'I Think the ‘60s Are Back’
Legendary labor activist Dolores Huerta sees history repeating itself in the mass mobilization against President Trump.
By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE
Dolores Huerta, the famed labor leader who marched with Cesar Chavez and coined his rallying cry, is still mad as hell—and she was spitting fire when I asked her about President Trump’s plans to stop protecting undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as kids.
“This is a step up above slavery,” Huerta says, in the latest episode of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast. “The Republican plan is to deport all of the people that you have here that are undocumented, and bring in folks here under foreign labor contracts.”
She doesn’t much care, either, whether the president is personally a racist—it’s enough that Trump engages in racist rhetoric, in her reckoning, and “gives license to all the racism that already exists in the United States of America.” She ticks off ideas he’s considering or already enacting: Extending provisions for contract workers, who come in for labor without rights. The border wall. Accelerated deportations. And now Trump is going after the 800,000 people who signed up for two-year work permits under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, better known as DACA.
And all the while, Huerta says, Trump and other wealthy people like him benefit more than anybody from the sweat of immigrant labor, without ever appreciating it.
“I think it’s mean. I think that he’s got this obsession, a fixation, against people of color. You know, the way that he keeps attacking Mexicans,” she says. “I’m a Mexican American. And my great-grandparents were here before his were, I’m sure. And his grandfather came from Germany.”
In Trump, Huerta, who’s now 87, sees everything she’s been fighting since the 1950s. The exploitation and discrimination is just clearer now, she says. In a lifetime in activism that stretches back to her time as Chavez’s forgotten partner organizing farmworkers in the 1960s, Huerta’s had a knack for saying things that stick, from when she first came up with “Si Se Puede” by chance as part of a heated conversation with organizers in Arizona in 1972, to when she lit a media explosion in 2006 by telling an Arizona high school, “Republicans hate Latinos.”
Looking at the president and the politics he’s encouraging, Huerta quotes Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset on power going to the greedy and powerful, and says America is “approaching” mob rule, exposing the racism, sexism and classism that she feels like she’s been battling ever since she got her start in activism by joining Stockton’s Community Service Organization in 1955.
“We see that it’s really very visible that people who before maybe were racist but didn’t declare themselves as such now feel that they have license to do so,” Huerta says. “It’s good that the racism is so visible, because then this means that we have to do something about it.”
So she’s thrilled to see the marches, like the one planned for Tuesday to start in front of the White House and go to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement main office, starting a five-day hunger strike, or the many other protests expected across the country in the days ahead, building on the Women’s March and others that have taken off since Trump’s inauguration.
Huerta’s is a singular figure in the history of American politics. A prominent female labor leader at a time when women were barely factors in the labor movement at all, she came later to the women’s rights movement (though she came to embrace it). A central enough political force that she was standing just at Bobby Kennedy’s right when he declared victory in the 1968 California primary minutes before he was assassinated, she’s become almost anonymous in the decades since. (Chavez even usually gets the credit for Si Se Puede.)
A mother of 11 who barely saw many of her children for sometimes years along the way because of how much she threw herself into the organizing work, she’s clearly frustrated by how she’s been overlooked, how Chavez is a household name and hers is generally known only to those steeped in the lore of labor activism’s heyday.
Trying to recalibrate the record, she’s eagerly participated in a new movie about the history of her life, Dolores, but in promoting it, she knows that she can’t escape grappling with the present. That includes the present of Trump and his relationship with Latinos, but also the present of a labor movement in crisis. Membership has been dropping for decades, and now panic is setting in about how the Supreme Court will rule on laws restricting organizing for public-sector workers. Labor strategists who a year ago were well into plans for how they were going to try to nudge a President Hillary Clinton to the left are still catching up with how to approach a White House in which they have no real point of entry. Leaders find themselves less in touch with their members than they’d thought, unable to explain how endorsements for Clinton from the top squared with so many members pulling the lever for Trump on Election Day, and unsure how to re-establish that bond. Members who wanted Clinton are depressed. Many fear that, for a labor movement in crisis, the future will be even worse.
And meanwhile, technology is automating job after job, the well-paying manufacturing work of yesteryear isn’t coming back and other than the death of the Trans Pacific Partnership, America’s trade policy remains the same approach that labor leaders have been decrying for decades. Huerta talks about refusing to use the self-checkout line at CVS, but knows that kind of quiet action is barely a drop within a drop, and that the real revolution that she wants isn’t anywhere near happening.
On the contrary—the upheaval and radicalism of the 1960s ended with Richard Nixon’s election and presidency, in some parallel to the politics that elected Trump: beyond the most passionate supporters at the rallies, a quieter majority in enough states, many of them snapping back against cultural and economic elites they felt had disrespected and ignored their concerns.
Nixon, of course, was elected to two terms, which is more than many people with Huerta’s politics can conceive is possible for Trump.
“I love to quote the poet Pablo Neruda, who said, “They can cut all the flowers, but you can’t hold back the spring,” she says. “And I do believe that we are the spring. We are the ones that are going to go forward. We’re going to sow those seeds of justice and they’re going to sprout. And we’re going to be a lot stronger.”
September 05, 2017
DACA
Trump has decided to end DACA, with 6-month delay
Senior White House aides met Sunday afternoon to discuss how to roll out the controversial move affecting hundreds of thousands of Dreamers.
By ELIANA JOHNSON
President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
The administration’s deliberations on the issue have been fluid and fast moving, and the president has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. But conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program and kick the issue to Congress, the two sources said.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
Trump is expected to formally make that announcement on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue.
A spokesman for Ryan did not immediately respond to a request for comment. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, “A decision is not finalized. We will make an announcement on Tuesday.”
The president’s expected decision is likely to shore up his base, which rallied behind his broader campaign message about the importance of enforcing the country’s immigration laws and securing the border. At the same time, the president’s decision is likely to be one of the most contentious of his early administration, opposed by leaders of both parties and by the political establishment more broadly.
The White House and Congress have tried to pass the issue off on each other – with each arguing that the other is responsible for determining the fate of the approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants who are benefiting from DACA. Though most Republicans believe that rolling back DACA is a solid legal decision, they are conscious of the difficult emotional terrain. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch joined Ryan in cautioning Trump against rolling back the program.
The president is likely to couch his decision in legalese. Many on the right, even those who support protections for children brought into the country illegally through no fault of their own, argue that DACA is unconstitutional because former President Barack Obama carried it out unilaterally instead of working through Congress.
Some Republican lawmakers, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have said that Congress needs to pass a law to protect the so-called Dreamers.
“My hope is that as part of this process we can work on a way to deal with this issue and solve it through legislation, which is the right way to do it and the constitutional way to do it,” Rubio told CNN in June.
Trump’s expected decision to scrap DACA within six months represents another challenge for Ryan and fellow congressional Republicans, who are facing an end-of-September deadline to avert a government shutdown and government debt default, while also tackling a Hurricane Harvey relief package and a major tax reform push.
It’s not clear that Congress will be able to come to an agreement on the future of DACA.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who previously said he was very disappointed by Trump’s lack of action on DACA, expressed fresh frustration on Sunday night with the idea of a delayed implementation.
“Ending DACA now gives chance 2 restore Rule of Law. Delaying so R Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide,” King tweeted.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who has called on Trump to stand up for the Dreamers, tweeted out her displeasure with Trump’s expected announcement.
“After teasing #Dreamers for months with talk of his 'great heart,' @POTUS slams door on them. Some 'heart'...” she wrote.
Senior White House aides met Sunday afternoon to discuss how to roll out the controversial move affecting hundreds of thousands of Dreamers.
By ELIANA JOHNSON
President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
The administration’s deliberations on the issue have been fluid and fast moving, and the president has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. But conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program and kick the issue to Congress, the two sources said.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
Trump is expected to formally make that announcement on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue.
A spokesman for Ryan did not immediately respond to a request for comment. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, “A decision is not finalized. We will make an announcement on Tuesday.”
The president’s expected decision is likely to shore up his base, which rallied behind his broader campaign message about the importance of enforcing the country’s immigration laws and securing the border. At the same time, the president’s decision is likely to be one of the most contentious of his early administration, opposed by leaders of both parties and by the political establishment more broadly.
The White House and Congress have tried to pass the issue off on each other – with each arguing that the other is responsible for determining the fate of the approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants who are benefiting from DACA. Though most Republicans believe that rolling back DACA is a solid legal decision, they are conscious of the difficult emotional terrain. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch joined Ryan in cautioning Trump against rolling back the program.
The president is likely to couch his decision in legalese. Many on the right, even those who support protections for children brought into the country illegally through no fault of their own, argue that DACA is unconstitutional because former President Barack Obama carried it out unilaterally instead of working through Congress.
Some Republican lawmakers, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have said that Congress needs to pass a law to protect the so-called Dreamers.
“My hope is that as part of this process we can work on a way to deal with this issue and solve it through legislation, which is the right way to do it and the constitutional way to do it,” Rubio told CNN in June.
Trump’s expected decision to scrap DACA within six months represents another challenge for Ryan and fellow congressional Republicans, who are facing an end-of-September deadline to avert a government shutdown and government debt default, while also tackling a Hurricane Harvey relief package and a major tax reform push.
It’s not clear that Congress will be able to come to an agreement on the future of DACA.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who previously said he was very disappointed by Trump’s lack of action on DACA, expressed fresh frustration on Sunday night with the idea of a delayed implementation.
“Ending DACA now gives chance 2 restore Rule of Law. Delaying so R Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide,” King tweeted.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who has called on Trump to stand up for the Dreamers, tweeted out her displeasure with Trump’s expected announcement.
“After teasing #Dreamers for months with talk of his 'great heart,' @POTUS slams door on them. Some 'heart'...” she wrote.
Ambassador to UN...
Haley: Kim Jong Un is 'begging for war'
By AKELA LACY
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is “begging for war,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Monday at an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.
Haley said that the U.S. does not want war, but that when “a rogue regime has a nuclear weapon and an ICBM pointed at you, you don’t take steps to lower your guard.”
North Korea claimed over the weekend that it detonated a hydrogen bomb that could be attached to an intercontinental missile capable of reaching the continental United States. It’s not clear if North Korea actually has the capabilities to do so.
President Donald Trump and South Korea President Moon Jae-In on Monday agreed to maximize pressure on Pyongyang during a call between the two leaders.
According to a White House statement, the pair discussed North Korea's claimed hydrogen bomb test and pledged to "strengthen military capabilities" -- including initial approval for South Korea to beef up its missile payload capabilities and "conceptual approval" for the purchase of billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment from the U.S.
The White House's readout does not mention a trade deal between the two countries, which President Trump is reportedly considering withdrawing from.
On Sunday, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned of a "massive military response" if North Korea threatens to attack the United States or its allies. Trump also tweeted that the United States is considering stopping trade with countries that do business with North Korea.
The Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korean exports last August, which have not kept the country from continuing to develop and test its nuclear capabilities.
South Korea says it believes North Korea is preparing for more missile launches. U.S. officials have struggled to determine an appropriate response to North Korean aggression, with Trump previously threatening "fire and fury.”
By AKELA LACY
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is “begging for war,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Monday at an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.
Haley said that the U.S. does not want war, but that when “a rogue regime has a nuclear weapon and an ICBM pointed at you, you don’t take steps to lower your guard.”
North Korea claimed over the weekend that it detonated a hydrogen bomb that could be attached to an intercontinental missile capable of reaching the continental United States. It’s not clear if North Korea actually has the capabilities to do so.
President Donald Trump and South Korea President Moon Jae-In on Monday agreed to maximize pressure on Pyongyang during a call between the two leaders.
According to a White House statement, the pair discussed North Korea's claimed hydrogen bomb test and pledged to "strengthen military capabilities" -- including initial approval for South Korea to beef up its missile payload capabilities and "conceptual approval" for the purchase of billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment from the U.S.
The White House's readout does not mention a trade deal between the two countries, which President Trump is reportedly considering withdrawing from.
On Sunday, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned of a "massive military response" if North Korea threatens to attack the United States or its allies. Trump also tweeted that the United States is considering stopping trade with countries that do business with North Korea.
The Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korean exports last August, which have not kept the country from continuing to develop and test its nuclear capabilities.
South Korea says it believes North Korea is preparing for more missile launches. U.S. officials have struggled to determine an appropriate response to North Korean aggression, with Trump previously threatening "fire and fury.”
More military equipment
Trump says he'll allow Japan, South Korea to buy more military equipment from the U.S.
By LOUIS NELSON
South Korea and Japan will be allowed to increase their purchases of U.S. military equipment, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter Tuesday morning, a step that follows days after North Korea claimed it tested a hydrogen bomb.
“I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States,” Trump wrote on Twitter Tuesday morning.
A White House readout of Trump’s Monday call with South Korean President Moon Jae-in had hinted at the president’s announcement, sharing that the U.S. president had “provided his conceptual approval for the purchase of many billions of dollars’ worth of military weapons and equipment from the United States by South Korea.”
North Korea’s reported test of a hydrogen bomb over the weekend further escalated tensions between the regime of leader Kim Jong Un and the U.S. and its allies, principally South Korea and Japan. The nuclear device detonated Sunday by North Korea was significantly more powerful than its predecessors and its test comes after weeks of ballistic missile testing by Pyongyang.
Trump has responded to North Korea’s stepped up nuclear testing by escalating his own rhetoric, promising last month to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if North Korea fails to stop its provocative behavior. Kim’s regime responded in kind, threatening to attack Guam, the U.S. territory in the Pacific most vulnerable to a North Korean missile, with an “enveloping fire.” Over the weekend, Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned North Korea of a "massive military response" if it continues to threaten the U.S. or its allies with an attack.
North Korea’s missile testing also prompted a fresh round of sanctions from the United Nations Security Council, a package that was notable for its support from China and Russia, the two nations whose veto power typically protects the Kim regime. Trump has called on China, North Korea’s chief trade partner and international benefactor, to rein in the Kim regime’s missile program and bombastic rhetoric.
By LOUIS NELSON
South Korea and Japan will be allowed to increase their purchases of U.S. military equipment, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter Tuesday morning, a step that follows days after North Korea claimed it tested a hydrogen bomb.
“I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States,” Trump wrote on Twitter Tuesday morning.
A White House readout of Trump’s Monday call with South Korean President Moon Jae-in had hinted at the president’s announcement, sharing that the U.S. president had “provided his conceptual approval for the purchase of many billions of dollars’ worth of military weapons and equipment from the United States by South Korea.”
North Korea’s reported test of a hydrogen bomb over the weekend further escalated tensions between the regime of leader Kim Jong Un and the U.S. and its allies, principally South Korea and Japan. The nuclear device detonated Sunday by North Korea was significantly more powerful than its predecessors and its test comes after weeks of ballistic missile testing by Pyongyang.
Trump has responded to North Korea’s stepped up nuclear testing by escalating his own rhetoric, promising last month to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if North Korea fails to stop its provocative behavior. Kim’s regime responded in kind, threatening to attack Guam, the U.S. territory in the Pacific most vulnerable to a North Korean missile, with an “enveloping fire.” Over the weekend, Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned North Korea of a "massive military response" if it continues to threaten the U.S. or its allies with an attack.
North Korea’s missile testing also prompted a fresh round of sanctions from the United Nations Security Council, a package that was notable for its support from China and Russia, the two nations whose veto power typically protects the Kim regime. Trump has called on China, North Korea’s chief trade partner and international benefactor, to rein in the Kim regime’s missile program and bombastic rhetoric.
Flap....
Putin: We may further cut U.S. diplomatic staff in Russia
By LOUIS NELSON
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that he could order a further reduction of U.S. diplomatic staff inside his country, leaving open the possibility in the wake of the State Department’s order last week that Russia close multiple diplomatic compounds.
Putin said the U.S. decision last Thursday to order the Russian facilities closed was “their right,” but complained that it had been done in a “clearly boorish manner.” He said the Russian foreign ministry will go to court in the U.S. to fight the closures, which include a consulate general and official residence in San Francisco as well as annex buildings in Washington and New York, both of which hosted trade missions.
“The only thing is that it was done in such a clearly boorish manner. That does not reflect well on our American partners,” Putin said at a press conference in China, according to a Reuters report. “But it’s difficult to conduct a dialogue with people who confuse Austria and Australia. Nothing can be done about it. Probably such is the level of political culture of a certain part of the U.S. establishment.”
“As for our buildings and facilities, this is an unprecedented thing,” he continued. “This is a clear violation of Russia’s property rights. Therefore, for a start, I will order the Foreign Ministry to go to court - and let’s see just how efficient the much-praised U.S. judiciary is.”
The State Department’s order that Russia close its facilities was matched with an announcement that it had met Russian demands to decrease staffing levels inside Russia to 455. In its announcement, the State Department said it hoped Russia would not further escalate with another diplomatic step and that the closure order would allow the U.S. and Russia to achieve diplomatic “parity” by giving the two nations three consulate generals each in the other’s nation.
Russia, with its staff reduction order, had also claimed to be seeking parity with the U.S., a step that followed former President Barack Obama’s order that the Kremlin close two diplomatic facilities in Maryland and New York in response to its meddling in last year’s presidential election.
On Monday, Putin said the U.S. had miscalculated with its latest closure order by including staff working in Russia’s mission to the United Nations as part of its U.S. staff. Thus, Putin said, the latest U.S. order had left Russia with fewer U.S.-based diplomatic staff than the 455 working for the State Department in Russia.
“We reserve the right to take a decision on the number of U.S. diplomats in Moscow. But we won’t do that for now. Let’s wait and see how the situation develops further,” he said.
By LOUIS NELSON
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that he could order a further reduction of U.S. diplomatic staff inside his country, leaving open the possibility in the wake of the State Department’s order last week that Russia close multiple diplomatic compounds.
Putin said the U.S. decision last Thursday to order the Russian facilities closed was “their right,” but complained that it had been done in a “clearly boorish manner.” He said the Russian foreign ministry will go to court in the U.S. to fight the closures, which include a consulate general and official residence in San Francisco as well as annex buildings in Washington and New York, both of which hosted trade missions.
“The only thing is that it was done in such a clearly boorish manner. That does not reflect well on our American partners,” Putin said at a press conference in China, according to a Reuters report. “But it’s difficult to conduct a dialogue with people who confuse Austria and Australia. Nothing can be done about it. Probably such is the level of political culture of a certain part of the U.S. establishment.”
“As for our buildings and facilities, this is an unprecedented thing,” he continued. “This is a clear violation of Russia’s property rights. Therefore, for a start, I will order the Foreign Ministry to go to court - and let’s see just how efficient the much-praised U.S. judiciary is.”
The State Department’s order that Russia close its facilities was matched with an announcement that it had met Russian demands to decrease staffing levels inside Russia to 455. In its announcement, the State Department said it hoped Russia would not further escalate with another diplomatic step and that the closure order would allow the U.S. and Russia to achieve diplomatic “parity” by giving the two nations three consulate generals each in the other’s nation.
Russia, with its staff reduction order, had also claimed to be seeking parity with the U.S., a step that followed former President Barack Obama’s order that the Kremlin close two diplomatic facilities in Maryland and New York in response to its meddling in last year’s presidential election.
On Monday, Putin said the U.S. had miscalculated with its latest closure order by including staff working in Russia’s mission to the United Nations as part of its U.S. staff. Thus, Putin said, the latest U.S. order had left Russia with fewer U.S.-based diplomatic staff than the 455 working for the State Department in Russia.
“We reserve the right to take a decision on the number of U.S. diplomats in Moscow. But we won’t do that for now. Let’s wait and see how the situation develops further,” he said.
Negative
‘Negative Partisanship’ Explains Everything
Conservatives and liberals don’t just disagree—they actually like to hate each other. And it’s getting uglier.
By ALAN ABRAMOWITZ and STEVEN WEBSTER
If you’re confused about why a president whose campaign is under investigation for its possible ties to Russian hackers, whose approval ratings are abysmal only halfway into his first year, whose legislative agenda is already off the rails, and who launches bizarre Twitter rants each day still commands the fealty of the Republican Party, don’t be. Donald Trump thrives amid all this chaos because of the rise of a phenomenon that we have labeled “negative partisanship.”
The concept is pretty simple: Over the past few decades, American politics has become like a bitter sports rivalry, in which the parties hang together mainly out of sheer hatred of the other team, rather than a shared sense of purpose. Republicans might not love the president, but they absolutely loathe his Democratic adversaries. And it’s also true of Democrats, who might be consumed by their internal feuds over foreign policy and the proper role of government were it not for Trump. Negative partisanship explains nearly everything in American politics today—from why Trump’s base is unlikely to abandon him even if, as he once said, he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, to why it was so easy for vulnerable red-state Democrats to resist defecting on the health care bill.
Consider, for instance, that while Trump’s approval ratings have lately been in the mid- to upper 30s, he has maintained support of the overwhelming majority of Republican voters—around 80 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll. And that’s what matters to him and to most Republican members of Congress. The president understands that as long as that Republican base remains loyal to him, he is unlikely to face a serious challenge from GOP members of the House and Senate. He also knows that the surest way to keep the support of his base is by attacking Democrats, especially the two most prominent leaders of the Democratic Party—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What looks like an unhealthy Twitter obsession over “Crooked Hillary” and her emails is more likely a team-building exercise—a shrewd effort to keep his party focused on their shared enemy: Democrats. And so far, it’s working for him.
This hostile and confrontational style of politics is a by-product of the growth in negative partisanship within the American electorate. Our research has shown that since the 1980s, supporters of both major parties, including independents who just lean toward one party or the other, have grown to dislike the opposing party and its elected leaders more than they like their own party and its elected leaders. And judging from opinion polls, that trend reached a new high in 2016—an election dominated by negative feelings toward both major-party candidates.
Neither Trump nor Clinton was especially well-liked. Data from a Pew survey conducted before the 2016 national conventions found that both candidates received mediocre ratings from supporters of their own party—and record low ratings from members of the opposing party. On a “feeling thermometer” scale of zero to 100 degrees, Clinton received an average rating of 12 degrees from Republicans, while Trump received an average rating of 11 degrees from Democrats. In fact, 68 percent of Democrats rated Trump at zero, and 59 percent of Republicans rated Clinton at zero—an extraordinary reading with no modern precedent.
As a result, even though many voters had reservations about their own party’s nominee, very few ended up defecting in November. It was once common for voters to choose, say, a Republican for president and a Democrat for senator. No longer: Recent elections have been characterized by unprecedented party loyalty and straight-ticket voting, and negative partisanship is a major reason.
The concept of negative partisanship was first developed by political scientists studying countries with multi-party systems, such as Canada and Germany. But today, it applies even more clearly to the United States. Our research shows that Americans increasingly are voting against the opposing party more than they are voting for their own party.
And that should worry us. Dislike, even at times hatred, of the opposing party and its leaders reflects a growing divide between Democrats and Republicans over a wide range of economic and social issues. But it also reflects a growing divide over race, religion and values—a chasm that could become dangerous as partisans come to see each other not just as political adversaries, but as enemies who want to harm the nation.
And there’s a longer-term danger to our democratic system here, too, that is likely to survive well beyond Trump. In today’s environment, rather than seeking to inspire voters around a cohesive and forward-looking vision, politicians need only incite fear and anger toward the opposing party to win and maintain power. Until that fundamental incentive goes away, expect politics to get even uglier.
Conservatives and liberals don’t just disagree—they actually like to hate each other. And it’s getting uglier.
By ALAN ABRAMOWITZ and STEVEN WEBSTER
If you’re confused about why a president whose campaign is under investigation for its possible ties to Russian hackers, whose approval ratings are abysmal only halfway into his first year, whose legislative agenda is already off the rails, and who launches bizarre Twitter rants each day still commands the fealty of the Republican Party, don’t be. Donald Trump thrives amid all this chaos because of the rise of a phenomenon that we have labeled “negative partisanship.”
The concept is pretty simple: Over the past few decades, American politics has become like a bitter sports rivalry, in which the parties hang together mainly out of sheer hatred of the other team, rather than a shared sense of purpose. Republicans might not love the president, but they absolutely loathe his Democratic adversaries. And it’s also true of Democrats, who might be consumed by their internal feuds over foreign policy and the proper role of government were it not for Trump. Negative partisanship explains nearly everything in American politics today—from why Trump’s base is unlikely to abandon him even if, as he once said, he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, to why it was so easy for vulnerable red-state Democrats to resist defecting on the health care bill.
Consider, for instance, that while Trump’s approval ratings have lately been in the mid- to upper 30s, he has maintained support of the overwhelming majority of Republican voters—around 80 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll. And that’s what matters to him and to most Republican members of Congress. The president understands that as long as that Republican base remains loyal to him, he is unlikely to face a serious challenge from GOP members of the House and Senate. He also knows that the surest way to keep the support of his base is by attacking Democrats, especially the two most prominent leaders of the Democratic Party—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What looks like an unhealthy Twitter obsession over “Crooked Hillary” and her emails is more likely a team-building exercise—a shrewd effort to keep his party focused on their shared enemy: Democrats. And so far, it’s working for him.
This hostile and confrontational style of politics is a by-product of the growth in negative partisanship within the American electorate. Our research has shown that since the 1980s, supporters of both major parties, including independents who just lean toward one party or the other, have grown to dislike the opposing party and its elected leaders more than they like their own party and its elected leaders. And judging from opinion polls, that trend reached a new high in 2016—an election dominated by negative feelings toward both major-party candidates.
Neither Trump nor Clinton was especially well-liked. Data from a Pew survey conducted before the 2016 national conventions found that both candidates received mediocre ratings from supporters of their own party—and record low ratings from members of the opposing party. On a “feeling thermometer” scale of zero to 100 degrees, Clinton received an average rating of 12 degrees from Republicans, while Trump received an average rating of 11 degrees from Democrats. In fact, 68 percent of Democrats rated Trump at zero, and 59 percent of Republicans rated Clinton at zero—an extraordinary reading with no modern precedent.
As a result, even though many voters had reservations about their own party’s nominee, very few ended up defecting in November. It was once common for voters to choose, say, a Republican for president and a Democrat for senator. No longer: Recent elections have been characterized by unprecedented party loyalty and straight-ticket voting, and negative partisanship is a major reason.
The concept of negative partisanship was first developed by political scientists studying countries with multi-party systems, such as Canada and Germany. But today, it applies even more clearly to the United States. Our research shows that Americans increasingly are voting against the opposing party more than they are voting for their own party.
And that should worry us. Dislike, even at times hatred, of the opposing party and its leaders reflects a growing divide between Democrats and Republicans over a wide range of economic and social issues. But it also reflects a growing divide over race, religion and values—a chasm that could become dangerous as partisans come to see each other not just as political adversaries, but as enemies who want to harm the nation.
And there’s a longer-term danger to our democratic system here, too, that is likely to survive well beyond Trump. In today’s environment, rather than seeking to inspire voters around a cohesive and forward-looking vision, politicians need only incite fear and anger toward the opposing party to win and maintain power. Until that fundamental incentive goes away, expect politics to get even uglier.
Heavy lifting by states
Senate’s Obamacare fixes would build on heavy lifting by states
The result is an Obamacare system that’s still vulnerable, but far from the ‘disaster’ Trump and his top health officials describe.
By ADAM CANCRYN
While Congress was busy bickering over repealing the health law, officials in red and blue states worked frantically to soothe anxious insurers, tamp down rate increases and insulate their markets from the ceaseless chaos in Washington.
The result is an Obamacare system that’s still vulnerable, but far from the “disaster” President Donald Trump and his top health officials describe.
Every enrollee in the nation is poised to have at least one coverage option this fall. State regulators have haggled repeatedly to keep premiums from skyrocketing. And despite fears of bare counties and crumbling markets, the intense state-level groundwork has brought Obamacare almost single-handedly back from the brink.
“We endured a lot of sleepless nights,” Heather Korbulic, executive director of Nevada’s health exchange, said after the state successfully ended its long search for insurers to sell plans in every county. “I feel pretty good about their stability in our state.”
Still, the Senate has a few key fixes it wants to make in September. Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and ranking member Patty Murray are aiming to pass a narrow stabilization package by the end of the month, in what would mark the first major bipartisan changes to the 2010 law.
It's a more straightforward job than the senators faced even four weeks ago. And though a short-term fix won’t address deeper flaws or efforts by the administration to undermine the law, state officials frustrated by the stalemate on Capitol Hill are hoping their federal counterparts can now do the bare minimum to keep Obamacare afloat.
“I think we will make it through 2018,” Maryland Insurance Commissioner Al Redmer Jr. said. “However, if we don’t get some short-term solutions, I don’t think we’ll make it to the long term.”
Even the tiniest fixes could still prove tricky in a Congress deeply divided over health care, and coming off a bitter fight over dismantling Obamacare.
“Switching gears in this way ... is going to be a challenge for both sides,” said a senior Democratic aide, who cautioned against setting expectations too high.
Indeed, Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Murray (D-Wash.) have sought to limit their ambitions from the start, portraying the package as a stopgap designed to keep Obamacare hobbling along. And as states have taken the lead on plugging holes in their own markets, those ambitions have narrowed even further.
Deals struck in the past month to fill bare counties in Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada freed the Senate from having to deliver a quick fix for thousands of people who were in danger of having no coverage options. Governors in at least a half-dozen states, meanwhile, have signaled plans to set up their own state-based reinsurance programs — lowering the odds that a similar nationwide backstop favored by Democrats will be folded into the stabilization measure.
That leaves one major unresolved issue: guaranteeing funding for Obamacare subsidies that lower out-of-pocket costs. While it’s perhaps the most direct element facing the Senate’s health committee, it’s also among the most fraught.
Trump has threatened repeatedly to pull the crucial payments to insurers — estimated at $7 billion this year — roiling health plans across the nation and prompting them to hike 2018 premiums an additional 20 percent on average, by some projections. Without assurances the funding will continue, insurers and state regulators warn, the delicate Obamacare markets they’ve held together so far could promptly fall apart.
“It’s still a big question mark, which makes the 2018 open enrollment season still pretty disconcerting,” said Ceci Connolly, CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans. “We can’t have this living from month to month.”
While Alexander and Murray have signaled that the cost-sharing subsidy funding will form the backbone of their bill, they differ on how many years to commit the money.
Beyond that, Republicans are likely to agitate for concessions in exchange for funding the subsidies, like giving states greater flexibility to relax key Obamacare consumer protections — a potential nonstarter for Democrats. Senate Democrats’ own ideas are sure to face sharp resistance from Republicans opposed to pouring any more money into a law they spent seven years trying to repeal.
In short, just agreeing on cost-sharing subsidies could consume the bulk of the month, potentially shrinking what was already envisioned as a narrow package.
“It’s just another sidestep,” said Tom Miller, a resident fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. “I set low expectations, and they usually fail to meet them.”
Still, many on the ground say they’ll be satisfied with even the smallest sign of bipartisan progress, as long as it addresses cost-sharing payments.
The repeal battle in Washington left health plans and states in a seven-month lurch, trying to keep the Obamacare markets viable for 2018 while keeping abreast with the GOP’s ever-shifting replacement plan and responding to threats coming out of the White House.
A short-term stabilization package would give the insurance system a much-needed shot of certainty heading into the fall open enrollment period. For state officials, it would validate the months-long effort it took just to get to this point — and maybe set the stage for more permanent fixes before another crisis hits.
“I don’t care whether you want to repeal and return it back to the states, whether they want to modify it, repeal and repair — I don’t really care what they call it,” Redmer said. “But I’ll put it this way: The status quo is not an option.”
The result is an Obamacare system that’s still vulnerable, but far from the ‘disaster’ Trump and his top health officials describe.
By ADAM CANCRYN
While Congress was busy bickering over repealing the health law, officials in red and blue states worked frantically to soothe anxious insurers, tamp down rate increases and insulate their markets from the ceaseless chaos in Washington.
The result is an Obamacare system that’s still vulnerable, but far from the “disaster” President Donald Trump and his top health officials describe.
Every enrollee in the nation is poised to have at least one coverage option this fall. State regulators have haggled repeatedly to keep premiums from skyrocketing. And despite fears of bare counties and crumbling markets, the intense state-level groundwork has brought Obamacare almost single-handedly back from the brink.
“We endured a lot of sleepless nights,” Heather Korbulic, executive director of Nevada’s health exchange, said after the state successfully ended its long search for insurers to sell plans in every county. “I feel pretty good about their stability in our state.”
Still, the Senate has a few key fixes it wants to make in September. Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and ranking member Patty Murray are aiming to pass a narrow stabilization package by the end of the month, in what would mark the first major bipartisan changes to the 2010 law.
It's a more straightforward job than the senators faced even four weeks ago. And though a short-term fix won’t address deeper flaws or efforts by the administration to undermine the law, state officials frustrated by the stalemate on Capitol Hill are hoping their federal counterparts can now do the bare minimum to keep Obamacare afloat.
“I think we will make it through 2018,” Maryland Insurance Commissioner Al Redmer Jr. said. “However, if we don’t get some short-term solutions, I don’t think we’ll make it to the long term.”
Even the tiniest fixes could still prove tricky in a Congress deeply divided over health care, and coming off a bitter fight over dismantling Obamacare.
“Switching gears in this way ... is going to be a challenge for both sides,” said a senior Democratic aide, who cautioned against setting expectations too high.
Indeed, Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Murray (D-Wash.) have sought to limit their ambitions from the start, portraying the package as a stopgap designed to keep Obamacare hobbling along. And as states have taken the lead on plugging holes in their own markets, those ambitions have narrowed even further.
Deals struck in the past month to fill bare counties in Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada freed the Senate from having to deliver a quick fix for thousands of people who were in danger of having no coverage options. Governors in at least a half-dozen states, meanwhile, have signaled plans to set up their own state-based reinsurance programs — lowering the odds that a similar nationwide backstop favored by Democrats will be folded into the stabilization measure.
That leaves one major unresolved issue: guaranteeing funding for Obamacare subsidies that lower out-of-pocket costs. While it’s perhaps the most direct element facing the Senate’s health committee, it’s also among the most fraught.
Trump has threatened repeatedly to pull the crucial payments to insurers — estimated at $7 billion this year — roiling health plans across the nation and prompting them to hike 2018 premiums an additional 20 percent on average, by some projections. Without assurances the funding will continue, insurers and state regulators warn, the delicate Obamacare markets they’ve held together so far could promptly fall apart.
“It’s still a big question mark, which makes the 2018 open enrollment season still pretty disconcerting,” said Ceci Connolly, CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans. “We can’t have this living from month to month.”
While Alexander and Murray have signaled that the cost-sharing subsidy funding will form the backbone of their bill, they differ on how many years to commit the money.
Beyond that, Republicans are likely to agitate for concessions in exchange for funding the subsidies, like giving states greater flexibility to relax key Obamacare consumer protections — a potential nonstarter for Democrats. Senate Democrats’ own ideas are sure to face sharp resistance from Republicans opposed to pouring any more money into a law they spent seven years trying to repeal.
In short, just agreeing on cost-sharing subsidies could consume the bulk of the month, potentially shrinking what was already envisioned as a narrow package.
“It’s just another sidestep,” said Tom Miller, a resident fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. “I set low expectations, and they usually fail to meet them.”
Still, many on the ground say they’ll be satisfied with even the smallest sign of bipartisan progress, as long as it addresses cost-sharing payments.
The repeal battle in Washington left health plans and states in a seven-month lurch, trying to keep the Obamacare markets viable for 2018 while keeping abreast with the GOP’s ever-shifting replacement plan and responding to threats coming out of the White House.
A short-term stabilization package would give the insurance system a much-needed shot of certainty heading into the fall open enrollment period. For state officials, it would validate the months-long effort it took just to get to this point — and maybe set the stage for more permanent fixes before another crisis hits.
“I don’t care whether you want to repeal and return it back to the states, whether they want to modify it, repeal and repair — I don’t really care what they call it,” Redmer said. “But I’ll put it this way: The status quo is not an option.”
Punt to Congress
Trump’s punt to Congress on DACA threatens new GOP rift
A growing number of Republican lawmakers are softening toward Dreamers, but others say Trump can’t end the program fast enough.
By SEUNG MIN KIM and RACHAEL BADE
President Donald Trump’s expected decision to punt the fate of nearly 800,000 Dreamers to Congress promises to drive yet another rift through an already fractured Republican Party, which has for years struggled to coalesce around immigration reform proposals.
Already, GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill are reacting in wildly diverging ways to Trump’s yet-to-be-announced plan to dismantle an Obama-era initiative for immigrants brought here illegally at a young age — but to give Congress six months to come up with a legislative solution first.
A growing number of Republicans have urged Trump not to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — with some lashing out against the president in harsh terms — while other GOP lawmakers have indicated he is not ending the five-year-old initiative quickly enough.
Meanwhile, some Republicans such as conservative Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas are openly floating trade-offs to protect DACA recipients, even as Democrats insist that Dreamers aren’t bargaining chips for tougher immigration restrictions. In the House, senior Republicans still believe there’s a possible deal to be struck with Democrats: codifying DACA in return for Trump’s sought-after border wall.
That leaves Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who have both expressed sympathy for the plight of Dreamers in the past — in an awkward political position as they navigate a fall agenda that is already packed with a slate of must-pass bills, including government spending bills, a debt limit increase, and an aid package for Hurricane Harvey victims.
One plugged-in immigration advocate predicted a “30-70 chance” that Congress successfully passes legislation that would essentially codify DACA — which temporarily defers deportations and provides work permits to qualifying young undocumented immigrants – into law.
“I just don’t think we can make the mistake of assuming the opposition isn’t formidable, even if we have some conservative support,” the advocate said.
Still, support for Dreamers has been rising from unexpected quarters within the GOP, especially as DACA’s future becomes increasingly more precarious. Trump is expected to make an announcement Tuesday that he will end DACA but with a delayed implementation, although White House officials have cautioned that nothing is official until Trump makes it public.
"It is right for there to be consequences for those who intentionally entered this country illegally,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said in a statement Monday. “However, we as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents.”
Lankford is among the Republican senators who have been privately speaking with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) about legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as minors to obtain legal status if they work, pursue higher education or serve in the military. Tillis has called it a “fair but rigorous path.”
Several Senate Republicans have been talking quietly for months about multiple immigration bills, in addition to Tillis’ proposal, according to one Senate GOP source, although those discussions stalled during the health care debate in July.
“I have indicated in the past that I’m supportive of DACA and believe that the humanity aspect of this, what you described, is important — no fault of their own, circumstances beyond their control,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told a constituent during a town hall in August. Saying he’ll take a look at related legislation, Moran added: “DACA has made sense to me.”
In the House, GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, a moderate from Colorado, recently hit the TV airwaves calling on Congress to pass his bill allowing law-abiding immigrants brought here before age 16 to stay — a bipartisan proposal whose companion legislation in the Senate is backed by the likes of Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
But immigration hardliners are warning GOP leaders not to go there. For years, congressional Republicans have complained that former President Barack Obama overreached when he created DACA through executive action, and many conservatives view the 2012 program as antithetical to their tougher line on illegal immigration.
“Ending DACA now gives [us a] chance 2 restore Rule of Law. Delaying so Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide,” tweeted ultra-conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) on Sunday night, after POLITICO first reported Trump’s expected decision.
Despite some Republicans softening toward Dreamers in the Senate, the House is expected to be a tougher hurdle. However, Ryan has long backed overhauling immigration laws, and warned Trump last week against ending DACA, which Ryan told a Wisconsin radio program affects “kids who know no other country” and “don't know another home.”
McConnell has expressed similar sentiments toward Dreamers in the past, though a spokesman said Monday that the majority leader had no new comment on DACA’s future.
“I’m very sympathetic with this situation,” McConnell said during a news conference in February. “I mean, these are young people who were brought here at a tender age and who have grown up here, or are in the process of growing up here. I’m very sympathetic to that situation.”
But large swaths of Capitol Hill are loathe to weigh in on a decision that Trump has yet to announce and is still surrounded by many unknowns. One key question yet to be answered is what happens to the two-year DACA work permits that expire during the six-month period and whether they would be renewed.
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, the pro-immigration group backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, stressed that barring renewals for current DACA recipients would be “devastating.”
“Whether this happens or not, however, both parties and both chambers can and must make a permanent legislative solution like the bipartisan Dream Act an immediate, must-pass bill,” Schulte said. “As a majority of House Republicans are on the record in favor of letting Dreamers earn legal status, we believe a vote should be called and a bill passed without delay."
A number of senior House Republican sources told POLITICO there may be an immigration deal that would codify DACA in return for a down payment on Trump’s border wall with Mexico.
These sources say they’d prefer to iron out such an agreement with Democrats later in the fall as part of a broader spending package that would also lift strict spending caps.
There’s a possibility, however, that the fight doesn’t wait that long. GOP leaders will almost certainly rely heavily on Democrats to raise the debt ceiling this month, which the administration has said must be done by Sept. 29. And Democrats, some Republicans worry, could try to use their leverage to demand that legislation protecting DACA recipients be included.
Congressional Democrats are united in their push to defend Dreamers and have a solid chunk of Republicans in their corner. And others believe that Trump starting a ticking time-bomb against DACA could be the very thing that forces Congress to act.
“If President Trump chooses to cancel the DACA program and give Congress six months to find a legislative solution, I will be supportive of such a position,” Graham said Monday. “If President Trump makes this decision we will work to find a legislative solution to their dilemma.”
A growing number of Republican lawmakers are softening toward Dreamers, but others say Trump can’t end the program fast enough.
By SEUNG MIN KIM and RACHAEL BADE
President Donald Trump’s expected decision to punt the fate of nearly 800,000 Dreamers to Congress promises to drive yet another rift through an already fractured Republican Party, which has for years struggled to coalesce around immigration reform proposals.
Already, GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill are reacting in wildly diverging ways to Trump’s yet-to-be-announced plan to dismantle an Obama-era initiative for immigrants brought here illegally at a young age — but to give Congress six months to come up with a legislative solution first.
A growing number of Republicans have urged Trump not to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — with some lashing out against the president in harsh terms — while other GOP lawmakers have indicated he is not ending the five-year-old initiative quickly enough.
Meanwhile, some Republicans such as conservative Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas are openly floating trade-offs to protect DACA recipients, even as Democrats insist that Dreamers aren’t bargaining chips for tougher immigration restrictions. In the House, senior Republicans still believe there’s a possible deal to be struck with Democrats: codifying DACA in return for Trump’s sought-after border wall.
That leaves Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who have both expressed sympathy for the plight of Dreamers in the past — in an awkward political position as they navigate a fall agenda that is already packed with a slate of must-pass bills, including government spending bills, a debt limit increase, and an aid package for Hurricane Harvey victims.
One plugged-in immigration advocate predicted a “30-70 chance” that Congress successfully passes legislation that would essentially codify DACA — which temporarily defers deportations and provides work permits to qualifying young undocumented immigrants – into law.
“I just don’t think we can make the mistake of assuming the opposition isn’t formidable, even if we have some conservative support,” the advocate said.
Still, support for Dreamers has been rising from unexpected quarters within the GOP, especially as DACA’s future becomes increasingly more precarious. Trump is expected to make an announcement Tuesday that he will end DACA but with a delayed implementation, although White House officials have cautioned that nothing is official until Trump makes it public.
"It is right for there to be consequences for those who intentionally entered this country illegally,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said in a statement Monday. “However, we as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents.”
Lankford is among the Republican senators who have been privately speaking with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) about legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as minors to obtain legal status if they work, pursue higher education or serve in the military. Tillis has called it a “fair but rigorous path.”
Several Senate Republicans have been talking quietly for months about multiple immigration bills, in addition to Tillis’ proposal, according to one Senate GOP source, although those discussions stalled during the health care debate in July.
“I have indicated in the past that I’m supportive of DACA and believe that the humanity aspect of this, what you described, is important — no fault of their own, circumstances beyond their control,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told a constituent during a town hall in August. Saying he’ll take a look at related legislation, Moran added: “DACA has made sense to me.”
In the House, GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, a moderate from Colorado, recently hit the TV airwaves calling on Congress to pass his bill allowing law-abiding immigrants brought here before age 16 to stay — a bipartisan proposal whose companion legislation in the Senate is backed by the likes of Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
But immigration hardliners are warning GOP leaders not to go there. For years, congressional Republicans have complained that former President Barack Obama overreached when he created DACA through executive action, and many conservatives view the 2012 program as antithetical to their tougher line on illegal immigration.
“Ending DACA now gives [us a] chance 2 restore Rule of Law. Delaying so Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide,” tweeted ultra-conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) on Sunday night, after POLITICO first reported Trump’s expected decision.
Despite some Republicans softening toward Dreamers in the Senate, the House is expected to be a tougher hurdle. However, Ryan has long backed overhauling immigration laws, and warned Trump last week against ending DACA, which Ryan told a Wisconsin radio program affects “kids who know no other country” and “don't know another home.”
McConnell has expressed similar sentiments toward Dreamers in the past, though a spokesman said Monday that the majority leader had no new comment on DACA’s future.
“I’m very sympathetic with this situation,” McConnell said during a news conference in February. “I mean, these are young people who were brought here at a tender age and who have grown up here, or are in the process of growing up here. I’m very sympathetic to that situation.”
But large swaths of Capitol Hill are loathe to weigh in on a decision that Trump has yet to announce and is still surrounded by many unknowns. One key question yet to be answered is what happens to the two-year DACA work permits that expire during the six-month period and whether they would be renewed.
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, the pro-immigration group backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, stressed that barring renewals for current DACA recipients would be “devastating.”
“Whether this happens or not, however, both parties and both chambers can and must make a permanent legislative solution like the bipartisan Dream Act an immediate, must-pass bill,” Schulte said. “As a majority of House Republicans are on the record in favor of letting Dreamers earn legal status, we believe a vote should be called and a bill passed without delay."
A number of senior House Republican sources told POLITICO there may be an immigration deal that would codify DACA in return for a down payment on Trump’s border wall with Mexico.
These sources say they’d prefer to iron out such an agreement with Democrats later in the fall as part of a broader spending package that would also lift strict spending caps.
There’s a possibility, however, that the fight doesn’t wait that long. GOP leaders will almost certainly rely heavily on Democrats to raise the debt ceiling this month, which the administration has said must be done by Sept. 29. And Democrats, some Republicans worry, could try to use their leverage to demand that legislation protecting DACA recipients be included.
Congressional Democrats are united in their push to defend Dreamers and have a solid chunk of Republicans in their corner. And others believe that Trump starting a ticking time-bomb against DACA could be the very thing that forces Congress to act.
“If President Trump chooses to cancel the DACA program and give Congress six months to find a legislative solution, I will be supportive of such a position,” Graham said Monday. “If President Trump makes this decision we will work to find a legislative solution to their dilemma.”
Fiscal disaster....
GOP leaders banking on Trump to save them from fiscal disaster
Republican lawmakers say Trump’s endorsement of a ‘clean’ debt increase and no-drama funding deal would tamp down an intra-party fight.
By BURGESS EVERETT and RACHAEL BADE
Congressional Republicans, rudderless on an unpopular debt ceiling and government funding strategy, are looking to President Donald Trump to bail them out.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan are mulling a basic framework to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts and avert an Oct. 1 shutdown with a short-term spending bill, according to multiple Republican aides. But while top Trump officials like Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin back a “clean” debt increase, the president himself is mum on the latest strategy.
GOP leaders, wary of the the backlash from rank-and-file members who campaigned on reducing the debt, want Trump to publicly endorse the proposal to give them political cover.
“Districts like mine are extremely supportive of this president; if he wants a ‘clean' debt vote, and he’s vocal about it, the right play … would be to let him do the whipping for it and it would get done,” said Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a whip team member who personally prefers to cut spending as part of a debt limit hike.
Without Trump’s endorsement, the GOP could plunge into a month of intra-party battles that could rattle financial markets and threaten the economy. And absent relative GOP unity on a crucial fiscal deal, Republican leaders could be forced to beg for Democratic votes to avert catastrophe, a move that would invite criticism from the right.
“I don’t think anybody wants that of the leaders in the Senate and the House and the White House,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) when asked about a shutdown and debt default in an interview. “Surely we’ll be able to avoid that.”
When pressed by reporters late last month, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president supported a “clean” debt ceiling bill.
Trump’s most direct comments on the issue came when he tweaked McConnell and Ryan on Twitter for creating a debt ceiling ‘mess,’ but there are plenty of signals that the president is falling in line — especially after Hurricane Harvey. Paradoxically, the storm, leadership sources believe, could actually smooth the entire process, making September a little easier.
For one, the severity of the damage is convincing top White House officials — and, they’re praying, Trump himself — that now is not the time to pick a fight over the president’s proposed border wall with Mexico being funded in a must-pass spending bill. Trump has signaled to his staff that he’d prefer to have the border wall fight later this year, sources familiar with those conversations said.
That’s in part because Trump has a personal interest in Harvey recovery, visiting the region for the second time over the weekend, demanding quick action to rebuild Texas and Louisiana. Republicans are set to approve $7.9 billion in Harvey emergency package as early as this week. The debt limit must be raised by the end of the month and is likely to move in tandem with a spending bill, whether it's the initial Harvey relief bill or the larger spending bill due by the end of month.
No final decision has been made, and lawmakers may need to wait until the end of the month to lift the debt limit and fund the government past September while also delivering an additional infusion of hurricane aid. Republicans and Democrats have estimated the storm could require more than $100 billion from the federal government, likely delivered in tranches.
Between the aid to recover the Gulf Coast and kicking the debt ceiling past the 2018 mid-term elections, GOP leaders think that Trump will back down on the wall and that the dire situation in Texas could give them cover with conservatives who would otherwise rebel.
Yet some Texas Republicans and conservatives are already pushing back against a catch-all package that rolls Harvey aid with government funding and a debt bill avoids default.
“I don’t want any insular issue to be brought to bear on something that is this important,” said Rep. Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who worked on the Katrina relief effort in the Bush administration. “This ought to be as pure and isolated from all the other debates.”
September has an astounding number of challenges for Trump and GOP leaders to address: In addition to the hurricane, spending and debt issues, the Federal Aviation Administration, National Flood Insurance Program and Children's Health Insurance Program also all need to be extended past September.
Further drama appears inevitable. Trump is expected to announce on Tuesday that he will end the Obama-era program shielding some young immigrants from deportation, but will delay the termination by six months to give Congress time to act.
Besides adding another controversial agenda item to an already packed legislative calendar, House Republican leaders fear that if Trump ends DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Democrats will withhold votes on the debt ceiling in protest. And Republicans know they’ll need virtually every Democrat to back the debt ceiling bill or they won’t be able to pass it, since many Republicans won’t vote for it.
And in the Senate, McConnell must decide whether he will try to repeal Obamacare again this month, a move that would similarly alienate Democrats. The parliamentarian has ruled that the chamber has until the end of September to attempt another vote on repealing the law by a simple majority. The party is split over the matter, with some Republicans such as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) looking to move on to piecemeal efforts to improve the law.
Ryan, McConnell and House and Senate minority leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will meet with Trump on Wednesday to begin the high-stakes fall negotiations. Democrats say they are waiting for the Republican Party to chart a path forward, and are making few suggestions other than that they will deny Trump money for his border wall.
“Republicans have a choice to make. They can do what we did in April, keeping the White House’s unhelpful demands at arm’s length and working with us to navigate the to-do list, or they can throw their lot in with the president, which will make September much harder,” said a senior Democratic aide.
GOP leaders clearly prefer to show they are a governing party by minimizing the drama in September and moving on to tax reform. A shutdown or credit default is the last thing the reeling Republican Party needs after eight months with little to show legislatively for full control of Washington.
But working with Democrats on legislation addressing the debt limit and government funding that does not advance conservative priorities could invite major problems from the right, especially if Trump isn’t leading the fight to avoid fiscal disaster. Conservatives will spend September pushing for leaders to cut spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.
“You should make structural changes when you raise the debt rather than just continue on the path of the past 8 years,” said David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth. “I think you’d see Congress reject [a clean debt ceiling increase] unless Ryan and McConnell decide they want to govern with the Democrats, which they do with their own peril.”
But Republican leaders say that trying to craft bills that slash spending while a fiscal crisis looms could get too messy since they know they need at least eight Senate Democrats to get it to Trump’s desk. They are hoping that leaving so much of the year’s work for just four weeks in September will make everyone more cooperative -- and avoid tarring the GOP as the shutdown or default party.
“Deadlines help,” Blunt said hopefully.
Republican lawmakers say Trump’s endorsement of a ‘clean’ debt increase and no-drama funding deal would tamp down an intra-party fight.
By BURGESS EVERETT and RACHAEL BADE
Congressional Republicans, rudderless on an unpopular debt ceiling and government funding strategy, are looking to President Donald Trump to bail them out.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan are mulling a basic framework to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts and avert an Oct. 1 shutdown with a short-term spending bill, according to multiple Republican aides. But while top Trump officials like Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin back a “clean” debt increase, the president himself is mum on the latest strategy.
GOP leaders, wary of the the backlash from rank-and-file members who campaigned on reducing the debt, want Trump to publicly endorse the proposal to give them political cover.
“Districts like mine are extremely supportive of this president; if he wants a ‘clean' debt vote, and he’s vocal about it, the right play … would be to let him do the whipping for it and it would get done,” said Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a whip team member who personally prefers to cut spending as part of a debt limit hike.
Without Trump’s endorsement, the GOP could plunge into a month of intra-party battles that could rattle financial markets and threaten the economy. And absent relative GOP unity on a crucial fiscal deal, Republican leaders could be forced to beg for Democratic votes to avert catastrophe, a move that would invite criticism from the right.
“I don’t think anybody wants that of the leaders in the Senate and the House and the White House,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) when asked about a shutdown and debt default in an interview. “Surely we’ll be able to avoid that.”
When pressed by reporters late last month, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president supported a “clean” debt ceiling bill.
Trump’s most direct comments on the issue came when he tweaked McConnell and Ryan on Twitter for creating a debt ceiling ‘mess,’ but there are plenty of signals that the president is falling in line — especially after Hurricane Harvey. Paradoxically, the storm, leadership sources believe, could actually smooth the entire process, making September a little easier.
For one, the severity of the damage is convincing top White House officials — and, they’re praying, Trump himself — that now is not the time to pick a fight over the president’s proposed border wall with Mexico being funded in a must-pass spending bill. Trump has signaled to his staff that he’d prefer to have the border wall fight later this year, sources familiar with those conversations said.
That’s in part because Trump has a personal interest in Harvey recovery, visiting the region for the second time over the weekend, demanding quick action to rebuild Texas and Louisiana. Republicans are set to approve $7.9 billion in Harvey emergency package as early as this week. The debt limit must be raised by the end of the month and is likely to move in tandem with a spending bill, whether it's the initial Harvey relief bill or the larger spending bill due by the end of month.
No final decision has been made, and lawmakers may need to wait until the end of the month to lift the debt limit and fund the government past September while also delivering an additional infusion of hurricane aid. Republicans and Democrats have estimated the storm could require more than $100 billion from the federal government, likely delivered in tranches.
Between the aid to recover the Gulf Coast and kicking the debt ceiling past the 2018 mid-term elections, GOP leaders think that Trump will back down on the wall and that the dire situation in Texas could give them cover with conservatives who would otherwise rebel.
Yet some Texas Republicans and conservatives are already pushing back against a catch-all package that rolls Harvey aid with government funding and a debt bill avoids default.
“I don’t want any insular issue to be brought to bear on something that is this important,” said Rep. Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who worked on the Katrina relief effort in the Bush administration. “This ought to be as pure and isolated from all the other debates.”
September has an astounding number of challenges for Trump and GOP leaders to address: In addition to the hurricane, spending and debt issues, the Federal Aviation Administration, National Flood Insurance Program and Children's Health Insurance Program also all need to be extended past September.
Further drama appears inevitable. Trump is expected to announce on Tuesday that he will end the Obama-era program shielding some young immigrants from deportation, but will delay the termination by six months to give Congress time to act.
Besides adding another controversial agenda item to an already packed legislative calendar, House Republican leaders fear that if Trump ends DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Democrats will withhold votes on the debt ceiling in protest. And Republicans know they’ll need virtually every Democrat to back the debt ceiling bill or they won’t be able to pass it, since many Republicans won’t vote for it.
And in the Senate, McConnell must decide whether he will try to repeal Obamacare again this month, a move that would similarly alienate Democrats. The parliamentarian has ruled that the chamber has until the end of September to attempt another vote on repealing the law by a simple majority. The party is split over the matter, with some Republicans such as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) looking to move on to piecemeal efforts to improve the law.
Ryan, McConnell and House and Senate minority leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will meet with Trump on Wednesday to begin the high-stakes fall negotiations. Democrats say they are waiting for the Republican Party to chart a path forward, and are making few suggestions other than that they will deny Trump money for his border wall.
“Republicans have a choice to make. They can do what we did in April, keeping the White House’s unhelpful demands at arm’s length and working with us to navigate the to-do list, or they can throw their lot in with the president, which will make September much harder,” said a senior Democratic aide.
GOP leaders clearly prefer to show they are a governing party by minimizing the drama in September and moving on to tax reform. A shutdown or credit default is the last thing the reeling Republican Party needs after eight months with little to show legislatively for full control of Washington.
But working with Democrats on legislation addressing the debt limit and government funding that does not advance conservative priorities could invite major problems from the right, especially if Trump isn’t leading the fight to avoid fiscal disaster. Conservatives will spend September pushing for leaders to cut spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.
“You should make structural changes when you raise the debt rather than just continue on the path of the past 8 years,” said David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth. “I think you’d see Congress reject [a clean debt ceiling increase] unless Ryan and McConnell decide they want to govern with the Democrats, which they do with their own peril.”
But Republican leaders say that trying to craft bills that slash spending while a fiscal crisis looms could get too messy since they know they need at least eight Senate Democrats to get it to Trump’s desk. They are hoping that leaving so much of the year’s work for just four weeks in September will make everyone more cooperative -- and avoid tarring the GOP as the shutdown or default party.
“Deadlines help,” Blunt said hopefully.
Dreamers
Fight over Dreamers to test Bannon’s juice outside the White House
With Trump largely punting the DACA decision to Congress, Bannon is ready for combat with GOP leaders.
By ELIANA JOHNSON, JOSH DAWSEY and ANDREW RESTUCCIA
Before strategist Steve Bannon’s departure from the White House last month, aides to President Donald Trump quietly worried what kind of damage he would inflict from the outside. Some invoked President Lyndon Johnson, who infamously said he didn’t fire his FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover because “it’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out.”
The coming fight over the Obama-era immigration program protecting nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children — often referred to as Dreamers — will test that proposition. It's the latest battle pitting the president's conservative advisers against moderates in the White House and Congress — but the first in which Bannon is free to engage in open combat with fellow Republicans from the outside.
Trump has waffled on the issue for months, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to announce on Tuesday a plan to end the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA, program, but to give Congress six months to find a legislative solution.
The president is buying himself time on a difficult matter and has complained privately to friends and associates that he has few good options. He doesn't like ending the program for the “kids," but also chafes at hearing that "New York Democrats" are powering his administration, according to several people who have spoken to the president in recent days.
That tension could manifest itself in a conflict between his former chief strategist, and other Trump campaign supporters and Republican leaders — a fight that mirrors another immigration battle that played out four years ago.
Bannon, who has reclaimed his post at the helm of Breitbart News and believes the fight over immigration propelled Trump to the presidency, has told associates he’s prepared to take on both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over immigration this fall.
What’s less clear is what will happen if Congress fails to act during the six-month window, and the issue comes back to Trump, potentially putting the president and Bannon at odds on a core issue.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump promised to end DACA on the campaign trail but has demurred in office, saying as recently as Friday, “We think the Dreamers are terrific.” After months of seesawing, he remains reluctant to kill the program altogether – and people familiar with the president’s thinking say they expect the administration’s position, set to be formally announced by Sessions, to reflect that hesitancy by largely punting to lawmakers.
And a senior White House aide said that if Republican lawmakers fail to agree on a plan, he didn’t expect Trump to follow through on terminating DACA — a prospect that would test Bannon’s commitment to support his former boss from the outside.
Before Trump emerged as a political force in his own right, Bannon and Sessions worked to kill the 2013 Gang of Eight bill on immigration reform — a fight they believe set the stage for Trump’s meteoric rise in 2016.
Stephen Miller — then a senior Sessions aide and now the president’s chief domestic policy aide — wrote the Trump campaign’s immigration plan promising the termination of DACA, and has played a pivotal role inside the White House in pushing Trump to roll back the provision.
But ending the program, which grants two-year work permits to some undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors, would put the so-called Dreamers’ futures in the U.S. in jeopardy, a prospect that many on both the left and right view as unthinkable — and one that has given Trump himself pause in recent months.
The Tuesday announcement was forced by the legal threat dangled by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and nine of his AG colleagues who vowed to challenge DACA’s constitutionality in court if the federal government does not halt the issuance of work permits. Tennessee’s attorney general, however, has since announced that he won’t challenge the program in court.
But it was the counsel of Sessions, whom Trump was trashing publicly just six weeks ago, that ultimately convinced the president he had to act.
Both Sessions and Miller, who worked as a senior communications adviser to the former Alabama senator before joining the Trump campaign in January of 2016, have worked in tandem to persuade the president to upend DACA, framing the issue in terms he can relate to: victory versus defeat. They told Trump the administration was likely to lose if it defended DACA in court — and they suggested he’d look foolish if he did so, according to people familiar with the internal debate.
“I would be shocked if the Justice Department has not told Trump, ‘This executive order that we are litigating in Texas and that we have to stand up and take a position on is unconstitutional and we just don’t see how we can conscientiously defend it, even if you decide that’s what you want. We’ve got a constitutional handcuff here,” said a friend of Sessions’. “Jeff has been saying that back since he was a senator.”
Conservatives employed a similar strategy during the debate over the Paris climate deal. Though Trump was already inclined to pull out of the agreement, opponents of the deal including Bannon, members of the White House counsel's office, and Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, argued privately that remaining in the pact could result in a series of legal hurdles that could make it more difficult to undo Obama’s climate regulations.
Trump has faced intense pressure to preserve DACA from the moment he took office. During a meeting at the White House soon after the election, Obama made a direct pitch to Trump to help the Dreamers, arguing he’d pay a heavy political price if they were rounded up and deported. That conversation appeared to resonate with Trump and in public comments in the following months he repeatedly sympathized with the undocumented immigrants who benefited from DACA.
News of Trump’s plan to phase out DACA has raised the ire of some Republicans in Congress, including Ryan, who called on the president to give Congress a chance to come up with a legislative fix. The decision to delay DACA’s death for six months is seen as an olive branch to members of Congress who want to hammer out a compromise.
White House staff worry that the DACA fight could further complicate an already thorny legislative calendar filled with government funding and debt ceiling deadlines, and they’ve privately raised doubts that Congress can reach agreement on the issue.
In the House, senior Republicans still believe there’s a possible deal to be struck with Democrats: codifying DACA in return for Trump’s sought-after border wall.
With Trump largely punting the DACA decision to Congress, Bannon is ready for combat with GOP leaders.
By ELIANA JOHNSON, JOSH DAWSEY and ANDREW RESTUCCIA
Before strategist Steve Bannon’s departure from the White House last month, aides to President Donald Trump quietly worried what kind of damage he would inflict from the outside. Some invoked President Lyndon Johnson, who infamously said he didn’t fire his FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover because “it’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out.”
The coming fight over the Obama-era immigration program protecting nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children — often referred to as Dreamers — will test that proposition. It's the latest battle pitting the president's conservative advisers against moderates in the White House and Congress — but the first in which Bannon is free to engage in open combat with fellow Republicans from the outside.
Trump has waffled on the issue for months, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to announce on Tuesday a plan to end the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA, program, but to give Congress six months to find a legislative solution.
The president is buying himself time on a difficult matter and has complained privately to friends and associates that he has few good options. He doesn't like ending the program for the “kids," but also chafes at hearing that "New York Democrats" are powering his administration, according to several people who have spoken to the president in recent days.
That tension could manifest itself in a conflict between his former chief strategist, and other Trump campaign supporters and Republican leaders — a fight that mirrors another immigration battle that played out four years ago.
Bannon, who has reclaimed his post at the helm of Breitbart News and believes the fight over immigration propelled Trump to the presidency, has told associates he’s prepared to take on both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over immigration this fall.
What’s less clear is what will happen if Congress fails to act during the six-month window, and the issue comes back to Trump, potentially putting the president and Bannon at odds on a core issue.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump promised to end DACA on the campaign trail but has demurred in office, saying as recently as Friday, “We think the Dreamers are terrific.” After months of seesawing, he remains reluctant to kill the program altogether – and people familiar with the president’s thinking say they expect the administration’s position, set to be formally announced by Sessions, to reflect that hesitancy by largely punting to lawmakers.
And a senior White House aide said that if Republican lawmakers fail to agree on a plan, he didn’t expect Trump to follow through on terminating DACA — a prospect that would test Bannon’s commitment to support his former boss from the outside.
Before Trump emerged as a political force in his own right, Bannon and Sessions worked to kill the 2013 Gang of Eight bill on immigration reform — a fight they believe set the stage for Trump’s meteoric rise in 2016.
Stephen Miller — then a senior Sessions aide and now the president’s chief domestic policy aide — wrote the Trump campaign’s immigration plan promising the termination of DACA, and has played a pivotal role inside the White House in pushing Trump to roll back the provision.
But ending the program, which grants two-year work permits to some undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors, would put the so-called Dreamers’ futures in the U.S. in jeopardy, a prospect that many on both the left and right view as unthinkable — and one that has given Trump himself pause in recent months.
The Tuesday announcement was forced by the legal threat dangled by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and nine of his AG colleagues who vowed to challenge DACA’s constitutionality in court if the federal government does not halt the issuance of work permits. Tennessee’s attorney general, however, has since announced that he won’t challenge the program in court.
But it was the counsel of Sessions, whom Trump was trashing publicly just six weeks ago, that ultimately convinced the president he had to act.
Both Sessions and Miller, who worked as a senior communications adviser to the former Alabama senator before joining the Trump campaign in January of 2016, have worked in tandem to persuade the president to upend DACA, framing the issue in terms he can relate to: victory versus defeat. They told Trump the administration was likely to lose if it defended DACA in court — and they suggested he’d look foolish if he did so, according to people familiar with the internal debate.
“I would be shocked if the Justice Department has not told Trump, ‘This executive order that we are litigating in Texas and that we have to stand up and take a position on is unconstitutional and we just don’t see how we can conscientiously defend it, even if you decide that’s what you want. We’ve got a constitutional handcuff here,” said a friend of Sessions’. “Jeff has been saying that back since he was a senator.”
Conservatives employed a similar strategy during the debate over the Paris climate deal. Though Trump was already inclined to pull out of the agreement, opponents of the deal including Bannon, members of the White House counsel's office, and Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, argued privately that remaining in the pact could result in a series of legal hurdles that could make it more difficult to undo Obama’s climate regulations.
Trump has faced intense pressure to preserve DACA from the moment he took office. During a meeting at the White House soon after the election, Obama made a direct pitch to Trump to help the Dreamers, arguing he’d pay a heavy political price if they were rounded up and deported. That conversation appeared to resonate with Trump and in public comments in the following months he repeatedly sympathized with the undocumented immigrants who benefited from DACA.
News of Trump’s plan to phase out DACA has raised the ire of some Republicans in Congress, including Ryan, who called on the president to give Congress a chance to come up with a legislative fix. The decision to delay DACA’s death for six months is seen as an olive branch to members of Congress who want to hammer out a compromise.
White House staff worry that the DACA fight could further complicate an already thorny legislative calendar filled with government funding and debt ceiling deadlines, and they’ve privately raised doubts that Congress can reach agreement on the issue.
In the House, senior Republicans still believe there’s a possible deal to be struck with Democrats: codifying DACA in return for Trump’s sought-after border wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)