Last night, white nationalists descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, where the University of Virginia is located. Many carried nazi or confederate flags, along with other symbols of white supremacy. Charlottesville has turned into somewhat of a powder keg after plans to remove a confederate statute from a nearby park sparked protests. Today, a car drove straight into a crowd of Black Lives Matter counter-protesters, killing at least one and injuring others. In response to the violence brought by the protesters, Governor Terry McAuliffe has declared a state of emergency in Virginia.

Scenes from the events last night and today have reverberated on social media, with many calling it out for what it is: blatant white supremacy and domestic terrorism.

Emblematic indeed#Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/qTvTB3BpSa

— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) August 12, 2017

My full statement on the horrifying white supremacist demonstrations and violence in Charlottesville: pic.twitter.com/IFXmqFLv4i

— Senator Tim Kaine (@timkaine) August 12, 2017

Regardless of who this evildoer is… this is terrorism. #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/8eOWpJKp5R

— Ammar Campa-Najjar (@ACampaNajjar) August 12, 2017

Mr. President – we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism. https://t.co/PaPNiPPAoW

— Cory Gardner (@SenCoryGardner) August 12, 2017

Of course, all eyes were on one particular individual’s reaction. President Donald Trump gave a short statement on Saturday afternoon, saying that “we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” But as many pointed out, there aren’t that many sides to this debate: there are violent white supremacists and then there are peaceful counter-protesters.

No, Mr. President, not “many sides.” There is one side with nazi flags and nazi salutes. America is not on that side. https://t.co/sDpFC9buIz

— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) August 12, 2017

MANY SIDES?!? Ive typed and deleted at least 8 tweets. Words simply arent strong enough to accurately describe how I feel about Donald Trump

— Chris Evans (@ChrisEvans) August 12, 2017

The violence, chaos, and apparent loss of life in Charlottesville is not the fault of “many sides.” It is racists and white supremacists.

— Mark Herring (@MarkHerringVA) August 12, 2017

To be frank, no one expected Trump to have a particularly strong response. Trump had a track record of refusing to condemn white nationalists or violence at his campaign events. But, as the president of the United States, he needs to be doing better. As scenes continue to unfold in Charlottesville, the blatant white supremacy on display needs to be condemned in the harshest of possible terms.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State of Emergency Declared in Charlottesville appeared first on Law Street.

If for whatever reason you have been lucky enough to avoid the news over the past few days, then let me be the first to welcome you to the “fear of an imminent nuclear war”-phase of Trump’s presidency.

President Donald Trump warned North Korea on Tuesday against making any more threats against the United States and announced his own threat of “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” This came in response to a report in the Washington Post that said the country is now capable of creating missile-ready nuclear weapons, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment.

While he did use rather apocalyptic terms, Trump’s threat is not anything new. In fact, threats against North Korea are almost a presidential tradition. In keeping with the tradition, the country decided to call the president’s bluff within hours of his statement. Pyongyang announced on Wednesday that it is “carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam.”

The Trump Administration issued its latest threat from the president’s Twitter account that said, “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!”

But playing with Guam’s fate is not unusual for the United States. The United States’ historic treatment of Guam–and the fact that many people searched Google for Guam for the first time after this story broke–shows that the government does not really appear to care what happens to the island territory or its people.

What is Guam?

Guam is a U.S. island territory located in the Pacific Ocean–about three-quarters of the way from Hawaii to the Philippines. The U.S. seized the island from Spain in 1898 to provide a fueling station for the U.S. fleet in the western Pacific and has been used as a base for military operations since. Navy and Air Force bases make up approximately 27 percent of the island’s mass.

Guam as it stands governs itself but its foreign policy–like who it trades with and goes to war with–is determined by the federal government, and its citizens pay many–if not, all–of the same taxes that Americans pay. However, they can’t officially vote in the presidential election–despite having a high voter turnout in a straw poll the territory’s government holds–and they don’t have a voting representative in Congress. If any of those traits sound oddly familiar, it’s because they’re very similar to what the 13 original colonies went through before the Revolutionary War. Remember colonialism, that thing we fought England over because we hated it so much? Turns out we have our own version!

That’s an over-exaggeration. Surely Guam’s status as a military hub means something?

The truth is it really doesn’t. According to Guam’s office of veteran affairs, at least one in eight adult Guamanians is a veteran–one of the highest rates in the country. This speaks volumes about their dedication to the country’s armed forces considering they don’t get a vote in choosing a commander-in-chief. The territory also ranked dead last in medical care spending per veteran in 2012. In many cases, the closest veteran care facilities are in Hawaii–just over 3,000 miles away.

Also the colonial comparison is not far-fetched. Just three years after Guam was taken from Spain and cemented as a U.S. territory–not a great start–the Supreme Court wrote a series of opinions. They became known as the Insular Cases and were focused on the territories gained after the Spanish-American War. They decided that even though the territories–Guam included–belonged to the United States, all the laws and rights of the U.S. did not apply because they were inhabited by “alien races” who wouldn’t be able to understand “Anglo-Saxon principles” and laws. In fact, the decisions were authored by the same justice who wrote Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ok that’s not great. But is cynicism the only thing you have to offer?

No. The most important fact about Guam is that it is home to 163,000 American citizens. While the reality of whether or not North Korea could actually pose a threat to the U.S. is debated on the mainland, concern for an attack is apparently growing on the island according to Mayor Paul McDonald.

“Especially with our elders who have experienced the Second World War, when the Japanese force came and invaded Guam — you know, my mom, she’s 91 years old and I was over at the office all day today,” McDonald said to NPR. “She’d call me every 10 minutes to update her. We are really taking it seriously, a lot of the people in Guam.”

Even citizens who have been ignoring threats for years are suddenly feeling a little bit concerned about how the tone in Washington has changed. One example is Todd Thompson, a lawyer who lives on Guam, who said he laughed off past threats because he “figured cooler heads in Washington would prevail, and it was just an idle threat.”

“But I have to say, I’m not laughing now,” Thompson said to the Associated Press. “My concern is that things have changed in Washington, and who knows what’s going to happen?”

When you combine the long history of mistreatment the territory has received from the federal government and the ego-stroking threats the president feels almost compelled to make toward an unstable leader, it’s hard not to be worried.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guam: From Historical Mistreatment to North Korean Threats appeared first on Law Street.

As part of the Treaty on Open Skies, an international program aimed at transparency between allies, a Russian plane scanned much of Washington D.C., including the White House, Capitol, and Pentagon, yesterday, alongside American representatives.

The Treaty on Open Skies is an agreement signed in 1992 between 34 nations that allows them to go on unarmed flights in secure air territory with a representative from the nation they are observing. Countries party to the agreement include Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other smaller nations, according to the U.S. State Department. While Russia and the United States have a quota of 42 for observation flights, the smallest nations are only allowed a few opportunities.

The Capitol Police kept tabs on the Russian plane and U.S. military airmen were onboard with the Russians to make sure everything was okay, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier on Wednesday morning the Capitol Police released an alert that an “authorized low-altitude aircraft” would be flying in restricted airspace between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and would potentially fly directly above government buildings. The airspace around Washington D.C. and its suburbs is the most restricted region in the country, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plan for the Russian plane was to take a tour of various Trump properties including his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNN. Trump is currently on vacation at the course for 17 days and had been there for 11 days before this trip began on Monday, according to TrumpGolfCount.com.

While the ride was certainly legal, some felt that Russia may be taking advantage of the treaty. Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been voicing concerns for over a year now. Last year Stewart met with the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee and said he would “love” to potentially deny future Russian expeditions in American airspace, according to the Washington Post.

“The things that you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing, allows Russia, in my opinion, to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities,” Stewart said in March 2016. “So from my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage.”

Despite those concerns, the Trump Administration has continued to be reluctant to be stern with Russia in either rhetoric or actions.

Navy Captain Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of the program in response to Stewart’s comments. Despite the increased American anxiety regarding diplomatic ties with Russia, Davis sees no legitimate reason to renege on a 25-year-old treaty.

“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Plane Surveys Washington as Part of Open Skies Treaty appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday in favor of one more search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta ordered the State Department to search its servers for emails related to the 2012 Benghazi attack. In particular, they are tasked with looking for anything Clinton sent to aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, or Jake Sullivan at their state.gov addresses.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as secretary of state,” Judge Mehta noted in his ruling. “[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”

The ruling comes after the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit calling for a renewed search. The group argued that the State Department had only searched outside sources, such as Clinton’s private server.

Lawyers for the department countered that an additional search is unlikely to turn up anything else. In addition, it would set a poor precedent for any future requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judge Mehta responded that “this matter is a far cry from a typical FOIA case” and that the email scandal was “a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future.”

He then ordered the department to give him a status report by September 22.

Previously, Clinton and her three aides surrendered more than 30,000 emails to the agency in 2014. The investigation found 348 emails relating to Benghazi sent to or from the then-Secretary of State.

Any emails she deleted off her private server, however, may not have a backup and are likely gone forever.

In contrast, as a government agency, the State Department would have server backups in place. Department officials, though, have admitted that there was no automated archiving system in place during Clinton’s tenure.

The State Department did not comment on the ruling. Tom Fitton, president of the Judicial Watch, said in a statement, “This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal–and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it–as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary.”

Clinton cites the “emailgate“controversy and then-FBI director James Comey’s subsequent investigation as major reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders New Search for Clinton Emails appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed Robert “Woody” Johnson IV, the 70-year-old owner of the New York Jets, as ambassador to the United Kingdom. Now, Johnson will move to London and serve a three-year term as the United States’ main representative in a country struggling to navigate the complex negotiations related to Brexit.

Johnson’s friendship with President Donald Trump goes back to their times as businessmen in New York City. Trump considers Johnson one of his oldest friends, according to the New York Times. Johnson is a registered Republican who helped fundraise in 2012 for Mitt Romney and again in 2016 for Trump, despite initially supporting Jeb Bush.

Many expect the Jets owner to be a mediator between Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who Trump has repeatedly criticized, most notoriously after the June terrorist attack in London.

Trump had long wanted Johnson to serve as the ambassador to London, but he didn’t formally nominate him until June. Since then, the Senate has been holding hearings before his confirmation on Thursday. During one hearing last month, Florida Senator Marco Rubio brought some football into the conversation.

.@MiamiDolphins fan @marcorubio jokes to @nyjets owner Woody Johnson that Tom Brady should be made ambassador to Brazil #Patriots #WBZ pic.twitter.com/AMWQ2873hp

— Joe Giza (@JoeGiza) July 21, 2017

Before purchasing the football team in 2000 for $635 million, Johnson and his family were involved in a number of charities for lupus and juvenile diabetes, which his daughter Casey is affected by. While some NFL owners are self-made businessmen, Johnson is the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, a company worth $65 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Johnson himself is valued at $4.2 billion, according to Bloomberg, while the Jets’ estimated value is around $2.7 billion, according to Forbes.

Woody’s brother, Christopher Johnson, will take over operations of the Jets for the next few seasons. The confirmation of the Jets owner is another example of Trump’s penchant for placing businessmen with no political experience in positions of political power. Now it’s time for Johnson to move across the Atlantic Ocean and begin his work with the English government.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Jets Owner Woody Johnson Confirmed as Ambassador to UK appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election meddling and its potential ties to the Trump campaign, impaneled a grand jury. Twitter exploded. The casual observer quickly became a legal expert; it’s only a matter of time before President Donald Trump is indicted and impeached, many concluded. Not necessarily. So what exactly is a grand jury? And what does Mueller’s move portend for Trump’s fortunes?

Grand Jury v. Trial Jury

A grand jury is distinct from a trial jury in a number of ways. For one, a grand jury consists of more jurors than a trial jury, comprised of anywhere between 16 to 23 jurors. The primary function of a grand jury is to issue a preliminary decision on whether or not a prosecutor should indict a defendant. The road to making that decision is a long one: grand jury investigations can last months or even years.

In conducting an investigation, a grand jury has the power to subpoena documents and witnesses. According to Solomon Wisenberg, a white collar criminal defense attorney, grand juries have a broad mandate when subpoenaing witnesses. He said: “Federal grand jury subpoenas are almost never quashed on grounds that they call for irrelevant information or go beyond the grand jury’s authority.”

Grand jury investigations are private affairs. The defense is not present, nor are there any cross examinations. In fact, lawyers are not even allowed to be present during a grand jury’s deliberations.

What Does This Mean for Trump?

It is too early to tell if Mueller’s decision to form a grand jury will lead to an indictment of Trump or any of his campaign associates. In order for the grand jury to determine Trump’s actions warrant criminal charges, they will have to determine probable cause exists. Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury essentially means that the investigation is entering a new, potentially lengthy stage that may or may not lead to an indictment.

Mueller took charge of the probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. The investigation then fell to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mueller as the special counsel. Trump’s campaign and its potential ties to the Kremlin are also under investigation by the Senate and House.

According to people familiar with Mueller’s inquiry, he is moving beyond Trump’s involvement with Russia’s election meddling, and into Trump’s finances and real estate dealings. Because of their wide scope, grand jury investigations can take prosecutors down roads previously unseen–roads that can sometimes lead to an indictment.

Bill Clinton’s Impeachment

In 1998, Bill Clinton became the first president to testify as the subject of a grand jury investigation. His testimony, which lasted for four hours, was the coda to independent counselor Kenneth Starr’s investigation into the Whitewater scandal. But while Starr’s four-year investigation began with examining real estate deals in Arkansas, it ended with him examining Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton lied under oath, and continued to lie in his grand jury testimony, according to Starr. Clinton has denied that he ever misstated facts–he has said his answers were all “legally accurate.” Starr disagreed, and eventually indicted Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House voted to impeach Clinton in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him after a five-week trial.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Mueller Grand Jury appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department sent letters to a handful of so-called “sanctuary cities” on Thursday, denying them crime-fighting resources until they increase compliance with federal immigration authorities. The letters were in response to requests to take part in the DOJ’s Public Safety Partnerships (PSP) initiative, which would provide additional federal resources to jurisdictions with higher than average crime rates.

The letters, sent to the police chiefs of Baltimore, Albuquerque, and Stockton and San Bernardino in California, said:

Your jurisdiction has expressed interest in receiving assistance through the PSP program. Based on our review, we have concluded that your jurisdiction has levels of violence that exceed the national average, that your jurisdiction is ready to receive the intensive assistance the Department is prepared to provide, and that your jurisdiction is taking steps to reduce its violent crime.

But those four jurisdictions are all sanctuary cities, meaning their officers do not fully cooperate with federal authorities to enforce national immigration laws. So before those cities can participate in the PSP program, they must give federal authorities access to jails. They also must “honor a written request from [Department of Homeland Security] to hold a foreign national for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release date,” according to the letters. The cities must show proof of compliance by August 18.

The letters mark the second time in a week that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. Last week, he said cities must comply with federal authorities seeking detainees held on immigration violations–or else they would not receive federal grants. But federal judges have recently ruled that withholding grants from cities that limit compliance on immigration matters is illegal.

Announced in June, the PSP is a “training and technical assistance program designed to enhance the capacity of local jurisdictions to address violent crime in their communities,” according to a statement from Sessions that accompanied the letters. Twelve locations have been selected for the program so far.

Sessions, in a statement on Thursday, said sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.” He added: “The Department of Justice is committed to supporting our law enforcement at every level, and that’s why we’re asking ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions to stop making their jobs harder.”

Of the requests to the sanctuary cities looking to take part in the PSP initiative, Sessions said: “By taking simple, common-sense considerations into account, we are encouraging every jurisdiction in this country to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Denies More Crime-Fighting Resources for Four Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate unanimously passed a $3 billion expansion to the G.I. Bill on Wednesday, paving the way for veterans to pursue STEM careers while bolstering existing benefits. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the measure, which the House passed last week, also in a unanimous vote. The original G.I. Bill was created after World War II, allowing returning veterans to receive an education in return for their service.

Named after Harry Walter Colmery, a veteran who drafted the original 1944 bill, the expanded benefits “will further invest in the proven educational success of our veterans and help propel them toward becoming the civic, business and public leaders of our country,” according to the text.

The measure expands financial assistance and other benefits for Purple Heart recipients, families of soldiers killed on the battlefield, and veterans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, also known as STEM fields. It also repeals the 15-year benefits limit.

“When new industries emerge and we rely on American workers to fill those jobs, it shouldn’t matter if a veteran is five, 15, or 30 years out of the service,” Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Phil Roe (R-TN) wrote in an op-ed after the House passed the measure. “If you haven’t used your benefits yet, you should be able to get an education at any point in your life,” McCarthy and Roe, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, wrote.

After a brief disagreement on how the expanded benefits would be funded, Congress settled on a solution: reduce the increase in housing benefits for new beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure, which will cost $3 billion over a decade, will ultimately be cost neutral.

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, called the bill a “great victory for out veterans and their future.” He added: “When our veterans return home, they should have every opportunity available to them to pursue their desired profession and career.”

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the measure “will help our nation’s service members transition back to civilian life by opening doors for their future success.”

Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin also expressed support for the measure, also known as the Forever G.I. Bill:

The #ForeverGIBill strengthens an important #Veterans benefit. I thank the House and Senate for making this bill a priority.

— Dr. David J. Shulkin (@SecShulkin) August 2, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New G.I. Bill Benefits Focus on STEM Careers appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

In a report issued on Monday, a commission created to combat drug addiction recommended that President Donald Trump declare the opioid crisis a national emergency. The Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, formed via an executive order Trump signed in March, is chaired by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and is co-chaired by a bipartisan group of governors and health professionals.

In its interim report–a final review is due in October–the commission said its “first and most urgent recommendation” is for Trump to deem the crisis a state of emergency. The report continued:

Your declaration would empower your cabinet to take bold steps and would force Congress to focus on funding and empowering the Executive Branch even further to deal with this loss of life. It would also awaken every American to this simple fact: if this scourge has not found you or your family yet, without bold action by everyone, it soon will.

More Americans die from drug overdoses than from car accidents or gun violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 142 Americans die each day from a drug overdose; 91 die from an opioid overdose. In 2015, opioids like Percocet, Oxycontin, heroin, and fentanyl were responsible for nearly two-thirds of all drug overdose deaths. The trend is on the rise: Since 1999, according to the CDC, the number of overdose deaths linked to opioids has quadrupled.

The commission–which includes Republican Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Democratic Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina–recommended a number of other reforms. It asked Trump to waive the barriers that keep patients at addiction treatment facilities from qualifying for Medicaid services. The commission wrote: “This will immediately open treatment to thousands of Americans in existing facilities in all 50 states.”

Regardless of what the Trump Administration decides to do, states are beginning to tackle the opioid epidemic on their own. Earlier this year, the governors of Arizona, Florida, Virginia, and Maryland declared a state of emergency for the epidemic. But if the federal government declared the opioid crisis a state of emergency, would that make a tangible difference?

“It’s really about drawing attention to the issue and pushing for all hands on deck,” Michael Fraser, the executive director of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told the New York Times. “It would allow a level of attention and coordination that the federal agencies might not otherwise have, but in terms of day-to-day lifesaving, I don’t think it would make much difference.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should the Trump Administration Declare the Opioid Crisis a National Emergency? appeared first on Law Street.

Back in December, Law Street Media explained who then-Secretary of Homeland Security nominee John Kelly was. Only a few months after the inauguration, Kelly has since shifted jobs and replaced Reince Priebus as the chief of staff under President Donald Trump.

Kelly wasted no time making moves on his first day in office, firing Anthony Scaramucci from his communications director post after only 10 days on the job. He was reportedly outraged by Scaramucci’s profanity-laced interview with the New Yorker and found it embarrassing for the president, according to the Washington Post.

The ousting signaled that Trump may be willing to give more power to Kelly than Priebus had during his entire six-month stint in the White House.

“General Kelly has the full authority to operate within the White House, and all staff will report to him,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Trump’s chief of staff change is yet another example of him doing the same thing he had previously criticized Obama for doing. While Obama had three chiefs of staff during his eight years, Trump is already on his second in just six months.

3 Chief of Staffs in less than 3 years of being President: Part of the reason why @BarackObama can’t manage to pass his agenda.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2012

Kelly is known in the political world for his no-nonsense approach to leadership. The former 45-year military veteran from Boston served in the previous administration as the head of the U.S. Southern Command, a unit that focuses on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

His new appointment comes as the White House shifts to push Trump’s stagnant agenda, specifically in regards to taxes. The president wants Kelly and other administration officials to help focus lawmakers and citizens on passing tax cuts, which was a key part of his domestic agenda while on the campaign.

According to reports from inside the White House, people are already responding well to Kelly in his new role.

“He’s an adult and a disciplinarian,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser, to the Washington Post. “He walks in with respect. I don’t think people will go to war with him.”

During his brief stint leading Homeland Security, Kelly pursued a couple of projects, including Trump’s much discussed border wall with Mexico. Kelly called the proposed wall “essential” and vowed that construction on it would begin “by the end of summer,” though that doesn’t seem to be happening. He also stressed concerns over potential terrorist attacks on transportation, and said that if people knew the truth they would “never leave the house.”

While his position atop the Department of Homeland Security was relatively calm, Kelly is now entering a new, chaotic environment inside the West Wing. With weekly firings, constant leaks to the press, and conflicting statements from officials, Kelly will have his hands full balancing Trump, his aides, and other leaders. As a seasoned veteran, Kelly has experience leading groups, but wrangling this group of Washington outsiders–many of whom have unstable temperaments–will be a whole new challenge.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Kelly: From General to DHS to the White House appeared first on Law Street.

More women than men are paying increased attention to politics after Donald Trump’s election, according to new data about political attentiveness.

Nine months after an election largely defined by its historic gender gap, survey data from the Pew Research Center shows that 58 percent of women say they are “paying increased attention to politics since Trump’s election,” compared with only 46 percent of men.

Overall, 52 percent of the population said they are paying more attention, while 33 percent say they are paying about the same amount of attention, and 13 percent admitted to being less attentive.

“There are similarly wide gender gaps in heightened interest to politics among members of both parties,” according to the Pew. “Sixty-three percent of Democratic women say they are more attentive to politics, compared with 51 percent of Democratic men. Among Republicans, 54 percent of women and 43 percent of men say the same.”

Pew conducted the survey between June 27 and July 9, speaking with 2,505 adults in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The Gender Gap

Women paying more attention to politics has translated into on-the-ground political activism, according to the data. Seventeen percent of women say they have attended a political rally, event, or protest; 12 percent of men say the same.

It’s likely that a large number of these women were among the estimated 5 million who came out for women’s marches that swept the nation after Inauguration Day.

Education level also appeared to make a difference–the subgroup of the population most likely to have attended a protest is women with post-graduate degrees, with 43 percent having participated.

Out of the total 15 percent of the population who have attended such events, the vast majority (67 percent) did so “in opposition to Trump or his policies,” compared  to the mere 11 percent of those who said they’ve attended a political event in support of the president.

Trump Talk Ending Friendships

The majority of Americans (59 percent) find talking politics with someone who has differing opinions than them on the president to be a “stressful and frustrating” experience. Only 35 percent of the population says it is “interesting and informative” to engage in such conversations.

Women tend to be more frustrated with these conversations–64 percent say they are stressful, compared to 54 percent of men sharing that view.

Going beyond just conversations, about one-in-five survey respondents said that knowing a friend voted for Trump would put a strain on their friendship. However, only 7 percent said that knowing a friend had voted for Hillary Clinton would negatively affect their friendship.

The numbers are even more stark when looking at a breakdown by political affiliation and ideology. Thirty-five percent of Democrats said a friend’s Trump vote would put a strain on the friendship, while only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about a friend #withher. For the Democrats who consider themselves to be liberal, rather than moderate or conservative, 47 percent said their friendships would be strained by a vote for Trump.

A Country Not So Divided

Looking past politics, most Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) said that members of the opposing party probably share their other values and goals.

The ideological group most likely to feel this way is moderate and liberal Republicans, 73 percent of whom said Democrats likely shared their non-political goals and values. These survey questions were only asked of partisan-identifying respondents, not those who said they leaned toward one party.

Click here for the full survey report and methodology explanation from Pew Research Center.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Are Paying More Attention to Politics in Post-Trump World appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that transgender people will no longer be allowed “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” would become a burden and distract armed services from “decisive and overwhelming victory.”

The announcement will reverse the Pentagon’s 2016 decision to lift the long-standing ban that had prevented transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. It also falls in line with other measures and decisions the administration has made concerning the transgender community, including removing the LGBT rights page from the White House’s official site, rescinding a rule that allowed transgender students to use their preferred bathroom in public schools, and dropping the federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s “bathroom bill.”

Given that track record, it makes sense that Trump decided to discuss the decision with unnamed “Generals and military experts,” rather than with the Pentagon–which has commissioned studies that identify almost no downside to lifting the transgender ban. In fact, the Department of Defense was so out of the loop in the recent decision that reporters who asked Pentagon officials about Trump’s tweets were told to call the White House instead.

This is an obvious leap backward for the rights of transgender people in the United States. The ban will only enhance the existing problems that this country has when dealing with gender identity and the military.

A Financially Dubious Decision

In 2016, the Rand Corporation published a report titled “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly,” which the Department of Defense commissioned. The report concluded that annual active-component health care costs would increase by anywhere from $2.4 million to $8.4 million–yielding a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in health care expenditures. In total, those costs would amount to about a thousandth of a percent of the military’s annual budget. Some have said that their biggest concern is the use of taxpayer funding for expensive gender reassignment surgeries, which may not allow transgender soldiers to fight on the front lines. But according to the Rand report, “less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.” The report’s authors recommended developing an explicit written policy on for the gender transition process to avoid any disruptions to service member and unit readiness.

Even if you choose to ignore the percent increase in costs and only focus on the total cost of military health care, it’s worth noting that U.S. military spending is high relative to the rest of the world. The United States spends more money on its military than the following eight countries with the highest defense spending combined–an approximate $611 billion–and the House recently passed a bill that would increase military spending by nearly $30 billion next year. The military spends about $50 billion on health care, which includes a few interesting expenses. For example, a Washington Post analysis found the military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care. But some in the House were still looking to remove gender reassignment surgery coverage from the military budget nonetheless, although that effort failed. In a way, proponents of such a change got what they were looking for and continued their crusade against denying health care to Americans.

Significant Consequences

Prior to the Pentagon’s 2016 decision, military service members who revealed their transgender identity could be kicked out or denied reenlistment solely on that basis. This meant they would be denied the benefits previously provided for them by the military, including health care and severance pay, due to being considered “unfit to serve.” Trump’s announcement leaves much to the imagination as to what will happen to anywhere from 1,300 to over 15,000 transgender service members currently enlisted, but a return to the old discharge format seems likely.

Current statistics show that 16 percent of transgender and gender nonconforming people have lost their jobs due to their gender identity–according to a 2015 survey of over 27,000 transgender people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). But Trump still wants to strip the military of its status as the largest employer of transgender workers in the United States for “cost effectiveness.” It is also worth noting that this would cut necessary income and health care from a group that faces significant challenges. According to the same NCTE survey, transgender and gender nonconforming people have an unemployment rate that is three times that of the national average, report having experienced psychological distress in the last month at a rate that is 34 percentage points higher than the U.S. population, and one-third say they have been homeless at some point in their life.

America’s Relationship With its Military

There are two prongs to this topic. The first looks at the general issue of trans-erasure. The cynic will argue that it’s a good thing that transgender people no longer have to participate in a “murderous imperial institution.” But that’s not the only way to look at this issue. The act of excluding a group of people from public institutions–particularly those that are (excessively) associated with social responsibility like the military–devalues that group of people in society because of that lack of exposure and erases their importance. Eventually, the perception will grow that the transgender community is full of people who don’t serve their country, and only take from it instead of giving back. This, of course, would be a stark contrast to our wonderful president–who dodged the draft a total of five times, once arguing he couldn’t serve in the U.S. military because of bone spurs in his heels.

Regardless, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed their concerns with Trump’s decision because many understand that–at its core–the ban is more focused on discriminating against transgender people than cutting costs. A bipartisan stand against discrimination is hard to have a problem with, but I’m going to try anyway. Unfortunately, this bipartisan position comes from the country’s obsession with the military and all of the glory that comes with it, and that’s the second prong.

Whether politicians want to admit it or not, there are transgender people who live in their states and districts. There is a responsibility to show that the lives their constituents–especially those in underrepresented groups–matter to them.

But, unfortunately, they don’t in this country. Trans women face a 4.3 times higher risk of being murdered compared to cis women in the U.S., and at least 87 percent of the trans people murdered between 2013 to 2015 were people of color, according to a study done by the Human Rights Campaign. According to the NCTE, 40 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide at one point in their life. So for a brief moment on Wednesday, it was a nice change of pace to see Democrats and Republicans come forward against the ban and in support of the lives of transgender people. So what changed?

It’s simple. It took challenging transgender Americans’ ability to serve in the military for many politicians to finally stand up for their rights. For many members of Congress, this is the first time they made that kind of statement, which meant that trans rights only began to matter when trans people could no longer die for their country. The transgender community deserves better than that.

The lives of underrepresented, and outright oppressed, citizens should not depend on whether or not they are willing to fight for their country, especially when that country does nothing to fight for them. The optimist will hope that this opens the door for more trans support from politicians, but unless it can score them political points, that probably won’t happen.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problems with Trump’s Trans Military Announcement appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has continued to establish a precedent that loyalty to his administration will be rewarded, and anything else will be met with a harsh response on social media. Both of Alaska’s senators were recently on the receiving end of that ire.

Trump decided to publicly and privately express his displeasure with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski for her “no” vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. Early Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to specifically call out Murkowski for her decision.

Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But Trump’s team did not leave it at that. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan yesterday to warn them that opposing the bill could lead to repercussions for Alaskans, according to Alaska Dispatch News. Sullivan told the Alaskan publication that the message was “troubling.”

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs, and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

Some of the key regulatory issues that have been priorities for Murkowski and Sullivan include nominations of Alaskans to Department of Interior posts, an effort to build a road out of King Cove through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, future opportunities to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanding drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. All of these could hypothetically be in jeopardy.

However, as is the case with many of the decisions this administration has made, it appears that this may have been a poorly thought out move. First off, Trump has decided to hit back at a senator who is quite popular with Alaskans. In 2010, Murkowski became the first senator in over 50 years to win an election with a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. The campaign gave out temporary tattoos to voters so they could remember how to spell her name on the ballot.

Murkowski is the chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, which is tasked with confirming any nominees to the Department of the Interior that Secretary Zinke may put forward. She also helps control the money that goes into the department as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee. It’s been theorized that Murkowski may be hitting back against Zinke. A hearing to confirm a series of nominees to the Interior has already been delayed, according to NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Kasie Hunt.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Trump Administration’s threat is its inadvertent support for the environment. The road through King Cove is supposed to cut through a wildlife refuge. The plans for oil expansion include drilling in protected lands. So, Zinke could end up continuing the Obama Administration’s tradition of prioritizing environmental protection over exploiting federal lands.

Murkowski might still be paying attention to these threats. Oil is one of the largest contributors to Alaska’s economy so any damage to that would be severely damaging to the jobs of her constituents. But it seems that the senator is confident that she made the right decision with her health care vote. “I base my votes on what I believe is in Alaska’s best interest,” she said Tuesday. “So I know that there are those who wish that I would be more in line with following the party platform, but I don’t think it should come as any surprise that there have been occasions that I have not followed the lead of the party.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Threats Against Alaska May Be Misguided appeared first on Law Street.

Fifteen undocumented youth were arrested in Austin, Texas on Wednesday during a protest against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s threat to sue the federal government over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, according to a statement from the protest organizers.

The protest, organized by national immigrant rights advocacy group Cosecha, brought together about 40 protesters for the first DACA-led civil disobedience action under the Trump Administration. Four DACA recipients and eleven allies were arrested after they blocked traffic by sitting in an intersection in front of the State Capitol, according to Cosecha.

“I am getting arrested today to tell my parents, my community, and the rest of the 11 million [undocumented immigrants] that no matter what politicians say, you are worthy and we will not settle for the crumbs they offer us in exchange for being the economic and labor force that sustains this country day in and day out,” said Catalina Santiago, a DACA recipient who was arrested during the protest.

Another shot of the sit-in blocking traffic. People opposing Paxton’s move to end DACA pic.twitter.com/V3KfkKMxMS

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

 

Here’s video of DACA protesters being loaded onto police vehicle pic.twitter.com/MZQ0vf2xqy

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

DACA is an Obama-era program which allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they had entered the U.S. before they turned 16, in addition to certain other provisions. Paxton, alongside nine other Republican attorneys general, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June. In the letter, the attorneys general threatened to sue the federal government if Trump does not rescind the DACA program by September.

During the protest, “DACAmented” youth–a combination of “DACA” and “documented”–and allies marched through the streets of Austin chanting and singing phrases like, “One struggle, one fight, immigrants of the world unite,” and “The power is in our hands. This is our state. Injustice is not welcome here.”

Upon arriving at the capitol building, protesters laid posters in the middle of the intersection which read “Permanent protection. Dignity and Respect,” but a state trooper removed the signs immediately. The protesters sat in the intersection as drivers blared their car horns, and law enforcement officials began arresting those protesters about 10 minutes later.

BREAKING: Support the #DACAmented youth who were arrested at a sit-in in Austin, TX this morning: https://t.co/bW7Oo3eKv3pic.twitter.com/sp8YP22Rbi

— Movimiento Cosecha (@CosechaMovement) July 26, 2017

“Best case scenario is that they don’t arrest us,” one protester in the intersection said in an interview with KVUE. “The worst case scenario is that we get deported and I’m willing to do that for all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Not just DREAMers, not just DACA recipients, all 11 million undocumented immigrants that deserve dignity, respect, and permanent protection.”

After the protesters in the intersection were arrested, the remaining protesters continued their demonstration on the lawn next to the capitol building with chants of “Undocumented, unafraid.” Cosecha live streamed the protest on their Facebook page.

Paxton’s opposition to DACA is the latest in a series of state and national actions aimed at ramping up restrictions against undocumented immigrants. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB4 into law on May 7, punishing local governments, officials, and police who do not comply with federal immigration laws. Opponents say the SB4 law, which essentially bans sanctuary cities, threatens the safety of undocumented immigrants and communities as a whole by placing distrust in law enforcement and government officials.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 25 which enlisted local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officials to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, undocumented immigrant arrests increased by 38 percent compared to the same period in 2016, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Wednesday’s protest is only the most recent demonstration in support of immigrant rights. A group of 15 girls donning quinceañera gowns took to the steps of the Texas capitol building on July 19, where they danced to “Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)” and spoke out against SB4.

“We will resist through celebrating our families and our culture.”

Latinas are protesting an anti-sanctuary city law, quinceañera-style. pic.twitter.com/PQgfMNF1et

— Splinter (@splinter_news) July 20, 2017

 

#SB4Basta Quinceañera protest. They begin by dancing to traditional music, finish w/@Lin_Manuel‘s Immigrants We Get the Job Done! pic.twitter.com/JJLdY2YY2t

— Alyssa Harad (@alyssaharad) July 19, 2017

The Trump Administration has taken a tough stance against immigration over the past six months. While delivering a speech to the National District Attorneys Association on July 17, Sessions said that “our goal is not to reduce illegal immigration but to end illegal immigration.” But as undocumented immigrants and allies push back against policies that would negatively affect their communities, the fight for immigrant rights wages on.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 15 Protesters Arrested at Texas Capitol in Demonstration Defending DACA appeared first on Law Street.

And the beat goes on: Republicans on Tuesday voted–with a tiebreaking assist from Vice President Mike Pence–to move forward and debate health care legislation. Next up in the seven-year Republican crusade against Obamacare: hours of debate, possibly dozens of amendments, and, eventually, a floor vote. But the ultimate trophy of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with a Republican-backed alternative remains elusive. Here is what comes next:

Debate then Vote-o-Rama

With the 51-50 vote Tuesday night on the motion to proceed, Senate Republicans are in for a long couple of days. First, they will debate for dozens of hours the various versions of the bill that have been proposed in the House and the Senate. Senators will also debate what will likely amount to dozens of amendments.

A so-called “vote-o-rama” will commence after the debate. Lawmakers from both parties will be permitted to introduce amendments to the health bill–Democratic aides have hinted the party will flood Republicans with amendments to trip up their efforts. Each amendment will be allotted one minute of debate before a vote, and the entire process can go on as long as is needed.

Option 1: Repeal and Replace

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been leading the repeal-and-replace charge over the past seven years, and it falls to him to corral his fellow Republican senators to agree on a bill. McConnell’s ideal scenario would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health law that suits Republican priorities.

But the majority leader has so far struggled to align moderate GOP lawmakers and the Senate’s most conservative members behind a single bill. Several Senators have stated their opposition to prior health care legislation either because of Medicaid cuts or its insufficient conservative bona fides. McConnell scored a small victory with Tuesday’s motion to proceed vote, but can he rally enough of his troops to agree on a common strategy?

The first attempt at passing comprehensive legislation failed on Tuesday evening, as nine Republicans broke ranks and opposed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) by a 43-57 margin in a crucial procedural vote. That bill was Republicans’ primary choice to repeal and replace Obamacare and included two amendments to try to reconcile the party’s disparate corners.

The first, introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), would add $100 billion to a stability fund to help offset slashed Medicaid funds. A second amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would allow insurers to sell pared down plans as long as they concurrently sell more comprehensive plans that meet certain Obamacare requirements. Further votes on various versions of the BCRA or alternative bills could happen later this week.

Option 2: Repeal Only

A number of Republican Senators have already stated they will not support a repeal bill in the absence of replacement legislation. As early as Wednesday afternoon, a vote could be held on a repeal bill similar to one vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2016. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that bill would lead to 32 million more uninsured Americans within 10 years.

Another idea that has been floated is known as a “skinny repeal,” which would eliminate a few of Obamacare’s provisions while still leaving intact others. The narrow repeal would get rid of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, which required individuals to have health insurance coverage and employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty. It may also repeal Obamacare’s medical device tax. It’s possible that the “skinny repeal” bill could dramatically change when the House and Senate meet to reconcile each chamber’s respective bills.

The road ahead is still long and filled with potentially unbridgeable divides. Immediately following Tuesday’s vote, a number of Republicans suggested they would not support a bill that is not significantly different than what has already been presented.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) said: “If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.” And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who returned from his week-long absence on Tuesday to cast a “yea” vote on the motion to proceed, said: “Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition–I don’t think that’s going to work in the end, and probably shouldn’t.” McCain, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, said it “seems likely” the effort would fail.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Next in the Republicans’ Effort to Repeal and Replace Obamacare? appeared first on Law Street.

For the past six months, Democrats have been glued together in a unified front against President Donald Trump, but haven’t articulated many plans of their own. On Monday, for the first time since Trump took the White House, Democrats presented their vision for the 2018 midterms and beyond. Democratic leaders unveiled the plan in Berryville, Virginia, in a predominantly Republican district currently represented by Republican Representative Barbara Comstock.

Titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” the Democratic message is a grab-bag of populist ideas nicked from both the Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) schools of thought, as well as long-running Democratic policies. It lays out a plan to boost jobs and lower the costs of living, including prescription drug prices. The plan also includes a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Here is what else you need to know:

Better Jobs

On jobs in particular, the new agenda borrows heavily from the Trump campaign playbook of attacking “special interests” and “elites.” But Democratic leaders also sought to draw a line between their working-class promises and the promises Republicans and the Trump Administration have failed to deliver on. “Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) said in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday. “Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century,” Pelosi continued.

The minority leader, who some progressives view as embodying the elite image the party needs to rid itself of, promised “good-paying, full-time jobs” for 10 million more Americans over the next five years. Tax credits for employers to train employees, she said, would help achieve that lofty goal. Pelosi also said Democrats envision a “massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.”

“Rigged Economy”

“A Better Deal” was not drafted by Sanders. But in their public statements about the plan, Democratic leaders have peppered their vernacular with Sanders-style rhetoric, calling the economy “rigged” and railing against “vulture capitalists.”

The second page in the new Democratic playbook concerns reforming America’s antitrust laws to increase competition and innovation, and stifle consolidation and mergers in a number of fields, from airlines to communications companies. Pelosi said the party would focus on “breaking the grip of the special interests and confronting the rising everyday costs that families have endured for too long.”

“Over the past thirty years, growing corporate influence and consolidation has led to reductions in competition, choice for consumers, and bargaining power for workers,” the Democratic plan states. “The extensive concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations hurts wages, undermines job growth, and threatens to squeeze out small businesses, suppliers, and new, innovative competitors.”

To fix these issues, Democrats promise to “prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition.” The party also proposed a tougher post-merger review process.

“Reorienting Government”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times, but framed the agenda in simple, rhetorical strokes. He wrote: “American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests.”

But Schumer also did what Democrats have largely failed to do since election night: admit that voters were unclear on where the party stood. “Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer wrote.

But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests voters are still unsure of what Democrats believe in. A slim majority of those polled–52 percent–said the party only espouses an anti-Trump message, while 37 percent said the Democratic Party “currently stands for something.” With less than a year and a half until the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats are trying to change that perception: “Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum,” Schumer said. “It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats’ “A Better Deal”: Classic Liberal Priorities and a Dash of Populism appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill into law raising the smoking age in the state to 21. New Jersey joins Hawaii and California in setting the legal smoking age at 21.

The New Jersey bill raised the smoking age from 19 to 21. Smoking ages vary, with the set age at 18 in most places throughout the country. But campaigns to raise the minimum age have been successful in some places–while New Jersey now joins Hawaii and California at the state level, some cities and counties have chosen to up the age to 21 as well. Perhaps most notably, New York City passed a law in 2013 that raised the smoking age to 21 within city limits. It was applauded as the first big city or state to raise the smoking age. A bill to do the same for all of New York is making its way through the state legislature currently.

A number of studies point to the fact that if people start smoking later in life, they’re less likely to become addicted and become lifelong smokers. New Jersey State Senator Joseph Vitale, one of the sponsors of the bill, explained:

Data surveys show that if individuals aren’t smokers by 21 years of age, they will most likely not start later in their lives. Making it harder to buy cigarettes by raising the age to legally purchase them in New Jersey will help prevent our youth from becoming lifelong smokers and suffering the long-term effects of the habit.

Supporters of the bill also pointed out that nicotine addiction costs New Jersey a ton of money–an estimated $4 billion in health care costs each year. According to state surveys from this year, almost 40,000 high school students in New Jersey smoke traditional cigarettes. But nicotine usage is even higher when you take into account e-cigarettes, which the new law will also restrict to 21 and up.

Raising the minimum age for smoking seems like it has the potential to become a trend in the United States. Other states are considering similar moves as well. A bill raising the minimum smoking age in Maine passed the state legislature, but it’s unclear whether or not Governor Paul LePage will sign it. It seems likely that other states trying to combat teen nicotine usage will follow suit.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey Becomes the Third State to Raise Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

The Treasury Department fined Exxon Mobil $2 million on Thursday for signing business deals in 2014 with a Russian oil magnate who had been blacklisted under U.S. sanctions. Exxon, which at the time of the sanctions breach was led by now-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, immediately responded by filing a lawsuit against the Treasury Department.

“OFAC seeks to retroactively enforce a new interpretation of an executive order that is inconsistent with the explicit and unambiguous guidance from the White House and Treasury,” Exxon said in a statement, referring to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Treasury Department’s sanctions enforcement agency.

According to OFAC, Exxon subsidiaries signed eight legal documents with Igor Sechin, president of Russia’s state-owned energy conglomerate Rosneft. While Rosneft had not been sanctioned as part of the U.S. punishment for Russia’s seizure of Crimea and incursion in Ukraine in 2014, Sechin had been individually blacklisted. That meant U.S. entities were barred from doing business directly with him.

In Exxon’s complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in Texas, the company called the penalty “unlawful.” Exxon argued OFAC’s enforcement of the sanctions, implemented by the Obama Administration in April 2014 is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.” The lawsuit also alleges that the penalty denies Exxon its due process.

In a release announcing the lawsuit against OFAC, Exxon pointed to a White House fact sheet published in 2014. The fact sheet said the purpose of blacklisting individuals was to target “personal assets, but not companies that they may manage on behalf of the Russian state.”

Effectively, the oil giant contends, doing business with Rosneft had never been illegal, and so dealing with Sechin in his capacity of its top representative should be permitted. The Treasury Department disagreed, saying there is no “exception or carve-out for the professional conduct of designated or blocked persons.”

Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO at the time of its alleged sanctions violation, and, during an annual meeting, said he did not support sanctions “unless they are very well implemented.” In January, during Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearing, his past with Exxon and its extensive dealings in Russia raised concerns that he would be partial in dealing with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

But in his short tenure as America’s top diplomat, Tillerson has worked to keep the sanctions against Russia in place. Earlier this month, in a visit to Ukraine, Tillerson said the sanctions “will remain in place until Moscow reverses the actions that triggered these particular sanctions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Exxon Fined $2 Million for Violating Sanctions During Tillerson’s Tenure appeared first on Law Street.

There are few issues in Washington that attract as much bipartisan support as criminal justice reform. Across the yawning political divide, leaders have stressed the need to reform America’s sentencing laws, treatment options, and prison conditions. Billionaire donors–from the libertarian Koch brothers to the liberal George Soros–have opened their coffers to find solutions.

America is the world’s foremost jailer, especially when it comes to women–nearly one-third of all female prisoners on the planet can be found in a U.S. facility. Congress, governors, NGOs, and leaders in the private sector are beginning to recognize the importance of tackling the issue of female incarceration, and its debilitating effects on women, children, and families.

“Biggest Cancer”

On July 11, a group of Democratic senators–Cory Booker (NJ), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Richard Durbin (IL), and Kamala Harris (CA)–introduced the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, which proposes “common-sense reforms to how the federal prison system treats incarcerated women,” according to a press release.

Female incarceration is the “biggest cancer on our body politic,” Booker said this week at an event at Washington D.C.’s Newseum called, “Women Unshackled.” Discussions with formerly incarcerated women, he said, shed a light on the issues they face before, during, and after incarceration, and led him to draft a policy to address some of those problems.

The legislation seeks to end the practice of placing incarcerated women who are pregnant–three percent of female prisoners in federal prisons are pregnant upon admission–in solitary confinement. It would also ensure all feminine hygiene products are provided free of charge, ban the shackling of pregnant women (including while they are giving birth), and allow overnight visits to children whose mothers are imprisoned.

“We’ve been offered a false choice on criminal justice policy,” Harris, also speaking at the “Women Unshackled” program, said. “A choice that suggests one is either soft on crime or tough on crime, instead of asking are we smart on crime.” As it pertains to incarcerated women in particular, she said, “we need to be smarter.”

Harris’ reform efforts continued on Thursday, when she and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bail reform bill, the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Thursday, the two senators wrote:

Whether someone stays in jail or not is far too often determined by wealth or social connections, even though just a few days behind bars can cost people their job, home, custody of their children — or their life… Our bail system is broken. And it’s time to fix it.

Their legislation, Harris and Paul wrote, “empowers states to build on best practices” and “holds states accountable.” It also encourages better data collection to “help guarantee that reforms yield better outcomes.”

Generational Effects

Women are the fastest growing segment of America’s incarcerated population, rising by over 700 percent from 1980 to 2014. As of 2014, American jails house roughly 215,000 women, the vast majority of whom are behind bars for non-violent, low-level drug offenses. According to a 2016 report by the Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice non-profit, nearly 80 percent of incarcerated women are mothers–65 percent have children under 18 years old.

“An incarcerated woman means that a family will be impacted,” Harris said. “And its effects can be generational; what impacts a woman, impacts a child.”

Booker framed the impacts of America’s female incarceration rates as a “stain” on the country’s founding values of freedom, justice, and dignity: “Do we take pregnant women and empower them? No, we shackle them, put them in solitary confinement,” he said. “This is a stain upon everything we say we stand for.”

Harris saw the effects of female incarceration up close as California’s attorney general, a position she held from 2011 to early 2017.

“If someone commits a serious and violent offense,” she said, “there is no question they need to be held accountable and there must be severe, swift, and certain consequence.” But the vast majority of imprisoned women have been convicted of non-violent crimes, and thousands of others are jailed, awaiting trial. Some wait years.

In addition to legislation, like the recent bill Harris co-sponsored with Booker, Warren, and Durbin, she said a number of steps can be taken to make the system more just. For one, Harris believes preventive measures should be undertaken to stem some of the “seemingly small issues now” that might lead to poor choices down the road.

Harris said education, beginning with elementary school, is vital to future success: “a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime,” she said. Harris also sees “untreated, undiagnosed, and undetected trauma” as the seed that could lead to future incarceration–eight in 10 incarcerated women have experienced abuse.

Bipartisan Issue, State-Level Solutions

Female incarceration is an issue that has gained traction from conservatives, liberals, and libertarians alike. The federal government is following the lead of states like Texas, Georgia, Utah, and Kentucky in addressing criminal justice reform. One Republican governor, Mary Fallon of Oklahoma, is paving the path forward with innovative programs and aggressive policies.

“[There are] things that can be done on the state level,” Fallon said during the “Women Unshackled” event’s keynote address. For instance, she said, states can “prioritize treatment for women who are pregnant, for women who have children, and provide those services in a targeted way to meet their very special needs.”

Under her governorship–a mantle she has held since 2011–Oklahoma, which has the highest female incarceration rate in the nation, has opened residential treatment facilities. It has implemented community-based substance abuse programs. Fallon stressed the importance of public-private partnerships in keeping women out of prison.

Fallon highlighted a program called Women in Recovery, an “intensive outpatient alternative for women facing long prison sentences for non-violent, drug-related offenses,” she said. And in a strategy that Fallon said is the first of its kind, Oklahoma “pays for success.” The state essentially provides additional funding to private programs for each patient who is successfully treated.

Fallon is far from the only Republican to recognize criminal justice reform, and female incarceration in particular, as a pressing issue. Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), also speaking at the event in D.C., presented criminal justice reform as a moral imperative for the entire country.

“If we as a country value life as much as we say we do, then we value all life, even those who have made mistakes, and have went through the incarceration system,” he said. Second chances, he said, begin by seeing jails as places to “put people in we are scared of, not those that we are mad at.”

Last year, Congress signed into law the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, which Collins introduced in 2016. The legislation proposed reforms for how people with mental health issues are treated, diagnosed, and sentenced, “rather than treat prisons and jails as psychiatric facilities,” Collins said in a statement when the bill was introduced.

Now, Collins is focused on finding ways “for people to have better choices,” he said at the “Women Unshackled” event. Opportunities must be found to allow people to “recover from” mistakes, he said, “and to restore families, and to restore lives, and restore hope.”

“Hope is not a partisan issue,” Collins added. “It is for those who need to know that somebody cares.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Inside the Bipartisan Effort to Reform the Incarceration of Women appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, during the White House press briefing, one reporter secretly challenged the standing “no streaming audio or video” rule. Ksenija Pavlovic, founder of the independent news blog Pavlovic Today, used the Periscope app to share the audio of the briefing. She then tweeted a link to the feed:

Join "Audio-only" live streaming of the White House #PressBriefing with Sarah H. Sanders https://t.co/kWRyf4wbAq

— K. Pavlovic (@ksenijapavlovic) July 19, 2017

The feed cut after about 17 minutes, but Pavlovic then tweeted a second link to a 31-minute-long stream. So far, response to the streams has been largely supportive, with social media lauding Pavlovic and lambasting the White House’s restrictive policy.

Thank you for your courage. The White House does not belong to Trump, or any president. It is the people's house. Sanders, et al work for us

— S (@Yes_Its_Me_S) July 19, 2017

https://twitter.com/Elissa_Malcohn/status/887798153361203206

There hasn’t been an on-camera White House press briefing since June 29. Prior to that, Press Secretary Sean Spicer began spending less time in front of reporters, with Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders giving the briefings from June 26 to July 18. President Trump has only had one solo press conference in the six months since he took office. He has been in 10 joint press conference with foreign leaders, but those events typically allow only two questions per leader. In addition, according to CNN, the president has not had a sit-down on-camera interview with any news station other than Fox News or the Christian Broadcasting Network in over two months. Clearly, press communication is not this administration’s priority.

Spicer, however, insists that there is a reason for it. “There are days that I’ll decide that the president’s voice should be the one that speaks and iterate his priorities,” he said during the June 19 “gaggle” (which is this administration’s term for the informal, off-camera briefings). In other words, the president’s voice ought to be the one to which people pay the most attention. It sounds reasonable enough, but given the president’s infrequent interviews combined with the decreasing number of public events in his schedule, the reality becomes that people only get news from the White House in 140-character increments.

More cynical observers suspect another reason for the radio silence: the ongoing war between the Trump Administration and the media. Since taking office, President Trump has tweeted about “fake news” 84 times as of July 20. Most of those correspond with news stories criticizing him or referencing some sort of scandal in his administration. The most recent was in response to media coverage on his conversation with Vladimir Putin during a dinner at the G-20 summit:

The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 19, 2017

The President isn’t alone in his attacks. During the press briefing on June 27, two days before the last televised press briefing, Sanders went on a rant slamming “fake news,” CNN in particular. She was then challenged by Brian Karem of the Montgomery County Sentinel:

Any one of us, right, are replaceable. And any one of us, if we don’t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years, at least; there’s no option other than that. We’re here to ask you questions. You’re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, ‘See, once again, the president is right, and everybody else out here is fake media.’ And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.

Even when Spicer and Sanders do answer questions, they are extremely limited. The question-and-answer portions of the briefing now average out to around 15 minutes, as opposed to the hour or more they were allotted at the beginning of his term. They have also taken to dodging questions relating to topics that aren’t necessarily beneficial to the administration. For example, when asked if President Trump taped his conversations with former FBI director James Comey, Sanders said that she had no idea. When asked if the president had confidence in his attorney general, Spicer said that he hadn’t had a conversation with him about that. They deferred any questions about the investigation into Russian interference to the president’s lawyer. At one point, after repeating the same answer (talk to the lawyer) five times, Sanders compared the reporters to children. All in all, the atmosphere in the press briefing room has gotten more hostile as of late, which may explain the lack of public access.

There is some good news, though. You may not be able to watch the briefings on TV, but you can still read the transcripts here.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White House Press Briefings Still Off the Air appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning government watchdog group, announced that as a result of its recent lawsuit, the government will have to turn over logs and records of individuals who visited Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s Florida residence.

CREW filed the lawsuit alongside the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act. The group has been working to reveal visitor logs for the White House, Mar-a-Lago, and Trump Tower in New York City.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security says it has no records of people visiting Trump Tower. The lawsuit regarding the White House records is ongoing.

“The public deserves to know who is coming to meet with the president and his staff,” CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “We are glad as a result of this case, this information will become public for meetings at his personal residences–but it needs to be public for meetings at the White House as well.”

District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla wrote in her ruling: “The Secret Service will complete its search for and processing of responsive ‘records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago,’ and produce any non-exempt responsive records, by September 8, 2017.” CREW says it plans to share the information publicly once it’s released.

Amidst promises to “drain the swamp” and allegations of collusion with foreign officials, Trump’s poorly-disclosed private dealings have been at the heart of public debate in recent months.

The public has essentially been prevented from knowing which lobbyists, political donors, and others the president is meeting with behind closed doors, making it difficult to fully comprehend Trump’s allegiances and stances on issues.

The Mar-a-Lago visitor logs may prove to be revelatory because of the unique role the estate has played since Trump took office. In a sense, Mar-a-Lago, which the president affectionately refers to as the “Southern White House,” best represents Trump: a mix of his gold-plated private life, his business ties, and now, his executive power.

The venue has controversially served as the backdrop for high-profile diplomatic visits with foreign leaders as well as numerous costly golf weekends for the president.

This lawsuit is not CREW’s first attempt to compel transparency from the White House. The group also sued the Obama Administration, which agreed to release White House visitor logs as part of a settlement. That effort began during the Bush Administration before it was settled with President Obama. Since 2009, about 6 million visitor records were made public.

In April, the Trump Administration announced it would end this practice, citing “grave national security risks.” Currently, the website where the logs were previously published is blank and reads: “Thank you for your interest in this subject. Stay tuned as we continue to update whitehouse.gov.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders Trump to Release Mar-a-Lago Visitor Logs appeared first on Law Street.

Despite the fact that over a month has passed since Amazon announced that it would be purchasing Whole Foods for $13.4 billion, lawmakers are still worried about the changes this potential move could bring.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) has requested a subcomittee hearing on the purchase in the U.S. House of Representative due to concerns over depressed wages and stifled innovation.

“Amazon’s proposed purchase of Whole Foods could impact neighborhood grocery stores and hardworking consumers across America,” Cicilline, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel, said in a statement released Friday. “Congress has a responsibility to fully scrutinize this merger before it goes ahead.”

Cicilline basically cites Amazon’s movement toward automation as to why this merger may be dangerous. He adds that the markets indicated initial fears that Whole Foods would run away with all of the market share in the U.S. grocery market. The day the purchase was announced, Target shares dropped by 9 percent, WalMart dropped 5 percent, and Kroger dropped 13 percent. It is worth noting, however, that Whole Foods only controls 1.7 percent of the current market.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently reviewing the proposed merger, meaning there still is time for the deal to fall apart–or for Washington officials to step in and stop it. But precedent indicates that that may not be likely.

Lina Khan, an associate research scholar with Yale Law School, published a lengthy analysis of Amazon’s business practices and how it has avoided antitrust issues. One of her key arguments is that since the Reagan Administration, antitrust enforcement has focused on the final price of goods for consumers. Before that, regulators would analyze the structure of a market a merger was entering into and check to see how possible it was for new competitors to enter. Since Amazon is quite good at providing lower prices to its customers, the FTC has turned a blind eye to the company’s growth.

This may lead some to believe that the Amazon-Whole Foods merger will become another example of this trend, as both companies have presented evidence that price increases are unlikely. However, Cicilline is working to change what he believes is the increasingly narrow mentality of the subcommittee. He said in his statement:

Although the role of employment and inequality in antitrust enforcement has declined in recent decades, the Subcommittee should have an active oversight role in determining whether this trend serves the public interest, is faithful to the legislative intent of the antitrust laws, or whether additional enforcement is warranted to reverse the harmful effects of consolidation on workers and labor inequality.

Cicilline is not the first lawmaker to raise concerns with the merger. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) called on the Department of Justice and FTC to review the merger–which he said could impact jobs and wages–the day the merger was announced.

“We need to reorient antitrust policy to factor in the harm that economic concentration causes for American workers,” he told Vice News. “We also need to be mindful that concentrated industries stifle innovation.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Concerns Continue to Grow Over Amazon’s Whole Foods Purchase appeared first on Law Street.

The House passed a defense bill on Friday that included a description of global warming as “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” The bill, which sets the Pentagon’s budget and priorities for Fiscal Year 2018, easily passed by a 344-81 vote.

In addition to its acknowledgement of climate change as a potential security threat, the National Defense Authorization Act includes a number of amendments that directly contradict Trump Administration policy.

For instance, the bill declines President Donald Trump’s request to shutter a number of military bases around the country in 2021. Defense Secretary James Mattis told the Armed Services Committee in a hearing last month that closing the bases would save $10 billion over five years. The Obama Administration failed to garner congressional support with the same request.

An additional rebuff to Trump’s stated policies is the bill’s directive that the Pentagon create a so-called “Space Corps.” The proposed unit, opposed by both the Pentagon and the White House, would fall under the Air Force’s auspices, and would provide a front line of defense against future space-related threats. The Senate will negotiate the proposal when it takes up the defense bill.

But the bill’s most surprising feature is its nod to the myriad threats posed by climate change. In addition to calling climate change a “direct threat” to U.S. national security, it also directs the Pentagon to issue a report to Congress on the effects climate change might have on military bases.

Republicans in Congress have long been reluctant to address climate change as a real threat, and Friday’s vote by the Republican-controlled House might mark a change in posture.

Trump has made clear his own views on climate change–he recently withdrew the U.S. from the 194-nation Paris Climate Accord–but the Pentagon’s highest-ranking official, Mattis, has hinted that he recognizes the security threat posed by rising temperatures.

“‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate—such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others—impact our security situation,” Mattis said in his confirmation hearing testimony earlier this year.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) expressly supported the bill, specifically for its 2.4 percent pay increase for military troops. “[The bill] includes support for military families, and honestly, a really well-deserved pay raise for our troops,” Ryan said earlier this week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Passes Defense Bill that Calls Climate Change “Direct Threat” to U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans unveiled a revised draft of their new health care bill Thursday, the chamber’s second crack at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. The new draft, released at a closed-door, Republican-only meeting Thursday morning by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), contains an amendment aimed at the Senate’s most conservative members. Only two Republicans can oppose the bill for it to still pass, though as of Thursday, a handful have expressed deep reservations about the proposal.

The revised legislation largely resembles the initial Senate plan which was released last month. Medicaid would still face steep cuts, a provision that has led many moderate Republicans from states that recently expanded Medicaid to oppose the bill.

Perhaps the most striking change to the bill is an amendment courtesy of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), one of the Senate’s most conservative members. The so-called Cruz Amendment would permit insurance companies to offer plans that fail to meet certain Obamacare regulations, as long as they concurrently sell plans that do. Critics of the amendment, which was presented in the document in brackets–meaning it is liable to change–say it would hike care costs for sick people.

Under the revised plan, two taxes on the wealthy imposed by Obamacare would remain in place, as would a tax on health executives’ pay. The measure would also infuse a $112 billion “stability fund,” aimed at lowering premiums, with an additional $70 billion. Addressing lawmakers’ concerns about the ongoing opioid crisis, the bill earmarks $45 billion toward combating drug addiction.

Still, McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the majority whip, must corral enough “yea” votes in a caucus with a cacophony of competing voices. There are moderates, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who have objected to the Republican bill at every turn. On Thursday afternoon, Collins tweeted, “Still deep cuts to Medicaid in Senate bill. Will vote no on MTP. Ready to work w/ GOP & Dem colleagues to fix flaws in ACA.”

And then there are heels-dug-in conservatives who viewed the initial bill as not being far enough to the right, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). Lee, who previously advocated for the Cruz Amendment, would like to see more details before signing off on the revised bill, according to a spokesman. The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan budget analysis agency, is reviewing two versions of the bill–one with the Cruz Amendment, one without.

Many senators have expressed reservations that the bill, which will likely be debated next week, will even be considered.

“I don’t even know that it’s going to get to a vote,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told Politico. Appearing on Fox News on Thursday morning, Cornyn, the man responsible for ensuring the bill garners the requisite number of votes, said: “If you vote ‘no’ on this bill, it essentially is a vote for Obamacare because that’s what we’re going to be left with.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Release Revised Health Care Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Representative Martha McSally commented on the Congressional dress code on the House floor on Wednesday. The debate over the dress code, which is not clearly stated and irregularly enforced, was reignited last week after a female reporter was turned away from the Speaker’s Lobby outside of the House chamber. Reporters congregate in that area to grab lawmakers for quick interviews and the dress code rules are stricter there than in other parts of the Capitol Building.

On Wednesday, when speaking on the House floor, McSally ended her speech by saying, “Before I yield back, I want to point out I’m standing here in my professional attire, which happens to be a sleeveless dress and open-toed shoes.”

Here’s @RepMcSally on the House floor wearing a sleeveless dress, which chamber security says violates dress code (rule doesn’t exist). pic.twitter.com/RCjOeYE3wd

— Rebecca Shabad (@RebeccaShabad) July 12, 2017

The dress code is actually not specifically written out, which is why it has been interpreted differently at different times. Right now, women are expected to not wear sleeveless blouses or dresses or shoes with open toes. Men are supposed to wear suit jackets and ties. But the only written specifics are contained in Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives.

In the 2015 edition of that manual, it says that Tip O’Neill, who was Speaker of the House from 1977 – 1986, thought that proper attire should be “customary and traditional,” and elaborated by saying that meant a coat and tie for men and “appropriate” clothing for women. “Appropriate” is not very specific. The manual then states that the House Speaker should determine what is proper attire. In June, Speaker Paul Ryan reiterated that all House members should wear “appropriate business attire.”

.@SpeakerRyan: “Members should wear appropriate business attire…” pic.twitter.com/a4f1Oy5ifT

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 23, 2017

After the female reporter was turned away, a lot of people reacted to the outdated dress code, especially since it is so irregularly enforced. Moreover, many female lawmakers wear sleeveless clothes, particularly given the oppressively hot weather in Washington D.C. during the summer. And former First Lady Michelle Obama often wore sleeveless dresses in an official capacity.

The Speaker’s Lobby has one of the most ridiculous and backwards dress codes around. Did when I covered Congress. Still does. https://t.co/88yv6YSuz1

— Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) July 6, 2017

This is not the first time McSally has put her foot down when it comes to men making rules about what women wear. Back in 2002, she sued then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over a military rule that required female soldiers to wear an abaya when off-base in Saudi Arabia.

At the time, McSally was the highest ranking female fighter-pilot in the U.S. She said the rule was unconstitutional, as male soldiers weren’t required to wear any particular clothes when off-base. Women also had to be accompanied by a man at all times when off duty. The rules were changed, and while the military said they had been under review for a while and had nothing to do with the lawsuit, McSally’s tenacity went down in history. And while it’s unclear whether her speech played any role in this decision, Paul Ryan just announced that the dress code will be “modernized.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Supposed House Dress Code appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate held a hearing on Wednesday to consider the Taylor Force Act, legislation that seeks to end the Palestinian Authority’s support of violence against Israeli citizens. The bill proposes to cut U.S. funding to the PA, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, until it stops paying families of Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against Israelis and others.

Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham in February, the bill would “condition assistance to the West Bank and Gaza on steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to end violence and terrorism against Israeli citizens.” Funding would resume if the PA takes “credible steps to end acts of violence against United States and Israeli citizens that are perpetrated by individuals under its jurisdictional control,” the bill says.

After Taylor Force hearing, @AIPAC not ready to endorse: “Discussions continue to find a bipartisan path forward.” https://t.co/wPQIOTTCtB

— Michael Wilner (@mawilner) July 12, 2017

The State Department provides about $400 million annually to the PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, as the chief political body of the Palestinians. For years, Israel and the U.S. have criticized payments the PA provides to families of “martyrs,” or Palestinians who have killed Israelis and others in acts of terror. Stability in the West Bank is paramount to Israel’s security, however, so Israel has not conditioned its financial assistance on the PA’s practice of paying the families of jailed terrorists.

But Congress decided to act after the death of Taylor Force–for whom the act is named.

In March 2016, Taylor Force, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was visiting Tel Aviv with a delegation from Vanderbilt University Business School. The group had come to build connections with the Israeli tech sector. Force, 29 at the time, was stabbed to death by a 21-year-old Palestinian man while walking in Jaffa, the oldest section of Tel Aviv, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the Palestinian Authority that ‘Pay to Slay’ must end.

WATCH: https://t.co/vvWU3phT2c

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 12, 2017

If the bill passes–it has not been considered by either chamber yet–the only funds the U.S. would provide to the PA would be for security assistance. Bipartisan support for the legislation has slowly been building since its introduction. The bill was introduced by a Republican and, early on, championed by Republicans. But a number of high-ranking Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have recently signaled they would support the bill.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), featured testimony from men with decades of experience in both Washington and Israel. Elliott Abrams, a diplomat in the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations, said the PA’s payments to the families of imprisoned terrorists “reward and incentivize acts of terror.”

“There are cases of unemployed and desperate men who commit acts of terror in order to get these payments—which can amount to a permanent government salary,” he said. He added that “all the payments that give assistance to or directly benefit the PA itself should be stopped,” but the U.S. should continue funding NGOs and municipalities in the West Bank that do development work.

Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador for Israel from 2011 to 2017, also provided testimony. He called the payments an “abominable practice” that “must stop,” adding “there should be no extra bonuses for someone who attacks Israelis. It incentivizes the killing of innocents, and it is just wrong.”

But Shapiro said that the Taylor Force Act, in its current form, would tackle the problem with a hammer, effectively choking aid to the PA entirely. He would prefer to use a scalpel.

“Stability in the West Bank, both economic and political, serves Israel’s security interests by dampening the atmosphere in which more Palestinians might be drawn to extremism,” he said. Shapiro said he supports the bill’s intentions, but would like to see it address the problem “without cutting off aid that goes directly to the Palestinian people, provides humanitarian relief, or bolsters stability and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taylor Force Act: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration recently announced it would be delaying an Obama-era rule that would allow foreign entrepreneurs to temporarily live and work in the U.S. to build up their companies. In the administration’s announcement, it said the rule would be delayed until next March. But it made clear that its ultimate goal is to scrap the rule entirely.

The delay will “provide [the Department of Homeland Security] with an opportunity to obtain comments from the public regarding a proposal to rescind the rule,” the announcement said. The rule, known as the International Entrepreneur Rule, was set to go into effect next week. It was approved by former President Barack Obama before he left office in January.

The rule was designed “to improve the ability of certain promising start-up founders to begin growing their companies within the United States and help improve our nation’s economy through increased capital spending, innovation and job creation,” according to a press release issued when the final rule was signed earlier this year.

To qualify, foreign entrepreneurs would have to show they have raised at least $250,000 from known American investors, or at least $100,000 from government entities. Qualified applicants would have been granted stays of up to 30 months, with possible extensions. The rule would also have applied to a grantee’s spouse and children. Under the Obama Administration, DHS estimated roughly 3,000 entrepreneurs would have benefitted from the rule.

In explaining its decision to scrap the rule, the Trump Administration pointed to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in January, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”

The order directs the DHS to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole authority is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.”

Investors, along with many tech industry representatives, blasted the administration’s decision to delay, and potentially delete, the rule. In a statement, Bobby Franklin, the president and CEO of the National Venture Capital Association, said the announcement “is extremely disappointing and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the critical role immigrant entrepreneurs play in growing the next generation of American companies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Delays Implementation of International Entrepreneur Rule appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted screenshots of his email conversations regarding efforts to set up a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” in June 2016. His tweets came after The New York Times told him that it was about to publish an article detailing the contents of the emails. Trump Jr. declined to comment and instead tweeted a brief statement along with the screenshots, saying he was posting them “in order to be totally transparent.”

The emails show how Trump Jr. was approached by Rob Goldstone, a British publicist and former tabloid reporter, to set up a meeting. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, the son of a Moscow real estate tycoon.

Here’s my statement and the full email chain pic.twitter.com/x050r5n5LQ

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 11, 2017

Agalarov’s father, Aras, and Donald Trump cooperated back in 2013 to bring the Miss Universe contest to Russia. Their families befriended each other, and the younger Agalarov featured Donald Trump in one of his music videos. The Agalarov family also has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the email to Trump Jr., Goldstone wrote that Emin Agalarov said that his father had met the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” and claimed to have damaging information on Hillary Clinton, which could be useful for his father’s presidential campaign. “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” Goldstone wrote. “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer,” was Trump Jr.’s reply.

After some back and forth, the meeting was set for June 9 in Trump Tower. Trump Jr. brought Paul Manafort, his father’s campaign chairman at the time, and Jared Kushner, his brother-in-law who remains a close advisor to his father, to the meet with the Russian attorney. Goldstone even checked in at Trump Tower on Facebook before the meeting.

You have to love that Rob Goldstone wrote an email saying the Russian gov wants to help beat Hillary and then checked in for the meeting pic.twitter.com/Ajg1NWHciA

— Josh Schwerin (@JoshSchwerin) July 11, 2017

What exactly happened at the meeting remains unclear. Trump Jr. claimed that the attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, only wanted to talk about adoption policies. The day after, when The New York Times contacted him again to say it was about to publish a second article, he changed his account.

Trump Jr. then said he only knew that he was meeting a woman who claimed to have information that would be helpful to his father’s campaign, but said he didn’t know her name beforehand. He also said that she didn’t have any valuable information after all.

A spokesperson for Vladimir Putin said that the Kremlin had no knowledge of the meeting and does he know Veselnitskaya.

On Tuesday morning, Veselnitskaya defended herself on NBC and said she never had any damaging information about Clinton. She denied having any ties to the Kremlin and said that the conversation with Trump Jr. was about the Magnitsky Act–a law that imposed sanctions on Russian officials who have committed human rights violations.

In retaliation for the law, the Kremlin stopped allowing the adoption of Russian children by American parents. Veselnitskaya is reportedly known for having well-connected clients and has aggressively lobbied against the Magnitsky Act in the past. According to Veselnitskaya, the Trump team may have wanted info on Clinton “so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.”

No matter what was said at the meeting, and whether or not the information was useful, the emails show that Donald Trump Jr. was fully aware that he was meeting with someone who he was told was a representative of the Russian government, which also wanted to help to get his father elected.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emails Show Trump Jr. Sought Information From Russian Government During Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Jane Sanders, the wife of former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is currently under federal investigation. The probe concerns a 2010 land purchase orchestrated by Jane Sanders, who was, at the time, president of Burlington College in Burlington, Vermont. The Sanders camp contends the investigation is a political ploy to stymie Bernie Sanders’ political future. But the investigation is heating up, according to The Washington Post. Here is what else you need to know:

Land Deal

In 2010, Jane Sanders purchased $10 million-worth of land to build a new Burlington College campus. She promised the owner of the 33-acre property, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, that she would pay off the purchase with private donations. Jane Sanders told trustees that $2.6 million in donations had already been pledged to the college and projected a surge in enrollment in the coming year.

To finance the exchange, the college borrowed $6.7 million from the People’s United Bank. The diocese provided the college with an additional loan, expecting to be repaid based on Jane’s assurances.

Jane Sanders Resigns

Soon after the purchase was complete, the diocese realized that Jane Sanders’ promises had been largely overstated. Enrollment did not substantially increase, and the donations Sanders said had already been pledged fell well short of the $2.6 million she promised. Following an uproar from the board of trustees, Jane Sanders resigned in 2011, and the college closed in 2016.

According to David V. Dunn, a former Burlington College trustee, neither of Jane Sanders’ promises–the increased enrollment and $2.6 million in donations–were true. However, there were other management issues that contributed to her firing.

“I don’t believe that there was fraud in terms of willful intent,” Dunn  told the New York Times. “I believe that there was information that was misrepresented.”

Politically Motivated?

Jeff Weaver, the spokesman for Jane and Bernie Sanders, considers the investigation to be politically motivated. He said the probe was launched because of Brady Toensing, a lawyer who sent a letter to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont in January alleging potential bank fraud.

“We request an investigation into what appears to be federal loan fraud involving the sale of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington headquarters,” Toensing wrote in the letter.

“This apparent fraud resulted in as much as $2 million in losses to the Diocese and an unknown amount of loss to People’s United Bank, a federally financed financial institution,” said Toensing, who at the time was the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party. Toensing later became the state chairman for President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Unsurprisingly, Bernie Sanders sees the investigation as little more than a political ruse. He highlighted the timing of the inquiries into his wife’s college in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper:

“Right in the middle of my presidential campaign–and I know this will shock the viewers–the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, who happened to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager, raised this issue and initiated this investigation.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jane Sanders Bank Fraud Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

After the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organized a rally over the weekend to protest the removal of a confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia, thousands of counter protesters gathered to voice their disgust.

The Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, but the KKK claims it is part of a sweeping effort to erase white history. The protest was held a block away from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park, which was recently renamed. But the statue of Lee riding a horse has yet to be removed.

LIVE from #CharlottesvilleKKK rally—#KKK still protesting. HUNDREDS of Counter protestors –very loud @ACLU #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/QuShCGeehW

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) July 8, 2017

City Councilwoman Kristin Szakos wrote in an editorial that the council’s decision was made to join a “growing group of cities around the nation that have decided that they no longer want to give pride of place to tributes to the Confederate Lost Cause erected in the early part of the 20th century.”

A court order has delayed the removal of the statue until a hearing next month that may just be a precursor to an elongated legal battle, according to NPR.

Not only is the town home to the University of Virginia, but it was also the home of American founding father Thomas Jefferson, and is near his Monticello estate.

Sunday’s protests featured about 30 Klansmen, many of whom arrived armed with handguns, and approximately 1,000 counter protesters, according to the Washington Post. The KKK was escorted by police clad in riot gear as they entered and exited.

The fact that the police force, comprised of local, county, state, and university police, protected the Klansmen, left a bad taste in plenty of people’s mouths after seeing police disproportionately use violence to subdue African-American protests.

The KKK is a hate group. Police are keeping them safe. When Black folks protest for our right to life, police harass and harm us. https://t.co/eVv9Vf4e7m

— Negrita (@HustleAndFro_) July 8, 2017

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer previously urged the town’s residents not to “take the bait — to deny the KKK the confrontation and celebrity they desire,” but thousands still felt compelled to voice their disgust with the group’s resurgence.

While the Klansmen attempted to speak publicly to the crowd at multiple points, they were inaudible and drowned out by the noise made by the counter-protesters. Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the university and a vocal supporter of the removal for Lee’s statue, was among the group gathered at the park. She told the Washington Post:

It is important for me to be here because the Klan was ignored in the 1920s, and they metastasized. They need to know that their ideology is not acceptable…I teach about slavery and African American history, and it’s important to face the Klan and to face the demons of our collective history and our original sin of slavery. We do it on behalf of our ancestors who were terrorized by them.

By the end of the day 22 people had been arrested while three others were hospitalized. Two of the medical issues were due to the heat while the other was alcohol-related, according to the Washington Post.

The Klansmen were members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Pelham, North Carolina, about 140 miles across the Virginia border. The group was compelled to fight, in their view, the eradication of white history. While most protesting the statue’s removal were part of the KKK, others, like Brandi Fisher, drove hours from neighboring states to join and voice their concerns.

“I don’t agree with everything the Klan believes, but I do believe our history should not be taken away,” said the West Virginia native. “Are we going to remove the Washington and Jefferson memorials because they were slave owners?”

The KKK also staged a protest last month alongside white nationalist leader Richard Spencer in which the group ominously marched with torches to protest the council’s decision. That earlier protest also drew condemnation from citizens and even Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello.

Get your white supremacist hate out of my hometown. https://t.co/KfkxHImvze

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) May 13, 2017

Once the protests ended on Sunday afternoon, police escorted the Klansmen out and asked the counter protesters to disperse. After the police decided the remaining crowd was “an unlawful assembly,” the police force donned masks and released gas canisters to disperse the crowd, according to the Washington Post.

Last month the Anti-Defamation League released a comprehensive report on the current presence of the KKK in the United States. According to the research, there are about 3,000 people who strongly identify with Klan ideology and there are 42 active groups across 33 states. The report also states that many of the chapters have joined forces with each other or with neo-Nazi groups in order to show strength and unity. As a result, groups have beliefs ranging from “traditional” white supremacist beliefs to Christian Identity, “a longstanding racist and anti-Semitic religious sect,” according to the ADL Report.

Several white nationalist groups have obtained permits for yet another rally on August 12, so there will likely be more conflicts like these in the future. With racial tensions heightened since the 2016 election, these feuds over confederate monuments are just one example of the conflicts that continue to arise between white nationalists and more progressive communities.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Clash with KKK in Charlottesville Over Robert E. Lee Monument appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted that apparently “everyone” is talking about John Podesta and why he “refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and CIA” at the G-20 summit in Hamburg. His comment seemed peculiar, given that the world’s leaders probably had more pressing issues to discuss, like climate change and international terrorism.

It’s not clear whether any G-20 leaders actually did talk about John Podesta. But later in the day, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman hit back on Twitter and called the president a “whack job.”

1/ On a x-country road trip with my wife;

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

3/ Get a grip man, the Russians committed a crime when they stole my emails to help get you elected President.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Podesta wrote that the Russians hacked his email to get Trump elected. It seemed like Trump conflated that hack with the DNC one, although they were two separate incidents. Podesta also pointed out to Trump that he didn’t even work for the DNC.

5/ BTW, I had nothing to do with the DNC.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

7/7 Dude, get your head in the game. You’re representing the US at the G20.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Other lawmakers commented on the president’s tweet as well. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote, “Yes, I’m sure that’s the big talk at G-20. Not climate change or trade, but why didn’t John Podesta give a server that wasn’t his to the CIA.”

Others said it was a diversionary tactic, so people wouldn’t talk about his meeting with Putin. And some just thought it was a “very 2017” moment.

2017 got Podesta saying dude on the internet https://t.co/LPYpk3OuIQ

— Rebecca Nesi (@rebecca_nesi) July 7, 2017

A lot of people on social media questioned why Trump brought up the 2016 election at all when he is at the G-20, as well as the fact that he tweeted those comments shortly before his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Exactly what Trump and Putin talked about during that meeting we don’t know, but according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump did bring up the hacking of the 2016 U.S. election more than once. The meeting was supposed to take 30 minutes but reportedly lasted for over two hours.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Podesta Replies to Trump’s Tweets: “Get a Grip Man” appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on Friday, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s election. They reportedly spoke for over two hours, in what was meant to be a 30- to 40-minute meeting.

I look forward to all meetings today with world leaders, including my meeting with Vladimir Putin. Much to discuss.#G20Summit #USA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017

It is unclear precisely what Trump and Putin discussed. But from the Syrian civil war and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, to Putin’s opposition to NATO and Trump’s recent endorsement of the alliance, they certainly had no shortage of potential issues to review.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Trump told reporters in Hamburg. “We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honor to be with you.”

Over the past few weeks, White House officials and Putin himself have hinted at what the American and Russian leaders might cover in their first meeting. Last week, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, announced the meeting, and said it would have “no specific agenda.” He added that “it’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about,” and that Trump would seek avenues of cooperation with Moscow.

PUTIN:”I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President. And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result.” pic.twitter.com/ayKu0O0BZv

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) July 7, 2017

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are deepening, and the relationship has hardly seen the re-start that Trump alluded to during his campaign. For one, the Trump Administration has continued, and has intensified in some instances, the campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Russia is the primary backer of the Syrian government, which has decimated the country and has murdered its own people. The U.S.-backed alliance of rebels firmly opposes the Syrian army.

Immediately after the meeting concluded, the Associated Press reported that Washington and Moscow struck a cease-fire agreement in southwest Syria. Citing three White House officials, the AP said the agreement includes Jordan and Israel, and will go into effect Sunday.

In a discussion with Russian media outlets last month, Putin outlined the issues he hoped to address with Trump. The U.S. and Russia should cooperate to advance “non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.”

Putin added that “settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine,” where Russia has fomented a pro-Russian separatist movement, is paramount. The U.S. provides nominal support to Ukrainian troops battling the pro-Russian forces in the ongoing conflict.

And then there is the issue of Russia’s role in hacking the Democratic National Committee emails in the run-up to last November’s election. U.S. intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the hack was orchestrated by the Kremlin with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. Trump has previously denied Russia’s involvement. And on Thursday, he said, “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” adding: “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

The AP reported that Trump and Putin did indeed discuss the election hack during Friday’s meeting:

BREAKING: Russian foreign minister says Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t meddle in the U.S. election.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Putin Meet in Germany, Strike Partial Cease-Fire in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

Like most Americans, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wanted to spend his July 4 weekend enjoying the nice weather and spending time with his family. After he shut down 11 miles of shoreline, many were frustrated that they wouldn’t be able to visit spots on the Jersey shoreline. But Christie decided that his job title gave him the privilege to hang out on the beach while barring taxpayers from doing the same.

Despite angrily closing the beaches, and other public services, over a budget disagreement with New Jersey Democrats, Christie spent July 2 calmly sunbathing with family when a photographer caught him.

Andy Mills, a photographer for The Star-Ledger, captured the pictures of Christie and his family members from a helicopter. After getting in a helicopter that morning to snap pictures of the long stretches of empty beach, Mills observed a large group set up on the beach in front of the governor’s beachside mansion, he said.

“As we came back up, I’m looking, I’m like, ‘That’s him,’ there’s no doubt in my mind that’s him,” Mills said. “When you make eye contact with someone, both you know and he knows what’s going on.”

At first, Christie chose to deny anything uncouth happened. “I didn’t get any sun,” he said.

Then, he chose to defend his actions. He responded that if people wanted to criticize his decision not to cancel his plans, they could run for governor and enjoy the same perks.

After Christie’s team was confronted with the evidence that contradicted Christie’s blatant lies, his office decided it was the right moment to make a dumb joke.

“He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on,” was the official statement from Christie’s spokesman, Brian Murray.

But people were unamused, especially since Christie’s antics began when he became governor in 2010. Residents who had to modify their July 4 plans were upset with their governor, and even Kim Guadagno, New Jersey’s lieutenant governor and the Republican nominee vying to replace Christie in November, lashed out.

It’s beyond words. If I were gov, sure wouldn’t be sitting on beach if taxpayers didn’t have access to state beaches https://t.co/VBtBpoUUkv

— Kim Guadagno (@KimGuadagnoNJ) July 3, 2017

One person who was bemused by the incident was author Brad Thor. When the 47-year-old author looked at Mills’ pictures he noticed something that very few others would have.

I think I’m the only one in America not mad at #ChrisChristie pic.twitter.com/PXPvjPUepn

— Brad Thor (@BradThor) July 3, 2017

Of course, this isn’t the first time Christie has been publicly shamed and mocked on the internet. There was “Bridgegate,” when the governor’s team intentionally created traffic problems on the George Washington Bridge to send a political message. And then there was the time he took a helicopter to his son’s baseball game.

And, most recently, there were the relentless memes after Christie stood behind President Donald Trump during the presidential election.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

 

Chris Christie has Resting Hostage Face. pic.twitter.com/A6JxR99Fiw

— Caitlin S(cientist) (@Paleophile) March 2, 2016

Christie, who is finishing up his final term in office, already has a terrible approval rating, so this incident won’t ultimately have much of an impact. After reaching great highs during his reelection in 2012, only 15 percent of New Jerseyans currently view his performance positively, according to the Washington Post–and that was before his trip to the beach. Even his own party has turned on him, with fewer than half of Republicans viewing Christie positively.

Christie is already slated to go down as one of the least liked governors in American history, according to the Washington Post. So, his latest faux pas can’t lower his approval rating much more, and frankly it doesn’t matter since he’s out of office soon regardless. But for Christie, who was once a rising star for the GOP, and a potential presidential candidate, this is just another indication that his political career is going nowhere fast.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With “Beachgate,” Chris Christie’s Approval Ratings Take a Plunge appeared first on Law Street.

There is a crisis afoot: Puerto Rico’s economy is collapsing. The territory owes about $73 billion in bond debt and $49 billion in unfunded pensions. In May, the Governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rosello, filed for a protection ‘similar’ to bankruptcy hoping to restructure the territory’s massive debt.

However, since filing for the protection, things have only gone downhill.

The territory’s budget has still not been approved by the Federal Oversight Board, it’s attempting to sell its ports to private contractors in order to raise capital, and its power utility (the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority) just filed for bankruptcy after it was unable to restructure its $9 billion debt.

It is still unclear at this moment how this economic crisis will be solved. But here’s what you need to know about Puerto Rico as it makes its way into the national debate.

How Puerto Rico Got To This point?

Puerto Rico’s economic status has always been in limbo. Its precarious situation as a U.S. territory made it the island with the highest per capita income in the Caribbean.

However, in 1996, President Bill Clinton decided to phase out longstanding tax incentives for companies located on the island, which helped stimulate economic growth for decades. Once the rollback of those exemptions ended in 2006, corporations and jobs left the island and economic growth stagnated while unemployment rose.

This is compounded by two unique aspects of Puerto Rico’s situation as a territory. For one, tax rates are incredibly low–exempt from federal income taxes, residents only need to pay a 4 percent tax on income earned on the island. Additionally, citizens of Puerto Rico are also U.S. citizens, granting them the ability to freely move to the mainland. When it became clear that jobs were no longer coming to Puerto Rico, many residents left the island, depleting workforce and leaving smaller tax base to draw from.

With a lack of tax revenue, Puerto Rico’s government needed revenue to balance its budget. Instead of raising taxes or cutting spending it issued government bonds to raise money for much of the difference. The bonds are incredibly valuable to investors from outside Puerto Rico. Its status as a territory means the bonds are exempt from local, state, and federal taxes. But due to the long recession, the government could not generate enough the revenue to pay the bonds back, and in 2014, its bonds were downgraded to “junk” status.

Furthermore, island’s government is incredibly inefficient. For example, the island’s main power company has accrued a debt worth more than $9 billion, partly by providing free electricity to municipal building and projects that barely generate any profit for the government. For instance, the utility company provided free electricity to an ice-skating rink built in the city of Aguadilla (it’s expensive to keep ice cold in the tropics!).

Falling corporate interest in investing in the island, low tax rates, attractive government bonds, and an inefficient government all led the territory to accumulate a massive debt that it couldn’t escape.

Pension Problems

Not only does Puerto Rico owe billions to its creditors, but it also owes a large sum to its own people in the form of unfunded public pension programs. In addition to Puerto Rico’s bond debt, it has about $49 billion worth of unfunded pension commitments.

Since the 1990s, Puerto Rico has slowly but surely reduced payments to its employee retirement program, to the point where its public pensions became significantly underfunded. Furthermore, the population in Puerto Rico is getting older, with 14.2 percent of its residents above the age of 65. As the local workforce shrinks and the population ages, the territory’s unfunded pension commitments will become an even larger issue.

But the owners of Puerto Rico’s bonds are demanding that they are paid their debts first even if that means further cuts to public programs such as education and healthcare.

Is A Solution Possible?

The situation is dire for the citizens of Puerto Rico, they are almost completely out of money and President Trump has stated that he will not bail out the island.

One solution that could enhance the government’s financial situation is for the territory to seek statehood. Gov. Rosello recently held a referendum to gauge public interest in statehood. If Puerto Rico becomes a state, the economic recovery from the debt crisis could be a lot quicker with the backing of the federal government. The result of the referendum was an overwhelming 97 percent in favor of statehood, but only 23 percent of voters participated. Critics have said that despite the vote’s margin, the plan is not favored among the entire population.

Experts have pointed to debt forgiveness as the best possible solution to solving Puerto Rico’s debt. If austerity measures are put in place, Puerto Rico will need to pay off its debts to creditors first, which would mean the people who rely on the publicly funded programs such as schools, health care, and pension payments suffer. Furthermore, cutting back on public spending will only make for a longer and more painful economic recovery.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What You Need to Know About Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Kris Kobach, appointed by President Donald Trump to investigate voter fraud, sent a letter to all 50 states, requesting their voter files. Voters’ names, their party affiliation, military status, and other personal information, Kobach wrote, should be handed over to the Election Integrity Commission. In addition, the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers should be provided to the federal government, the letter said.

Within a few days, a majority of states rejected Kobach’s request; many were aghast at his demands. And on Friday, Kobach himself said he could not comply with parts of his own request. Here is what you need to know about the whole situation:

Trump Decries Voter Fraud

Kobach’s effort has its roots in Trump’s repeated claims about voter fraud. Trump has said three to five million people illegally voted in last fall’s election, thus handing the popular vote to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. After the election, in which Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, he tweeted, “in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

He later pegged the number of illegal votes, in an unsubstantiated and so far unfounded claim, at three to five million. Kobach, during an interview in January, said, “If you take the whole country,” illegal votes were “probably in excess of a million, if you take the entire country for sure.”

In May, Trump created the Election Integrity Commission to investigate voter fraud during the 2016 election, appointing Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state, as the commission’s vice chairman. The commission is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.

Kobach’s Letter

Last Wednesday, Kobach sent a letter to all 50 secretaries of states–even the ones who are not in charge of their state’s voter information. The letter specifically requested:

Publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.

Kobach said the information would be made available to the public, and said states had until July 14 to fork over the information to the commission.

“Yet Another Boondoggle”

As of Monday afternoon, at least 27 states have rebuffed all or parts of Kobach’s request–including Kansas, Kobach’s own state. Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia reacted swiftly to the letter, saying he has “no intention of honoring [Kobach’s] request.” He added in a statement: “Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia.”

Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state, said he “will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.” Some states have said they would provide Kobach with “publicly available information” like voter rolls, while questioning the commission’s true intentions.

Voting rights advocates have rejected Kobach’s letter as a “propaganda tool” to justify voter suppression ordinances in the future. Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said:

I have every reason to think that given the shoddy work that Mr. Kobach has done in this area in the past that this is going to be yet another boondoggle and a propaganda tool that tries to inflate the problem of double registration beyond what it actually is.

And on Friday, Kobach himself suggested he could not comply with his own request. In an interview with the Kansas City Star, Kobach said he would not provide the commission with Kansas voters’ Social Security information.

“In Kansas, the Social Security number is not publicly available,” he said. “Every state receives the same letter, but we’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available.”

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Trump expressed his discontent with the states refusing to comply.

Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Quest to Prove His Claim About Voter Fraud: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) released a video on Thursday imploring its followers to stock up on firearms and “fight back” against liberals. But many Americans were horrified by the inflammatory message, fearing that it could spark violence.

The lobbying group’s video claims that liberal Americans are indoctrinating children, “assassinating [the] real news,” and using Hollywood celebrities to further their narrative. Titled “The Violence of Lies,” the video claims that when police stop the demonstrators from protesting they will be accused of police brutality.

The spot, which runs a bit over a minute, is narrated by conservative talk show host Dana Loesch, a NRA spokeswoman. Her chilling commentary is paired with haunting black and white stock footage of scenes across America, including various demonstrations.

“The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country, and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth,” Loesch says in the video.

The NRA video also claims there has been a surge in left-wing violence, which is false, according to Vox.

The NRA hasn’t released any statement regarding the video, instead simply retweeting Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s claims regarding his interview with Loesch. Loesch defended the ad by telling the New York Times:

I hardly think that condemning violence is inciting violence. I think the ad is very clear — there are excerpts from actual riots that are included in the ad, and that’s exactly what I’m addressing.

The video is another example of the NRA’s habit of using “apocalyptic, paranoid rhetoric” to advance the idea that people must defend their gun rights. One example cited by Vox is a 2013 op-ed by NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre claiming that if liberals succeed in passing gun control then a lawless America would follow.

Soon after the video went public a petition was organized asking Facebook to removed the video from its site.

“The video tries to create an ‘us-vs-them’ narrative and pit Americans against one another,” the petition, which has over 25,000 signatures, said. “It paints liberals as liars and as violent, unruly protesters who law-abiding gun owners need protection from.”

Liberals weren’t alone in criticizing the NRA video–many gun owners were horrified at the provocative advertisement. Multiple Facebook users commented on the post with comments claiming they were cancelling their membership or condemning the veiled encouragement of violence against liberal demonstrators.

Another comment compared the video to George Orwell’s “1984” and Ivan Pavlov’s experiments with salivating dogs, according to Huffington Post.

But still other Facebook comments were grateful for the video “describing 100 percent exactly what happened,” according to Time.

Multiple politicians denounced the NRA video on social media. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy said he believes the NRA is telling followers to shoot people and that he recommends people cancel their membership. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam said he found the video “dangerous and wholly inappropriate.”

Former television personality Montel Williams also chimed in on Twitter. Williams added his own comment to a tweet from Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson who noted that the response would surely be different if a minority made the video.

This ad doesn’t speak for me as a proud, responsible gun owner. I find it disgusting. @Everytown @sandyhook https://t.co/1BDKXLHTym

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) June 29, 2017

There was also criticism from terrorism experts. Ex-CIA intelligence analyst Cynthia Storer, now an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, spent 20 years in the agency focusing on counterterrorism and al-Qaeda specifically, according to Newsweek. “The NRA is feeding an us vs them narrative of the kind that fuels all extremist movements,” Storer tweeted. “Extremism sparks extremism in return. It’s a vicious cycle and the world burns.”

If the NRA was seeking publicity, then the group hit a home run. But if the organization wanted to start a dialogue or help fix a fractured America, this is a failure. It isn’t the first politically hyperbolic video, and it won’t be the last, but in this case the impact could be conflict and a widening of the gap in an already polarized American public.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NRA Video Sparks Reactions from Both Supporters and Opponents appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year of President Donald Trump accusing the mainstream media of disseminating “fake news,” Trump has been caught with a fake Time magazine cover hanging in many of his properties. After learning of the situation, a Time spokeswoman said that the magazine had asked the Trump Organization to remove the fictional covers but it had not yet received a response.

This counterfeit cover was hung in at least eight of Trump’s 17 golf courses, including Mar-A-Lago, which Trump has visited regularly since taking office. Additionally, the cover was hanging at Trump golf resorts in Ireland and Scotland until they were removed in the past few months, according to the Washington Post.

The fake cover, which is supposedly from March 1, 2009, praises Trump as a “television smash” and that he is “hitting on all fronts…even T.V!” But Time magazine argues that this is not a real cover. Instead, the real edition, which was released on March 2, 2009, features actress Kate Winslet on the cover with the headline “Best Actress.”

There were a handful of issues with the presentation that tipped off observers to the fact that the cover was, in fact, fake news. First, the border was too skinny and was missing a white divider. Next, secondary headlines were stacked on the right side as opposed to the top where Time traditionally places them. Some of the stories did indeed appear in that week’s edition, but others weren’t published until the following month, according to Newsweek.

Another crucial mistake was the use of two exclamation points, which Time almost never uses on the cover.

The kicker is that the bar code is fake and pulled directly from this tutorial on how to make a fake Time cover. The instructions were laid out by a Peruvian graphic designer.

This situation prompted Virginia congressman Gerry Connolly to mock Trump on Twitter.

Wow, my first cover of Time. Asked my staff to frame this and hang it in all four of my offices. @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Hx57ZJExR8 pic.twitter.com/y1HciTB5G1

— Gerry Connolly (@GerryConnolly) June 27, 2017

While it is still unknown who exactly put together the fake cover, or whether Trump himself knew about it, it’s clear that Trump views Time covers as a sign of success. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump bragged about being on the cover “six for politics and…two for real estate.” According to Time magazine history, Trump has indeed appeared on the cover plenty of times in the past year, albeit not always positively. But he only appeared once for his real estate ventures and that was in January 1989.

Even when giving a speech at the CIA headquarters in January, Trump boasted that he owned the “all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” In actuality Trump has appeared on the cover 11 times up to this point while Richard Nixon, the 37th president, appeared on 55 covers before his death in 1994.

Despite having appeared on the cover of the prestigious magazine plenty of times, Trump has clearly been hyperbolic when describing his number of appearances. It is unclear whether Trump knew of the fake covers or why it was created when there were legitimate alternatives, according to the Washington Post.

While there are websites that aid the public in creating fake magazine covers, it seems unethical for the President of the United States to be promoting himself with falsified news covers. And this entire debacle seems even more troublesome in the context of Trump’s repeated attacks on the news media. 

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Time Magazine Asks Trump Organization to Remove “Fake News” Cover appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is considering taking punitive action against China for its trade practices and its inability to reign in North Korea, three senior administration officials told Reuters.  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross could announce tariffs against Chinese steel as soon as this week, along with the results of an departmental probe into steel imports. Some analysts worry that such a move could spark a trade war between the world’s two largest economic powers.

In April, Trump released a memo directing Ross to conduct a review of “unfair trade practices and other abuses.” The memo added:

In the case of steel, both the United States and global markets for steel products are distorted by large volumes of excess capacity–much of which results from foreign government subsidies and other unfair practices.

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly inveighed against Beijing’s trade practices, accusing it of dumping steel and manipulating its currency. But in April, after a warm meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump walked back his harsh language. Placing his faith in China’s ability to influence North Korea–a near-nuclear power that relies heavily on trade with China–Trump admitted that China is not a currency manipulator.

Trump is reportedly upset with Beijing over its lack of progress on North Korea. The insulated country continues to test medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and is inching toward having the capability to strike the coastal U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile. North Korea has balked at negotiation attempts by South Korea’s new president, and has shown no signs it’s willing to scale back its nuclear ambitions.

Last week, Trump sent out an ominous tweet that seemed to signal further actions against China might be on the horizon:

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2017

Steel stocks rose Tuesday in anticipation of Trump’s potential actions against China.

“They did a little, not a lot,” one of the White House officials told Reuters, referring to China’s efforts to curtail North Korea. “And if he’s not going to get what he needs on that, he needs to move ahead on his broader agenda on trade and on North Korea.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump About to Start a Trade War with China? appeared first on Law Street.

A recently published study found evidence that Seattle’s phased-in $15 hourly minimum wage has led to an overall decrease in low-wage jobs. But some analysts doubt the study’s methodology, and attribute the low-wage job decrease to Seattle’s booming labor market. Low-wage workers are simply getting paid more because of the market, critics of the study contend, thus the decrease in wages for lower paying jobs.

In 2014, Seattle became one of the first jurisdictions to commit to a $15 per hour minimum wage, a benchmark that would be phased-in over a few years. The first wage hike was in April 2015, as large businesses began paying their employees at least $11 per hour, up from $9.47. In January 2016, the minimum hourly wage for large businesses rose to $13; in January of this year, the rate finally hit $15. The wage increases for smaller businesses were more modest–many have yet to reach the $15 benchmark.

The study, conducted by University of Washington researchers, concluded the following:

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

But not everyone is taking the study’s findings at face value. For one, it has not been peer reviewed. Critics say the drop in working hours for low-wage jobs is not necessarily a result of the minimum wage bump–the decline is due to Seattle’s flowering economy, they say. Instead, some analysts say, lower wage earners have seen a paycheck bump because of natural economic trends.

“The key challenge this study faces is how to separate the normal shift that’s happening in a booming labor market — where low-wage jobs disappear and are replaced by higher-wage jobs — from an actual increase in the minimum wage,” Ben Zipperer, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, told the New York Times.

To discern the precise cause of the decrease in low-wage jobs–either Seattle’s economic forces or its minimum wage hike–the researchers cobbled together a control group. Normally, researchers would compare Seattle to a city with near-identical variables, but a city that, unlike Seattle, did not significantly raise its minimum wage. For this study, however, the researchers took parts of areas throughout Washington State and patched them together to create a control group. Still, the researchers found Seattle’s situation to be unique.

“You see the biggest difference in the effect when the minimum wage increased from $11 to $13,” said Mark Long, one of the authors of the UW study. “The timing suggests it’s the minimum wage,” he added, not the natural effects of a growing economy. But Long did allow that his study’s conclusions might be flawed: “If the areas we’re picking to put weight on don’t match what would have happened to Seattle in the absence of the minimum wage, our results would be potentially biased.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Has Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Hurt Employment? appeared first on Law Street.

The House Armed Services Committee drafted bipartisan legislation on Tuesday to create a “Space Corps” within the Air Force by January 1, 2019.

The strategic forces subcommittee–which is in charge of space military matters–added the legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Space Corps would act “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force,” according to a joint statement from the subcommittee’s top legislators Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN).

The Space Corps would have its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The position would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force, according to the legislation.

If you were excited about the prospect of Congress growing the military to be more prepared for space battles against invading aliens, then get ready to be disappointed. Lawmakers believe this legislation would be a proactive measure against the country’s current inability to defend from a space attack from our international enemies.

“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”

As space infrastructure from countries around the world begin to populate the planet’s immediate orbit, U.S. leaders worry that an adversary–like China or Russia–could gain a strategic edge over the U.S. By establishing military capability in space first, U.S. adversaries could cripple satellites that help with communications and surveillance systems the military depends on.

It wouldn’t be a military space bill without some underlying fear of the Russians.

A surprising critic of this bill has been the current Air Force leadership. Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May and said that the bill would distract from the current goals of the service.

“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialogue open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”

The introduction of the Space Corps provision is only the beginning. The entire House Armed Services Committee will need to vote on the bill before it can be debated on the House floor, which is not expected to vote on the NDAA until after July 4. The Senate is working on its own version of a similar bill. If the Space Corps legislation in the NDAA garners enough votes from the House and Senate, then it will finally be sent to the White House to be signed into law.

Regardless of what happens to this legislation, government and military officials will continue to discuss the best way to provide for defense in orbit and beyond. It’s the way of the future that might eventually lead to the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Committee Wants to Include a Space Corps in New Defense Bill appeared first on Law Street.

As Republican Senators prepared to release a version of their new health care legislation on Thursday, a group of protesters gathered outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But many of them were eventually physically removed from the scene.

The rally was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, according to CNN. In their statement, the protesters said that they are “demanding [McConnell] bring an end to attacks on disabled people’s freedom which are expected in the bill.”

So, the majority of protesters were either advocates for those with disabilities or those directly impacted by a handicap, according to USA Today. Instead of calling their protest a “sit-in” they referred to it as a “die-in,” demonstrating their belief that the GOP health care bill would put many Americans in grave danger without dependable health care.

ADAPT’s statement also noted that the protest took place on the 18th anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. – the Supreme Court decision that recognized disabled people’s right to live in communities rather than institutions.

After President Donald Trump took office and vowed to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Republicans have been trying to craft their own version of the bill. They faced harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle for their secrecy regarding the bill’s contents before unveiling it on Thursday.

Citizens nationwide were offended by both the process surrounding the creation of the bill and the contents of the bill itself. So, the protesters felt it was incumbent to voice their concerns to one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

While the protests remained mostly peaceful, Capitol Police were called in at some point and began to forcefully remove protesters despite their constitutional right to protest the government.

Capitol Police are physically removing protesters who are staging a “die-in” in front of McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/8BU0dW63VI

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) June 22, 2017

The police force ultimately arrested around 20 people, many of whom were either on respirators or confined to wheelchairs, according to the Huffington Post. Custodians also had to be sent to the hallway in order to clean up blood, according to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Desiderio.

The group took particular exception to the proposed cuts to Medicaid. At one point the crowd began chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty!”

“No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.” Group chants in front of @SenateMajLdr‘s office. pic.twitter.com/fVJpufMDgC

— Jessica Smith (@JessicaASmith8) June 22, 2017

The health care bill has to be voted on by the Senate and go back to the House, so it will likely be modified. But the violence that these protesters faced at the hands of Capitol Police is upsetting. Instead of having their voices heard, they had their free speech stymied and were physically injured.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Physically Removed from Outside Mitch McConnell’s Office appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans released their version of a bill to overhaul the health care system on Thursday. In general, the Senate version looks a lot like the version passed by the House in May with some important tweaks–notably, it includes steeper cuts to the Medicaid program in the long-term and changes the tax credit system to be a less generous version of the one currently in place. While it’s easy to get stuck in the details of these tweaks, arguably the best way to evaluate the bill is to look at its effects on taxing and spending. It may be most prudent to ask one question: should we offset tax cuts for the rich and businesses by cutting spending on the poor and working class?

The tax cuts in the American Health Care Act, or AHCA, amount to about $660 billion over 10 years and would be paid for, and then some, largely by slashing more than $800 billion in spending on Medicaid–the insurance program that provides health care to America’s most vulnerable, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, pregnant women, and the poor. Although it would direct several billions of dollars to funds that help stabilize the individual insurance markets, that funding will end in 2026 while the changes the Medicaid will be permanent.

To understand current Republican proposals, it’s worth taking a minute to look at the law they seek to “repeal and replace.” The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, included a number of new taxes designed to help pay for new tax credits and a large expansion of the Medicaid program. The tax credits subsidized the cost of premiums for working class people who can’t get health insurance from their employer and the Medicaid expansion gave states funding to cover people living near the poverty line.

While the Affordable Care Act sought to raise taxes in order to increase insurance coverage, the American Health Care Act seeks to cut taxes, leading to a large reduction in the number of people with health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan agency tasked with analyzing the effects of new legislation, the bill that passed the House would have increased the number of people without health insurance by 23 million by 2026. Although we will not have the updated projections for the Senate version until next week, that number is not expected to change very much.

The Senate version of the AHCA would undo the Medicaid expansion, phasing out the additional federal funding, and would reduce the value of the tax credits for most Americans who are currently eligible for them. In addition to ending the Medicaid expansion, the Republican bill would fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program by instituting a cap on the amount of funding per person enrolled. This new system would shift the burden of cost increases from the federal government–which currently covers a fixed percentage of all costs–to states and would amount to a significant reduction in the projected spending on the program in the long term. Medicaid is the country’s largest health insurance program, covering 20 percent of all Americans, including 30 percent of adults with disabilities, 60 percent of children with disabilities, 49 percent of births, 64 percent of all nursing home residents, and 76 percent of poor children.

For a more in-depth look at what the bill that passed the House would do to Medicaid, check out this article.

So who would benefit from the bill’s tax cuts? The AHCA would get rid of about 14 different taxes that target a broad range of groups, from high earners to indoor tanning companies. It would also slash some of the taxes put in place by the Affordable Care Act to target industries that stood to benefit from the coverage expansion, like medical device manufacturers and prescription drug makers. One of the most notable taxes was the one on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning $250,000 and up per year. All of these taxes would be repealed, leading to a significant windfall for the wealthiest Americans. The Tax Policy Center estimated the net effects of the House bill and found that people with incomes greater than $200,000 would see their tax burden decrease by $5,640 on average, while the spending cuts would mean that the lowest income Americans would be hurt the most.

New TaxVox post explains how low income families would lose an average of $1,600 under proposed #AHCA https://t.co/F5IyOwub0e pic.twitter.com/Jn2KgfERT5

— Tax Policy Center (@TaxPolicyCenter) March 22, 2017

It’s also worth noting that the bill would repeal what’s known as the individual and employer mandates. The individual mandate requires people to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty at tax time. The employer mandate imposes a similar penalty on companies with a minimum number of full-time workers but do not offer health insurance to employees. Republicans have strongly criticized these penalties, which have been one of the driving forces behind the effort to scrap the Affordable Care Act.

There are a number of important differences between the House version and the Senate version of the Republican health care bill, which we will undoubtedly hear about during the coming debate. It also seems likely that changes will be made in the short period before Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rushes the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. While it’s important to understand how these changes will affect people, taking a broader look at a very complicated bill might be the easiest way to make an assessment of it. If you think that taxes on businesses and the wealthy are too high and you don’t mind seeing an increase in the number of people without health insurance, then you’ll most likely support this bill. But if not, you may want to call your senator.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post One Question That Will Help You Understand the Republican Health Care Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks and months, President Donald Trump’s military policy has begun to coalesce around a somewhat coherent idea: defer decision-making to the Pentagon. In contrast to its predecessor, the Trump Administration has taken a more hands-off approach to the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The U.S. has had a footprint in all three battlefields for years. But the day-to-day operations since Trump took office have seemingly shifted from the White House to the Pentagon.

Afghanistan

Last week, the administration quietly announced it would increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000 troops. The precise number of troops, the White House said, would be determined by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The U.S. currently maintains a force of about 8,800 troops in Afghanistan, where they train and advise Afghan government forces in the 16-year battle against the Taliban.

Deferring such a decision to the Pentagon could reflect the inner conflict taking place within the White House. Steven Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, favors an isolationist approach, and would like to see the U.S. stay out of global conflicts. Others, like Mattis and National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, favor a strong U.S. presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan.

Still, some see the Pentagon’s longer leash as a reflection of the administration’s lack of a coherent longterm strategy. In a statement released Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “six months into the new administration, it still has not delivered a strategy” in Afghanistan. According to the White House, a comprehensive strategy will be in place by mid-July.

Yemen

The first indication that Trump would afford the military greater command in overseas conflicts came in January. U.S. special forces raided a compound in Yemen that belonged to al-Qaeda leaders, a mission that the Obama Administration had not approved. The raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and a number of civilians, including children. Months later, in April, Trump said he was giving the military “total authorization”

“Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately,” he added. “If you look at what’s happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous difference.”

Syria

In Syria, a number of incidents over the past month has demonstrated the differences in approach between Trump and former President Barack Obama, who many critics say micromanaged the military to its detriment.

On Sunday, a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian jet after it dropped bombs near the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of U.S.-backed rebel groups. The Pentagon said the action was taken “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces.”

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. “

The episode marked the first time the U.S. directly took down a Syrian government jet. Earlier this year, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a chemical agent on its own citizens, the Trump Administration responded with an airstrike against a Syrian airstrip. The strike was the first direct U.S. attack against the Syrian government during the six-year-old civil war. 

Four direct engagements w Syria/Iran/Russia in 45 days. Trump is quietly starting a new war that Congress has not declared. Red alert. https://t.co/D4MKPLXFTS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 19, 2017

During Obama’s tenure, airstrikes and other combat actions in Syria were often meticulously reviewed by the White House. Critics, including people within the Obama Administration, argued that approach was too timid, perhaps contributing to the deteriorating situation in the war-torn country.

But critics of Trump’s approach say the lack of a diplomatic strategy to go along with a weightier military component can be dangerous. It can potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and other powerful actors in the region, like Iran and Russia, some observers say.

Within the administration, there have been lobbying efforts to broaden the war against Iran and its proxies in Syria, according to Foreign Policy. But Mattis and other generals with decades of battlefield experience have snuffed that idea. The ultimate goal in Syria remains the destruction of Islamic State. The push toward Raqqa, the group’s de facto capital, is well underway.

Regardless of the Trump Administration’s tactics, the outcome in Syria remains the same as it was under Obama. The Pentagon recently wrote in a statement: “The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Doctrine: Let the Pentagon Handle It appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year in the spotlight as an important member of Donald Trump’s family, son-in-law Jared Kushner has finally made his first public remarks since becoming an adviser to his father-in-law. So, after plenty of speculation, the world now knows what his voice sounds like.

Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband, has gained unprecedented access to the White House for an in-law. Since President Donald Trump took office, Kushner has been given access to the National Security Council and confidential information. He has also been tasked with brokering a peace deal in the Middle East and acting as a diplomat in talks with Mexico, according to the Washington Post.

Yet America was still left wondering what Kushner sounded like. Even “SNL” made fun of Kushner’s silence in this clip from April.

Comedian John Oliver joined the fun on one of his shows: “For someone with the amount of power that he has, have you ever heard him speak? Seriously, what does his voice sound like? You don’t know, do you?”

On Monday, Kushner made his first recent public speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Behind a podium, Kushner spoke about the Trump Administration’s commitment to technological modernization. Two months ago Kushner was tapped to head the Office of American Innovation, which attempts to use the private sector to modernize government, according to the Washington Post.

As Kushner spoke on technological modernization, some people on Twitter joked that Kushner’s voice itself should be a bit more futuristic.

Kind of disappointed. Jared Kushner’s making his first public remarks and he hasn’t been hiding a cool Darth Vader voice. At all.

— Karen DaltonBeninato (@kbeninato) June 19, 2017

Others on Twitter compared his voice to actor Michael Cera, who is often mocked for his young, high-pitched voice.

In the tragicomedy film version of the Trump era, Jared Kushner will be played by Michael Cera.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 19, 2017

Many had fun at his expense, but others took note that the disparaging comments about Kushner’s voice may come from him not fitting a “masculine” ideal. There was plenty of fodder to criticize as people mocked Kushner’s “feminine” voice on Twitter.

There is so much that’s fair to critique Kushner on that’s fair. But, making fun of his voice hurts so many men and boys for no reason.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) June 19, 2017

But does how Kushner’s voice sound actually matter? In the first few months of his presidency, Trump has incorporated his family into more power positions than prior administrations, so Kushner’s actions matter more than his voice. What really matters is how Kushner can use his powerful platform to influence his wife and father-in-law when it comes to technological advancement or whatever other important issue he’s tasked with.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The World Finally Gets to Hear Jared Kushner’s Voice appeared first on Law Street.

Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS have resigned in frustration with the Trump’s Administration’s apparent lack of interest in “the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic.”

Since its creation in 1995, the council has sought to craft national policy on the disease, prevent its spread, and promote effective treatment as a cure is developed, according to U.S. News and World Report.

The members of the council who quit began becoming concerned during the 2016 presidential campaign when the Trump team showed little interest in meeting with advocates for those struggling to survive the disease. At that point, while the council noted the Trump camp’s disinterest, they clung to the hope that he could be engaged on the issue once in office, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Things escalated when the White House site “Office of National AIDS Policy” was removed during Trump’s inauguration, said Scott Schoettes, a member of the council since 2014.

The final misstep was when the new American Healthcare Act was passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives, despite pleas from marginalized communities that it would have disastrous impacts, especially for those with HIV/AIDS.

New HIV infections in America declined 18 percent between 2008 and 2014, according to estimates from the Center for Disease Control. The council worked with the previous administration to create the new healthcare system that provided easier access to diagnosis and treatment. Those who quit the council felt that the new GOP bill would take that away.

Schoettes, and his peers, wanted to provide input for the council, but said that they could no longer stand idly by as the Trump Administration ignored their recommendations. Schoettes wrote in a guest column for Newsweek announcing the resignations:

The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and — most concerning — pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.

Trump has still not appointed anyone to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy after 150 days, while former President Barack Obama appointed a leader after only 36 days. Schoettes penned the column, but it was cosigned by his partners in resignation Lucy Bradley-Springer, Gina Brown, Ulysses W. Burley III, Grissel Granados, and Michelle Ogle.

While the council can have up to 25 members, it currently has only 15. The council last met in March, at which point the members wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price expressing concern about the repeal of the American Healthcare Act and the impact it would have on access to HIV/AIDS treatment. Price responded with an uninspiring, “perfunctory” response, according to Schoettes, which further frustrated the council.

Still, Schoettes says he and his colleagues have a desire to help the community they have worked with for many years. They don’t foresee Trump mustering any more interest than he has shown, but they hope other politicians find it necessary to work on a serious public health issue. The column finished:

We hope the members of Congress who have the power to affect healthcare reform will engage with us and other advocates in a way that the Trump Administration apparently will not.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Six Members of the HIV/AIDS Council Resign in Frustration appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will hear an appeal regarding political gerrymandering, in what legal experts say could be the most consequential such case in decades. It could alter the tradition of political parties redrawing voting districts for their political advantage. The case, Gill v. Whitford, concerns Wisconsin’s legislature and its gerrymandering efforts in 2011.

In 2010, Republicans gained control of Wisconsin’s legislature for the first time in four decades. After the census, they redrew the state’s voting districts, and in 2012, despite winning less than 50 percent of the vote, Republicans captured 60 of the legislature’s 99 seats. In 2014, Republicans won 52 percent of the vote and increased their state assembly majority to 63 seats.

It is a common practice for state legislatures to redraw voting districts to confer an advantage on the governing party. Redistricting commonly takes place after the once-a-decade census is conducted. The Supreme Court has never struck down districts because of partisan advantage. However, it has, as recently as this year, nixed districts that were devised in order to dilute the vote of minority populations.

In May, the Supreme Court struck down two districts in North Carolina, affirming a lower court’s decision that the Republican-controlled legislature drew the map to dilute the influence of African-American voters.

Last November, a federal district court ruled that Republicans’ 2011 gerrymandering effort in Wisconsin crossed a line and was unconstitutional. In a 2-1 ruling, the court found that the districts were drawn in order to minimize the influence of Democratic votes, and were “designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats,” the majority opinion concluded.

“Although a majority of the [Supreme Court] has suggested that states can violate the Constitution if they draw legislative districts primarily to benefit one political party, the justices have never been able to identify the specific point at which states cross the constitutional line,” Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN. “In this case, a lower court held that Wisconsin had indeed crossed that line.”

According to the plaintiffs in Gill v. Whitford, Republicans in Wisconsin accomplished their politically-motivated gerrymandering via two techniques: packing and cracking. Packing is fairly self-explanatory: the state legislature stuffs the opposition party’s voters into a single district, thus diluting each individual vote. Cracking is the practice of spreading opposition votes in districts where the governing party enjoys a majority, keeping those votes out of districts that could swing either way.

In a statement released Monday, Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel said the state’s redistricting was constitutional. He said: “I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Will Hear Wisconsin Partisan Gerrymandering Case appeared first on Law Street.

At Nationals Park on Thursday night, during the annual Congressional Baseball Game, Republicans and Democrats sat in opposite sections. But all rooted for one team: Team Scalise. For a few hours, just a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot while practicing at a baseball diamond in the Virginia suburbs, the game was a rare moment of unity.

Before the first pitch, both teams trotted out to second base and huddled around each other for a moment of prayer. And after the game, which the Democrats won 11-2, the Democratic manager, Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA), gave the trophy to the Republicans to put in Scalise’s office.

“Not here this evening, but in our thoughts and prayers–Steve Scalise,” boomed the loudspeaker at the end of announcing the GOP’s lineup. Both sides of the stadium responded with a raucous standing ovation. There were other unifying symbols: some members from both parties wore Louisiana State University hats and shirts, in a nod to Scalise’s alma mater. Signs in both the Republican and Democratic sections read: “Scalise Strong” and “Team Scalise.”

President Donald Trump delivered a video message to the 60 or so congressmen on the field: “By playing tonight, you are showing the world that we will not be intimidated by threats, acts of violence, or assaults on our democracy,” Trump said. “The game will go on.”

The view from the Republican side. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street.

But not all of the record-setting 25,000 attendees felt that this fleeting moment of unity signaled a shift toward bipartisanship.

“The country is not going to get past partisanship,” John Blasko, wearing a Washington Nationals jersey and carrying a blue, Democratic foam finger, told Law Street. “It’s not going to happen.” Blasko, who works in real estate and sells merchandise at Grateful Dead shows (he’s been to 410, by his count) said partisanship in the U.S. “couldn’t be worse.”

Blasko is not hopeful Wednesday’s shooting will lead to any significant change in the political climate, saying it “means nothing.” But still, despite his fatalistic outlook, Blasko’s parting words were befitting of a Grateful Dead die-hard: “everybody love everybody,” he advised.

That sentiment seemed distant on Wednesday morning, when John Hodgkinson, a vocal Trump critic, stormed the GOP’s practice in Alexandria, Virginia, with a rifle. He sprayed the field with bullets, hitting four, including Scalise and Capitol Police officer David Bailey, who threw the first pitch at Thursday’s game. As of Thursday evening, Scalise remained in critical condition, and “will be in the hospital for some time,” the hospital that is treating him said in a statement.

The stands on Thursday were full of hope for the future, in spite of Wednesday’s attack.

Julian, a sophomore at Yale majoring in political science, said the political climate “could be better.” Still, he told Law Street while munching on nachos early on in the game, “I don’t think we’re on a downward slope, I think we’re going to be fine.” He said the unity on display Thursday night is “one of those markers to the public that yes congressmen can be bipartisan, yes they can cooperate, yes they are friends in the office. They’re not just bitter enemies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Congressional Baseball Game: Seven Innings of Unity appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

Late Wednesday, a variety of news outlets published reports that Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, requested interviews with a trio of current and former intelligence officials.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post, and later by the New York Times. It came from anonymous sources and fueled speculation that Mueller is widening his investigation to determine whether President Donald Trump, in firing Comey last month, obstructed justice. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted that the obstruction of justice probe is a “phony story” created by “conflicted” people:

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Mueller to lead the investigation last month, soon after Trump fired Comey, who at the time was heading the FBI’s inquiry into Russia and its potential links to the Trump campaign. Testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee–which is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s interference–last week, Comey said a number of private meetings with the president led him to document the encounters.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” Comey said.

In his retelling of the events, Comey recalled Trump said he “hoped” that he would shutter the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. This, some observers have said, might amount to a case against Trump for obstructing justice. The Post’s report does indicate Mueller is indeed investigating the matter in terms of potential obstruction, but it does not mean that Trump is guilty of any misdeeds.

“This unfounded accusation against the president changes nothing,” the RNC said in a statement in response to the Post’s story, despite the fact that Mueller has yet to level any accusations against the president. “There’s still no evidence of obstruction, and current and former leaders in the intelligence community have repeatedly said there’s been no effort to impede the investigation in any way.”

According to the anonymous source, Mueller will interview three current and former high-ranking intelligence officials: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former deputy director of the NSA Richard Ledgett.

Rogers has publicly acknowledged that he had never felt pressured to end the FBI’s probe into Flynn. During a hearing last week, he said:

“I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” Rogers said. “And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mueller’s Apparent Obstruction of Justice Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman’s lifetime of strange behavior continues with yet another trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea this week–his fifth trip to the isolated nation.

Rodman has built a close relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in recent years, becoming a pseudo-ambassador for the United States. America has no ambassador or diplomatic relations with North Korea; instead, it relies on the Swedish embassy as a mediator, according to its website.

“My mission is to break the ice between hostile countries,” Rodman told Sports Illustrated in 2013. “Why it’s been left to me to smooth things over, I don’t know. Dennis Rodman, of all people. Keeping us safe is really not my job; it’s the black guy’s [Obama’s] job. But I’ll tell you this: If I don’t finish in the top three for the next Nobel Peace Prize, something’s seriously wrong.”

Rodman’s current trip is being sponsored by Potcoin.com, a cryptocurrency business that does banking for legal marijuana companies. While there is little known about cultural life in North Korea, some defectors have said that marijuana is obtainable and common in North Korea.

I’m back! Thanks to my sponsor https://t.co/zBtIFz1QBr. #NorthKorea #PeaceAndLove https://t.co/G7t6PX3WV9

— Dennis Rodman (@dennisrodman) June 13, 2017

Another one of Rodman’s previous trips was sponsored by Paddy Power, an Irish gambling company.

The fact that Rodman, an eccentric NBA star who has headbutted a referee, kicked a cameraman, once married former “Baywatch” star Carmen Electra for less than six months, and then donned a wedding dress and wig to marry himself, is the main liaison between the two nations is pretty strange. But his rapport with the supreme leader is even more bizarre.

Dennis Rodman gives copy of ‘The Art of the Deal’ to North Korean official https://t.co/QKyhrMvigp via @RyanGaydos pic.twitter.com/FQYXQyGnm6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 15, 2017

In the past Rodman has discussed politics with North Korean leaders, in addition to having fun as a private citizen. Prior to his fifth trip, he told to reporters he is “trying to open a door” for better relations between the two nations, according to Chicago Tribune.

In 2014, Kenneth Bae, a South Korean-born American citizen, publicly thanked Rodman following his release from the country after being imprisoned and sentenced the prior year to serve 15 years of hard labor in the country. Bae called Rodman the “catalyst” for his release.

Coincidentally, University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier was released back to the United States within hours of Rodman’s arrival in North Korea Tuesday. It remains murky as to whether or not Rodman had something to do with Warmbier’s return, but Michael Anton, a US national security spokesman, told CNN he didn’t believe Rodman played a role.

Rodman endorsed President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign after twice participating as a contestant in Trump’s reality show “Celebrity Apprentice.” Since his inauguration, Trump has repeatedly criticized and threatened both Kim and North Korea.

North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2017

Despite Trump’s public criticisms, Rodman still believes the president would approve of him befriending Kim. When asked by reporters in Beijing if Trump was aware of the trip, Rodman replied, “Well, I’m pretty sure he’s pretty much happy with the fact that I’m over here trying to accomplish something that we both need.”

Multiple sources involved in unofficial talks with North Korea, according to the Washington Post, claim the Trump Administration is using Rodman as a back channel to North Korea, rather than the usual lineup of experts and policy makers. But it remains to be seen whether or not basketball can actually bridge the seemingly impassable divide between the two countries.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dennis Rodman Heads to Favorite Vacation Spot, Again: North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

For anyone who has ever taken an intro to economics class, the phrase supply side economics should be familiar. Supply side economics essentially argues that economic growth happens through capital investments and lowering the barriers of production. The idea behind supply side economics is that you can stimulate growth by encouraging capital investment and lowering the barriers to production. Supply-siders argue for lowering tax rates across the board to reduce the tax burden on businesses and high-earners in the hope that they invest more to boost the economy. It’s a conservative theory and it was largely implemented during the Reagan years (dubbed Reaganomics). Depending on who you ask, it was considered a success or a failure. But one state may have taken Reaganomics a little too far, and is now paying the price.

In 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback attempted to fully embrace a supply side economic policy, on steroids. He has called it “a real live experiment” in conservative economic policy.

Since 2011, he has drastically reduced income taxes across the board. A fellow from the Show-Me Institute, a right-leaning think tank, called it “the biggest tax cut of any state, relative to the size of its economy, in recent history.” Brownback’s policies allowed for 300,000 businesses to become tax exempt, eliminated many deductions–including ones on child care–and significantly decreased public spending in all sectors. It got to the point where the Kansas supreme court ruled unanimously that public school spending was unconstitutionally low. While Brownback claimed these policies would stimulate economic growth and bring private sector jobs to the state, the budget did just the opposite. Kansas now has a $900 million dollar deficit and lags behind in job growth compared to the rest of the country.

Unfortunately for Brownback, this experiment seems to be coming to an end. Last week the Kansas state legislature overrode the governor’s veto in favor of a progressive tax increase across the state. What makes it even more surprising is that this occurred in a state where Republicans have a two-thirds majority in both the house and the senate. The measure will bring $1.2 billion in revenue over the next two years to combat the $900 million shortfall in the budget, and most of the tax revenue will go toward funding the vastly underfunded public schools. It will also reverse a policy that made over 300,000 businesses tax exempt.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Kansas Center for Economic Growth, since the tax cuts were introduced in 2012, Kansas has significantly lagged behind in terms of GDP and personal income growth compared to neighboring states and the rest of the nation. Furthermore, job growth for private and non-farming jobs measures at approximately half the rate of their six state neighbors.

But what’s shocking is not just that the Kansas Republicans turned against their Republican governor, but that a Republican led legislature voted for an increase in taxes. Not raising taxes has been a staple among the GOP since the days of President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. President George W. Bush implemented tax cuts during his presidency in 2001 and 2003, and every single GOP candidate for President during the 2016 election, except for Trump, signed the pledge promising to never raise taxes.

For Kansas Senate majority leader Jim Denning, who voted for the tax cuts back in 2012 hoping that they would bring a spike to economic growth, reality set in. He admitted that he couldn’t vote for more cuts that they weren’t working and worked with Democrats to find a solution. “I’ve always backed up and mopped up my mess. That’s what I’m doing now,”

Of course this one example does not prove that supply side economic theory or cutting taxes is harmful. Supporters of the governor’s tax plan argue that the plan wasn’t effective because it didn’t go far enough. But it will certainly be a point of interest to see if it’s an isolated incident or the beginning of a long trend against conservative economics–specifically the promise to never raise taxes under any circumstances.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s Tax Pledge May Be Cracking appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1761, a bill aimed at punishing child pornographers. At first glance, this legislation seems like a common-sense child protection law, but the text’s language is so vague that it could include minors who are caught sexting each other and subject them to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison.

Freshman congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA), introduced the bill last March to close alleged loopholes in existing child pornography laws.

Johnson’s move is largely a response to a botched legal case involving a man accused of the sexual abuse of his seven-year-old neighbor. The man couldn’t be convicted by federal prosecutors because the only available evidence was a single photo of the abuse, which was deemed insufficient by the court.

The bill, which will soon make its way to the Senate, seeks to “criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” While this would prevent additional cases of digital sexual exploitation of minors, the definitions used also criminalize explicit photos being shared among consenting teenagers in a relationship, for example.

A 2014 Drexel University study found that 54 percent of its respondents sexted as minors, with 28 percent of those saying the sexts were photographic. The study also showed that most of these kids were not aware of the legal ramifications their sexts could bring about. If this bill passes, millions of teens across the country could inadvertently slip into criminality.

Though the legislation passed the House with a comfortable and bipartisan 368-51 margin, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the measure “deadly and counterproductive,” according to Reason. A letter signed by Jackson Lee and six other House dissenters concluded that “no child pornography offense should go unpunished. HR 1761, however, would subject more individuals to mandatory minimum penalties at a time when the federal criminal justice system should be moving away from such sentencing schemes. While well-intentioned, the bill would exacerbate a problem that is clearly unfair and unnecessary.”

The ACLU took to Twitter to object to the bill’s passing, once again emphasizing its good intentionality but poor anticipation of real-life application.

The purpose of child pornography laws is to prevent minors from being abused, not criminalize young people for sexual experimentation. https://t.co/2Nvbhs3u3N

— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 1, 2017

Director of federal legislative affairs at Families Against Mandatory Minimums Molly Gill told Broadly: “You’re talking about 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds—young people who are being certainly reckless, but do they need to spend 15 years in prison? At that young age, their brains are not even done developing yet. They have all the potential in the world ahead of them and a 15-year prison sentence is the fastest way to kill their future.”

After the bill was debated, two amendments were proposed to make the language more specific regarding who the bill is targeting. The first would have removed the possibility for teens to be punished as sex offenders for sexting. The second eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties. Neither amendment passed.

In response to his colleagues’ concerns, Johnson said that “in Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aimed at Pornographers Could Subject Teens to Jail Time for Sexting appeared first on Law Street.

Weeks after House Republicans passed a health care bill, GOP senators are drafting their own version of a law that would repeal and replace Obamacare. Among a variety of differences between the two Republican efforts, one is especially rankling to Democrats: the senators of the Budget Committee are cobbling together their bill in secret. According to a number of Senate aides, nobody outside that committee, including a number of Republican senators, has seen the bill’s precise language.

Influential Senate Democrats took to Twitter to pillory the secretive Republican process:

My advice today: focus 10% of your attention/outrage on Sessions testimony, 90% on the secret health care bill that is speeding to a vote.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2017

 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Republicans “are trying to pass a health care bill in the dead of night.” He added:

If they were proud of this plan, they wouldn’t hide anything – they’d crow all about it! What exactly are they trying to cover up? 5/7

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2017

Republicans are hoping to vote on the bill by the July 4 recess, which gives them a window of a couple of weeks to finish drafting the bill, and send it to the Congressional Budget Office for a review. The CBO, a non-partisan analysis agency, released its evaluation of the House health care effort a few weeks after the bill was passed. It found that the bill could result in 23 million more uninsured Americans.

A CBO evaluation could take up to two weeks, so if Republicans hope to vote on the Senate bill by July 4, it would have to be completed in the coming days. But even as the bill nears completion, some high-ranking Republican senators are being kept in the dark as well.

“I want to know exactly what’s going to be in the Senate bill, I don’t know it yet,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently told reporters. “It’s not a good process.” And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said “this is not the best way to do health care, but it’s the way we’re having to do it,” adding that the only thing about the bill he’s aware of is that “they’re writing it.”

While the particulars of the bill are largely unknown, there have been reports about some of its broad outlines. Overall, the bill is expected to be left of the legislation the House passed last month. Medicaid expansions would be phased-out over seven years instead of two, and tax credits would be offered to a broader range of low-income individuals.

Once the bill is out in the open, and hits the Senate floor for a vote, it faces a fractured chamber, not to mention a complete lack of Democratic support. To pass, the bill will need the support of a diverse contingent of Republican Senators–the more conservative members, like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and more moderate ones, like Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), tweeted perhaps the most creative critique of the secretive Republican effort:

BREAKING: Senate Republicans just released the schedule of hearings, committee markups and public testimony for their health care bill. pic.twitter.com/iHtXyZqyMW

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 12, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans’ Health Care Effort is Cloaked in Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

Before his presidency, Donald Trump was a builder. Specifically, he built towers, golf courses, and even vineyards. Last week, he took on his biggest building job yet: America’s national infrastructure network. This push was dubbed by President Trump and his administration as “Infrastructure Week.”

Using a series of events and announcements, the current administration presented a $1 trillion plan to revamp this nation’s infrastructure, which includes highways, electrical systems, waterways, and airports.

Given that much of the news last week had little to do with infrastructure–notably Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before Congress–here are some of the highlights in case you missed it.

Privatizing Air Traffic Control

President Trump made his first major infrastructure announcement at an event last Monday at the White House with executives of numerous airline companies. At that meeting, President Trump announced his plan to privatize the air traffic control system with the hope that the private industry can significantly upgrade air travel. He said:

At its core, our new plan will dramatically improve America’s air traffic control system by turning it over to a self-financing, nonprofit organization. This new entity will not need taxpayer money, which is very shocking when people hear that. They don’t hear that too often.

The plan is based off of a bill written by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania) last year and is supported by the air traffic controllers’ union as well as the CEO of Airlines for America (A4A), Nicholas E. Calio, who said it could potentially save the economy billions and dramatically improve air traffic control.

While the plan may not increase taxes as Trump claims, the cost of airline travel could increase for consumers as new fees would provide funding. The structure of this nonprofit corporation would give broad decision-making power to the board, which would be made up of mostly airline representatives and airline workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that completely modernizing the aviation system through privatization would actually cost more money (because of an expected increase in spending to modernize air traffic control) than maintaining the current system under the FAA. Reports have also indicated that privatization of the system increased air traffic control fees in Canada and the U.K. by 59 and 30 percent respectively. And if the cost burden is decided by airline executives and workers then it may be more costly for the consumers.

$1 Trillion= $200 Billion?

It’s important to understand that the $1 trillion infrastructure plan does not actually involve $1 trillion dollars in direct federal government spending. Instead, the government will foot $200 billion in infrastructure spending with the expectation that private companies foot the other $800 billion.

However, infrastructure projects typically don’t yield high return rates, leading some to question how the Trump Administration will be able to convince private companies to take on 80 percent of the workload. A potential consequence of this approach would be the prioritization of projects that will lead to higher returns for investors, rather than those with greater public need.

Trump and his team have said that they will change rules and regulations to make the process more appealing to businesses. So far the Trump Administration hasn’t said how exactly it will change the regulations.

Rolling Back Regulations

On Wednesday, during his speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Trump said that he will work aggressively to fight the red tape (regulations) that makes infrastructure spending difficult. He said:

So we’re getting rid of the regulations, and we’re massively streamlining the approvals and the permitting process. Already my administration has expedited environmental reviews and critical energy projects all across the country.

Trump was in Cincinnati to discuss waterway reform, which is one area where the administration may seek to remove regulations.

Part of the plan that President Trump and his Secretary of Transportation recently emphasized is the amount of time it takes for new projects. When talking about his plans to cut regulatory hurdles in April, Trump said, “We’re going to try and take that process from a minimum of 10 years down to one year.”

Still No Detailed Plan

Probably the most confusing aspect of “Infrastructure Week” is that there is still no fully completed infrastructure plan detailing specific policies.

On May 1, Trump stated that his infrastructure plan would be completed in two to three weeks. It’s been almost five weeks since that announcement and there are still many questions left unanswered.

For example, while Trump has touted that he will help rural infrastructure, he has only given vague hints as to what he wants to improve. On Wednesday, the president said, “Rural America will receive grants to rebuild crippled bridges, roads, and waterways.”

According to NPR, there were no further details given on how, specifically, rural American will receive this spending.

The bottom line is until there is an official bill, or at least a detailed proposal, presented to Congress with specific plans for how the administration will drive $1 trillion of infrastructure spending, Trump’s plan will be just that, a plan.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Because We All Missed it: Highlights from Infrastructure Week appeared first on Law Street.

The attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging that he violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments since taking office.

This is the first time a state has filed a lawsuit against a president for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. While Trump has said that he would transfer his business assets to a blind trust, the lawsuit is centered on the claim that Trump has continued to retain ownership of his vast business portfolio while getting updates from his two sons.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will require the court to answer whether Trump has violated either the domestic or foreign emoluments clauses.

Both clauses ban any “person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from receiving any payment from foreign countries or from any of the 50 states without approval from Congress. The founding fathers set up the clauses to limit the influence a foreign country or an individual state could wield over the president.

In a copy of the lawsuit provided to the Washington Post, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh claim that Trump’s global business has him “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors.”

The suit also alleges that businesses in both Maryland and D.C. have been harmed by Trump’s tendency to utilize his own convention centers and properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The suit says that hotel payments, tax breaks, and permits all count as domestic emoluments received by Trump, according to CNN Money.

If the lawsuit progresses, the two officials say their first step will be to demand Trump’s personal tax returns in order to gauge the severity of his behavior.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits attempting to test Trump’s conflicts of interest. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based group, and Cork Wine Bar had previously filed lawsuits against the president.

The Trump Organization, though, argues that everything is perfectly legal. In a response to CREW, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Trump may legally accept “market-rate payments” for Trump’s real estate, hotel, and golf companies. They even cited George Washington selling farm produce as a previous example in their 70-page response.

Disappointed with the lack of inquiry from Congress, Racine and Frosh felt compelled to file their own lawsuit.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

The attorneys general feel confident that they have the standing to sue because Maryland and D.C. entered a contract, the Constitution, that Trump has violated by accepting gifts.

So while Trump faced plenty of lawsuits before his presidency and a handful since, this lawsuit represents a big moment in the early months of his administration. Trump’s foreign business dealings and potential conflicts of interest have been controversial since the campaign, but now D.C. and Maryland are demanding transparency within the Trump Administration to ease citizens’ concerns.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump, Alleging He Violated Constitution’s Anti-Corruption Clauses appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s Twitter account has controversially given his almost 32 million followers direct, unfiltered access to his thoughts and stances on issues. Now that users are getting blocked from the account for offending the president, a group of lawyers say his actions infringe on their freedom of speech.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote a letter asking Trump to remove the blocks, adding that they constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

This request brings up some novel legal questions: Is access to a president’s tweets and the information they contain comparable to a public town hall, despite the fact that they are being posted on a private account? If so, can the president violate the Constitution if he prevents a user’s access? The lawyers’ letter states:

When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum form which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint. This is true even if the space in question is ‘metaphysical’ rather than physical; even if the space is privately rather than publicly owned; and ‘even when the limited public forum is one of [the government’s] own creation.’

On the same day the letter was written, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a briefing that Trump’s tweets ought to be taken seriously, thereby strengthening the lawyers’ argument. He “is the president of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

Users have been blocked for tweets as simple as covfefe-related jokes, and policy criticism. Holly Figueroa O’Reilly was blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account after she made a joke about how the pope frowned at the president during his trip to the Vatican. She agrees that her blocking may constitute an offense to her First Amendment rights.

“This is an elected official trying to silence an entire sector of the dissenting populace,” O’Reilly said in opinion article. “This is what dictators and fascists do. This isn’t what we do here in America.

@realdonaldtrump isn't a regular citizen. He's @potus His tweets are public record. Unblock us this is unconstitutional #BlockedByTrump pic.twitter.com/a9Kw4KNTlv

— Andy Signore (@andysignore) June 7, 2017

Some, however, do not think cases like these would hold up in court. Ken White, a First Amendment litigator and blogger, told Vox that a blocked user is only being prevented from being able to “read what the president has chosen to vent on this particular site,” and not to speak about matters.

Other issues include the fact that the president has two accounts, including his @POTUS handle, and the fact that ultimately they are both hosted through a private company’s servers further muddle the legal picture.

While the debate over Trump’s Twitter blocks continues, some of his former followers have started a #BlockedByTrump hashtag, choosing to view the president’s move as a badge of honor.

Tonight I am honored to join an elite club … #BlockedByTrump. Apparently, I hurt the feelings of the "leader of the free world". SAD! pic.twitter.com/yQGyt2yBJE

— Rob Szczerba (@RJSzczerba) June 2, 2017

Is #BlockedByTrump just a hashtag or the Holy Grail of Twitter?

— Christoph Rehage (@crehage) May 30, 2017

If Trump doesn’t reverse the blocks or answer the letter, the Knight Institute says his administration should prepare for “legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of blocked individuals.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Trump Blocks Twitter Followers, Does he Violate the Constitution? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal this week regarding the sugar trade, but some viewed it as a precursor to negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

American sugar refineries previously complained about Mexico introducing cheap sugar into the U.S. economy, while simultaneously refusing to export raw sugar to their American counterparts, according to The New York Times. This has resulted in the movement of sugar-based jobs from America to Mexico over the years.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had previously threatened an 80 percent tariff if the two sides did not reach a deal by early this month, according to Politico.

The talks between the two neighboring countries began in March, about two months after President Donald Trump took office on a platform of protecting American workers and companies. Ross led the negotiations with Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister, The New York Times reported. At a news conference in Washington D.C., Ross said:

We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by the U.S. sugar industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners.

Some politicians, businessmen, and analysts have viewed these negotiations as a possible preview to upcoming discussions on the existing NAFTA deal. Those negotiations are expected to begin in August, according to Reuters.

Just the fact that the Trump Administration dove into negotiations with a country they have often insulted was an encouraging sign, according to CNN Money.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the deal “sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

Under the terms of this new agreement, Mexico would greatly reduce the amount of refined sugar it exports to America while increasing its raw sugar exports. But many are unhappy with Trump’s first major economic agreement.

One American sugar producer, Ohio-based Spangler Candy, has voiced its displeasure at the deal. Spangler Candy, which has moved plants into Mexico for access to cheaper sugar, believes that the administration has failed on one of its main campaign promises.

“To be honest, I’m just very disappointed that the Trump administration didn’t do more to level the playing field, which is something they promised over and over again to do for the American worker,” Spangler Chief Executive Officer Kirk Vasha said in a phone interview with Reuters.

U.S. Coalition for Sugar Reform, a trade group representing U.S. sugar buyers, disavowed the deal because of the burden raising tariffs will put on consumers. The coalition estimates that the cost to consumers in higher prices will be around $1 billion, according to Reuters. The Sweetener Users Association also projected the costs at around $1 billion.

Hershey and Mondelez International, which owns the Kraft brand, both referred Reuters to those price estimates as their response to the deal. Ross has said he hopes that their concerns can be calmed in the drafting process of the deal.

So while the deal may not be ideal in the view of some companies or consumers, the deliberations bode well for future compromise between the two nations. After feuding between Mexican leaders and Trump, or his surrogates, throughout his campaign, the negotiations offered a glimpse of the upcoming collaboration regarding NAFTA.

Trump has repeatedly promised to bring jobs back to America, which he attempted to accomplish in this sugar deal. Soon enough he’ll have the chance to work on NAFTA, another major point of his throughout the campaign.

I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. We’re going to get this economy running again. #Debate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

Even those from the Mexican side feel the sugar deal bodes well. Carlos Vejar, a former senior Mexican trade official who served as general counsel for the trade for Mexico’s Economy Ministry, believes that sugar is “obviously an issue that is so controversial it is a good example that agreements can be reached.”

Trump’s main campaign promise was to fix America’s place in the global economy and to bring jobs back. Many are disappointed in his first attempt, so perhaps he can do better when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Sugar Deal with Mexico Previews NAFTA Discussions appeared first on Law Street.

Washington nearly exploded on Thursday morning. Not literally, of course. But when James Comey, the now-ubiquitous former FBI Director, testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the capital was transfixed.

For an hour or so, it seemed like much of the country was fairly united–CNN dubbed the event “Washington’s Superbowl.”

But while all eyes were on Comey, all ears were certainly not. Some heard Comey all but indict Trump. Others heard him liberate the president, and take aim at the New York Times and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The hearing centered around the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible communications with Russia, and its meddling in the election, which Comey was overseeing before he was fired by the president last month.

Comey’s firing, coupled with a leaked memo Comey wrote (which he revealed in the hearing he had a hand in leaking) that detailed a questionable conversation with Trump, ignited claims that Trump could be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Among other things, here is what Comey revealed in his testimony to the committee: he firmly believes he was fired because he was leading an investigation into Trump’s campaign operatives and Russia; he kept detailed memos of every private conversation he had with Trump because he was afraid the president would later lie about their interactions; Comey believes Trump, in a February 14 conversation, asked him to scrap the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn, the former head of the NSA.

To everyone’s surprise, Trump did not tweet during the hearing. But his personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement soon after the proceedings ended. It reads:

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference.

The statement denied that Trump ever demanded loyalty from Comey, as the former director said he did, or that the president ever, “in form or substance,” instructed Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

Kasowitz also called out “those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.” He added, “Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.”

During the hearing, Comey said Lynch, the attorney general at the time, requested he publicly refer to the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.” This, he said, along with Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, partially informed his decision to publicly announce Clinton was under investigation.

Some observers pounced on this small nugget, raising questions as to whether or not Lynch would be charged with obstruction of justice.

Will fmr AG Lynch be charged w/ obstruction of justice after Comey revelations of demands she made? Will Dems demand it?

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 8, 2017

The RNC and the DNC released two completely irreconcilable statements following the hearing.

The RNC statement read, “Today’s testimony proved what we have known all along: President Trump is not under investigation, there’s still no evidence of collusion, and he did not hinder the investigation in any way.”

In contrast, the DNC statement said Comey’s testimony “gave us the clearest and most damning evidence yet that President Trump lied to the American people and is likely under investigation for obstruction of justice–a serious and disturbing charge.”

While millions of Americas may have been united in watching Comey’s testimony, both statements illustrate the potentially unbridgeable divide in American politics.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reactions to Comey Hearing Illustrate America’s Political Divide appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill that would significantly repeal or alter major parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and designed to prevent another meltdown, Dodd-Frank has been a Republican target since it was signed into law seven years ago.

Though the bill that would repeal it is expected to narrowly pass the House, entirely on the backs of Republicans, it faces a much higher hurdle in making it through the Senate, where 60 votes would be required to pass. If all 52 Senate Republicans vote for the bill, at least eight Democrats would have to support it to ensure its passage.

Critics of Dodd-Frank contend it stifled economic growth. Supporters say it helps bring financial security to everyday Americans, and is vital in preventing another recession.

The bill that would undo Dodd-Frank, called the Financial Choice Act, was drafted last year by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Among other provisions, it would allow banks to waive some of Dodd-Frank’s restrictions on lending if they can show a substantial reserve of capital to cover potential losses.

On Wednesday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI), framed the new bill as a way to “rescue” small-town America from federal overreach. He said: “The Dodd-Frank Act has had a lot of bad consequences for our economy, but most of all in the small communities across our country.”

The bill is likely to pass the House despite unequivocal Democratic opposition; Republicans maintain a large advantage in the chamber. To Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Republicans who support the Choice Act are “ignoring the past” and “endangering the future of millions of Americans.” She added: “Dismantling the law will force consumers to go it alone against Wall Street.”

The Choice Act will also weaken the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that was formed after the 2008 crisis. Under the new law, the president would have the authority to unilaterally remove the head of the agency, and many of its oversight functions would be reduced. The law might also gradually reduce the federal deficit. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, the legislation would lower the deficit by $24.1 billion over a decade.

Still, Democrats see the bill as a direct rebuke of President Donald Trump’s promises to reign in Wall Street. “The Wrong Choice Act is a vehicle for Donald Trump’s agenda to get rid of financial regulation and help out Wall Street,” said Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Service Committee. “It’s a deeply misguided measure that would bring harm to consumers, investors and our whole economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Republicans Look to Repeal the Dodd-Frank Act appeared first on Law Street.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, sent out a critical tweet of President Donald Trump after the president reiterated his commitment to his “original travel ban.”

These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad. https://t.co/zVhcyfm8Hr

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Trump’s original tweet compelled Conway to tweet for the first time since retweeting a video about suspending New York Giants star wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. on December 20, 2015.

Conway believes that while Trump’s tweets on the ban may appeal to his voter base, it isn’t the right decision in terms of garnering the right number of votes to win a case in the Supreme Court.

Conway’s outburst comes within the same week that he chose not to pursue the position of leading the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, according to Politico.

“I have reluctantly concluded, however, that, for me and my family, this is not the right time for me to leave the private sector and take on a new role in the federal government,” he said in a statement.

While many people interpreted Conway’s tweet as a swipe at Trump, he attempted to clarify his comment in a string of four tweets. Conway explained that he still supports the Trump Administration, but that most lawyers would agree with him that Trump’s tweets on legal matters “undermine the Admin agenda and POTUS.”

1) Just to be clear, and in response to inquiries, I still VERY, VERY STRONGLY support POTUS, his Admin, policies, the executive order …

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Earlier in the day, Kellyanne, a counselor to the president, had made an appearance on NBC’s “Today” criticizing “this obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little what he does as president,” according to US News and World Report.

Apparently her husband disagrees and finds Trump’s tweets important. The president’s tweets created a reaction even without George Conway’s critique.

While Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had previously claimed that Trump’s executive order was “…not a Muslim ban. It’s not a travel ban,” according to The Hill, the president has reverted to using the word “ban.”

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

Trump proceeded to call it a travel ban in four other tweets since June 3.

With his executive order set to be heard in the Supreme Court, many lawyers agree with Conway and feel that the president has greatly damaged his court case. Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston told the New York Times:

These difficulties are amplified exponentially when the client is the president of the United States, and he continuously sabotages his lawyers, who are struggling to defend his policies in an already hostile arena. I do not envy the solicitor general’s office.

George Conway has been a partner at the corporate law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz since January 1994 and won a case at the Supreme Court with Morrison v. National Australia Bank, according to CNN.

Conway was also considered for solicitor general in January 2017 after Trump had won the election. Despite his marriage to Kellyanne, his potential position in the government would not have been nepotism because neither one would have held direct authority over the other, according to The New York Times.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Critiques Trump’s Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday his intention to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal, an international environmental agreement dedicated to curbing the rise in global temperatures, adopting greener energy sources, and cutting down on carbon emissions. This decision drew criticism from foreign leaders, business executives, and even the mayor of Pittsburgh.

The announcement, given in the Rose Garden of the White House, was filled with the usual “America First” rhetoric that focused on a fear of being laughed at.

“We want fair treatment,” Trump said. “We don’t want other countries and other leaders to laugh at us anymore.”

To his credit, Trump defended his decision with evidence from the scientific community in between the comments focused on American exceptionalism. He mentioned that even if the agreement was followed all the way through by every country that signed it, the planet would see its global temperature drop two-tenths of one degree Celsius by 2100. A “tiny, tiny amount,” he said.

The good news is that the claim stems from a 2016 study by MIT titled “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” and is technically true. The not-so-good news is that Trump left out a key finding in that study. Researchers say that if nothing were to be done, global temperatures could rise over 5 degrees Celsius which one scientist said would be “catastrophic.”

Whether or not the president is aware of this fact is unclear. However, Trump’s track record on issues related to the scientific community does not provide much optimism for his understanding. His views on climate change, for example, leave a lot to be desired. On Nov. 6, 2012, he infamously tweeted:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Trump later downplayed the tweet as a “joke” in 2016 when Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attacked his views on climate change in a Democratic Primary debate. But that was not the only time he has tweeted about global warming. Vox compiled all 115 of Trump’s tweets that mention his climate change skepticism including the following:

Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

Despite the president’s old tweets, NASA’s climate change website states that at least 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends are a result of human activity.

It’s not just climate change that the president has some questionable views on. Earlier this spring, the Washington Post reported Trump’s beliefs on how the human body works. According to the New Yorker piece the article references, Trump stopped engaging in athletic activities after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”

This is not true. The American Council on Exercise states that exercise improves the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to muscle tissue, allowing muscles to produce more energy for the body. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends at least 150 minutes of intense aerobic exercise per week. And the Mayo Clinic says that exercise improves muscle and heart health which gives people more endurance, and more energy.

But the most fascinating scientific belief that our commander-in-chief holds is his support for the use of asbestos. Trump believes that the movement to phase out asbestos in the nineties was a conspiracy set up by the mob. In his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” he says the following:

I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special ‘dump sites’ and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn’t hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.

Later in the book he calls an anti-asbestos law “stupid” and claimed that it is “also 100 percent safe, once applied.”

This belief continued well into the 21st century. In 2005, he credited the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 to its lack of asbestos and doubled down on this in 2012.

.@dubephnx If we didn’t remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn’t (cont) http://t.co/d10u18dh

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012

 Prior to its collapse, the World Trade Center had upwards of 400 tons of asbestos used in its insulation, fireproofing materials, steel, and drywall. Nearly 410,000 people were exposed to the deadly carcinogen that kills 10,000 Americans a year, according to the World Trade Center Health Registry.

The connection between asbestos and mesothelioma, a cancer developed through asbestos exposure, has been known since the early 20th century but only recently been acted upon due to a decades long cover-up.

The irony in all this comes from a standout quote from Trump’s speech last week: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” he said. Between 1999-2013, Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh resides, had 1,616 people die from asbestos-related deaths, the highest in the state, and the asbestos-related death rate was nearly 80 percent higher than the national average.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Interesting Relationship with Science appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has clearly made it a priority to reverse as many Obama-era achievements or initiatives as possible. From pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords to immediately responding to Syria’s chemical weapons attack with force (something President Barack Obama’s critics say he wrongly failed to do), Trump’s emerging doctrine is, effectively: do what Obama did not. Could Trump’s quest to stand in stark contrast to his predecessor eventually undo Obama’s 2014 rapprochement with Cuba?

ABC News recently reported that Trump is indeed gearing up to reorient U.S. policy toward Cuba, making it harder for U.S. companies to engage with the Cuban government and restricting the growing flow of American tourists to the island.

“As the President has said, the current Cuba policy is a bad deal. It does not do enough to support human rights in Cuba,” White House spokesman Michael Short told the Associated Press, which also reported on Trump’s forthcoming policy reversal. “We anticipate an announcement in the coming weeks.”

After five decades of diplomatic inertia, Obama established formal ties with Havana in 2014. Critics say the increased investment will only prop up the Castro regime, which regularly commits human rights abuses. Since the opening of relations, American businesses and tourists have flooded the country with investment and cash. American companies–mostly in the tourism, travel, and communications industries–have struck 26 deals with the Cuban government from 2015 to 2017. And last year, 300,000 tourists flocked to the island.

Sources familiar with the Trump Administration’s thinking on the Cuba issue said the new policy will be phased in over the coming weeks. The administration has been facing intense lobbying by prominent Cuban-American lawmakers and business leaders, as many carry first-hand or second-generation memories of the Castro regime’s atrocities and were aghast at Obama’s actions in 2014.

Two of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill urging Trump to ditch America’s engagement with Cuba are Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), both Cuban-Americans. Rubio recently emailed a number of news outlets the following statement: “I am confident the president will keep his commitment on Cuba policy by making changes that are targeted and strategic and which advance the Cuban people’s aspirations for economic and political liberty.”

Meanwhile, on Cuban Independence Day last month, Trump issued a statement that “cruel despotism cannot extinguish the flame of freedom in the hearts of Cubans, and that unjust persecution cannot tamper Cubans’ dreams for their children to live free from oppression.” Trump added: “The Cuban people deserve a government that peacefully upholds democratic values, economic liberties, religious freedoms, and human rights, and my Administration is committed to achieving that vision.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Trump Reverse Obama’s Diplomatic Opening with Cuba? appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration recently approved even harsher vetting processes for people applying for a visa to travel to the United States. The U.S. currently has one of the most complicated visa processes in the world, and many groups believe that even stricter rules will put off foreign students, scientists, and others from coming here.

The new rules would allow officials to question applicants about their social media accounts, email addresses, and phone numbers from the past five years. Applicants would also have to divulge their home addresses, employment, and travel history from the past 15 years, as well as all previous passport numbers. So people would need to keep all the passports they have owned throughout their lives to apply for a visa to America.

All visa applicants wouldn’t face these new questions. It would be up to each consular official to determine whether additional questions are needed to “conduct more rigorous national security vetting,” according to a State Department official. They would also be voluntary, as the questionnaire states, but not answering them could result in the visa being delayed or denied.

Trump admin’s ridiculous new visa rules will hurt the economy. Total contribution of tourism in 2016: 8.1% of GDP https://t.co/jJQkgt5m5r

— Rachel Glickhouse (@Riogringa) June 2, 2017

The Office of Management and Budget approved the new questions last week. More than 50 academic groups representing college admission counselors and advisers criticized the new rules in a letter to the State Department. They wrote that the new rules could act as a deterrent for foreign students seeking to study in the U.S. and might also lead to confusion, uncertainty, and long delays in processing times.

It is also very ill-defined and vague in regard to who is affected by the new rules. One estimation said that the questions would apply to about 65,000 visa applicants every year. Earlier, the State Department said the new questionnaire would affect those “who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.”

But it’s likely that not everyone will remember every single place they traveled to in the past 15 years, or even every social media handle they are signed up for. Immigration advocates have said such detailed questions are likely to stop travelers who make honest mistakes from being granted visas. And since the questions are voluntary, and not answering could–or could not–mean that your visa is denied, it makes it an arbitrary process.

For now, the questionnaire has been emergency approved to be used for six months–the usual time for this type of vetting is three years. Considering the majority of the 200 comments submitted when the new rules were open for public comments were negative, this is likely to create more frustration and protests in the near future.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Tightens Vetting Process for Visa Applicants appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is taking its fight to implement a controversial executive order halting travel from six largely Muslim countries for 120 days to the highest judicial level: the Supreme Court. Lower courts have blocked parts of President Donald Trump’s revised order–he scrapped a first attempt earlier this year after courts stopped it–over the past few weeks.

Trump’s harsh campaign rhetoric regarding Muslims, critics argued, revealed that his true motivation for instituting the ban was to stop Muslims from coming to the country. Trump has said the order–which blocked travel from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia–is grounded in national security concerns.

In its brief, the administration argued:

The stakes are indisputably high: The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism. The court did not dispute that the president acted at the height of his powers in instituting [the order’s] temporary pause on entry by nationals from certain countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism.

The road to the Supreme Court has been seemingly inevitable. Trump crumpled up his first order, issued on January 27, after a federal appeals court in San Francisco blocked it in February.

The president issued a revised ban in March, which dropped the number of affected countries from seven to six (Iraq was removed), removed specific references to protecting Christian minorities, and allowed for a more case-by-case approach to determine which travelers are allowed into the country. Like the first order, it froze the refugee program for 120 days, and dropped the threshold of admitted refugees each year from 110,000 to 50,000.

If the High Court decides to take up the case, it will be an early test for Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest justice. In his Senate confirmation hearing in March, Gorsuch barely budged when asked about his views on the travel ban. Referring to a previous comment from a senator that Gorsuch would likely preserve the ban, Gorsuch said: “He has no idea how I would rule in that case. And senator, I am not going to say anything here that would gave anybody any idea how I would rule.” When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Gorsuch what he thought of banning other religions or citizens of entire countries, like Jews from Israel, Gorsuch replied:

We have a Constitution. And it does guarantee freedom to exercise. It also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else besides, and the Supreme Court has held that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country. I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Takes Travel Ban Battle to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Few cities have caused as many headaches as Jerusalem. On Thursday, President Donald Trump continued in the tradition of his predecessors in keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel’s metropolis on the Mediterranean, rather than moving it to Jerusalem, Israel’s proclaimed undivided capital. In the wake of Trump’s announcement, social media has seemingly come to a consensus: Trump broke a campaign promise. Sure, he did. But like everything else involving Jerusalem, it’s not that simple.

Status of the Holy City

When the United Nations officially recognized the State of Israel in 1947, it also sought to designate Jerusalem “corpus separatum,” or an international protectorate, apart from the Arab and Jewish states being created between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean to the west. That did not happen. Instead, after Israel officially declared itself a sovereign nation in May 1948, an attack was launched–Arab armies assaulted Israel, which eventually won the war.

But Jerusalem, which saw heavy fighting in the war, was split: Jordan captured the eastern half, which contains Judaism’s holiest sites (as well as Islamic and Christian holy sites), while Israel held onto the western half. Jordan governed the Holy City for nearly two decades. Under Jordanian rule, Jews were not allowed to visit their holiest site, the Western Wall. Jewish synagogues and cemeteries were destroyed or deconstructed. In the 1948-49 war, Jordan also captured the West Bank.

The Six-Day War in 1967 changed the status of Jerusalem, and shifted the conversation for decades to come. Israel captured a number of land parcels during the war: the Gaza Strip from Egypt; the Golan Heights from Syria; and the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan. Soon after, Israel annexed the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, moves that the international community did not–and still does not–recognize. Since then, all of Jerusalem–save the Temple Mount, a holy site for all Abrahamic faiths, which remains in Jordan’s hands–has belonged to Israel, which deems the city its undivided, eternal capital.

The U.S. Embassy

The U.S., like all other countries, has kept its embassy in Tel Aviv for decades. Israel has urged U.S. presidents to move the embassy to Jerusalem, home to Israel’s parliament, Supreme Court, and numerous cultural and business institutions. In 1995, the Clinton Administration signed a bill that set a clear path for the embassy move.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 found that the U.S. “maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.” The bill continued: “The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.”

The bill dictated that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. However, it also allowed presidents to waive the move, if it “is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” Like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Trump made a campaign promise to move the embassy. But on Thursday, despite his firm insistence he would buck the trend and actually go ahead with the move, Trump decided to renew the waiver, which will last for six months.

Despite delaying the embassy move, a White House statement said, “no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance.” It continued: “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests.” The White House said “the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed disappointment, but reiterated the U.S.-Israel partnership. A statement from his office said: “Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future.”

To Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, Trump made the right decision:

1. Trump was right to issue the Jerusalem embassy waiver today. But I hope it’s the last waiver, allowing the move later this year.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

He said Trump has leverage in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and a hasty move could have squandered trust. Shapiro said that once all sides, including Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are on the same page, then the embassy move would be prudent:

6. Then establish the embassy in W Jerusalem. Shatter Pal myth that Israel has no Jerusalem claims & treat Jerusalem as the capital it is.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Keep U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration issues were on the docket for Texas lawmakers on Monday, and protesters were present throughout the day. But one lawmaker, Republican state representative Matt Rinaldi, shocked his colleagues when he said that he reported the protesters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was the final day of an intense four-month session debating sanctuary cities, and over 1,000 demonstrators showed up to protest a new state law that makes it illegal for local law enforcement to refuse to comply with immigration laws and detention requests.

Rinaldi told his colleagues that he had reported the protesters to ICE as he believed they were undocumented immigrants. He allegedly said, “We are going to have them deported,” followed by an obscenity. Democrats were shocked by Rinaldi’s comments. “He assumed that because they were brown, in the gallery and protesting that they were here illegally,” said Representative César J. Blanco.

VIDEO: Lawmakers in Texas House scuffle during #SINEDIE on Monday.
BACKGROUND: https://t.co/q77vMguaXh pic.twitter.com/zlAGEaL0pB

— KVUE News (@KVUE) May 29, 2017

Some lawmakers were upset by Rinaldi’s behavior and a scuffle and some finger pointing ensued. Rinaldi claimed that Democratic Representatives Poncho Nevárez and Ramon Romero threatened his life and physically assaulted him. But according to others, Rinaldi was the one making the threats. “There was a threat made from Rinaldi to put a bullet in one of my colleagues’ heads,” said Representative Justin Rodriguez, also a Democrat.

Man, Texas knows how to protest. pic.twitter.com/976zeoxYNL

— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) May 29, 2017

Now they have a case of “he said, he said”–Nevárez said he never threatened Rinaldi. Rinaldi claimed he saw protesters holding signs saying, “I am illegal and here to stay” and that some of the Democratic lawmakers encouraged them. Blanco said he didn’t see any signs of that nature. ICE didn’t confirm whether or not it sent officials to Austin. But Blanco blamed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric for the conflict, saying that the president promotes hate speech:

The Trump rhetoric is trickling down and allowing current elected officials and candidates to resort to racism and violence making it sound like it was O.K. This has to stop. It is not what our country or what Texas is about.

Members of the Texas House Mexican-American Legislative Caucus said at a press conference on Monday that Rinaldi approached them repeatedly just to tell them he had called ICE. “F*ck them, I called ICE,” were his specific words, according to several members. Rinaldi said the protesters broke the law. But the chairman of the caucus, Rafael Anchía, said he simply saw Texans exercising their First Amendment rights.

The new law banning sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4, will go into effect in September. Several law enforcement agencies opposed the law, and citizens have continued to protest it even after Governor Greg Abbott signed it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Matt Rinaldi: The Texas Republican Who “Reported” Protesters to ICE appeared first on Law Street.

June is a wonderful month: Summer is in full swing, but the heat is not quite at August-level oppressiveness. Cities are abuzz with festivals, concerts, and community barbecues. A Transformers movie is likely hitting theaters. But in 2017, June is oozing with another fun summer treat: elections. From Georgia to Britain, California to France, here is your guide to the elections to pay attention to next month.

Special Election: California

On June 6, California’s 34th District will hold a special election to replace the seat left vacant by Xavier Becerra, a Democrat selected as California’s first Latino attorney general last December. A Democratic stronghold–only nine percent of registered voters are Republican–the race for the 34th features two Democrats in a head-to-head runoff: Jimmy Gomez and Robert Lee Ahn. Gomez, a former state assemblyman, has picked up some weighty endorsements, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

General Election: Britain

Prime Minister Theresa May stunned the U.K. last month when she announced an early election set for June 8, contradicting a previous promise to wait before doing so. Many suspect her motivation in calling a snap election is to fill parliament with members of her Conservative Party, giving May a wider mandate in the upcoming Brexit negotiations, which are expected to unfold over two years. Recent polls suggest that the once-commanding Conservative lead is tightening; the Labor Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, looks like it will do a bit better than initially expected.

Parliamentary Elections: France

France made history earlier this month when it elected its youngest ever president, the 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron. But his centrist ideology, rare in the ultra-polarized politics of France, will face a daunting task in the two-round parliamentary elections in mid-June. With the first round on June 11 and the second on June 18, the elections will determine the governing leverage Macron and his En Marche! party will have in fixing the social and economic frustrations that nearly propelled populist Marine Le Pen to power.

Special Election: Georgia

Since Donald Trump was elected president last November, and Republicans in Congress held their majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats have been grasping for a ray of sunshine. Many have looked to the Democratic candidate for Georgia’s Sixth District for that harbinger of hope: Jon Ossoff. The 30-year-old nearly won the election’s first-round outright in April; he narrowly missed winning 50 percent of the vote. This is a race to fill the vacant seat left by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. The final round, held on June 20, will pit Ossoff against Republican Karen Handel.

Special Election: South Carolina

As Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget director, helps Trump gut a number of federal programs in Washington, his vacant congressional seat is being wrangled over in South Carolina’s Fifth District. Taking place on the same day as Georgia’s special election, June 20, Democrat Archie Parnell and Republican Ralph Norman will battle for Mulvaney’s vacant seat. According to one recent poll, Norman, a longtime South Carolina legislator, is leading with 53 percent of respondents saying they would select him over Parnell.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post From California to France: Five Elections to Look Out for in June appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks, as Russia-related revelations dominated the discussion in Washington, it has been easy to forget about actual governing. But things are happening. For instance, Republicans have been waiting in the wings for years, eager to pass tax reform legislation. When President Donald Trump–who has been busy swatting away rumors regarding his ties to Russia and jetting to Riyadh–took the White House, and Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate, Republicans could finally take a crack at a tax overhaul. Let’s take a look at their progress so far:

For one, it appears the border tax, favored by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), is all but moot. In a House Ways and Means committee hearing on Tuesday, a number of Republican members voiced their concerns about the tax, which would levy a 20 percent tariff on imports, while getting rid of export taxes.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) said he does not want funding for tax cuts, which would ultimately come from the consumer, “to be on the backs of everyday hardworking American taxpayers.” To another Republican member of the committee, which would have to approve any tax bill before hitting the House floor for a vote, supporting the border tax is out of the question. “I cannot support the border adjustability provisions as introduced last year in the blueprint,” Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) said at the hearing, which included testimony from Target CEO Brian Cornell.

The Trump Administration also appears to oppose the border adjustment tax. “One of the problems with the border adjustment tax is that it doesn’t create a level playing field,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin recently said. “It has the potential to pass on significant costs to the consumer.”

At the end of April, Trump unleashed a one-page tax reform plan. The plan’s key features included severe tax cuts and a steep reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 35 to 15 percent. The 2018 budget the administration released on Tuesday did not include any substantial changes to the April plan.

According to a recent report by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the administration’s tax plan “contains specific, costly tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations but only vague promises for working families.” Using IRS data, the report estimates the plan would provide the top one percent with an average annual tax cut of $250,000 per household.

In addition to the administration’s plan, and the House proposal backed by Ryan and Kevin Brady, the Ways and Means committee chairman, the Senate is reportedly developing its own tax blueprint.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal with the Republican Tax Plan? appeared first on Law Street.

After 100 days of aggressive anti-immigrant action, the Trump Administration may be approaching a stumbling block: keeping American farms running without immigrant farmworkers. At a roundtable last month, American farmers explained to Trump that they are dependent on immigrant labor as local hires are rarely willing to work the farms.

Farms across the country, but especially in California, have faced labor shortages for years and as immigration restrictions tighten, the labor supply is quickly dwindling. The White House declined to discuss the specifics of the conversation but Trump reportedly said that he was focused on “criminals” rather than farmworkers and that he won’t destroy the labor force for American farms. However, it is difficult to make such a promise when more than half of American farmworkers are undocumented.

The H 2-A visa program provides agricultural guest workers with legal entry into the United States and as use of the program has risen over the past several years, fewer agricultural workers have been entering the country illegally. However, the H 2-A visa is only a temporary permit. Senate Democrats are currently sponsoring a “blue card” bill that would protect undocumented farmworkers who have worked at least 100 days in each of the past two years from deportation. A “blue card” is a modified green card, designed specially for agricultural workers to fast-track them toward permanent residency in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the bill lacks bipartisan support and there is little incentive for Republican senators to reach across party lines as the majority of their farming constituents voted for Trump, despite the fact that his administration plans to gut spending for farms across rural America. The blue card bill is a viable path to citizenship that will keep farms running and actually stabilize the labor market. Farmers often lose seasonal workers after they return home in the off season and don’t want to risk the passage back into the U.S., but with blue cards, the farmworkers could stay legally and work multiple seasons in a row.

Farmers only stand to benefit from having a steady labor supply but their loyalty to the Trump “pro-business” platform might push them to act against their own self-interest and be satisfied with the empty promise he made at last month’s roundtable. Even if Trump expanded the H-2 visa program, without a path to permanent residency, it is only a Band-Aid over a much more serious labor shortage. The blue card bill could be the path to citizenship that keeps farms running but it’s flown pretty much under the radar up to this point and without a grassroots campaign pushing for it, it will fade before it ever gets close to becoming a law. Undocumented workers do not always have the resources to speak for themselves and fear of deportation after a spike in arrests only makes speaking out seem more dangerous. It is up to the farmers, who have organized unions, lobbying groups and above all, stock with the Republicans, to fight for the blue card bill. If they let this bill fade into obscurity, their farms could take a hit.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Farmers Must Support the “Blue Card” Bill appeared first on Law Street.

A bipartisan trio of senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would ban congressmen from working as lobbyists after their time in Congress. Lobbying is a lucrative career that former congressmen often pursue; lobbying firms seek them out for their contacts and familiarity with the various levels of the federal government.

Sponsored by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Al Franken (D-MN), the Close the Revolving Door Act of 2017 seeks to shutter the Capitol Hill to K Street pipeline.

“Washington has become all too comfortable with the spin of the revolving door,” Bennet said in a statement, referring to the common “revolving door” metaphor to describe the non-stop flow of congressmen to lobbying firms. “By banning members of Congress from lobbying when they leave Capitol Hill, we can begin to restore confidence in our national politics.”

The bill would institute a lifetime ban on current members of Congress from working as lobbyists after leaving Capitol Hill. Former congressional staffers would not be allowed to work as lobbyists until six years have passed since their time in Congress. Currently, that moratorium is one year.

Lobbying firms are common destinations for former U.S. senators and representatives. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, over half of the congressmen that either lost re-election or left Congress in 2014 now work as lobbyists. President Donald Trump pledged to combat the issue in January, when he issued an executive order to severely restrict the flow of former federal employees to lobbying firms.

Past presidents–including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama–also issued executive decrees aimed at reforming the lobbying practices of former congressmen. Current law dictates former members and staff of the House have a one-year “cooling off” period, in which they cannot accept a contract from a lobbying firm. For former senators and their staff, the “cooling off” period is two years.

In a statement, Franken said “our democracy can’t function the way it’s supposed to when well-connected special interests have more power than the American people.” Acting against moneyed special interests was a rallying cry for camps on both sides of the political spectrum during last fall’s campaign. Both Bernie Sanders and Trump railed against what they saw as a corrupt (or to Trump, a “swamp”) Washington crippled by vested interests.

This bipartisan effort “would put in place much-needed reforms-by not only banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, but also making the industry more accountable and transparent,” Franken said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trio of Senators Seek to Ban Former Members of Congress from Lobbying appeared first on Law Street.

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

A vast majority of those arrested, 41,318 from January 22 to April 29, have criminal records. But the number of detained non-criminal undocumented immigrants also rose sharply, reflecting the directive President Donald Trump issued in January that deemed any immigrant in the U.S. without documentation a priority for arrest and deportation.

“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. “If you look at the numbers, then men and women of ICE are still prioritizing these arrests in a way that makes sense,” he added in a phone call with reporters after the figures were released.

Acting on his promise to strictly enforce immigration laws, Trump issued an executive order on January 25 “to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” The order effectively reversed an Obama Administration policy that directed ICE agents to prioritize for deportation undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes. Under Trump, all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Trump’s crack-down on illegal immigration, a stance that helped propel him to the White House, has not been implemented with impunity, however. A recently-passed spending bill does not include funding for Trump’s long-proposed border wall on the Mexican border. And federal judges throughout the country have stymied his efforts to ban or severely limit travel from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

Still, Trump is on-track to match or surpass the arrests of undocumented immigrants at the Obama Administration’s peak in 2013, when over 662,000 undocumented immigrants were arrested. After a pointed effort to focus only on high-level criminals, that number dropped in subsequent years.

And although the number of migrants crossing the southern border has precipitously dipped–which accounts for the 12 percent decrease in total deportations this year so far–the rise in arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants suggests a greater willingness to enforce the existing rules.

According to the ICE figures, over 10,800 undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested so far. More than 2,700 have been convicted of violent crimes, however, including assault, rape, kidnapping, or murder.

But of those that made up the 38 percent jump in arrests during the first three months of the Trump Administration, over half had been immigrants without criminal records. Their only crime: being in the country without documentation.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, sees the increase in arrests as a way to beef up numbers without implementing a broader strategy. “What it tells me is that the department is willing to put enforcement numbers ahead of any kind of strategy that would actually try to keep us all safer going forward,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump sent shockwaves through Washington last week when he abruptly fired James Comey, the FBI director who was investigating him for his communications with Russia during the campaign. Concerns about how a Trump-appointed director would impartially handle the investigation were somewhat placated on Wednesday, when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor to lead the probe into Trump’s contacts with Russian officials.

But the question remains: who will Trump select to lead the FBI? The president reportedly interviewed four candidates at the White House on Wednesday, and said a selection can come as early as Friday. Here are the top candidates:

Joe Lieberman

Lieberman is no stranger to Washington, serving three terms as a Connecticut senator, twice as a Democrat and once as an Independent. The 75-year-old was Connecticut’s attorney general in the 1980s, and presidential nominee Al Gore’s running mate in the hotly contested 2000 election. On Wednesday, Lieberman said that being considered to lead the FBI was “unexpected,” and “not something I was seeking.”

People on Twitter were quick to point out Lieberman’s connections to the Trump campaign:

Joe Lieberman for FBI Director? Huh, what’s Joe been up to recently? pic.twitter.com/iGaVT7cy7h

— Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 18, 2017

Andrew McCabe

Prior to Comey’s firing, McCabe had been serving as his deputy since early 2016. He is now serving as the Acting Director of the FBI. McCabe, 49, worked in the bureau’s New York Field Office in the late ’90s, and has been with the FBI ever since. A Democrat, McCabe attracted some controversy in 2015 when his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, ran for a Virginia state Senate seat. She was endorsed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a friend of Hillary Clinton who, at the time, was being investigated by McCabe and the FBI for her use of a private email server.

Frank Keating

Most well-known for the eight years (1995 to 2003) he served as Oklahoma’s governor, Keating also has spent some time in the FBI. He briefly served in the agency in the 1970s, and was also in consideration for the director position in 2001, when then-director Louis Freeh resigned. Keating, 73, spent years in the private sector, and currently works as an attorney in the international law firm Holland & Knight. If Trump’s track record of loyalty is any indicator, Keating likely won’t get the job. In April 2016, he wrote an editorial in the Tulsa World newspaper titled, “Anyone but Trump.”

Richard McFeely

Of the candidates on Trump’s short-list, McFeely has the most experience in the FBI. The former head of the FBI’s field office in Baltimore, McFeely served in the agency from 1990 to 2014, according to his LinkedIn bio. In 2011, McFeely headed an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department that ended with 17 officers being charged with extortion. Before retiring from the FBI in 2014, McFeely was the executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response Services Branch.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Are the Top Candidates to Replace James Comey as FBI Director? appeared first on Law Street.

Washington was hit with yet another bombshell on Tuesday: according to a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote in February, President Donald Trump might be guilty of obstructing justice. In the memo, the contents of which were divulged to The New York Times, Comey detailed a closed-door conversation he had with the president a day after he fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump allegedly asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and his contacts with Russia. “I hope you can let this go,” Trump told Comey, according to the memo. The FBI investigation into Flynn is ongoing. Shortly after the news broke, Capital Hill was abuzz with accusations that Trump, in nudging Comey to end a federal investigation, crossed the line. Dozens of Democrats, and some Republicans, suggested Trump’s actions, as described in Comey’s memo, constituted obstruction of justice.

In a Twitter post Tuesday night, after the Times’ report about the Comey memo was published, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) wrote: “Just leaving Senate floor. Lots of chatter from Ds and Rs about the exact definition of ‘obstruction of justice’.” Around the same time, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), tweeted: “Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.”

Two prominent Republican congressmen, Justin Amash of Michigan and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, also expressed concern that Trump obstructed justice. The White House, in a statement on Tuesday, denied Comey and Trump ever had the conversation as described in Comey’s memo. “The president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the White House said.

According to legal analysts, the key to determining whether Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, and if he could eventually be charged, is determining his intent when he fired Comey.

“There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction,” former federal prosecutor Barak Cohen told the Washington Post. “But on the other hand you have to realize that–as with any other sort of criminal law–intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.” That is, in asking Comey to end the FBI’s investigation into Flynn, and subsequently firing the director a few months later, did Trump intentionally obstruct an ongoing investigation?

Federal law broadly defines what exactly obstruction of justice means. According to Title 18, the criminal code that deals with federal crimes, it is a crime if a defendant “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.” But again, proving intent to obstruct would be tricky. Besides, any case against Trump would have to be carried out by his own Justice Department, meaning that consequences seem unlikely.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Exactly is “Obstruction of Justice”? appeared first on Law Street.

Texas has asked the government to give the state back the federal Medicaid money that it gave up when it chose to exclude Planned Parenthood from its family planning program. The request has alarmed women’s health advocates, who worry that if Texas is given access to the money without having to include Planned Parenthood again, it could set an example for other states to do the same thing.

The program Texas wants to fund is an alternative for women’s reproductive health that doesn’t include any abortion providers. It is called Healthy Texas Women and it connects women with providers that offer cancer screenings, contraception, and treatment for diabetes or high blood pressure. It helps women that make up to 200 percent of the poverty line and don’t qualify for Medicaid.

Normally, these types of programs are financed largely by federal money and the rest by the state. But after Texas decided to shut out all providers that offered abortions in 2013, the program had to be completely financed by state money. That is because federal law doesn’t allow states to simply pick and choose which providers it gives Medicaid money to.

Um, no. If you throw women under the bus, you don’t get the money. https://t.co/GLHN6iTsZk

— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) May 16, 2017

But critics say most women don’t know that Healthy Texas Women even exists. The number of women enrolled has decreased significantly compared to the number enrolled in a previous version of the program in 2015. And the difference is even larger compared to the number enrolled in the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program in 2011, when Planned Parenthood was still included. Officials have spent millions of dollars on marketing, but it hasn’t been as successful as expected. Reduced funding also led to many women losing health coverage.

Joe Pojman, executive director for Texas Alliance for Life, said that “low-income women deserve better care than Planned Parenthood is willing or able to provide.” But women are not as sure about that. Jessica Farrar, Democratic Texas State Representative, said earlier in May:

Increased funding for marketing for Healthy Texas Women highlights the simple fact this program has not yet, and never will, replace Planned Parenthood.

And Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director for Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, agreed:

They’ve been trying this for several years, but every time they’ve gone through an iteration of this they’ve not been able to make it work. Why is this taking you so long if it was supposed to be so easy to do this without Planned Parenthood?

A study looking into the effects of removing Planned Parenthood from the state’s health program showed that throughout the following 18 months thousands of women stopped getting long-acting birth control. There was also a 27 percent increase in Medicaid pregnancies. Texas now has the most births in the country: 400,000 babies were born between July 1, 2014 and the same date a year later. Texas also has one of the highest teen birth rates in the U.S.

Now state legislators wants to get the Medicaid funding back for Healthy Texas Women but not be required to include any abortion providers. And considering President Trump’s record on abortion legislation so far, it doesn’t look impossible. “This is a new administration, and we’re looking at what funding opportunities may exist for us,” said Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Wants Medicaid Money Back, Won’t Play Nice with Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

In a meeting last week with top Russian officials, President Donald Trump discussed classified information regarding an Islamic State threat, according to current and former U.S. officials. The revelations sparked outrage in Washington, even among high-ranking Republicans, and raised international questions about whether the U.S. under Trump is a reliable intelligence-sharing partner.

According to the Washington Post report, Trump shared an ISIS plot involving commercial aircraft and laptop computers with the Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The president also reportedly shared the name of a Syrian city in which the intel was collected by an unnamed ally in the Middle East. White House officials denied the report, and said Trump did not disclose how the classified intelligence was gathered, or by which Middle Eastern ally.

But early Tuesday morning, Trump took to Twitter to confirm that he did indeed share intel with the Russians concerning an ISIS plot, for “humanitarian reasons.” The president tweeted:

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

Still, the main concern is that Russia, which is backing Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, could glean how and from whom the U.S. receives its intelligence in regard to the fight against ISIS. A senior European intelligence official, speaking anonymously, told the Associated Press on Tuesday morning that if the Post’s report was accurate, his country, which the official did not want to be named, could stop sharing intelligence with the U.S.

Top Republicans were dismayed by the report that the Trump Administration was embroiled in yet another controversy, less than a week after Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey. “The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “To compromise a source is something that you just don’t do, and that’s why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close as to prevent that from happening.”

Sen. John McCain, perhaps the most vocal Republican critic of Trump, called the intelligence sharing “deeply disturbing.” He continued, in a statement on Tuesday: “Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future.” Top Senate Democrats also responded with concern:

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians. https://t.co/CRiSC024F7

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) May 15, 2017

Before the Post story was published on Monday, the White House denied its claims. For its part, the Kremlin derided the report as “complete nonsense.” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the sources and methods of the intelligence gathering was not discussed in the meeting, “and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” In a press conference on Tuesday, McMaster indicated that Trump was unaware the information he shared with the Russian officials was classified, and that the discussion that took place was “wholly appropriate.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Confirms He Shared Classified Intel with Russian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s vow to renegotiate NAFTA is one step closer to materializing: the Senate confirmed Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative nominee, on Thursday afternoon. The 82-14 vote ended months of uncertainty surrounding the Trump Administration’s trade plans, because it had been functioning without a chief trade envoy. Trump has repeatedly promised to retool the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. The president has called the 1994 deal a “disaster.”

Lighthizer, 69, has decades of trade experience, both in the public and private sectors. He served as a senior trade official in the Reagan Administration. Since then, Lighthizer has worked as a trade lawyer, representing clients in the U.S. and abroad. His work for foreign firms–between 1985 and 1990, he represented five foreign clients, including Brazil’s government–threatened to derail his nomination.

UPDATE: U.S. Senate confirms Trump’s pick for trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, setting stage for NAFTA renegotiation https://t.co/nlr5Ql8DWS pic.twitter.com/XcnxhXKb2M

— CTV News (@CTVNews) May 11, 2017

A 1995 amendment to the 1974 Trade Act stipulates a nominee who “directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity” cannot serve as the U.S. Trade Representative, unless granted a waiver from Congress. But in spite of the potential legal landfalls, the Senate decided that it was high time to install the chief U.S. trade representative, and confirmed Lighthizer by a landslide.

“Mr. Lighthizer’s years of experience in public service, including as staff director for the Senate Finance Committee, as deputy USTR during the Reagan administration, and in private practice make him extremely well qualified to serve as our nation’s trade representative,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told his colleagues on Thursday from the Senate floor.

Now that he has been confirmed, Lighthizer will move to carry out the Trump Administration’s trade agenda, including exploring ways to renegotiate NAFTA. Lighthizer has also expressed concerns that China is indeed a currency manipulator, a worry Trump promulgated throughout the campaign, but has since walked back on. During his confirmation hearing in March, Lighthizer said he previously believed China “was a substantial currency manipulator,” but whether it still is “is another question.”

Still, though a vast majority of Democrats and Republicans ultimately supported his confirmation, two Republican Senators were in the “nay” camp, Senators John McCain (AZ) and Ben Sasse (NE). In a recent letter to Lighthizer, the two explained their hesitation, saying “your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Overwhelmingly Approves U.S. Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer appeared first on Law Street.

Astounding Democrats and Republicans alike, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday evening. The abrupt firing ignited widespread calls for a special, independent inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Comey was leading a probe into Trump’s and his campaign associates’ ties to Russian actors during the 2016 campaign; Russian hackers delivered Democratic operatives’ emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn made the emails public through an online database. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, concluded that the cyber-meddling was intended to assist Trump.

Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

Lawmakers expressed worry immediately after the Comey firing that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia ties could be compromised. “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is right now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday morning. And Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement posted to his Twitter account that the timing of this firing is “very troubling,” and that it represents “the loss of an honorable public servant” and “a loss for the nation.”

According to people familiar with the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to Comey’s ouster, Trump was upset with Comey on two accounts: the ongoing Russia investigation, and his public rebuttal of  Trump’s claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House is also saying that Comey’s dismissal was a result of his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” read Trump’s letter to Comey.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

On Wednesday, before Trump was set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he told reporters he fired Comey “because he was not doing a good job.” Trump dispatched his aides, including counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, to defend the decision. People familiar with Trump’s deliberations said he was surprised at the torrent of negative reactions–from Democrats, Republicans, and the press–that have followed Comey’s dismissal.

Meanwhile, current and former FBI officials, including Comey himself, were reportedly flabbergasted at the news of Comey’s ouster. “We just have no idea why this happened. No idea,” one recently retired top FBI official told Politico. “No one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened.”

There were conflicting reports over who exactly took the lead in the decision to fire Comey. Some said Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein led the charge. Rosenstein wrote a letter released Tuesday that pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation as the grounds for his dismissal, saying “I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.” Other White House officials told reporters that this was a unilateral decision by Trump, who directed the Justice Department to fish out a reason to fire the director.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Trump Fire FBI Director James Comey? appeared first on Law Street.

Now that Republicans have made progress in their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, health insurance regulations are back in the forefront of public debate. A notable component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the creation of essential health benefits, the law’s primary insurance regulation mandating what all policies must cover. This rule has been hotly debated and is something that the Republican replacement bill, the American Health Care Act, would allow states to seek waivers to define at the state level. While there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate when it comes to mandating high standards for health insurance plans, it may be helpful to look at how certain standards work in practice, and in certain cases, how their benefits can spill over into other public good.

The Role of Regulations

A new working paper by three economists, Ioana Popovici, Johanna Maclean, and Michael French, illustrate how state-level insurance regulations can have interesting spillover effects. They find that state laws that mandate insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment may have actually had a measurable effect on traffic deaths, decreasing fatalities by 4.1 to 5.4 percent. This is particularly important given that nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-involved car accidents each year. While their research is designed to focus on the effects of state laws passed before the Affordable Care Act, their findings help show how improving access to services like substance abuse treatment can have larger societal benefits beyond those who are directly affected.

The researchers looked at what are known as state parity laws, which involve requiring insurance plans to cover substance abuse treatment like they cover medical and surgical services in terms of the costs to consumers. Between 1988 and 2010–before the ACA started mandating this parity for all insurance plans sold on exchanges–27 states passed their own parity laws requiring substance abuse treatment to be covered to some degree. The researchers look at states that passed these laws to see what their effects on traffic deaths might be. In the process, they identified and controlled for a range of variables that would otherwise affect traffic fatalities–from alcohol tax rates to population demographics–in order to find the direct consequences of parity laws.

While the study does have some limitations–data on the use of drugs that impair driving as well as data on accidents that didn’t result in death are unavailable–they build on a considerable body of research showing both that health parity laws increase use of substance abuse treatment and that such increase is associated with fewer traffic deaths. They also find that these laws correspond with a decrease in fatal weekend crashes–which is when alcohol-related accidents are particularly likely–and that the decrease was particularly large, 8.7 percent, in states that mandated full parity. They also find that parity laws are associated with a small decline in both heavy and binge drinking; however, that is based on self-reported survey responses, not clinical diagnoses of alcohol dependence.

This study isn’t necessarily groundbreaking–it does make sense to think that expanding access to substance abuse would lower substance-related traffic fatalities–but it provides an interesting look at the consequences of health insurance regulations in general. The study looks specifically at spillover effects, setting aside the direct and obvious benefits to individuals who gain access to addiction treatment, to show that high-quality insurance can have meaningful consequences beyond those who directly benefit. While it’s important not to overstate these findings, identifying additional benefits to regulations should be a part of the discussion as we evaluate new policies.

The Current Health Insurance Debate

The Affordable Care Act did a number of things to increase people’s access to health care–including expanding Medicaid to nearly 15 million people and providing subsidies to individuals below 400 percent of the federal poverty line–but it also included a number of regulations to make sure people’s insurance covered important services. These 10 essential benefits include things like prescription drugs, emergency care, maternity care, and, notably, substance abuse treatment. While it’s fair to say that requiring these services, and rules that prevent insurance companies from capping annual or lifetime spending on them, have increased the cost of health insurance for everyone, they are also the services that most people expect their health insurance to cover in the first place.

While the Republican bill largely focuses on health care access for low-income families and those who buy their insurance individually, allowing states to set their own essential health benefits could actually have ripple effects for the entire country, including the majority of Americans who get their health care from their employer. While employer plans are not required to cover the essential health benefits in the same way that individual plans sold on the federal and state exchanges are, they do apply to bans on annual and lifetime limits as well as yearly caps for out-of-pocket costs. And large employer plans are able to use any state’s definition of essential health benefits to determine those caps. If one state were to decide that substance abuse treatment is no longer an essential benefit, there could be an erosion in coverage for residents of that state and people across the country.

There are always trade-offs involved in setting health care regulations, but it’s important to understand the potential benefits involved as we debate major policy changes. Substance abuse treatment has proven to be an important and effective way to dramatically improve people’s lives, and based on recent research, mandating it can have additional societal benefits as well.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Did Health Insurance Regulations Reduce Traffic Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

Over a two-hour period on Monday, a federal appeals court in Richmond heard arguments on a case concerning President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, issued via executive order in March. The 13-judge panel was split between those who argued that Trump’s order should be examined on its merits and text, and others who contended that the directive should be viewed in the context of the president’s past statements on Muslim immigration.

The hearing, which was the first test for Trump’s contentious executive order in a federal appellate court, saw arguments from Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general of the U.S. who defended the government’s position, and Omar Jadwat, a lawyer from the ACLU representing the plaintiffs. The fact that 13 judges heard arguments–in a court that usually consists of a three-judge panel–indicates the weight that this case holds.

Questions over how the travel ban should be viewed–either by its merits or in light of Trump’s public statements–were generally split between the Democratic-appointed judges and the Republican-appointed ones. Judge Robert King, appointed by President Bill Clinton, said Trump has “never repudiated what he said about the Muslim ban,” alluding to Trump’s calls for a freeze on Muslim immigration during the campaign.

Judge Pamela Harris, appointed by President Barack Obama, likewise read the travel ban as an anti-Muslim missive. The ban “has a disparate impact on Muslims,” she said. But Judge Paul Niemeyer, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, questioned the wisdom of reading too much into past statements. “Can we look at his college speeches?” he asked. “How about his speeches to businessmen 20 years ago?” He added: “I just don’t know where this stops.”

Wall, representing the Trump Administration in the hearing, said Trump’s past statements do not indicate any motives beyond the text of the order. That is, that it’s a national security measure. “Candidates talk about things on the campaign trail all the time,” he said. Wall also denied the charge that the ban is effectively a Muslim ban. “This is not a Muslim ban” he said. “It has nothing to do with religion. Its operation has nothing to do with religion.” 

Trump’s revised March order banned travel for 90 days from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Somalia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. It also froze admittance of refugees for 120 days, and dropped the number of refugees allowed to enter the U.S. from 120,000 to 50,000. Two federal judges, one in Maryland and one in Hawaii, blocked parts of Trump’s order in March.

Monday’s hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is an appeal of the Maryland ruling. Next Monday, a federal appeals court in Seattle will review an appeal of the Hawaii ruling. Ultimately, regardless of how the judges in Richmond rule, the case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Latest with Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Following their failed effort to pass health care legislation in March, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill Thursday that would repeal and replace large chunks of the Affordable Care Act. According to House Majority Leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the bill has secured enough votes to pass. “We have enough votes,” he said on Wednesday night. “It’ll pass.”

The renewed push for a Republican health care overhaul began in mid-April when Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) introduced an amendment aimed at attracting the more conservative congressmen who balked at the initial bill. The so-called MacArthur amendment needed a boost, however, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, recently introduced another addition to the law: an $8 billion infusion for insurers to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.

“It’s our understanding that the $8 billion over the five years will more than cover those that might be impacted and, as a consequence, keeps our pledge for those that, in fact, would be otherwise denied [coverage] because of pre-existing illnesses,” Upton said at the White House on Wednesday.

Even if the bill passes the House, Republicans in the Senate could gum it up and give it a major facelift to attract Democratic support and make it more palatable to members of their own party. With a 52-48 majority in the Senate, Republicans have a much narrower margin of error. In order for the bill to pass the Senate, it would need 60 votes–eight Democrats would need to support it.

Republican Senators in states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare–like Ohio and West Virginia–would likely take issue with the Republican bill’s squeeze on Medicaid payments. And hard-line conservatives like Mike Lee (UT) and Ted Cruz (TX), could nudge the bill more to the right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters passing the bill will “be a real big challenge on the Senate side as well.”

Meanwhile, the top ranking Democrats in the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) respectively, strongly rejected the new Republican bill. Schumer tweeted that Upton’s amendment is “like trying to cure stage 4 cancer with cough medicine.” Pelosi, in public remarks on Thursday morning from Capitol Hill, said “Republicans are in a lose-lose situation.” She added that for Republicans supporting the Obamacare replacement bill, “This is a scar that they will carry.”

A number of health industry organizations, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and AARP, have expressed their opposition to the bill. Andrew Gurman, president of the American Medical Association, said Upton’s amendment and other changes “tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill–that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If the Health Care Bill Passes the House, Will it Pass the Senate? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Now, the state of California is also pushing back against the wall by weighing the possibility of a blacklist against any contractors that Trump would hire to work on the structure.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would block companies that participate in construction of the wall from being hired by the state of California in the future. The state currently shares a substantial border with Mexico. Lara compared businesses that would potentially assemble the wall to those that would help build internment camps or segregated schools.

However, construction businesses don’t want to politicize the issue. Felipe Fuentes, a lobbyist for the state’s contractors, warned that the measure could set a precedent of “hand-picking projects that are not politically favorable to the California Legislature”–and could affect construction of everything from Planned Parenthood facilities to prisons.

Financial resistance to the wall could be the latest growing trend among mainly-Democratic states and cities looking to hit back at Trump on the local level. Soon after he resumed office, a number of mayors and governors across the country vowed that their cities would be “sanctuary cities,” in which undocumented immigrants would be protected from deportation.

Now, in addition to California, legislators in at least four other states have proposed indirect ways of opposing the wall. A public advocate in New York City introduced a bill that would blacklist contractors hired by Trump, and would require the city’s largest public pension fund to divest from participating companies. A Rhode Island representative has called for his state to withdraw its investments in businesses working with Trump. A proposed bill in New Mexico would prevent the state from selling 22 miles of land that it owns to the federal government for the purposes of building the wall. Meanwhile, legislatures in Arizona and Illinois are considering similar blacklist and divestment measures.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall? appeared first on Law Street.

During a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers he felt “mildly nauseous” that his actions may have affected the outcome on November 8. This was Comey’s first hearing since he told the House in March that the FBI has been investigating ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. It also gave a clearer view into Comey’s thoughts on the consequences of his actions leading up to Election Day.

But although Comey implied that his actions could be regretful–including publicly announcing that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was ongoing on October 28–he said concealing that information would have been “catastrophic.” Democrats–including Clinton–have derided Comey for going public with information regarding the Clinton investigation but failing to reveal the Trump investigation until months after the election.

The hearing opened with remarks from the committee’s top members from each party, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Grassley pressed for specifics on why Comey and the FBI pursued the investigation into Trump’s role in the Kremlin’s election meddling. “We need to know if there was anything improper between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” he said, or if Trump critics are merely “chasing a conspiracy theory.”

Feinstein focused on the FBI’s potential effect on the election. “I join those who believe that the actions taken by the FBI did in fact have an impact on the election,” she said. Clinton, in an extensive and unguarded interview on Tuesday, pegged her loss on Comey, WikiLeaks, and Russia. She did, however, take “absolute personal responsibility,” for losing to Trump. “I was the candidate. I was the person who was on the ballot,” she said.

Comey also made it clear in the hearing that Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies concluded hacked Democratic operatives’ emails to aid Trump’s campaign, remains a threat. Russia is the primary threat to democracy, he said, and bluntly concurred when asked if Moscow’s cyber efforts are ongoing. “Yes,” he responded. Seemingly responding to Clinton’s remarks on Tuesday, Trump sent a series of tweets that critiqued Comey and Clinton, and referred to himself in the third person, all at the same time:

FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

…Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post James Comey Feels “Mildly Nauseous” that the FBI Might Have Affected the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

When the city of New Orleans finally began the process of taking down its pro-Confederate monuments this week, it faced some opposition. One of the more high-profile critics of the decision was Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart.

Stewart attracted attention on the internet a few days ago for his tweet-storm defending preservation of the monuments. But there was one controversial tweet in particular that stood out.

Nothing is worse than a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don't matter.

— Corey Stewart (@CoreyStewartVA) April 25, 2017

Twitter users quickly reminded Stewart that he is not from the South (he is a Minnesota native), and that a lot of things are actually worse than “a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don’t matter.”

You are from Minnesota. https://t.co/45pEgVGmC2

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 25, 2017

@CoreyStewartVA Like, literally, nothing? Nothing is worse?

— John Legend (@johnlegend) April 25, 2017

you know what was worse? Slavery https://t.co/1ACEuYjUh9

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 25, 2017

1. Slavery
2. Lynchings
3. Black women raped + their rapists set free
4. Jim Crow
5. Workplace discrimination
6. Housing discrimination https://t.co/aTgOxwXEqd

— Yashar (@yashar) April 25, 2017

Stewart, who is currently a chairman for the Board of Supervisors in Prince Williams County, Virginia, announced his bid for governor of the state in April 2016 (the primary elections will take place this June). Since then, he has become a vocal advocate for honoring Confederate landmarks, and has integrated the issue heavily into his campaign. In February, he organized protests in Charlottesville, Virginia against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Earlier this month, he attended a Civil War-themed “Old South Ball.”

For many, Confederate symbols (like the flag) will always represent white supremacy because of their ties to the southern states that seceded from the U.S. and defended slavery during the Civil War. Stewart, on the other hand, has said that his position on the issue is not about the Confederate flag, but about “rampant, uncontrolled political correctness that is shaming Virginians who are simply trying to honor their ancestors, their ancestry, their heritage.”

If that anti-political correctness sentiment sounds familiar to you, it’s probably because you’ve heard similar things from President Donald Trump while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart supported Trump during the presidential election and served as the chair of Trump’s campaign in Virginia, until he was fired for orchestrating an unauthorized protest against anti-Trump Republicans outside the Republican National Convention headquarters.

Now, his commitment to protecting Confederate heritage, and combating what he calls “historical vandalism,” could hurt him in his run. Stewart recently lost the support of Prince William County’s sheriff, who switched his endorsement to back Stewart’s Republican opponent Ed Gillespie. Sheriff Glendell Hill told the Washington Post that Stewart’s views on “all that Confederate stuff” were too divisive. Four GOP supervisors who serve on the county board with Stewart also chose to endorse Gillespie.

Like Trump, Stewart is known for being outspoken on the internet. In March, he answered questions on a Reddit thread known as an “Ask Me Anything,” or AMA. At one point in the AMA, Stewart referred to Gillespie as a “cuckservative,” a term coined by the alt-right movement to disparage Republicans who are too moderate. In the same question-and-answer session on the site, he called for deportation of “criminal illegal aliens,” called globalists “BAD people” (even though he has worked as an international trade attorney).

Stewart has also tried to cover up negative information about himself–like low ratings about his claims on the fact-checker Politifact, and his loss in the 2016 race for lieutenant governor–by editing his own Wikipedia page.

From the establishment of sanctuary cities to the legalization of marijuana, a lot of resistance to the Trump Administration and its policies happens on local and state levels. Virginia’s current governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, has opposed the president’s immigration order while Democratic candidates for governor like Tom Perriello and Ralph Northam have both criticized and vowed to push back against the federal government. But a win for Stewart could change that.

However, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Gillespie–who voted for Trump, but whose support of the president has been lukewarm in comparison to Stewart’s–leading with 28 percent, while Stewart is currently falling behind at 12 percent. According to the same poll, in the general election both Perriello and Northham would hold double-digit leads over Gillespie.

Not to mention, Trump’s politics haven’t been very popular in Virginia–he pulled his campaign out of the state weeks before the election, a move that was criticized by Stewart.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Corey Stewart, the Pro-Confederate Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite protests in the street and pleas from Capital Hill, President Donald Trump has yet to reveal the amount he has–or has not–paid in taxes. But he plans to overhaul the U.S. tax code, and on Wednesday, he announced a one-page tax plan to accomplish that. Here is what you need to know.

What’s New?

In short: a range of tax cuts and some efforts to simplify the filing process. Trump’s tax plan, which will likely receive heavy edits as it makes its way through Congress, would reduce the number of individual tax brackets from seven to three–10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent. The proposal does not yet specify the income thresholds for each bracket. Currently, people in the top income bracket are taxed at a rate of almost 40 percent and those in the lowest bracket pay 10 percent, which would remain the same under Trump’s plan. While Americans overall would likely receive some sort of a tax break, the wealthiest Americans would benefit the most.

In addition, Trump’s plan would lower the corporate tax rate–and make it apply to small mom-and-pops and giant multinationals alike–from 35 percent to 15 percent. That would put the U.S., which currently has the highest corporate rate of any industrialized nations, in line with Germany and Canada, and slightly below Britain.

Another major change included in the plan: killing the “death tax,” aka the inheritance or estate tax. As of 2014, the U.S. inheritance tax–up to 40 percent for some estates–was the fourth highest in the world. Trump’s plan would scrap that tax–which supporters say is a key tool for redistributing income, and critics say unfairly steal from the rich–entirely.

What About the Debt?

Under Trump’s proposed tax overhaul, the national debt would skyrocket. At a press conference unveiling the plan, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the plan “will pay for itself with growth.” Since the revenue from taxes would drop, the government would need to find other ways to obtain money to pay for its various obligations. But a variety of nonpartisan budget think tanks and analysts projected that previous versions of Trump’s plan would cause the federal deficit to balloon.  

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget–a think tank that focuses on fiscal responsibility–predicts that the plan would add $3 to $7 trillion to the deficit over a decade. That would contradict Trump’s vociferous critiques of the rising debt under the past few administrations. History does not bode well for self-paying tax cuts–the idea that tax cuts would spur enough economic growth to balance out revenue lost due to lower rates. President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981, for instance, contributed to the deficits that would follow.

What Do the Experts Think?

Bernard Baumohl, the chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group: “The effort to introduce more fiscal stimulus into the economy is genuinely underway […] But the bare bones plan we saw unveiled [on Wednesday] is already conceptually flawed and unlikely to go far in Congress. The final product will bear no resemblance to the principal points highlighted in today’s meager release. Certainly, the first step in this process was unimpressive.”

JPMorgan Chase Analyst Jesse Edgerton: “Although the plan’s lack of detail makes estimating its revenue effects uncertain, we suspect the plan would be scored as dramatically increasing deficits, making likelihood of its passage through Congress slim […] the recent announcement is likely best viewed as an opening offer in a negotiation with many rounds to go.”

Economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, head of the Congressional Budget Office under former President George W. Bush: “Passing genuine tax reform would include structural changes. As long as those are not included, it is not reform. This bill as presented would add to the deficit. Growth alone cannot account for the loss of revenue from tax cuts. This means it cannot pass the reconciliation process and will not be able to become law.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Trump’s Tax Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Despite spending his campaign extolling the devilish scourge of globalism, international blocs, pacts, agreements, clubs, and any other united, transnational body, President Donald Trump’s actions in office thus far have done little to renege on any U.S. commitments with the wider world. Sure, Trump has hung up the phone on Australia’s prime minister; he has issued threats to North Korea, Iran, China, and a number of other bad actors or fragile allies. Trump promised a number of things during the campaign when it comes to existing international agreements–rip, tear, shred, renegotiate, etc. But he has yet to act on any of those impulses.

Here is a look at two international accords and one trade deal Trump has, at one point or another, promised to withdraw from or drastically alter. Instead, Trump has largely maintained the status quo as we approach the end of his fist 100 days in office.

Paris Climate Agreement

Trump once pegged climate change as a hoax invented by the Chinese. At a campaign stop last May, he pledged to “cancel” the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which the U.S. signed with nearly 200 other countries to combat climate change. Trump has since softened his questioning of climate change’s legitimacy and has largely ceased threatening to pull out of the agreement. And although EPA Chief Scott Pruitt favors withdrawing from the pact–Trump signed an executive order in March directing Pruitt to begin that process–he is reportedly questioning whether or not the political blowback of such a move would be worth it.

According to a recent New York Times report, Trump–a morally bankrupt man of few fixed beliefs in the eyes of critics, an open-mind in the eyes of his supporters–is split between two influencing camps within his administration. There is the Steve Bannon, anti-globalist school, and then there are those like Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who support the climate pact. Trump is expected to make a final decision on the U.S. role in the Paris agreement by the end of May.

Iran Deal

During his campaign, Trump called the nuclear deal with Iran “the worst deal ever negotiated.” Engineered by the Obama Administration in 2015, the deal exchanged sanctions relief for a freeze on Iran’s nuclear program. Critics said the deal merely delayed the inevitable; once Iran’s economy was back on track, and once the 10-year deal expired, it would build up its nuclear arsenal. Supporters asked: “would you rather Iran start firing off nuclear bombs now?”

Trump, a fervent and vocal critic of the deal–which, along with the United States, was negotiated by China, Russia, France, Germany, and the U.K.–reprimanded Iran for a missile test in January. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently ordered a review to consider imposing additional sanctions on Iran–a move that could breach the nuclear agreement–just as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the deal “still stands,” confirming Iran was complying with it.

NAFTA

The Iran deal may be the “worst deal ever negotiated,” but in Trump’s eyes, NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, is the “worst trade deal in history.” The 1994 trade deal between the United States, Canada, and Mexico has been the perfect straw man for the legion of Trump voters who had been disaffected and disproportionately affected by global trade (and of course by automation, but you can’t exactly renegotiate a deal with machines).

Last week, Trump hinted that “some very big changes” were coming to the trade agreement. But on Monday, during a speech in Mexico, Chamber of Commerce executive Thomas Donohue soothed concerns that the administration would drastically alter the deal, or scrap it altogether. “I want to assure you that despite what you may see in the news, or hear in the news, there is a constructive process underway behind the scenes,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Rhetoric, Trump Hasn’t Abandoned Any International Agreements in His First 100 Days appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Flynn, the ousted former national security adviser, appears to have violated federal law by accepting money during a trip to Moscow in 2015, according to top lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee. In a press conference after a review of classified documents related to Flynn’s brief stint as the head of the NSA, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the committee, said that Flynn’s failure to disclose the payment could be a prosecutable offense.

“As a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey or anybody else,” Chaffetz said, referring to Flynn’s consulting firm’s undisclosed work with a company tied to the Turkish government. “And it appears as if he did take that money. It was inappropriate, and there are repercussions for a violation of law.” Chaffetz, who delivered remarks on Tuesday with his colleague, Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, added: “There was nothing in the data to show that Gen. Flynn complied with the law.”

According to Chaffetz, Flynn failed to disclose the payments when he was seeking a security clearance for his appointment as national security adviser. Moscow reportedly paid Flynn tens of thousands of dollars to make a speech in the capital in 2015, at an event organized by the state-owned Russia Today, or RT. White House officials on Tuesday said they would not turn over documents pertaining to Flynn’s foreign contacts while he served in the administration.

Flynn was pressured to resign from his post in mid-February, less than a month after being sworn in. After reports leaked that Flynn misled administration officials–including Vice President Mike Pence–about the content of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, a public maelstrom ensued. Last month, Flynn offered to testify in the House and Senate investigations into President Donald Trump’s and his campaign advisers’ communications with Russia in exchange for immunity. His offer immediately raised a question: what did he seek immunity from? The latest revelations might offer a clue.

Following Chaffetz’s remarks on Tuesday afternoon, Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, released a statement, denying any wrongdoing on Flynn’s part: “As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of (the Defense Department), extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by DIA concerning the trip during those briefings.”

Also on Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is probing the Trump-Russia ties, announced it would hold a hearing on May 8. Testifying at the hearing will be former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who initially told the White House about Flynn’s misleading statements to Pence, and former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jason Chaffetz: Michael Flynn May Have Broken Federal Law with Moscow Speech appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns from a two-week recess–the Senate returns on Monday, the House Tuesday–its legislative to-do list is stuffed to the brim. President Donald Trump is expected to propose a tax plan on Wednesday. He has suggested a revamped version of the Republican health care plan, which failed to hit the House floor for a vote last month, could be introduced this week. But foremost on Congress’ agenda: passing a government spending bill and staving off a government shutdown, a prospect that would be deeply embarrassing for an administration that will see its 100th day in office on Saturday.

Funding for the government, absent a spending agreement, is set to run out on Friday. To avoid a shutdown–which last occurred in 2013 when congressional Republicans and former President Barack Obama were deeply divided–the White House will have to come to an agreement with Congress. Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill differ with the administration in their spending priorities, especially when it comes to Trump’s long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Many GOP lawmakers, and most, if not all, Democrats oppose paying for the wall with funds from the government’s coffers. Trump is adamant on following through on a promise that he sees as central to his election victory, however. On Sunday morning, the president reiterated his promise that Mexico will pay for the wall but asked for funding in the meantime:

Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a security hawk who is generally seen as a hard-liner on immigration, recently said the wall will get funded “one way or another.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, said: “We expect money for border security in this bill.” Priebus added: “And it ought to be. Because the president won overwhelmingly. And everyone understands the border wall was part of it.”

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, also insists the administration will push hard for the border wall to be included in a final budget agreement. “We want our priorities funded and one of the biggest priorities during the campaign was border security, keeping Americans safe and part of that was a border wall,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” Mulvaney did add, however, that Trump would sign a bill that did not include funding for the wall. “I don’t think anybody is trying to get to a shutdown. Shutdown is not a desired end. It’s not a tool. It’s not something that we want to have,” he said.

On Friday, the administration floated a proposal to bridge the divide with Democrats–whose support for a final budget deal is vital to keeping the government afloat–on the border wall issue. For each dollar spent on the wall, according to the administration’s offer, the government would spend a dollar on Obamacare subsidies. Through a spokesman, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said the trade-off idea was a “complete non-starter.”

Trump, who is still hoping to secure a legislative achievement by his 100-day mark, sent a tweet on Sunday morning that encapsulated his lack of leverage heading into the budget battle with Democrats:

ObamaCare is in serious trouble. The Dems need big money to keep it going – otherwise it dies far sooner than anyone would have thought.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Border Wall: the Issue That Could Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since it was announced that Donald J. Trump was going to be the 45th President of these United States of America, Democrats have been looking to attach themselves to any kind of competition to gain some kind of payback for their defeat (See: Super Bowl LI). Although it didn’t result in an explicit victory, this past Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s House seat in its Sixth District offered Democrats their first viable taste of victory and vengeance.

Wednesday’s special election resulted in Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly missing out on the 50 percent of the vote that he needed to win the contest outright, thus making a run-off between Ossoff and top GOP vote-getter Karen Handel necessary. The details of the run-off, scheduled for June 20, have already become the subject of controversy and, now, a lawsuit.

Yesterday, the DC-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of five different civil rights groups–the Georgia NAACP among them–that claims that a certain Georgia state law that prohibits those who weren’t registered for this week’s special election from voting in June’s run-off is in violation of national voting laws.

The reportedly violated law that the complaint cites is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which explicitly states that states “can set a voter registration deadline for federal elections shorter than 30 days, and a number of States do so, but cannot set a longer deadline.” The complaint claims that Georgia’s “statutory scheme” effectively creates a deadline that exceeds the restriction of a 30-day registration deadline, which will mean that people who registered between March 21 and May 22 won’t be eligible to vote in June.

According to the complaint, the five groups are seeking “injunctive relief” by requiring the state of Georgia to allow all eligible residents of Georgia’s Sixth District the ability to continue to register to vote in the June run-off through May 22.

Speaking to reporters, Candice Broce, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp, characterized the lawsuit as a “political attack” “This law has been in place since [former Georgia Secretary of State] Cathy Cox, a Democrat, was in office but they’ve waited until now to challenge it. This is just being done to disrupt our processes. We will fight it in court,” Broce said.

Broce also said that Georgia state law treats run-off elections as extensions of special elections, which would make the rigidity of the voter registration deadline a logical practice.

Georgia has a record of employing various voter suppression tactics both historically and recently. In October, the ACLU sued the state over its decision to not extend its voter registration deadline in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said in a statement that the lawsuit was a “nakedly political stunt to manipulate the system and squander state and county resources days before the election.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post State of Georgia Sued Over Alleged Voter Suppression appeared first on Law Street.

After bungling an attempt to overhaul Obamacare last month, it looks like Republicans will give health care reform another go. Tom MacArthur, a Republican congressman from New Jersey, recently proposed an amendment to the failed GOP effort, the American Health Care Act, eponymously titled the MacArthur Amendment. First reported by Politico on Thursday, the amendment is an attempt to placate moderate Republicans and far-right conservatives like the House Freedom Caucus, a bloc that helped sink the original bill.

President Donald Trump, whose 100th day in office–a standard marker of a president’s effectiveness–is on April 29, is seeking a legislative victory. But Congress will have its plate full next week, as it rushes to pass a government spending bill and, perhaps more important than passing a new health care bill, needs to come together to avoid a government shutdown. Trump, in a news conference on Thursday, sounded fairly confident that the new health care plan would rally House Republicans–something the first attempt utterly failed to do.

“We have a good chance of getting it soon,” Trump said. “I’d like to say next week, but it will be — I believe we will get it. And whether it’s next week or shortly thereafter.” The president, cognizant of the 100-day review tradition, added: “The plan gets better and better and better, and it’s gotten really, really good, and a lot of people are liking it a lot.”

MacArthur’s proposed changes to the AHCA, which did not make it to the House floor for a vote, revolve around giving states the option of opting out of requirements if they show growth. For instance, the amendment retains the requirements for insurers to offer guaranteed coverage for emergency services and maternity care, and pre-existing conditions must also be covered.

But if states prove that without those guaranteed coverages, premiums would dip, the number of insured would climb, or the “the public interest of the state” is advanced, then that state could seek a waiver for guaranteed coverage. States could circumvent the pre-existing coverage guarantee if they establish high-risk pools. These changes are designed to bring the party’s center and right flanks to agreement.

In a Facebook statement on Thursday, MacArthur, the architect of the amended bill, said: “This amendment will make coverage of pre-existing conditions sacrosanct for all Americans and ensures essential health benefits remains the federal standard.” Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House from Wisconsin, hinted that the effort could be ready for a floor vote soon: “We’re in the midst of negotiating sort of finishing touches,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the GOP’s Second Health Care Attempt appeared first on Law Street.

A day after ruling out a re-election bid in the 2018 midterms, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Thursday let slip that he could end his term early. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a onetime prospect for Speaker of the House, said: “My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven’t ruled out the possibility of leaving early.”

Utah’s Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox told the WSJ that officials are preparing for a special election in Chaffetz’s 3rd Congressional District. Despite his prevalent role in the oversight committee–a role that expires in 2020–and his advantageous position after Republicans took over Washington in November, Chaffetz, 50, announced his decision to opt out of the 2018 race in a Facebook post early Wednesday:

Since late 2003 I have been fully engaged with politics as a campaign manager, a chief of staff, a candidate and as a Member of Congress. I have long advocated public service should be for a limited time and not a lifetime or full career. Many of you have heard me advocate, “Get in, serve, and get out.” After more than 1,500 nights away from my home, it is time. I may run again for public office, but not in 2018.

He added he is “healthy” and there are “no ulterior motives” behind his decision. Initially opposed to President Donald Trump’s candidacy, Chaffetz ultimately supported the president. Since his flip-flop on Trump, Chaffetz has been booed and heckled at town hall meetings.

Before Congress and the White House both turned red, Chaffetz was a feisty GOP attack dog; he targeted Hillary Clinton’s handling of the bombing at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012. He also took aim at Clinton’s private email server, an issue that dogged her throughout the campaign.

Some are speculating that Chaffetz bowed out early because of two well-funded challengers, both first-time political candidates: Democrat Kathryn Allen, a physician, and Republican Damian Kidd, a lawyer. But Chaffetz could also be taking a hiatus from the political scene before a gubernatorial run in 2020, something he reportedly expressed interest in last year.

In his farewell Facebook post, which may be the official send-off to his supporters, Chaffetz wrote: “Thank you for allowing me to serve as your Representative in the United States House of Representatives. Serving is an honor and a privilege that I have never taken for granted.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz Stepping Down Early? appeared first on Law Street.

Juan Manuel Montes was walking in Calexico, California, a small town on the Mexican border, on the night of February 17. A U.S. border patrol agent stopped Montes, a 23-year-old DREAMer, and asked him for identification. Montes told the agent he didn’t have his papers on him. The agent, according to Montes’ legal council, brought him to a patrol station, made him sign documents, denied him access to an immigration hearing, and “in the middle of the night, Montes was physically removed to Mexicali, Mexico.”

On Tuesday, Montes filed a federal complaint against the Trump Administration in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Montes, still in Mexicali, is represented by the National Immigration Law Center and three other law firms. In a press release, the NILC said Montes is the first DREAMer to be deported under the Trump Administration. Dozens of others have been deported, but only after their DREAMer status had been revoked because of gang affiliations or other criminal actions.

Montes was not stripped of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status. According to Nora Preciado, an NILC lawyer, Montes, who was taken to the U.S. at nine years-old, was whisked across the border to Mexicali without cause or explanation.

“Juan Manuel was funneled across the border without so much as a piece of paper to explain why or how,” Preciado said. “The government shouldn’t treat anyone this way—much less someone who has DACA. No one should have to file a lawsuit to find out what happened to them.”

Enacted in 2012 by former President Barack Obama, DACA provides protection to an estimated 750,000 children, teenagers, and young adults who were brought to the country before they turned 16. Under Obama, 365 former DACA recipients were stripped of their protection–because of a “significant misdemeanor” conviction, felony, or three or more misdemeanors–and deported. President Donald Trump has deported 43 former DACA enrollees in his first few months in office. Montes had not been stripped of his DACA status, yet he was still deported.

“I was forced out because I was nervous and didn’t know what to do or say, but my home is there,” Montes said in a statement through the NILC. “I miss my job. I miss school. And I want to continue to work toward better opportunities. But most of all, I miss my family, and I have hope that I will be able to go back so I can be with them again.”

On March 15, Montes filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), seeking documents related to his deportation. CBP has yet to respond to the request. While he did not have any felonies on his record, Montes did have a collection of misdemeanors; three were for driving without a license, and one was for shoplifting. On Tuesday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tweeted a photo of him toasting the border patrol for deporting Montes:

First non-valedictorian DREAMer deported. Border Patrol, this one’s for you. https://t.co/56z1b8xrJ2 pic.twitter.com/iNjKd9FHtM

— Steve King (@SteveKingIA) April 18, 2017

Mónica Ramírez Almadani, an attorney with Covington & Burling LLP, one of the firms representing Montes in his lawsuit against the administration, is hopeful her client will find out why he was booted from Calexico that night in February. “We look forward to presenting our case to the court, because our client has the right to know why and how he was physically removed from the United States when he had permission to live and work here,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First DREAMer Deported by Trump Files Federal Complaint appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Veterans Affairs announced a new pilot program on Tuesday that would allow veterans in Phoenix to receive outside care at CVS MinuteClinics. The program is a new effort designed to alleviate the exorbitant wait times veterans face when seeking care at VA facilities. For now, the program is limited to the Phoenix area, where VA facilities treat about 120,000 veterans.

“Our number one priority is getting veterans’ access to care when and where they need it,” Baligh Yehia, the VA’s deputy undersecretary for health for community care, told the Associated Press. “The launch of this partnership will enable VA to provide more care for veterans in their neighborhoods.”

The current Veterans Choice Program (VCP) restricts veterans from seeking outside care unless they have to wait more than 30 days for an appointment. If the nearest VA clinic is over 40 miles away, then a veteran is allowed to seek outside care as well. The new Phoenix-area program allows VA staff to recommend a veteran to go to a MinuteClinic when “clinically appropriate.” VA Secretary David Shulkin has indicated he would like to scrap the current VCP restrictions.

Congress recently passed legislation that would funnel $10 billion into the VCP program. “Congress has once again demonstrated that the country stands firmly united when it comes to supporting our nation’s Veterans,” Shulkin said at the time. President Donald Trump, who promised throughout his campaign to reform the VA, is expected to sign the legislation on Wednesday.

In 2014, then-VA Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned after it was revealed that officials in Phoenix falsified reports about the wait times veterans faced at VA clinics. The fake reports covered up the fact that in some instances, veterans died while waiting for care. In a recent survey conducted by the VA, only 61 percent of veterans said they could get a medical appointment for primary care when they needed one.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) a veteran of the Vietnam War, where he was also a POW, supports the new program. “Veterans in need of routine health care services should not have to wait in line for weeks to get an appointment when they can visit community health centers like MinuteClinic to receive timely and convenient care,” he said.

And Tobias Barker, the chief medical officer of CVS MinuteClinic, told the AP he hopes the new program can be one of several solutions to providing medical care to America’s veterans. “We believe in the MinuteClinic model of care and are excited to offer our health care services as one potential solution for the Phoenix VA Health Care System and its patients,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post VA Announces New Program Allowing Veterans to Get Treatment at CVS appeared first on Law Street.

During a visit to a tool factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Tuesday afternoon, President Donald Trump is expected to announce an executive order aimed at reforming the H-1B visa program.

The H-1B, a temporary visa for foreign workers to fill high-tech jobs in the U.S., has been targeted by both Democrats and Republicans for being unfair to American workers. Critics argue that some employers abuse the program by firing American workers and hiring foreign workers, many from India, on the cheap.

Trump’s executive order will essentially make it harder for employers to issue H-1B visas; employers and the prospective visa-holders would have to prove the job is going to “the most highly skilled workers,” according to a White House official familiar with the order.

The visas are designed to help a variety of U.S. companies fill their workforces, but critics contend that they are often used as an excuse to hire cheap foreign laborers. In some instances, American workers even train their eventual replacements–foreigners who work the same job for a lower wage.

According to a senior White House official, the order will direct “the strict enforcement of all laws governing entry into the United States of labor abroad for the stated purpose of creating higher wages and higher employment rates for workers in the United States.” It will deliver on Trump’s promise to “buy American and hire American,” the official said.

Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers apply for the visas each year. The government admits 85,000–a lottery system selects 65,000 applicants, and an additional 20,000 are given to graduate students.

Supporters of the visa program laud it as a way for employers to fill high-skilled jobs that are difficult to fill with American workers. But while the program is designed for engineers, scientists, and computer engineers, most of the H-1B workers are in the information technology sector–jobs that do not require an advanced education.

In fact, the three companies with the most H-1B employees–Tata Consultancy, Cognizant Technology, and Infosys–mostly hire foreign workers who only have bachelor’s degrees. An estimated 80 percent of employees at those three firms only have bachelor’s degrees.

In addition to reforming the H-1B program, the official said Trump’s order will call on a number of government agencies to clamp down on “fraud and abuse” in the immigration system in order to protect American workers.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Sign Order on H-1B Visas to Encourage Hiring Americans appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that effectively gives states the option of withholding federal funds from family planning and women’s health clinics. Days before Trump was sworn into office, former President Barack Obama signed a rule that barred states from withholding federal money earmarked for family planning centers like Planned Parenthood. The Trump Administration’s resolution essentially undoes Obama’s action.

The resolution narrowly passed Congress on March 30, as Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. It was applauded by pro-life groups, and derided by pro-choice advocates. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) called the resolution a “major pro-life victory.”

Trump has expressed support for Planned Parenthood in the past, but has also come out against abortion. The Republican-controlled Congress is filled with lawmakers who have long-sought greater restrictions on non-profit groups that perform abortions and receive federal grants. Planned Parenthood, a group that largely provides health-related services to women across the country–half of its affiliates do not perform abortions–has become a favorite punching bag of pro-life lawmakers and advocacy groups.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group, welcomed the resolution. “Prioritizing funding away from Planned Parenthood to comprehensive health care alternatives is a winning issue,” she said. “We expect to see Congress continue its efforts to redirect additional taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood through pro-life health care reform after the spring recess.”

Congress is certain to continue pushing a pro-life agenda. But pressure from liberal groups and advisers in his own orbit who lean more pro-choice, like his daughter Ivanka, could push Trump to abandon any hard-line positions on groups like Planned Parenthood. Pro-choice groups are dismayed however, at the direction Trump seems to be taking.

“[Women’s] worst fears are now coming true,” Dawn Laguens, the executive president of Planned Parenthood said in a statement. “We are facing the worst political attack on women’s health in a generation as lawmakers have spent the past three months trading away women’s health and rights at every turn.” And Heidi Williamson, senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, said: “Trump’s actions are creating very real and damaging consequences for millions of women and their families, inflicting direct harm on already vulnerable communities.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Gives States More Freedom to Block Family Planning Funds appeared first on Law Street.

It is not unusual for a politician to say one thing publicly, and believe another privately. It is also not unusual for a politician–even a president–to change his or her tune on a specific issue. Presidents’ thinking on certain issues evolve over time. But with President Donald Trump, a political novice who seems to favor a transactional style over an ideological one, his flip-flops have been seismic. Especially on foreign policy, Trump has gone from embracing marginal viewpoints antithetical to mainstream thinking to, you guessed it, mainstream thinking. Here are three of the president’s foreign policy shifts to date:

Russia

We all know the narrative for this one: throughout his campaign, Trump lavished Russian President Vladimir Putin with praise. He hinted that, if elected, he would lift the U.S.-imposed sanctions on Russia. But that barely scrapes the surface of Trump’s initial cozying up to the Kremlin. In hacking into Democratic operatives’ email accounts, Russia aimed to aid Trump in his quest for the White House, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded. And since July, the FBI has been investigating his and/or his aides’ communications with Russia. The House and Senate also have ongoing probes into potential collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

But that good will has all but dissipated. Trump has dropped the idea of lifting the sanctions, which were levied on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its incursion into Ukraine. And earlier this month, Trump authorized a retaliatory strike on a Syrian airbase for a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials concluded was carried out by the Syrian regime. Russia, a vital backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was not happy with the action, and Trump recently said relations with Russia may be at “an all-time low.”

China

On his first day as president, Trump used to say, he would label China a currency manipulator. A dubious, if not dangerous claim, not only has that not happened nearly four months into his presidency, Trump recently wrote the idea off completely. “They’re not currency manipulators,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, referring to China. While Trump has seemingly moved on from his tough rhetoric, his administration plans on signing an executive order targeting countries that dump steel in the U.S. market, a practice long-suspected to be undertaken by China and others.

Trump has evolved on other China-related policies as well. As president-elect, Trump suggested everything regarding China was “under negotiation,” including the decades-old One China policy. A post-election phone call with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen ran counter to that policy, which recognizes Taiwan as a piece of the larger Chinese puzzle. In a February phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump affirmed his commitment to the One China view.

NATO

Obsolete. That is the adjective Trump the candidate used to describe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Europe’s most effective bulwark against Russian aggression on the continent, and in the Baltic states in particular. He publicly pressed NATO members to pick up their slack in funding the bloc’s budget–a stance previous presidents privately shared. Since deeming the alliance “obsolete,” members of his administration–including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson–have traveled to Europe in the hopes of soothing NATO members’ concerns of a dwindling U.S. commitment.

On Wednesday, during a press conference with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump acknowledged his 180: “I said it was obsolete,” he said. “It’s no longer obsolete.” So what has led to Trump’s change in thinking, especially on foreign policy matters? Maybe it’s the fading voice of Steve Bannon, or the rising influence of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and economic adviser Gary Cohn. Or, just maybe, his more unorthodox positions have been tempered by the weight of the Oval Office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Changing Stances: Three Foreign Policies Issues POTUS Has Flipped On appeared first on Law Street.

Storm clouds are gathering over the White House, and its resident lightning rod, Steve Bannon, might be in trouble. The first signs of a building storm popped up last week when Bannon, President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, was removed from the National Security Council. And then, reports of infighting began seeping out of the giant doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bannon’s ideological and stylistic differences with Jared Kushner, Trump’s increasingly influential son-in-law, have led to a number of behind-closed-doors confrontations. And in an interview with the New York Post published on Tuesday, Trump indicated a personnel shake-up could be looming.

“I like Steve, but you have to remember, he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump said in an interview with the Post’s Michael Goodwin. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist, and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”

Bannon was largely responsible for reviving Trump’s sinking campaign last fall, and his ethos has been evident in a number of Trump’s governing decisions: the doom-and-gloom “American carnage” speech on Inauguration Day; the executive order banning refugees and visitors from seven (then six) predominantly Muslim countries; the combative press conferences with the media–a.k.a. “America’s enemy.” Bannon has infused the Trump doctrine with his distinct flavor; Trump’s anti-elite message comes straight from Bannon’s playbook.

Meanwhile Kushner, a quiet, media-shy 36-year-old who grew up with a millionaire father (not to mention has a billionaire father-in-law), is gaining influence in Trump’s orbit. Bannon reportedly told Kushner that the reason the two can’t reach a compromise on certain issues is because “you’re a Democrat.” After the spat attracted media attention–an unwanted distraction at a time when Trump is dealing with rising conflicts with Syria and North Korea–the president told his two aides to figure things out.

Many attribute Bannon’s waning influence not only to his arguments with Kushner, but with his governing vision, which proved effective during the campaign, but has not resulted in many legislative successes. Bannon’s anti-immigrant, anti-establishment leanings certainly influenced the travel ban, which is now held up in court for the second time. And the failed health care attempt–too populist for hard-right conservatives and too cheap for moderates–was also smothered in Bannon’s fingerprints.

Kushner, on the other hand, has long been viewed as a moderating force, a check on Bannon’s more unsavory tendencies. For weeks, the tension between the two, if there was any, was hidden behind a host of distractions and the media-sucking gaffes of press secretary Sean Spicer and counselor Kellyanne Conway. But  the Bannon-Kushner feud is spilling into the public eye, and the image-conscious president has taken notice. As Trump succinctly put it in his interview with the Post: “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Steve Bannon in Trump’s Dog House? appeared first on Law Street.