax shelters.”
The problem for lawmakers is all the people who aren’t economists.
Sixty-two percent said they are bothered “a lot” by a sense that corporations don’t pay enough in taxes, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, making it a bigger concern than the code’s complexity or how much they pay in taxes.
And if lawmakers agree to cut the corporate tax, they will face enormous pressure from other types of businesses or complaints they are helping Home Depot but not their local hardware stores.
Trump's plan to cut rates on those “pass through” companies — whose profits are passed directly to the owners and taxed as personal income — will cost an additional $1.5 trillion, on top of the $2.2 trillion cost of the corporate-rate cut, the CRFB says.
But that won’t be enough for many Republicans who, for all their friendliness to the business community, don’t want to be see cutting business taxes without doing something commensurate for individual taxpayers.
When Reagan pushed through massive tax cuts in 1981, he was careful to include more than twice as much for individuals than businesses. When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 he almost entirely ignored businesses, focusing on cutting individual taxes.
Even the last big cut in the corporate rate — in 1986 — was actually a tax increase in disguise that lawmakers used to finance tax cuts for everyone else.
That seminal legislation slashed the corporate rate to 34 percent from 46 percent, but lawmakers simultaneously took away so many business tax deductions and other narrow preferences that corporations ended up swallowing a $120 billion tax increase. Lawmakers used that money to offset the cost of similarly sized breaks for individuals.
But not everyone agrees that lawmakers must follow that formula.
Stephen Moore, a former Trump tax adviser, says Republicans ought to focus on simply cutting taxes on corporations and individuals, throw in some infrastructure spending, and sell it to the public as a jobs bill.
“The big beneficiaries of business tax cuts will be workers,” he said. “We’re cutting taxes for employers so they can create more jobs — that’s the argument.”
Government funding debate
"Democrats push government funding debate to the brink
By HEATHER CAYGLE and ELANA SCHOR
Democrats are pushing a short-term government funding extension to the brink, renewing talk of a possible shutdown if lawmakers can’t reach an agreement by Friday.
After House Democratic leaders vowed to withhold support for a short-term funding bill if Republicans plow ahead with a vote to repeal Obamacare this week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday night objected to a deal that would unanimously approve a one-week stopgap that's expected to clear the House on Friday.
Schumer raised last-minute objections "because we still have to resolve the issue of poison-pill riders" before they pass the one-week funding bill, he said on the floor. The New York Democrat added that "we are indeed making great progress."
Democrats declined to elaborate on the nature of the policy restrictions holding up an agreement. But aides said that an agreement to keep the government open until the new fiscal year starts in October is well within reach, suggesting that the last-minute objections are likely to be resolved on Friday.
The GOP's planned Obamacare repeal still cast a shadow over the funding debate, however, after House Democrats threatened to oppose a short-term bill if Republicans pressed for a health care vote this week.
“If Republicans pursue this partisan path of forcing Americans to pay more for less and destabilizing our county's health care system — without even knowing how much their bill will cost — Republicans should be prepared to pass a one-week [funding extension] on their own," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a statement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi delivered the news in a phone call to House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday morning. Hoyer had a similar conversation with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California.
"They are in a lose, lose, lose situation," Pelosi said about Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare. "The minute they cast that vote they put doo-doo on their shoe, tattoo on their forehead."
Republican leaders still haven't made a decision about whether to bring the Obamacare repeal to the floor this week. But privately, senior GOP sources say a vote is more likely next week.
The Rules Committee, which controls floor debate, will meet Thursday afternoon but it's unclear what's on the panel's agenda.
Ryan dismissed Democrats' threats, saying he's confident the government won't shut down.
"The reason this government funding bill is not ready is because Democrats have been dragging their feet," the Wisconsin Republican told reporters. "I'm confident we'll be able to pass a short-term extension."
A Democratic leadership aide said Democrats are still open to supporting a short-term extension if the overall budget talks are "headed in a good direction and we just need time to do the paperwork etc."
“But that cooperation is greatly impeded if Republicans attempt to use a [the one-week extension] to jam the Trumpcare bill through the House," the aide added.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that while he agreed with House Democrats on the importance of keeping the government funded before "rushing through" an Obamacare repeal, he was not yet prepared to ask his caucus to adopt the same strategy. "We're not up to that yet," he told reporters.
Current government funding runs out at midnight Friday. After settling major outstanding issues over border wall funding and Obamacare subsidies earlier this week, leaders seemed on track for a deal, but all agreed they would likely need a short-term extension to work out final details.
Now House Democrats say its outrageous to ask them to negotiate a bipartisan funding deal in good faith while Republicans are working behind the scenes to jam through a bill dismantling Democrats’ signature legislative achievement.
Schumer sounded a far more positive note than Pelosi on Thursday morning in a floor speech, saying that “I believe we are close to a final agreement.” But the New York Democrat also warned the House against pushing through an Obamacare repeal bill whose "chances of survival in the Senate are small," citing procedural hurdles that would require the measure to clear 60 votes in the upper chamber.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a floor speech Thursday that “we expect to pass” a stopgap bill to give senators time next week to examine a longer-term funding bill.
Other Senate Democrats said they are supportive of House Democrats' anger over the Obamacare repeal vote but don't seem ready to commit to the same strategy.
"I certainly would be appalled if the House Republicans, at a time when people aren't paying attention, try to jam through a health care bill that will hurt millions of Americans," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said, while stressing she had been in meetings all morning and wasn't briefed on House Democrats' plan.
But will Democrats hold up a one-week extension as leverage? "I don't know what they're doing in the House right now," Murray responded.
It’s unclear whether House Republicans have enough votes to pass a short-term funding extension without Democratic help. Conservative lawmakers hate temporary spending bills and generally oppose them. Republicans can afford to lose only 22 votes.
"I don’t have the power to shut down government. I wouldn’t do it, it’s not in my value system," Pelosi said in a news conference Thursday morning. "I’ve bailed them out several times so they didn’t shut down government," the California Democrat added.
GOP leaders are still coming up short in their effort to round up enough votes to pass the latest Obamacare repeal plan. Most conservatives are on board, but GOP leaders are having a hard time persuading moderates to back the bill, which would allow states to opt out of providing key Obamacare provisions.
By HEATHER CAYGLE and ELANA SCHOR
Democrats are pushing a short-term government funding extension to the brink, renewing talk of a possible shutdown if lawmakers can’t reach an agreement by Friday.
After House Democratic leaders vowed to withhold support for a short-term funding bill if Republicans plow ahead with a vote to repeal Obamacare this week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday night objected to a deal that would unanimously approve a one-week stopgap that's expected to clear the House on Friday.
Schumer raised last-minute objections "because we still have to resolve the issue of poison-pill riders" before they pass the one-week funding bill, he said on the floor. The New York Democrat added that "we are indeed making great progress."
Democrats declined to elaborate on the nature of the policy restrictions holding up an agreement. But aides said that an agreement to keep the government open until the new fiscal year starts in October is well within reach, suggesting that the last-minute objections are likely to be resolved on Friday.
The GOP's planned Obamacare repeal still cast a shadow over the funding debate, however, after House Democrats threatened to oppose a short-term bill if Republicans pressed for a health care vote this week.
“If Republicans pursue this partisan path of forcing Americans to pay more for less and destabilizing our county's health care system — without even knowing how much their bill will cost — Republicans should be prepared to pass a one-week [funding extension] on their own," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a statement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi delivered the news in a phone call to House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday morning. Hoyer had a similar conversation with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California.
"They are in a lose, lose, lose situation," Pelosi said about Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare. "The minute they cast that vote they put doo-doo on their shoe, tattoo on their forehead."
Republican leaders still haven't made a decision about whether to bring the Obamacare repeal to the floor this week. But privately, senior GOP sources say a vote is more likely next week.
The Rules Committee, which controls floor debate, will meet Thursday afternoon but it's unclear what's on the panel's agenda.
Ryan dismissed Democrats' threats, saying he's confident the government won't shut down.
"The reason this government funding bill is not ready is because Democrats have been dragging their feet," the Wisconsin Republican told reporters. "I'm confident we'll be able to pass a short-term extension."
A Democratic leadership aide said Democrats are still open to supporting a short-term extension if the overall budget talks are "headed in a good direction and we just need time to do the paperwork etc."
“But that cooperation is greatly impeded if Republicans attempt to use a [the one-week extension] to jam the Trumpcare bill through the House," the aide added.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that while he agreed with House Democrats on the importance of keeping the government funded before "rushing through" an Obamacare repeal, he was not yet prepared to ask his caucus to adopt the same strategy. "We're not up to that yet," he told reporters.
Current government funding runs out at midnight Friday. After settling major outstanding issues over border wall funding and Obamacare subsidies earlier this week, leaders seemed on track for a deal, but all agreed they would likely need a short-term extension to work out final details.
Now House Democrats say its outrageous to ask them to negotiate a bipartisan funding deal in good faith while Republicans are working behind the scenes to jam through a bill dismantling Democrats’ signature legislative achievement.
Schumer sounded a far more positive note than Pelosi on Thursday morning in a floor speech, saying that “I believe we are close to a final agreement.” But the New York Democrat also warned the House against pushing through an Obamacare repeal bill whose "chances of survival in the Senate are small," citing procedural hurdles that would require the measure to clear 60 votes in the upper chamber.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a floor speech Thursday that “we expect to pass” a stopgap bill to give senators time next week to examine a longer-term funding bill.
Other Senate Democrats said they are supportive of House Democrats' anger over the Obamacare repeal vote but don't seem ready to commit to the same strategy.
"I certainly would be appalled if the House Republicans, at a time when people aren't paying attention, try to jam through a health care bill that will hurt millions of Americans," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said, while stressing she had been in meetings all morning and wasn't briefed on House Democrats' plan.
But will Democrats hold up a one-week extension as leverage? "I don't know what they're doing in the House right now," Murray responded.
It’s unclear whether House Republicans have enough votes to pass a short-term funding extension without Democratic help. Conservative lawmakers hate temporary spending bills and generally oppose them. Republicans can afford to lose only 22 votes.
"I don’t have the power to shut down government. I wouldn’t do it, it’s not in my value system," Pelosi said in a news conference Thursday morning. "I’ve bailed them out several times so they didn’t shut down government," the California Democrat added.
GOP leaders are still coming up short in their effort to round up enough votes to pass the latest Obamacare repeal plan. Most conservatives are on board, but GOP leaders are having a hard time persuading moderates to back the bill, which would allow states to opt out of providing key Obamacare provisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)