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.

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.

A few minutes past 9 a.m. on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet that had much of the world on the edge of its seat:

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Soon after Trump posted that tweet, the New York Times reported that he is expected to pull out of the 195-nation climate pact, according to three U.S. officials. One senior official told the Times that the decision was not final, and that specifics had yet to be hammered out.

But still, if the president makes good on one of his signature campaign pledges–he said he would “cancel” the agreement–the government’s commitment to combating climate change would essentially vanish–a symbolic blow that could lead other countries to withdraw.

The climate accord–an effort spearheaded by President Barack Obama and signed in Paris in December 2015–has split many of the key actors in Trump’s orbit; Congress has also taken opposing sides on the matter largely, but not exclusively, among party lines.

Leading the charge to abort the accord is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon, a highly influential force in Trump’s ascendance to the White House, sees it as making good on a central campaign promise. Despite reports that Bannon was losing sway with the president in recent weeks, his “don’t forget who got you here” line seems to resonate with Trump.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA director, has also lobbied Trump to withdraw from the pact. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” in April, Pruitt said: “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach.”

But there are competing voices as well, with some of Trump’s aides arguing to remain in the agreement or to work on re-tooling it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump have argued that leaving the climate deal could jeopardize relationships with allies–like Europe–and leave the U.S. in a less powerful position in setting the rules for the global climate change discussion in the future.

Tillerson is expected to meet privately with Trump on Wednesday afternoon–perhaps to deliver a final plea to remain in the pact.

Several major corporations–including oil and natural gas giants like ExxonMobil–support remaining in the agreement. Darren Woods, Exxon’s CEO, recently wrote a letter to Trump, saying that the U.S., by being part of the accord, “will maintain a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field so that all energy sources and technologies are treated equitably in an open, transparent and competitive global market so as to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.”

Congress, like the White House, is breaking along a few different fault lines–some GOP representatives and senators have urged Trump to remain in the agreement, while dozens of others have implored him to withdraw. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is one of the more vocal Republican voices supporting the pact. In a letter to Trump earlier this month, co-signed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), she wrote:

Climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to address the effects already being seen worldwide. For international climate efforts to advance, is is essential that the United States keep a seat at the table.

Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker, GOP Senators from South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, have also argued that staying in the accord would benefit the United States. Graham recently said leaving it “would be bad for the party, bad for the country.”

Other Republican senators have either remained mum on the subject, or have lobbied Trump to exit the deal. A letter sent last week to Trump, signed by 22 GOP members of the Senate, argued that remaining in the agreement “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” an Obama-era initiative that has yet to go into effect.

“Accordingly,” the senators wrote, ” we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

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 Where Do the Trump Team and Congress Stand on the Paris Climate Accord? 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.

A chemical attack in Syria on Tuesday, thought to be carried out by government forces, killed as many as 100 people and wounded hundreds more, according to some witnesses. Hours after the attack, at a press conference at the White House, Press Secretary Sean Spicer blamed the Obama Administration’s “weakness and irresolution” for the gruesome attack, the deadliest chemical attack in Syria since August 2013.

“Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,” Spicer said. “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution.” He added: “The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act.”

According to monitoring groups, medics, and rescue workers, chemical weapons were dropped from jet planes in Idlib, a rebel-held area in the north. Witnesses described victims choking, with some foaming at the mouth, telltale signs of a chemical attack. A government source told Reuters sarin gas was likely used in the attack, which was “almost certainly” carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

These children can’t breathe. This is the aftermath of a suspectedchemical attack in Syria. pic.twitter.com/6CHTocDaeV

— Alberto Hugo Rojas (@albertohrojas) April 4, 2017

In a statement soon after the attack, the Syrian army denied responsibility: “We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time neither in past or in future,” the statement said, referring to the town in Idlib province where the attack took place. The United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting for Wednesday to discuss the attack.

The White House response echoed a familiar sentiment that critics often repeat about the Obama Administration’s policy in Syria. President Barack Obama’s inaction, critics say, has allowed the Syrian government, along with its allies Russia and Iran, to continue committing grievous acts against its citizens. Many Republicans, along with some Democrats, thought Obama did not do enough to help the rebel forces, a fractured and largely undefined amalgamation with some extremist elements.

In 2012, in a briefing at the White House, Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” In August 2013, the Syrian government killed scores of citizens in a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Despite crossing Obama’s stated “red line,” the administration took no military action.

It did, however, reach an agreement with the Syrian government to dispose of its chemical weapons stockpile. Assisted by the Russians, the effort was thought to be successful. But soon after, despite its claims and promises, the Assad regime launched chlorine gas attacks. And although the White House pointed fingers at Obama for Tuesday’s attack, President Donald Trump’s past statements seemed to be against military action as well. In September 2013, he tweeted:

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

It is unclear how, if at all, Trump will change the current strategy in Syria as a result of the attack. While he will be sending up to 1,000 more ground troops to bolster the fight against Islamic State, which holds splotches of territory in the north of Syria, Trump’s strategy has not strayed much from the Obama Administration’s. And while Obama’s strategy in Syria focused on defeating ISIS, rather than unseating Assad, he still hoped Assad would be toppled. That is something that the new administration has signaled is not a top priority.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” And Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, suggested ousting Assad is not a primary focus of the Syrian strategy. “Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes,” she said. “Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No.”

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 White House: Chemical Attack in Syria is Obama’s Fault appeared first on Law Street.

In his first visit to Turkey as America’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson zeroed in on the country’s vital role in supporting the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He largely skirted the more divisive issues, such as Turkey’s concern for the U.S. backing of Kurdish fighters in the region, a potential flashpoint that could endanger the relationship: Turkey views the Kurdish fighters as terrorists. Tillerson did say that “difficult choices” have to be made.

“We look to Turkey as a key partner for stabilization effort in areas once held by ISIS and for ensuring our NGO and UN partners can continue to provide humanitarian relief services inside and outside of Syria,” Tillerson said in a press conference in Ankara, the capital, on Thursday. “We commend Turkey for its efforts to find a peaceful solution to the nearly six-year Syrian conflict.”

The U.S. leans heavily on its NATO ally in the battle against ISIS on two fronts–in Mosul, Iraq and the group’s de facto capital in Raqqa, Syria. For one, U.S. airstrikes in Syria are launched from the Incirlik Air Base, not far from Turkey’s southern border with Syria. But it’s the most potent fighting force on the ground, the Kurds, that could create a wedge in the U.S.-Turkey partnership.

Known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Kurdish militia benefits from generous U.S. support, both financially and militarily. But Turkey sees the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which it designates a terrorist group. Still, Tillerson pledged there is “no space between Turkey and the United States in our commitment to defeat” ISIS.

This week presented another challenge to the relationship. A day before Tillerson’s visit, Turkish officials alleged that the U.S., in the days following last July’s coup attempt, contacted one of the suspected architects of the plot, Adil Oksuz. The U.S. Embassy in Ankara claims it called Oksuz to alert him that, at the behest of Turkish authorities, his visa had been revoked. Turkey was unconvinced of that explanation. “We are expecting better cooperation,” said Tillerson’s Turkish counterpart, Mevlut Cavusoglu.

In the land of conspiracy theories, the allegation did little to placate Turkey’s fears that the U.S. had a hand in the deadly coup attempt. Furthering Turkey’s suspicions, Fethullah Gulen, the Muslim cleric and former politician that Ankara is convinced orchestrated the coup, lives in Pennsylvania. Turkey has repeatedly called on the U.S. to extradite Gulen, but the U.S. has refused to do so, saying there is not sufficient evidence of his alleged crimes.

Turkey’s relationships with other western allies, like the Netherlands and Germany, have also frayed in recent weeks. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan–whose crackdowns on the press and political dissidents after the July coup has worried leaders around the world–is attempting to expand his powers in a referendum next month.

His campaign has spilled into Europe, where millions of Turks live and are able to vote in the referendum. But the Netherlands, Germany, and others have barred Turkish ministers from traveling to Europe to drum up support for the referendum; Erdogan has likened the European leaders to Nazis. Tillerson left Turkey without a mention, publicly at least, of Erdogan’s escapades in Europe, and his tightening grip at home.

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 Rex Tillerson Faces a Tall Task with his First Visit to Turkey appeared first on Law Street.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State and former CEO of oil giant Exxon Mobil, will not attend a meeting with NATO representatives next month in Brussels, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Instead, Tillerson will travel to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Tillerson will then travel to the G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, followed by a jaunt to Moscow to meet with Russian officials.

In forgoing the NATO meeting in favor of a trip to meet with Kremlin officials, Tillerson is only compounding the dim view some have of his personal ties to Russia, and the Trump Administration’s connections as well. Tillerson steered Exxon through lucrative drilling contracts with Russia, and President Vladimir Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship in 2013.

And Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” though members of his cabinet–and Vice President Mike Pence–have since tried to walk back those remarks. Then of course, there are Trump’s murky relations with Russia: FBI Director James Comey said on Monday that Trump’s associates are currently under investigation for communications with Russia during the campaign.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting would do little to alleviate the defense alliance’s concerns about U.S. support. “Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration [is] simply too cozy with Vladimir Putin,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

The State Department spokeswoman said in lieu of Tillerson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affair Tom Shannon will represent the U.S. in Brussels. Tillerson will, however, be meeting with NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday in Washington. The meeting will focus on defeating Islamic State, or ISIS, the spokeswoman said.

A former U.S. official and former NATO diplomat told Reuters that the alliance offered to change the date of the Brussels meeting so that Tillerson could attend, but that the department declined the offer. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the former diplomat said engagement with NATO is vital given the growing Russian threat. “Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat 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 Rex Tillerson to Skip NATO Meeting, Meet with Chinese and Russian Leaders Instead appeared first on Law Street.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Rex Tillerson Says Military Action Against North Korea is Possible

This morning, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke at a press conference in South Korea and warned that military action against North Korea is not unthinkable. “If they elevate the threat of their weapons program to a level that we believe requires action then that option is on the table,” he said. North Korea has been pretty active with its nuclear weapons tests recently, with two tests last year and several missile launches. North Korean leaders have also said that they are working on a missile that could reach the U.S.

Tillerson said that the U.S. has been patient with North Korea for a long time, which hasn’t had much effect, but that he obviously wants to avoid an armed conflict. An armed conflict with North Korea is kind of a worst possible scenario–an American Army strategist, Major ML Cavanaugh, even pointed out that a ground war with North Korea would be very difficult. The country’s terrain is hard to navigate, and the North Korean army is likely better trained to handle it than Americans.

But, no one knows what the Trump Administration is thinking. In fact, Donald Trump tweeted about it this morning, seemingly echoing Tillerson’s comments.

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

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 RantCrush Top 5: March 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

GOP Health Plan Will Leave 14 Million Without Coverage in First Year

The Congressional Budget Office has released its analysis of the Republican healthcare plan, and the results don’t look very good. According to the CBO, 24 million people will be without coverage by 2026, and 14 million would lose their insurance in just the first year. While the plan would save about $337 billion in the coming decade, it would come largely at the expense of the poorest Americans–as the savings would mostly come from cutting Medicaid.

Democrats say that this should be enough to stop the bill. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, says that the media is trying to make Obamacare look great so that people will look back on it positively, but that “’17 will be the very worst year.” The Trump Administration has tried to downplay the importance of the CBO over the past few days and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said, “We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out.”

CBO report on GOP health plan:
-24 MILLION fewer insured
-$880 billion cut from Medicaid
-Premiums 20% higher by 2018

Is this “winning?”

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 13, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: March 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On November 30, 2016, the Colombian Congress ratified a long awaited peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). After 52 years of fighting and months of negotiations in Havana, Cuba, FARC agreed to permanently put down arms and reinvent itself as a mainstream political party. America’s involvement in the conflict is longstanding. While President Barack Obama’s promises of aid were integral to the action plan for peace, policy shifts under President Donald Trump could jeopardize peace in Colombia.

The Alliance

Colombia is widely considered America’s strongest ally in Latin America. The alliance between the two states is built on Colombia’s entrenched and complex domestic conflict. Though first motivated by an ideological war with communism, the partnership would come to be defined by the U.S.’s war on drugs. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. Rather than addressing domestic demand for drugs, the U.S. government chose to wage war against those producing and trafficking drugs. As a result, Colombia became a focal point for the U.S.’s anti-drug policies. For decades, the Colombian government has received American military and financial support.

Over the years, American interference has undoubtedly contributed to the escalation and complication of the conflict in Colombia. Less than a decade ago, the U.S. was engaging in covert operations against FARC leaders, often in violation of international law. However, in a rare move away from traditional security approaches, the Obama Administration began pushing for peace between the Colombian government and FARC as early as 2009.

In 2015, after a turbulent fews years, Colombian and FARC representatives hammered out the details of a deal which was ultimately defeated in a referendum. A slightly reworked deal was approved by the Colombian congress in late November. The U.S. took the backseat throughout the negotiation process, but a $450 million aid package from the Obama administration was crucial for peace.

A Shifting Stance?

Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Senior Associate for the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said that the aid package was necessary for peace. The primary purpose of the package is to develop alternative livelihoods for coca growers. Under Trump, there is no guarantee that this aid package will arrive as promised, if at all. The Trump Administration has already placed all ongoing foreign aid under review. Trump has also taken direct action on specific aid packages. In his first week, Trump halted a $221 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority and reinstated the “Mexico City Policy,” which bans federal funding to international groups that work to endorse pro-choice policies or provide services related to abortion. There is no guarantee that the money promised under Obama will be delivered under Trump.

The Trump Administration clearly intends to impose conservative policies on foreign aid. Whether or not the Trump Administration will cut off aid to Colombia remains to be seen, and the White House has said little on the matter. However, when asked about the peace deal during his confirmation process, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed his support for the long-standing militaristic policy known as Plan Colombia. He went on to say he “would review the details of Colombia’s recent peace agreement, and determine the extent to which the United States should continue to support it.” Tillerson’s expressed support for Plan Colombia and his ambiguous stance on the peace deal are cause for concern.

Tillerson’s reluctance to commit to peace in Colombia not only puts the deal with FARC in doubt but it could jeopardize future peace talks. While the agreement between FARC and the Colombian government is a major step on the road to peace, these two actors do not encapsulate the conflict. The conflict in Colombia involves a variety of right-wing paramilitary and leftist guerrilla groups. Though FARC has been the major and ever-present belligerent in the conflict, there are more hurdles to jump before Colombia can guarantee total peace. Preliminary peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), another leftist revolutionary group, are already underway. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to obstruct the deal with FARC, the Colombian government may not be able to rely on the kind of support it received from the Obama Administration when looking ahead.

Finally, it is important to note why the first draft of the peace deal with FARC was narrowly defeated in the referendum. Though less affected by the war than those living in rural conflict zones, urban Colombians voted down a deal that they believed to be far too lenient on the guerrillas. Were Trump to oppose the current peace deal, he may well find support from a sizable portion of Colombians who feel their government should not be negotiating with FARC or any other rebel group. This move would not be unthinkable considering Trump’s rhetoric concerning terrorist groups has been unapologetically aggressive, and both FARC and the ELN remain on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

If Trump is unwilling to continue Obama’s move away from traditional security policies in Colombia, the peace process in Colombia could stall. Even if Trump upholds existing deals and promises between the U.S., Colombia, and FARC, the Colombian government may have to conduct future peace negotiations without American financial or diplomatic support.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Trump Mean for Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.

This morning, Florida Senator Marco Rubio took to Facebook to announce that he will support Rex Tillerson’s nomination for Secretary of State, despite the tough questions that Rubio had for Tillerson during his confirmation hearing.

Rubio’s long statement praises Tillerson’s patriotism and “impressive record of leadership,” but also highlights a number of concerns that Rubio brought up during the confirmation hearing, like Tillerson’s refusal to call Vladimir Putin a war criminal. However, at the end of his statement, Rubio states his support of Tillerson despite these concerns, saying that he must “balance these concerns with his extensive experience and success in international commerce” and that “it would be against our national interests to have this confirmation unnecessarily delayed or embroiled in controversy.”

Rubio’s support comes a day after Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a joint statement in support of Tillerson. In addition to Rubio, Graham and McCain were the two primary hurdles in the way of Tillerson’s confirmation.

“We need a Secretary of State who recognizes that our nation cannot succeed in the world by itself,” the joint statement reads. “The views that Mr. Tillerson has expressed, both privately and publicly during the confirmation process, give us confidence that he will be a champion for a strong and engaged role for America in the world.”

The main criticism that senators on both sides of the aisle have of Tillerson is his connection to the Russian government when he served as CEO of Exxon Mobil, having received the Russian Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin. Tillerson also lobbied the White House to lift the sanctions that were imposed on Russia after the invasion of Crimea.

Upon the release of his statement, Rubio has been met with criticism aimed at his lack of political courage.

Marco Rubio is the same man who called Obama “weak” on Russia. https://t.co/b48AfTgtKk

— Terrell J. Starr (@Russian_Starr) January 23, 2017

We knew how @marcorubio’s tough talk about Tillerson would turn out, because we all knew how how his tough talk about Trump would turn out.

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) January 23, 2017

Marco Rubio just listed his spine for sale on Craigslist.

— Michael Blackman (@ParaComedian09) January 23, 2017

So Marco Rubio:

1) Grilled Rex Tillerson and tried to embarrass him about Putin

2) Is now voting to confirm Rex Tillerson

— Matt O’Brien (@ObsoleteDogma) January 23, 2017

Rubio garnered a wave of praise after his comments during Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, particularly for a line of questioning in which Rubio called for “moral clarity” and pushed Tillerson on his refusal to label foreign actors as sponsors of terrorism or in violation of international law.

“These were not obscure areas […] it should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin’s military has conducted war crimes in Aleppo,” Rubio said. He added, “It is never acceptable, you would agree, for a military to specifically target civilians. I find it discouraging your inability to cite that, which is globally accepted.” The video below shows Rubio’s comments.

Rubio has a history of balking on his perceived strong stances, including his support of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee after calling him a “con man,” and running for Senate after repeatedly saying that he had no intention of running if he did not become president.

I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2016

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is expected to vote on Tillerson’s nomination sometime on Monday.

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 Marco Rubio Pledges his Support for Tillerson, Making Confirmation Likely appeared first on Law Street.

Though he has toyed with a number of candidates with various levels of government experience in choosing the next secretary of state, in the end President-elect Donald Trump selected a man with a résumé more in line with his own. His pick is Rex Tillerson, the CEO of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil. Tillerson, 64, has no experience in public service–he is the model “outsider” that Trump has sought out in assembling his cabinet–and has spent his entire four-decade career with Exxon.

As the nation’s top diplomat, Tillerson will have to reconcile the deep business ties he has formed with Russia. Under Tillerson’s leadership, Exxon agreed to billions of dollars worth of contracts with Rosneft, a Kremlin-backed oil outfit, to drill in Siberia and the Black Sea. Those deals were frozen, however, when the U.S. slapped heavy sanctions on Russia, after it intervened in Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

Last weekend, as Tillerson emerged as the leading candidate, a number of Republican senators expressed alarm over his extensive business dealings with Russia, whose hacks into the email servers of U.S. political operatives were done with the intention of aiding Trump, the CIA said. On Saturday, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), said Tillerson’s relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a matter of concern to me.” He added: “Vladimir Putin is a thug, bully and a murderer, and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying.”

McCain wasn’t the only senator to question Tillerson’s relationship to Russia, and it seems the business magnate is in for a tense Senate confirmation hearing. On Sunday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), tweeted: “Being a ‘friend of Vladimir’ is not an attribute I am hoping for from a #SecretaryOfState.” Putin awarded Tillerson with the Order of Friendship in 2013. While that is not necessarily a rare honor, or even one that indicates an unusual personal relationship with Russia or Putin, it’s Tillerson’s business dealings, specifically the ones that hinge on U.S. sanctions being lifted, that most trouble his skeptics.

But for Trump, those same dealings seem to have attracted him to Tillerson. “He’s much more than a business executive; he’s a world-class player,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday. “He knows many of the players, and he knows them well. He does massive deals in Russia — for the company, not for himself.” Tweeting on Tuesday morning, Trump doubled down on his support of Tillerson’s massive network of business deals, which span six continents and 50 countries, including the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan and Qatar:

The thing I like best about Rex Tillerson is that he has vast experience at dealing successfully with all types of foreign governments.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2016

Tillerson, a native of Wichita Falls, Texas, has been at the fore of Exxon’s shift from being a company that denied climate change to one that cleaned up its practices and even advocated for a carbon tax. He also helped the company reduce its emissions. And in 2012, Tillerson played a key role in allowing openly gay children to join the Boy Scouts, an organization which he was a member of and remains actively engaged in.

Though he beat out Mitt Romney, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) for the position, Tillerson will likely face tough questioning from the Senate, and will have trouble getting confirmed if three or more Republicans vote to block him. Aside from Rubio and McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also expressed concern about Trump’s appointee: “I expect the US-Russian relationship to be front and center in his confirmation process,” he said, adding that his Order of Friendship from Putin is “unnerving.”

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 Cabinet: Who is Rex Tillerson? appeared first on Law Street.