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.

The Reddit user who edited and spread the now-famous video clip of President Donald Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo for a head has issued an apology. The user goes by the name “HanA**holeSolo,” and wrote a lengthy post apologizing to the whole Reddit community.

“I am in no way this kind of person. I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so my entire life,” he wrote.

He went on to say that he does not support any kind of violence and that he posted hateful, controversial posts to get attention from other users. This then became a form of addiction, as he wanted to see how far he could go.

“Free speech is a right we all have, but it shouldn’t be used in the manner that it was in the posts that were put on this site,” he said.

Redditor HanAssholeSolo, the guy who posted the Trump/CNN clip the president tweeted, has apologized to @CNN, the media, and others pic.twitter.com/GlePoiSlFj

— Brandon Wall (@Walldo) July 4, 2017

The user has since deleted his account, so the statement is no longer available. But a lot of people are questioning whether the apology is sincere, or if it’s just another step in the “trolling.” Some pointed out that the apology didn’t come until after CNN had tracked down and identified the user.

On the other hand, a lot of people criticized CNN and accused the media network of blackmail after it published an article about how its journalists tracked down the Reddit user. In the article, CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski wrote that HanA**holeSolo was identified through a Facebook search using information he had written himself on Reddit.

When Kaczynski tried contacting him, he got no reply. But on Tuesday, HanA**holeSolo posted his apology. After that, HanA**holeSolo contacted CNN to confirm his identity and expressed that he was nervous about being exposed. CNN wrote:

CNN is not publishing ‘HanA**holeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again.

It followed up with, “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.” A lot of people on the right took that as a threat and started using the hashtag #CNNBlackmail.

If only @CNN spent as much time tracking down info on IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, Iran deal etc as they did a meme writer! #CNNBlackmail

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 5, 2017

However, Kaczynski said in a tweet that HanA**holeSolo had called him to say that he completely agrees with the article’s statement, and that he did not perceive anything it said as a threat.

The user has previously posted things on the pro-Trump subreddit The_Donald that makes it hard for some to believe that the apology is sincere. In June, he posted a chart of CNN employees with Jewish Stars of David next to their images, writing, “Something strange about CNN…can’t quite put my finger on it.”

On Sunday, he wrote “F**k ISLAM,” and commented on a photo of refugees, “There’s a MOAB (Mother of All Bomb’s) for that.” Reportedly, he also frequently used slurs to describe African-Americans, women, and Muslims. He has also attacked Black Lives Matter, feminism, Islam, liberals, and the state of Maryland.

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 CNN Faces Backlash for Article About Reddit User Who Made Trump Video appeared first on Law Street.

A high school in New Jersey is under fire after someone edited a photo of Grant Berardo in the yearbook without telling him. On picture day, Berardo wore a black t-shirt with the text, “TRUMP: Make America Great Again” on the chest. When he saw the result in the yearbook, he realized the text was gone. Now his parents are demanding answers and one teacher is suspended.

Critics are accusing the school, Wall Township High School, of censoring the kids and violating their First Amendment rights. Two other students also had their photos edited. Wyatt Dobrovich-Fago had a small Trump logo on his vest, and his sister Montana wanted to insert a Trump quote under her freshman class president photo. But both were missing in the final version of the yearbook.

A New Jersey high school is under fire for erasing Trump slogans from its yearbook https://t.co/8mAxFHin1H pic.twitter.com/XrPTkEaRfk

— CNN (@CNN) June 12, 2017

Now the parents of the affected students want the school to issue new yearbooks, including an explanation of what happened. According to Berardo’s father, Joseph, his son was very disappointed as this was the first election he was interested in. The school’s Superintendent Cheryl Dyer said one teacher who was overseeing the production of the yearbook has been suspended.

In a statement on its website, the school points out that there is nothing in the school’s dress code that prohibits students from expressing political views. The digital removal of the Trump slogans and logos was nothing the school’s administration was aware of. And the name of the specific teacher that was suspended has not been released. The statement said:

The allegations referenced above are disturbing, and any inappropriate challenge to these principles will be rectified as swiftly and thoroughly as possible. The actions of the staff involved will be addressed as soon as the investigation is concluded.

To the Berardos, it was peculiar that no one told Grant that there was a problem with his t-shirt to begin with. His mother Tammy works at the school and someone could easily have told her in time for him to re-take the photo. When the family received the photos by mail, the logo was still there. It was just in the final yearbook that it was gone, without any explanation.

Berardo’s father Joseph said that he doesn’t like excessive political correctness. “It gets in the way of meaningful discourse. And, frankly, I hate being on the other side of it now,” he said, referring to being the “victim.” He thinks that ultimately the whole conflict is a matter of freedom of speech. “And if we come to find out they blacked-out Clinton or Sanders shirts, that’s just as egregious,” he said.

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 New Jersey School Accused of Removing Trump Logo from Yearbook Photos appeared first on Law Street.

Comedian Kathy Griffin faced swift backlash after the photo in which she posed with a fake severed head that looked like President Trump. And since, she has continued to receive threats. In a press conference on Friday, she repeated her apology, but said that it is outrageous and unprecedented that the President of the United States is personally trying to “ruin a comedian.”

Standing next to her lawyer, Lisa Bloom, she said, “I don’t think I will have a career after this. He broke me.” She said that people fell into some kind of mob mentality and that death threats started rolling in. Her video apology doesn’t seem to have had much effect on public scrutiny, and she was also reportedly contacted by the Secret Service, which is now investigating her.

After the controversy, Griffin has lost several jobs, including five stand-up gigs and her annual job as co-host of CNN’s New Year’s Eve program. She has hosted that show for 10 years. Griffin said the Trump family is bullying her by exercising its influence on private companies as well as the public sector, calling for everyone to fire her.

Kathy Griffin on fallout over photo: “Regarding the image that I participated in, that apology absolutely stands. I feel horrible.” pic.twitter.com/ffqhfnijKf

— ABC News (@ABC) June 2, 2017

“He’s the president of the United States,” Bloom said. “This is outrageous and unprecedented.” She added: “For the first time in history that we are aware of, the President of the United States and his family has personally attempted to ruin a comedian. The message was clear: Criticize the president, lose your job.”

Bloom also pointed out what many people on social media already have said: President Obama had to withstand a number of threats during his time in office. Musician Ted Nugent made threats against him and Hillary Clinton, but was recently invited to the White House.

“Obama, he’s a piece of s—. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b—-,” Nugent said on a stage appearance in 2007, while holding two machine guns. In April, he had dinner with Trump in the White House.

It’s reprehensible what Kathy Griffin did, & the left has denounced it.
Ted Nugent did it to Obama, & your dad invited him to the WH. https://t.co/jhOGmr4egG

— Laurie Crosswell (@lauriecrosswell) May 30, 2017

A lot of people started calling out the Trumps for having a double standard, and when Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the controversy during Wednesday’s press briefing, he just said he didn’t know what Trump’s response was at the time.

After the bipartisan outrage at the photo shoot, at least two celebrities have come to Kathy Griffin’s defense. “I still love Kathy Griffin. She went past the line, she’ll pay for it in the way she pays for it, and we’ll go out and we’ll laugh with her again,” said Jamie Foxx to Entertainment Weekly. And Jim Carrey agreed–he said when a president does the type of “crazy things” that Trump is doing, comedians are the “last voice of truth.” “I think it is the job of a comedian to cross the line at all times — because that line is not real,” he said.

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 Kathy Griffin Says the Trump Family is Trying to Ruin Her Life appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles late Thursday night, marking its first direct strike against the Syrian regime in the country’s six-year civil war. Authorizing the strike from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, on the first day of a two-day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to signal the U.S.’s willingness to escalate its role in the conflict. He said it was a response to the chemical attack on Tuesday, which killed up to 100 civilians, and was believed to be carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” The strikes, which commenced at 8:40 p.m. EST and lasted three to four minutes, launched from two U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

With the strike, Trump signaled to Syria, its allies Russia and Iran, and the rest of the world that the U.S. is changing its calculus in a region where it has long resisted direct action. Former President Barack Obama–whose “weakness and irresolution” was to blame for Tuesday’s chemical attack, the new administration said–was reluctant to directly strike the Syrian regime, afraid that deposing Assad would only make things worse.

As a result of Obama’s failure to stop Assad, Trump said on Thursday, “the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” According to U.S. officials, in a meeting on Wednesday with military advisers, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Trump was presented with three options in responding to the chemical attack. He chose the “one-off” missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield, which advisers describe as the tamest option.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said an early review indicated the strike “severely damages or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment…reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.” Trump’s decisiveness was welcome by a host of international and domestic actors–from Israel and Syrian activist groups to a bipartisan cohort of senators and some former Obama officials.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint-statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also applauded the decision to strike. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. Others said his decision was rushed and, if unaccompanied by a long-term vision, potentially dangerous and ineffectual. 

By directly striking Assad, Trump could jeopardize any further cooperation with Russia in fighting Islamic State, which has a substantive–yet shrinking–footprint in the country. A Russian spokesman said the strike “deals a significant blow” to U.S.-Russia relations, and “creates a serious obstacle” to fighting terrorism. Though its stated goal in joining the fight in Syria a few years ago was to combat terrorism, Russia has played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime. Russia, the Pentagon said, was notified of the strike beforehand; no Russians were killed in the attack.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to meet with Russian officials next week in Moscow. U.S. officials said Thursday’s strike was meant to provide leverage in the talks, and to show the Russians they can no longer act with impunity in Syria. “This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said. “The more we fail to respond to the use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.”

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 Missile Strike in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

At a meeting with leaders of the National Sheriffs’ Association on Tuesday, Donald Trump made a false claim about the U.S. murder rate, a statement that he has repeated several times in the past. The comment came as he was touting the importance of meeting with local sheriffs, something he emphasized given that, as he claims, the murder rate is the highest that is has been in 47 years. But when you look at official FBI data, almost the opposite is true.

Here’s the president’s full statement according to a White House readout of his remarks:

And yet the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years. I used to use that — I’d say that in a speech and everybody was surprised, because the press doesn’t tell it like it is. It wasn’t to their advantage to say that. But the murder rate is the highest it’s been in, I guess, from 45 to 47 years.

So, is President Trump right? Is the murder rate at a multi-decade high? If you look at it literally, his claim is false on its face; the murder rate actually remains near historic lows. But if you dig deep enough, there is something unusual about the recent change in the murder rate.

First, let’s take a look at his actual claim. In 2015, the most recent year with available data from the FBI, the U.S. murder rate was 4.9 murders per 100,000 people. The highest murder rate in the last 47 years–the date range selected by President Trump–was in 1980, which had a murder rate of 10.2 per 100,000 people. Put simply, the highest murder rate in the past several decades was more than twice as high as the murder rate in 2015. While it is possible that the murder rate increased slightly in 2016, there is absolutely no evidence that went up by more than 100 percent, which it would need to do for the president’s claim to be true.

Here’s a graph showing how the murder rate has changed over the past 50 years:

With a few exceptions–notably 2015–the murder rate has trended downward for more than two decades. Despite a recent increase in murders, the murder rate remains near the lowest point that it has been in half a century.

Now let’s also take a brief moment to look at where this data comes from, and why it’s the best available to tell us about U.S. crime rates. Each year, the FBI publishes its annual Crime in the United States report, which is created through an extensive collaborative effort between the FBI and nearly every law enforcement agency in the United States. The report includes data from more than 18,000 agencies that cover nearly 98 percent of the U.S. population. This report is the most authoritative collection of crime data in the United States, detailing every criminal offense known to law enforcement.

While the actual claim that Donald Trump made on Tuesday–and also something that he frequently alluded to during the course of his campaign–is false, there is something noteworthy about the 2015 data. Namely, there was a significant increase that year compared to the previous year, a jump of about 11 percent. This single year increase is by far the largest in recent years. But despite that, 4.9 murders per 100,000 people is still lower than the 2009 rate.

Now that doesn’t mean that the recent jump in the murder rate is insignificant, but when it comes to addressing the problem, it may be more helpful to look at what is happening in individual cities. In fact, the number of murders did not increase in every city in 2015, there was significant variation between them. Law Street has an interactive map showing exactly how murder rates changed in America’s largest cities.

While Trump’s claim about the murder rate in the United States is incorrect, if you dig deep enough there is something noteworthy about recent crime statistics. This would be particularly true if the recent increase becomes a trend. It is important to note that the issue with Donald Trump’s claim isn’t just a matter of semantics–what he said is quite different from what actually appears to be important from the most recent crime statistics. Making claims that wildly overstate the number of murders in the United States is not conducive to addressing something that might be a very serious problem if it becomes a persistent trend.

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 President Trump Continues to Make False Claims about the U.S. Murder Rate appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump had said from the beginning of his campaign that he wanted to set up a registry for Muslims. And over the past few days, he has been moving forward with some of his other anti-immigration campaign promises, such as ordering the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. He is also planning to sign orders that would reduce the number of refugees that are let into the U.S. annually, and impose a temporary ban on most refugees. But people are fighting back. Yesterday, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she is ready to register as a Muslim in solidarity if Trump makes that registry a reality.

Albright tweeted:

I was raised Catholic, became Episcopalian & found out later my family was Jewish. I stand ready to register as Muslim in #solidarity.

— Madeleine Albright (@madeleine) January 25, 2017

Albright also tweeted a picture of the Statue of Liberty, writing, “America must remain open to people of all faiths & backgrounds.” She was born in Prague in 1937, but fled to England during World War II. Later, her family immigrated to the U.S. and she became the first female secretary of state during the Clinton Administration. She didn’t learn that her family was Jewish and that three of her grandparents died in a concentration camp until she was older.

Albright is echoing feminist icon Gloria Steinem, who gave a powerful speech in front of the crowds of protesters at the Women’s March on Washington on Saturday. She said, “Do not try to divide us. If you force Muslims to register, we will all register as Muslims.”

Gloria Steinem at #WomensMarch: “If you force Muslims to register, we will all register as Muslims.” https://t.co/uxbbk30Fzv

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 21, 2017

More people followed their example and tweeted that they are also ready to register in solidarity with Muslim-Americans. “Big Bang Theory” actress Mayim Bilaik, who also is Jewish, was one of them.

I’m Jewish. I stand ready to register as a Muslim in #solidarity if it comes to that.

— Mayim Bialik (@missmayim) January 25, 2017

The CEO of the Anti Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, who spoke at a summit on anti-Semitism in November, gave the same promise. He said:

I pledge to you right here and now, because I care about the fight against anti-Semitism, that if one day in these United States, if one day Muslim-Americans will be forced to register their identities, then that is the day that this proud Jew will register as a Muslim.

An inspiring moment from our #NeverIsNow summit, @JGreenblattADL pledged to register in solidarity if there was a Muslim-American registry: pic.twitter.com/GQrWZbLErP

— ADL (@ADL_National) January 15, 2017

President Trump has also promised to crack down on sanctuary cities in the U.S., increase deportations, and said that he believes that torture works.

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 Madeleine Albright is Ready to Register as a Muslim appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump revived the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday, creating a quandary for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. How does he balance support for the climate, a cornerstone issue for him, while also supporting a job-creating project that environmental groups–in Canada and the U.S.–generally oppose? This is a question that had the usually tranquil leader a tad flustered during a town hall meeting at the University of Calgary on Tuesday evening.

A man in a “Make America Great Again” cap told Trudeau, who supports the pipeline project, but signaled the need to “phase out” drilling in Canada’s oil sands, he is either a “liar” or “confused.” Trudeau replied: “If you know the oil sands, sir, you know the kinds of innovation, the kinds of advances, the kind of high technology, and research that’s being done, right here at the University of Calgary.”

This is the balancing act that Trudeau has found himself performing in a country rich in oil reserves yet with an equally rich tradition of environmental protection. A former executive at TransCanada, the company that is building the Keystone XL pipeline, told The New York Times the prime minister must strike a delicate balance. “The country needs to find a balance between a credible carbon policy and seizing this economic opportunity,” Dennis McConaghy said.

Trump revived the pipeline with an executive order on Tuesday. He promised to “renegotiate” the contract with TransCanada. While there is a long way to go before construction on the pipeline resumes, Trump’s executive action signals a new U.S. stance on the issue. President Obama, who initially supported parts of the pipeline, shelved the project in 2015. The pipeline would transfer 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Alberta oil sands to Nebraska, where existing pipelines would shuffle it to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Thousands of temporary jobs would be created if construction resumes.

Trudeau seems confident the project is a responsible way to bolster Canada’s economy while protecting its environment. “I have repeatedly said that yes, the responsibility of any Canadian prime minister is to get our resources to market and yes, that includes our oil-sands fossil fuels,” Trudeau said at Tuesday’s town hall. “We need to get those to market. I’ve also said we need to do that in a responsible, sustainable way. You cannot separate what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the 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 Keystone XL Revival Puts Canadian PM Justin Trudeau in a Bind appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that had many people drawing parallels to George Orwell’s classic novel “1984,” the Trump administration issued communications bans on several government agencies this week.

On Monday morning, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out an email to the employees of its research branch–the Agricultural Research Service, which includes about 2,000 scientists–instructing everyone to stop most public communication. This move, which was eventually reversed, echoed similar other orders that were issued to several government agencies.

Buzzfeed obtained a copy of the email to the Agricultural Research Service, which said:

Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content.

Members of the scientific community criticized the announcement, citing suppression of science. After only a day of public outcry, another email was sent to the staff at ARS on Tuesday evening. This email came from ARS administrator Chavonda Jacobs-Young and reversed the initial order, saying the previous notice should not have been sent in the first place. Officials later told the media that the order to the ARS had not been coordinated with the rest of the department and that it would contradict current guidelines that encourage scientists to share their finding with the media.

Scientists at the USDA were also told that they could keep publishing scientific papers in academic magazines, but could not do any interviews with the media without getting approval from the communications office first. Communications restrictions were also sent to the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service. The EPA order also included instructions to freeze all grants and to not discuss it with any outsiders, the Huffington Post reported. The EPA issues grants for environmental research, air quality monitoring, education, and more.

USDA gag order rescinded after public outcry.https://t.co/L1x2EXsM9A
SO KEEP OUTCRYING – it works

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) January 25, 2017

Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced anxiety about what this may mean for the agency’s future. “To our knowledge, there is not a precedent for large-scale communication freezes like this,” she said to Buzzfeed.

Last week after the inauguration, the official National Park Service Twitter account retweeted a picture comparing the crowds at the event to those attending Obama’s inauguration in 2009. Immediately after, it was ordered by its Washington office to stop all tweeting until further notice. The account was allowed to resume again, after deleting the original tweets and posting an apology.

We regret the mistaken RTs from our account yesterday and look forward to continuing to share the beauty and history of our parks with you pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv

— NationalParkService (@NatlParkService) January 21, 2017

Then on Tuesday, the Badlands National Park sent out a series of tweets with climate change facts but were quickly deleted.

These are tweets that the new Admin has already deleted. RT if you believe in science and oppose Trump’s gag order on climate facts! pic.twitter.com/yBUgyfACN6

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) January 25, 2017

And now, an alternative, unofficial National parks account claiming to be run by NPS employees has surfaced. The account, with the username @AltUSNatParkService, quickly gained popularity, with nearly 650,000 thousand followers on Wednesday afternoon. Several very similar accounts popped up as well.

What do we want?
Peer-reviewed Science
When do we want it?
Yesterday, please!

— AltUSNatParkService (@AltNatParkSer) January 25, 2017

White House spokesman Sean Spicer told the Hill that he couldn’t comment on the specific bans, but did say that it was normal procedure for a new administration. “I don’t think it’s anything surprise that when there’s an administration turnover, that we’re going to review the policy,” he said.

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 Orders Several Agencies to Restrict Public Communications appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that fulfilled, at least partially, his campaign promise of building a “beautiful wall” on the Mexican border. According to Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer, the order will direct the Department of Homeland Security to use existing funds and resources to begin work on the wall, perhaps as early as next month. Drafts of another executive order signal Trump will enact strict visa bans for immigrants from “terror prone” nations. He is also expected to temporarily bar refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

Those executive orders have yet to be signed, but they imply Trump will follow through with his promise to clamp down on immigration, whether from Latin America or the Middle East and Africa. Trump signed the executive action on the Mexican border wall at the DHS headquarters Wednesday afternoon. Any additional funding for the wall, which Trump has promised will ultimately come from Mexico’s coffers, would need congressional approval.

Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!

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

According to another executive order draft on immigration and refugees, Trump will authorize a freeze on refugees fleeing civil wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Exceptions will be made for religious minorities who are escaping persecution. The order will also temporarily block visas for immigrants from Muslim-majority countries–Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen–until stricter vetting procedures are in place.

“To think that Trump’s first 100 days are going to be marked by this very shameful shutting of our doors to everybody who is seeking refuge in this country is very concerning,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, told The New York Times. “Everything points to this being simply a backdoor Muslim ban.” It is unclear if Trump will block Muslims from other Muslim-dense countries–Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others–from coming to the U.S.

A draft of another executive order Trump is considering reviews bringing back CIA “black sites,” all of which President Obama shuttered during his first week in office in 2009. But the draft is clear that the Trump Administration will not bring back water torture, a move he flirted with on the campaign trail. The draft states: “no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as described by U.S. or international 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 Trump Makes Good on Mexican Border Wall Promise appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. The bill, which passed with a vote largely along party lines by 237-187, would require certain executive regulations to be approved by a joint session in Congress. Republicans see the bill as a necessary check on the executive branch, while Democrats dismiss it as a way to gut much-needed regulations.

Calling the legislation “groundbreaking,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said the REINS Act will curb expensive regulations. “The outgoing Administration broke Constitutional restraints time and time again,” said Duncan, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Without passing the REINS Act, the boundaries for administrative rule making are endless.”

President Barack Obama used his executive authority to pass a historic number of regulations, much to the chagrin of the Republican-controlled Congress. President Donald Trump has promised to roll back a number of Obama’s executive actions, and it remains to be seen how he will use executive power. But if the REINS Act passes the Senate, it would hamstring Trump’s ability to unilaterally push regulations.

Trump has already indicated he will support the legislation. “I will sign the REINS Act should it reach my desk as President and more importantly I will work hard to get it passed,” he said last year. “The monstrosity that is the Federal Government with its pages and pages of rules and regulations has been a disaster for the American economy and job growth.”

The bill would require congressional approval for regulations that are deemed a “major rule” by the Office of Management and Budget. A “major rule” is a regulation that has costs $100 million or more, increases costs for consumers, and hurts U.S.-based companies in competition with foreign ones. A joint session in Congress would have 70 days to approve any proposed legislation by executive agencies.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the REINS Act could “end rule-making as we know it.” Referring to the 2008 housing crises and recession, Conyers added: “Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our nation’s 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 What is the REINS Act? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump made good on one of his campaign promises on Monday, signing an executive order to pull the U.S. from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The deal, a 12-nation free trade agreement molded by President Obama but never introduced to Congress, was a lightning rod for anti-trade rhetoric throughout the campaign.

“We’ve been talking about this for a long time,” Trump said while signing the document to formally withdraw the U.S. from the pact. He added that his decision would be a “great thing for the American worker.”

Obama spent eight years pushing his signature trade achievement. Trump’s executive action dashes any chances of a U.S.-led free trade agreement in the Pacific region. It is also an abrupt change in Democratic and Republican orthodoxy, both of which prize global trade ties and U.S. leadership on the world stage. Trump is rebuking that decades-old mode of thinking.

During his Inaugural Address on Friday, Trump made his most recent promise to follow through on his “America first” ethos: “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs,” he said. “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.”

Dumping the TPP was not the only executive order Trump signed on Monday. He also froze federal hiring, excluding the military, and rolled back federal funding for non governmental organizations that work with organizations that perform abortions.

Up until the primary season, Obama, and many other lawmakers from both parties, thought the TPP would usher in a new era of U.S. economic leadership. The agreement featured some of the Pacific Rim’s largest economies, including Japan and Australia, and would have eliminated tariffs and provided a framework for solving trade disputes. It would have strengthened the fiscal ties of 12 countries that make up 40 percent of the world’s economy.

But then came Trump on the right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on the left. Both tapped into an anti-globalization fervor that was gripping parts of the country, forcing Hillary Clinton to take a similar stance on the issue. Clinton once called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade agreements, but as the anti-trade rhetoric gained traction, she switched her position.

Now that Trump is in the driver’s seat, U.S. trade policy, and perhaps its broader influence around the world, is set for a new course. Trump’s style of governing will be informed by two rules, he said in his Inaugural Address: “buy American and hire American.”

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 Officially Pulls the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is now officially the 45^th president of the United States. But something else caught our attention at the inauguration ceremony–Kellyanne Conway’s outfit. She celebrated Trump’s swearing in wearing a very patriotic coat/dress in red, white, and blue. Someone pointed out that the outfit is a $3,600 Gucci creation, and if you look closely, the buttons are actually catheads. She paired the coat with a red hat.

Twitter exploded with speculation about her inspiration:

Why is Kellyanne Conway wearing a Nutcracker costume

— David A. Graham (@GrahamDavidA) January 20, 2017

Who wore it better: #KellyanneConway or the #Nutcracker???? https://t.co/PrA7dVBTq7 pic.twitter.com/VEsmukfHfl

— Perez (@ThePerezHilton) January 20, 2017

“The Daily Show” was pretty on point.

Kellyanne Conway dressed as the era Trump wants to take America back to. #InaugurationDay pic.twitter.com/Vrmc1Bq3Nz

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) January 20, 2017

Though the colors match the American flag, the high-end designer clothing site Net-A-Porter wrote that the coat was inspired by the British flag that includes the same colors. And considering the British connection, she could also have been inspired by this furry guy—especially with the hat.

Who wore it better: Kellyanne Conway or Paddington Bear? pic.twitter.com/CP2M6fzLyD

— Michael Hopper (@mhopp7) January 20, 2017

But the French flag also has the same colors, so maybe it was a nod to Napoleon.

Kellyanne Conway going for the “Napoleon” look I see #Inauguration #DisruptJ20 pic.twitter.com/SbRSA7vRE8

— Yes, You’re Racist (@YesYoureRacist) January 20, 2017

Or maybe she was influenced by the sports world?

Why does Kellyanne Conway look like the old New England Patriots logo? pic.twitter.com/swgdHH53v6

— Tyler Brooke (@TylerDBrooke) January 20, 2017

Today also happens to be Kellyanne’s 50^th birthday, so maybe she just wanted to be really dressed up in her favorite colors. The inauguration festivities will go on all day long and end with the inaugural balls tonight.

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 Kellyanne Conway’s Inauguration Getup Raised Some Eyebrows appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, writers’ rooms were probably frantically trying to re-write many of their planned monologues and sketches in line with election night’s unexpected results. Many of them probably struggled with what tone to approach the news with, as the man who had been their main source of comedic material for the past 18 months is not a joke anymore–he’s now our president-elect. While these hosts were more somber than usual, they still brought the laughs, and demonstrated that not all hope was lost.

If the election results have you stressed, hopefully these late night hosts can offer you the comedic comfort food your soul needs.

“Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver

John Oliver’s last show of the year issued some pretty serious messages and dire warnings in between its laughs. John Oliver urged viewers to “actively stand up for one another” by supporting organizations such as The Trevor Project, Planned Parenthood, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and a myriad of others. He also advised that we constantly remind ourselves that “this is not normal” with regard to a Trump presidency. Oh, and he also “blew up” 2016 at the end, because this year has been all-around awful.

“The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah

This election cycle was seriously missing the voice of Jon Stewart, but Trevor Noah delivered on Wednesday with material that could make a viewer want to laugh and cry at the same time. Particularly moving was a bit by Hasan Minhaj, in which he almost broke down in tears while telling the story of his mother, who is currently abroad and can’t return to the U.S. until February, but wasn’t entirely sure whether she’d be let back in under Trump’s confusing and ever-changing “Muslim ban.” He needs her…and she also owes him $300.

Another moving moment from this week’s show was when correspondent Michelle Wolf also simultaneously laughed and cried as she discussed the absurdity of Trump’s win and its depressing implications for American women.

In the 2016 election, 42% of women voted for Donald Trump. @MichelleIsAWolf responds: https://t.co/lU43mqpyPz pic.twitter.com/BJZCxetT5s

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) November 10, 2016

“Late Night” with Seth Meyers

Seth Meyers just might be the man to blame for a Trump presidency: in 2011, he delivered scathing jabs at Trump for his “birther” comments about President Obama. He also laughed off Trump’s interest in a campaign for the presidency at the time, while cameras showed Trump was in the audience silently seething and accepting the challenge.

Despite that, Meyers received praise for his election coverage, with his “Closer Look” segments. His post election remarks were somber, hopeful, and humorous at the same time, and had Meyers himself on the verge of tears.

“Full Frontal with Samantha Bee”

The central message of Bee’s show? We need to get to work. Bee was definitely angry with the results, blaming the large white voter base that voted for Trump. Bee also shushed white people who didn’t vote for him, and said “if Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we.”

But Bee wasn’t just angry, she was also hopeful for the “nasty women” of the future that need to step up so that we can have more and more women representing us in office.

“The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert

Another character who was sorely missed this election cycle was Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Report” persona. But even though we didn’t get to hear from his alter ego, the man himself was there to support us through the tough Election Night and into the next day.

Stephen Colbert’s live election night coverage on Showtime ended before Trump’s victory was announced, but at that point it was already clear that a Clinton win was unlikely, so the night ended on a somber and uncertain note. But the next morning, after it was official, Colbert captured the nausea-ridden hangover that overcame much of the country the day after the election. Colbert was blunt about his feelings (“This suuuucks”), but if you’re feeling down, I guarantee that watching Colbert put on cat ears and pretend to be a “sexy kitty” will definitely improve your day.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s How Late Night Hosts Reacted to the Election Results appeared first on Law Street.

So there we have it: what seemed inconceivable is now a reality. Donald J. Trump, former “Apprentice” host, a businessman with a slew of failed ventures to his name, and a man with literally no public service experience, has defeated Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman who spent her entire life working toward this moment and who was poised to become our first female president.

Mr. Trump has been surprisingly indestructible during this election cycle. Despite his astounding hypocrisy, consistent lies, and vile and hateful rhetoric toward nearly every group imaginable, he made it. Even after starting his campaign off by calling Mexicans rapists, insulting a Gold Star family, being caught on tape talking about groping a woman, and literally any other time where it seemed like he was self-sabotaging his campaign, he made it.  We have our next Commander-in-Chief.

Look, Trump voters, I get it. A lot of you are part of a disenfranchised and largely-ignored group of Americans, and “Make America Great Again” sounds like a really simple solution to a lot of the major problems you’re dealing with. And yes, the government feels like it consistently is dealing with partisan gridlock, which makes it difficult to actually get things done. People want a change from all of that, and it’s understandable; these are issues we must acknowledge and take action on as a country.

But I’m sorry to tell you: Trump doesn’t care about you. If you voted for him because you think he’s the one who’s going to solve these problems, you’ve made a terrible, terrible mistake.

Here’s what Trump cares about: power, fame, money, and himself.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t care about: climate change, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, income inequality, refugees, diplomacy, education reform, veterans, Black Lives Matter, and criminal justice reform.

Trump has yet to explain his policies on the most pressing issues facing this country today. His views on fighting terrorism? He says he’s going to get rid of ISIS, but he doesn’t want to tell us how because he doesn’t want to tip them off. His immigration plan mainly consists of two words: “the wall.” (By the way, Mexico hasn’t agreed to this wall, and there’s not really a way to make them do it, so that will probably add to our debt).  His proposed Muslim ban is probably unconstitutional.

But hey, he will bring our jobs back, right? Well, a lot of his economic proposals don’t really add up, and his economic plan is likely to add trillions to the debt.

Fine, he can appoint advisors and Cabinet members who have more experience with these issues. But do you really want a leader who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, and who advocates for policies that are straight-out unconstitutional, unfeasible, and downright criminal? Even if he’s unable to act on certain things he’s said over this campaign, he is now the world’s representative for America.

He doesn’t understand your problems; he’s never lived them. Throughout his campaign, he’s shown us his narcissism and his love for attention. Even with his alleged billions of dollars, he’s not even charitable with his money. Oh, and don’t forget that we still haven’t seen his tax returns, despite the IRS giving him the okay to release them even under audit.

I haven’t written this to shame Trump supporters, but for people to fully understand the choice they made when they stepped into that voting booth. If Trump doesn’t fulfill his promises, don’t say you weren’t warned. After Brexit, a lot of “leave” voters had regrets over their decision. I don’t know if that will happen in the U.S., but I wouldn’t be surprised if some voters have buyer’s remorse not long after he takes power.

Congratulations, Trump voters. You celebrate along with ISIS, the KKK, and many other hate groups that are thrilled that about this election result. For the sake of our country, I genuinely do wish that he does “make America great,” but I don’t have much hope that he will.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Dear Fellow Americans: Trump Doesn’t Care About Us appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump possesses the most divisive surname in America. He climbed from the top tier of reality television to the top of the Republican Party ticket. Hardly anybody saw this coming. It’s as if he was plucked from the brain of a science fiction novelist with a political bent, not quite believable enough to put on the page. But he is real, as is his movement. And if he can prove the pundits wrong once, can he a second time? During the primary cycle, political futurists swung and missed. But now that Trump the nominee is a reality–and the prospect of a President Trump looms–analysts, journalists, and soothsayers alike tap into their imaginations (and whatever concrete stances Trump has given them to build off) to forecast what an America led by the real estate scion might look like.

That’s exactly what happened Wednesday at New America–a Washington D.C. think tank–at an event titled “Imagining President Trump.” A stable of liberal and conservative thinkers gazed into their crystal balls to chew on what a Trump presidency might portend for the country and the very make up of America’s political system.

Foreign Policy

“America first.” That is the gist of Trump’s foreign policy platform, and that would be the driving force behind his relationships with the rest of the world. At least we think.

“You can take him on his word on Monday and then you look at his word on Tuesday and it’s the opposite of what he said on Monday so you don’t know,” said Injira Lakshmanan, a columnist for The Boston Globe and Politico.

She noted the foreign policy speech Trump delivered–via teleprompter, a rarity for him–at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington a few weeks ago, where he outlined what his foreign policy approach would be as president: He derided America’s historical lack of a coherent foreign policy, while also promising to be unpredictable, two seemingly incompatible notions.

Trump has sworn to destroy the Islamic State, though ceding that can only be done with a sizable surge of ground troops, from 20,000-30,000. But those will not be American troops, Trump has said. World leaders are terrified of an America led by Trump, Lakshmanan said, and as President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s recent trips abroad have shown, the current administration is attempting to assuage those fears. She also predicted that if President Trump removed the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, as he has indicated, world governments might reign in–or pull out altogether–their dollar investments.

“A lot of this is Trump flying by the seat of his pants. He throws out ideas as they occur to him, that feel right, but they are very contradictory,” Lakshmanan said, adding: “The rest of the world is terrified.”

First 100 Days In Office

For the last few decades at least, a popular metric when measuring a president’s success is his (or her) first 100 days as commander in chief. Is the status quo upheld or flipped on its head? Are campaign promises kept? Are new amenities added to the White House?

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if both parties decide to conspire to make him the least effective president in his first hundred days,” predicted Lara Brown, director of George Washington University’s Political Management Program at the Graduate School of Political Management. She said it is in neither parties’ interest to have him succeed.

Matthew Continetti, the Editor in Chief of the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative-leaning political news site, said that Trump’s chief concern is being the center of the national conversation. Continetti believes that that hunger and his need to be talked about will lead to several disasters in his first 100 days: “a dysfunctional government, internecine warfare among his staff, and geopolitical instability.”

But Brown predicts Trump’s first 100 days might also deliver a shock to the voters who elected him to the highest office in the land. These are people who fixated on him because of his blustery promise of radical change, but who “would actually become profoundly disillusioned because it’s much more likely there would be no change,” Brown said.

The Republican Party

In securing the Republican nomination, Trump tapped into currents that went largely ignored by the establishment in past elections. He stirred up anger and discontent that stemmed from broken promises throughout the years. Millions of people–whether staunch conservatives, sort of conservatives, and even some disillusioned Democrats–latched onto his blunt rhetoric as the answer to an entrenched political system that has left them behind. Win or lose, Trump has sent shockwaves through the GOP, perhaps shifting its identity forever.

Continetti sees two paths forward for the party of Lincoln: the Ben Sasse option and the Tom Cotton option. Both young Republican senators–Sasse of Nebraska and Cotton of Arkansas–represent two competing factions of the party’s mood, a fissure exacerbated and revealed by Trump’s ascension. The Sasse route would embrace the moral majority image of the party and update it for a new century, something Ted Cruz tried to tap into in his failed run. For this reason, and for the sinking of the #NeverTrump movement and Sasse’s own failure to drum up support for a third-party run in November, Continetti does not see this path materializing.

Instead, the “white, populous, protectionist, ‘America first,'” option will likely prevail, Continetti said, the swath of the electorate that Cotton and especially Trump have spoken to. Norman Ornstein, also part of Wednesday’s five member panel and a contributing editor to The Atlantic, sees the warring factions within the Republican Party as akin to the ethnic divisions tearing apart the Middle East. He predicted that if America’s 45th president is indeed Donald Trump, Democrats might cozy up to him more than members of his own party would.

“He’s going to have more allies among Democrats than he will among Republicans, which will drive a good portion of that Republican base even more up the wall,” he said.

It is important to note that all five panelists on Wednesday agree that a Trump White House is unlikely. But he was written off once before, and we all know how that turned out.

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 Let’s Imagine an America Led by President Trump appeared first on Law Street.