Sunday, April 16, 2017

North Korean Missile Launch Fails ‘Almost Immediately’ - NBC News

NEWS APR 15 2017, 10:07 PM ET
North Korean Missile Launch Fails ‘Almost Immediately’, U.S.Military Says 
by COURTNEY KUBE, KELLY O'DONNELL  andSTELLA KIM

North Korea attempted a missile launch early Sunday morning local time (5:21 p.m. ET), but it failed "almost immediately" United States military officials confirmed to NBC News. 
South Korea's military detected the same results, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency. 
The launch was attempted from Sinpo, a city on North Korea's east coast, some 400 miles from Japan, according to U.S. Pacific Command. 
Early assessments suggested the projectile was not the feared intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the continental U.S., two U.S. military officials told NBC News.
The attempted launch comes just one day after the North held a massive parade to display is military might, including what experts said appeared to be new capabilities for long-range ICBMs. It marks the second time in as many months that a North Korean missile ended in an embarrassing explosion just after launch.
President Donald Trump, who is at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, this weekend, was briefed on the launch, a senior White House official told NBC News. 
"The president and his military team are aware of North Korea's most recent unsuccessful missile launch. The president has no further comment," Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in a statement Saturday night. 
"U.S. Pacific Command is fully committed to working closely with our allies in the Republic of Korea and in Japan to maintain security," the military said in an earlier statement on Saturday.
Vice President Mike Pence was en route with his wife and two daughters to Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday night for meetings with U.S. and South Korean troops and acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn. Pence's schedule was not expected to be altered, a senior White House officials said. 
Shin In-kyun, President of Korea Defense Network a civic group specializing in military affairs, told NBC News that Sinpo is North Korea's submarine port and the failed missile was likely a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). 
"SLBMs are more threatening than any other type of missile of the same range because it can evade radar detection, including the THAAD," Shin said, referring to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system provided to South Korea by the U.S. "If North Korea [can] complete building 3,000-ton submarine, they can then attack Guam, Hawaii and even Alaska with an SLBM." 

South Korea's National Security Council was set to convene Sunday morning local time (8:30 p.m. ET) "to examine the security situation regarding the missile launch by North Korea," a South Korean presidential spokesperson told NBC News. 

Saturday, April 15, 2017

North Korea's nuclear arsenal is real – how Trump will handle it is unknown - Guardian

North Korea's nuclear arsenal is real – how Trump will handle it is unknown
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday 15 April 2017 03.14 AEST Last modified on Saturday 15 April 2017 19.40 AEST
The ascent of Donald Trump, the volatility of his foreign policy and his tendency to fire off tweeted threats to nuclear-armed adversaries has brought one more wild card to the Korean peninsula, which already had more than its fair share.


China urges North Korea and US to step back from brink of war
Read more
Tensions would be high anyway in the run up to Saturday’s “Day of the Sun”, when the North Korean state celebrates the anniversary of the birth of its founder, Kim Il-sung. His grandson, Kim Jong-un, has shown himself anxious to outdo his forefathers, accelerating the pace of the regime’s missile and nuclear tests.

Very visible work has been under way at the mountainous nuclear test site where a new tunnel has been opened, giving rise to expectations that the country could carry out its sixth underground detonation of a nuclear device. This time, it could be a thermonuclear weapon that is tested, with a far higher yield than a simple fission warhead, or more than one bomb could be set off at the same time.

Alternatively, the preparations could be feint, intended to confuse and frighten the rest of the world, and Kim could use the grand military parade on the Day of the Sun to show off an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which the regime is seeking to develop and would be capable of reaching the west coast of the US.

There has been little doubt in recent years that the end-point of the North Korean programme is an arsenal of working ICBMs and nuclear warheads small enough to put on top of them. The dilemma of how to stop it reaching that goal is the hardest problem facing any US administration, a point that Barack Obama repeatedly made to Trump during the presidential transition.


How Trump will handle that challenge is the greatest unknown hanging over the region. His instinctual response has been to bluster, mostly on Twitter, insisting that the North Korean development of an ICBM just “won’t happen” and warning that if the Chinese did not do more to stop the forward march of Pyongyang’s programme, “we will solve the problem without them”.

He has described US naval deployments of aircraft carriers and submarines in the region as an “armada”, while his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has declared that the Obama era of “strategic patience” is over.

Rattling sabres is a particularly dangerous thing to do on the Korean peninsula. While the repercussions from a missile strike in Syria or the dropping of a giant bomb in Afghanistan can be contained, a preventative strike on North Korea could set off a chain reaction. In wargaming such a confrontation, US military planners under Obama came to the conclusion that Pyongyang’s most likely counter-move would be demolish Seoul with its artillery lined up behind the demilitarised zone separating North and South Korea.

The US and North Korea have thus been stuck in a position of mutual deterrence, which has stopped the outbreak of major new hostilities but not prevented Pyongyang’s steady advance towards the capacity to directly threaten the continental US, and Europe for that matter, with nuclear weapons.

Let's stop calling North Korea 'crazy' and understand their motives
Isaac Stone Fish
Read more
Trump seems to be hoping that by introducing some unpredictability into this static scenario, he can frighten the Chinese government into putting real pressure on Pyongyang. There are some signs that might be working, with hints in China’s semi-official media that Beijing could tighten oil deliveries, North Korea’s lifeline.

If that fails however, and Kim’s instincts up to now have always been to defy pressure, Trump is left with the same dilemma as Obama, but perhaps with even further to walk to any future negotiating table.



A Giant U.S. Bomb Carries an Even Bigger Message - New York Times

A Giant U.S. Bomb Carries an Even Bigger Message

By ERIC SCHMITT, HELENE COOPER and C. J. CHIVERS
APRIL 14, 2017
WASHINGTON — The bomb that the United States dropped on an Islamic State cave complex in Afghanistan on Thursday was big — at 22,000 pounds, the most powerful conventional weapon in the American arsenal. Arguably, even bigger were the messages it sent, whether by design or not.
To potential adversaries like Syria and North Korea, the bombing could signal deterrence. For the American public, it underscored the Pentagon’s more aggressive stance under President Trump than under his predecessor, whose administration never even debated using the weapon.
Dozens of militants were killed, Afghan officials said. American commanders said that the bomb was chosen because it fit the target, a series of tunnels with dug-in positions nearby used by militants in a remote part of eastern Afghanistan, and that it posed little or no risk to civilians. The bombing spared troops from fierce fighting in caves.
It also illustrated how Mr. Trump is releasing commanders from Obama-era restrictions on the use of force and how the top United States commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., was seeking to showcase Afghanistan’s myriad threats. General Nicholson, who has requested reinforcements to the 8,500 American troops stationed there, drew his bosses’ attention by dropping what the Pentagon has nicknamed the “mother of all bombs.”
“Another promise kept,” Donald J. Trump Jr., the president’s son, said on Twitter, noting his father’s campaign promise to vigorously strike the Islamic State and using an emoji of a bomb with a lit fuse.
Using the weapon, called the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, presents special challenges. It can obliterate everything within a 1,000-yard radius. The ordnance contains almost 19,000 pounds of Composition H6, an explosive compound that is roughly one-third stronger than an equivalent weight of TNT.

In Afghanistan, with its rural and agrarian economy, civilians who are engaged in food-gathering, woodcutting, farming or tending herds are often near or beside concentrations of militants. The blast radius of an explosion of this size could pose risks to people far from the center of the target.

For that reason, President Barack Obama’s administration did not consider using the bomb, American officials said. Early in the Iraq war in April 2003, during the administration of President George W. Bush, American commanders weighed using the weapon to try to kill President Saddam Hussein, who was on the run from United States troops who had toppled his government.
But commanders discarded the option when analysts estimated that the bomb’s blast would also kill thousands of civilians. “The collateral damage would have been massive,” said Marc Garlasco, who led a team in the military’s Joint Staff that was seeking to target Mr. Hussein.
The Afghan government said Friday that 36 militants were killed in Thursday’s blast. That number has not been independently verified, and official Afghan government casualties estimates have been unreliable in the past. Another official put the number of dead militants at more than 80.
Early reports from the area near the blast did not suggest that any civilians had been killed and said that most civilians had left the target area in recent weeks because of continuing fighting between the militants and Afghan forces and American troops.
The attack seemed to have a limited purpose and to be less significant than implied by the news coverage that focused principally on the unusually large size of the bomb.
By comparison, under Mr. Obama, the Air Force killed more than 100 Qaeda militants in Syria in the waning hours of his presidency by dropping bombs with no memorable name from B-52 planes.

General Nicholson said Thursday’s attack was tactically necessary to defeat obstacles, hidden bombs and the dug-in positions used by the militants. “Therefore, this was the appropriate weapon to use at this time,” he said.
But the Islamic State’s regional affiliate in Afghanistan, largely made up of former members of the Pakistani Taliban, numbers only some 700 fighters, compared with a peak of 2,000 to 3,000 in the spring of 2016.
The Trump administration has not publicly articulated a thorough long-term plan or endgame for the Afghan war and faces harsh circumstances in a conflict beset by starts and stops, troop commitments and withdrawals, and a series of disappointments and failures over more than a decade and a half of varied missions, priorities and even doctrines.
Many of the areas where American troops and their allies have fought hard and died in large numbers have fallen or reverted to militant control in recent years. The Afghan security forces, created with American training, money and weapons, have not lived up to the Pentagon’s promises.
The pace of airstrikes has increased, and Thursday’s bombing served as an example of a new weapon being applied to the war. But past airstrikes, while they have killed an uncountable quantity of militants, have not prevented their organizations from regrouping and refilling their ranks. And in this case, the use of the powerful bomb — whether it was seen internationally as a signal of a renewed American intention of using force — could also be read as an option that commanders viewed as necessary because they have limited resources on the ground.
While some analysts said the bombing sent a stern symbolic message to Syria and North Korea, it has little real utility against those countries, or Iran or Russia, because it is pushed out of a lumbering cargo plane that can operate safely only over nations that have no effective air defenses or air forces.
Some critics said the bombing could send an unintended message to North Korea that may unnecessarily rattle nerves in Pyongyang at a time of high tension for no clear strategic reason, while failing to advance a long-term strategy in Afghanistan.

“Let’s not confuse this tactic for a strategy,” said Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and former Marine Corps captain who served four tours in Iraq.
At the Pentagon, military officials said that they did not need to request authorization for the strike from Mr. Trump, although three officials also acknowledged that if Mr. Obama had still been in charge, the Defense Department would probably have sent the proposal to the White House before proceeding.
But instead of the deliberative processes in place during the Obama administration that made for lengthy National Security Council staff meetings, Mr. Trump has approved allowing his commanders more authority, giving the Pentagon a rare freedom to assert its control over national security policy from a commander in chief who eschews quibbling over the details.
Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper reported from Washington. Mujib Mashal and Fahim Abed contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Michael R. Gordon from Baghdad.

New York Times

These Airlines Have the Worst Customer Service - TIME Business

Friday, April 14, 2017

Coalition airstrike in Syria mistakenly kills 18 US-backed fighters - ABC News

Coalition airstrike in Syria mistakenly kills 18 US-backed fighters
  • By ADAM KELSEY 
Apr 13, 2017, 11:27 AM ET
An airstrike on Tuesday by the coalition fighting ISIS south of Tabqah, Syria, killed 18 U.S.-supported fighters, U.S. Central Command announced.
The strike killed members of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a local group of fighters that the U.S. and a coalition of 67 other nations and organizations support in the shared goal of defeating ISIS.





"The strike was requested by the partnered forces, who had identified the target location as an ISIS fighting position," CENTCOM said in a statement.
Instead, the position was occupied by members of the SDF, 18 of whom were killed as a result.
"The coalition's deepest condolences go out to the members of the SDF and their families," the statement continued. "The coalition is in close contact with our SDF partners who have expressed a strong desire to remain focused on the fight against ISIS despite this tragic incident."
The statement further said that the coalition is investigating the strike and planning to "implement appropriate safeguards" to avoid further misdirected action.
Coalition airstrikes are a regular tool in the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Syria's ongoing civil war — a conflict with origins unrelated to ISIS but during which the group has been able to make inroads in the country — has presented complications in combating the group. Last week's U.S. missile strike on a Syrian air base was the first U.S. engagement in Syria unrelated to the fight against ISIS.


ABC News' Elizabeth McLaughlin contributed to this report.

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Travel Triggers Cost and Ethics Concerns - NBC News

POLITICS APR 13 2017, 7:30 AM ET
Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Travel Triggers Cost and Ethics Concerns
by ALI VITALI , GABE GUTIERREZ  and RICH GARDELLA

PALM BEACH, Fla. — Before calling the White House home, Donald Trump used to wonder why any president would ever leave. 
"If you're in the White House, who wants to take a vacation?" he once asked a campaign crowd in Spencer, Iowa. Noting the limited time a president has there, he criticized President Obama for vacationing "when there's so much work to be done." 
"You're in the White House," he said. "What's better than the White House? Why these vacations?" 
But since his January inauguration, President Trump has spent seven of 13 weekends at his Palm Beach, Florida estate. According to NBC News' estimates by Sunday Trump will have spent 28 percent of his term traveling to or staying at Mar-a-Lago. Trump hosted his second world leader at the "winter White House" last weekend, with Chinese President Xi Jinping joining Trump for meetings Thursday and Friday. Trump stayed the rest of the weekend, frequenting his nearby golf club on both days.
It's not just a question of travel time, but of ethics and cost efficiency, according to watchdog groups and ethics experts.
While presidents have always traveled on the taxpayer's dollar — the Obamas were partial to Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard while President George W. Bush frequented his Crawford, Texas ranch — Trump's travel is "unprecedented," one expert says, because he's repeatedly visiting his own privately owned commercial property at Mar-a-Lago.
0-2_01110e28bc4260a42286a5f252ecf10e.nbcnews-ux-600-480.png

"It's just another example of his consistent efforts to exploit public office for private gain," ethics expert Steve Schooner told NBC News. "He's using his official office and the fact that people have to travel with him, meet him, and follow him to promote his commercial enterprise, in this case his privately owned club."
"I can't think of anything like this that we've seen at anytime in the modern era," the George Washington Law School professor told NBC News. The Mar-a-Lago property is still owned by Trump, who placed his holdings in a trust overseen by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg before assuming office, prompting Schooner to lament that the president "should have divested from his properties to begin with."
Since Trump became president the cost of membership at Mar-a-Lago has doubled, with guests now paying $200,000 just to join.
"This is a privately owned club that for all intents and purposes was just another golf property in Florida before, that almost now is something that Americans immediately recognize," Schooner continued. "Imagine what you would have to pay to get that kind of brand recognition. That's extraordinary."
Aside from concerns over who is profiting from Trump's trips, is the question of who's paying for them. 
Over two-dozen A-listers from Trump's administration have visited the property over the past three months, along with high-level job applicants, and even New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, among others. While passing the days in Palm Beach, Trump has been known to spend time at his nearby golf clubs, where he may or may not take the time to hit a few balls amidst meetings and phone calls. 
A White House official told NBC News that when President Trump travels to Mar-a-Lago "he is staying at his home, the Southern White House, and has minimal staff with him." Hotels and meals for those federal employees involved in the trips are covered by the government, according to the official. 
Even though Trump is, for the most part, working weekends, conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch thinks there are less costly ways to do it. 
They estimate the cost of a back-and-forth trip from Washington to Palm Beach at about $1 million, with Air Force One costing $142,380 per hour, according to information Judicial Watch says it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Other estimates put each trip's price tag as high as $3 million.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has defended the travel, saying Mar-a-Lago "is where [Trump] goes to see his family. He brings people down there. This is part of being president." 
Trump is not the only president to rack up a high tab while traveling, however. Though the White House wouldn't say exactly how much Trump's trips cost him, estimates by the Government Accountability Office show that a weekend trip taken by President Obama in 2013 to Chicago and South Florida cost about $3.6 million. 
Still, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says the cost to taxpayers in either case is too high, calling for Trump "to try to figure out ways to save money for the taxpayer" and applauding him for using his Virginia golf clubs when he's looking to get away. Fitton doesn't question that Trump's working — "whenever a president travels, he's doing work," he says — but he does "question whether it's necessary to travel to a particular place to do the work." 
Fitton issued similar calls for cost awareness and transparency during the Obama years, noting now "a little bit of anti-Trump animus" in the media's criticism of Trump's presidential travel. 
The use of Mar-a-Lago to host foreign leaders, however, is justifiable in his eyes. 
"It's the president's home," Fitton told NBC News. "It's probably a nice way to visit with leaders and get to know them and to do some important business with them. So it's not the end of the world that he hosts the president of China, or anyone else, down there."
In addition to hosting President Xi, who did not stay at Mar-a-Lago during last weekend's bilateral summit, Trump personally gifted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe a weekend-long stay at his hotel during their tete a tete several weeks ago. 
The cost of Trump's summit with President Xi hit hard on a local level, with the Palm Beach County community footing the bill, an estimated $1.5 million for Thursday and Friday's U.S.-China summit. 
Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw told NBC that each day President Trump spends in Mar-a-Lago costs his department $60,000. 
County Commissioner Dave Kerner noted Bradshaw's cost evaluations, making the point that with Trump governing from Palm Beach County, "it becomes a very significant financial burden on the taxpayers" here. 
"While he may treat it like it's the Southern White House, it's not," Kerner said, worrying about skyrocketing costs that the county hadn't budgeted for. Kerner hopes for reimbursement from the federal government to offset the burgeoning bill of Trump's visits to the area and has even suggested turning Mar-a-Lago into a special taxing district that would impose a levy on the resort to pay the president's security costs,according to an Associated Press report.
Democrats have also seized on Trump's travel, using it as a chance to call for increased transparency of who's visiting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, as well as asking the Government Accountability Office to look into taxpayer costs and security measures related to Trump's use of the property. 

In the eight years of his presidency, Barack Obama's total travel costs were at least $97 million. At the current rate, the costs of President Trump's travel could well exceed that. 

Thursday, April 13, 2017

In Major Reversal, Trump Says China ‘Not Currency Manipulators’ - NBC News

POLITICS APR 12 2017, 5:51 PM ET
In Major Reversal, Trump Says China ‘Not Currency Manipulators’
by ANDREW RAFFERTY

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he no longer believes China manipulates its currency, a complete shift from the position he repeatedly took during his 2016 campaign.
"They're not currency manipulators," Trump told the the Wall Street Journal during an Oval Office interview.
The reason he changed his mind, the president said, was because China has stopped manipulating its currency in recent months and the accusations could jeopardize U.S. negotiations with China to deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea.

DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpg
Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into..

DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpg
their country (the U.S. doesn't tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don't think so!
Trump's flip flop comes just days after the president hosted his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at Mar-a-Lago in southern Florida.
Throughout the campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would instruct his Treasury Secretary to label China "a currency manipulator." And as recently as 10 days ago, he told the Financial Times that China was the "world champion" of currency manipulators.
The official label would need to be included in a semiannual Treasury report expected this month.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a longtime critic of how the Chinese government values its currency, released a statement saying Trump is giving China "a green light to steal our jobs and wealth time and time again." 
"The best way to get China to cooperate with North Korea, is to be tough on them with trade, which is the number one thing China's government cares about," Schumer said. 
Trump also signaled in the interview with the Journal that he may be willing to change his position on re-nominating Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen next year. 
Trump had accused Yellen of keeping interest rates low for political reasons under President Barack Obama. But on Wednesday he said he likes a low-interest rate policy. 
"I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me. But that's hurting — that will hurt, ultimately," Trump said. 

He said Yellen was "not toast" and he would consider renominating her next year. 

Russia challenges US to prove chemical attack in Syria - Independent

Russia challenges US to prove chemical attack in Syria
'If our colleagues at the UN try to avoid this investigation, this will signify that they are reluctant to find out the truth'
More differences of opinion than areas of common ground were established during Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's chilly joint press conference in Moscow on Wednesday, where the counterparts doubled down on their countries' positions on Syria and interpretation of the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack.
Following talks that also involved Vladimir Putin, Tillerson announced that "There is a low level of trust between our two countries," and things only got more tense from there.
"With respect to Russia's complicity or knowledge of the chemical-weapons attack, we have no firm information to indicate that there was any involvement by Russian forces into this attack," Tillerson said. 
"What we do know, and we have very firm and high confidence in our conclusions, that the attack was planned and carried out by the regime forces at the direction of Bashar al-Assad."
Not only did Lavrov categorically dispute this interpretation of events, saying Russia was "not convinced" by the US' evidence that sarin gas was deliberately used, but called for an "honest investigation" into the attack that he suggested would reveal the US and UN were bluffing if it did not come to pass.
"There were no signs that would support the statement, the allegation that chemical agents were used there at all," Lavrov said. "We are 100% sure that if our colleagues at the UN, as well as The Hague, try to avoid this investigation, this will signify that they are reluctant to find out the truth, but we will insist that the truth will be found."
While the US has put responsibility for the attack that killed more than 80 people squarely with Assad, Russia believes it was the work of terrorists, with Putin claiming more chemical attacks are on the way in Syria designed to frame the Assad regime.


Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Choice of Pro-Immigration Economic Adviser Riles Trump’s Base - New York Times

Choice of Pro-ImmigrationEconomic Adviser Riles Trump’s Base

By ALAN RAPPEPORT
APRIL 12, 2017
WASHINGTON — The choice by President Trump of a pro-immigration economist to lead his Council of Economic Advisers is stirring a backlash among his most ardent supporters who worry it is an abandonment of the tough stance he took on the issue during the campaign and the latest in a string of broken promises.
Mr. Trump had already disappointed some of his base supporters by intervening in Syria with a military strike last week and by delaying a tough stance on trade with China and Mexico. He expressed the idea via Twitter on Tuesday morning that he’d be willing to offer the Chinese government a more favorable trade deal if they helped the United States with North Korea. Now there is growing unease that immigration is the next area where he will go soft.
To these supporters, the appointment of Kevin A. Hassett, announced late last Friday afternoon, as his top White House economist is another sign that the president is succumbing to the swamp he promised to drain.
Like most economists, Mr. Hassett believes that immigration spurs economic growth. At times he has pilloried Republicans for becoming the “Party of White,” arguing in 2010 that Republicans like then-Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona “have too often appeared hostile to immigrants.” In 2013, Mr. Hassett said the United States should double its intake of immigrants.
Mr. Hassett, who currently works at the American Enterprise Institute, is a widely respected conservative economist who previously advised prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney.

But for those who backed Mr. Trump because of his promises to build a wall and deport illegal immigrants, such notions are heresy.
“It would be nice considering how important the immigration issue has been to Trump to have gotten an economist to this position who was at least not a booster for higher immigration,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank.
Mr. Trump’s right-wing media supporters are also up in arms. Breitbart, the website that was formerly run by Steven K. Bannon, the president’s chief political strategist, said Mr. Hassett’s appointment showed that the “corporatist, business-first” was muscling out the “populist, America-first” that got Mr. Trump elected. Commenters on the conservative website Infowars were similarly appalled, with some lamenting, “We have been sold a false bill of goods.”
And some leaders of the white nationalist “alt-right” movement also interpreted the move as a sellout. “This is yet another betrayal, just like breaking his promise to deport all illegal immigrants and to repeal President Obama’s executive amnesties,” said Jared Taylor, the editor of the online magazine American Renaissance who spoke highly of Mr. Trump during the campaign.
Mr. Taylor said the choice of Mr. Hassett combined with the recent airstrikes in Syria make it “very hard to believe anything he says.”
The controversy follows decades of grappling within the Republican Party over how to address immigration. After some party leaders considered a more inclusive approach, Mr. Trump ratcheted the party to the right as a candidate when he painted immigrants as criminals who were stealing American jobs and depressing wages.

Such pronouncements amplified voices within the Republican Party who have been fearful about both illegal and legal immigration. Last month, Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican who is a strong supporter of Mr. Trump, caused an uproar when he said, “You cannot rebuild your civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
Some Republicans in the Senate, including Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have also been focusing on limiting legal immigration. Mr. Cotton has proposed legislation that would narrow the scope of the permanent resident “green card” system and reduce access to visas.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions traveled to the border with Mexico and laid out a tougher approach the administration will be taking with people who sneak into the country. Those measures include federal prosecutions.
But despite his tough tone as a candidate, Mr. Trump has shown some signs of moderation as president. He said he welcomed immigrants who love the country and bring valuable skills and strong work ethics. And he has yet to unravel President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for the so-called “Dreamers,” as Mr. Krikorian ruefully noted.
Economists who have been wary of the recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment are hopeful that Mr. Hassett will be an influential voice in the administration to encourage a more welcoming approach.
On Wednesday a group of 1,470 economists, both conservative and liberal, are sending a letter to Mr. Trump and congressional leaders urging them to consider policies that allow more immigrants into the country legally. They contend that the economic benefits outweigh the costs. (Mr. Hassett did not sign the letter.)

“Immigration is really not a debatable issue,” said James Miller, who led President Ronald Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget and signed the letter. “Immigration is a good idea if you control it the right way.”
Mr. Hassett declined an interview after his appointment was announced. A White House spokeswoman, Lindsay Walters, dismissed the negative reaction, pointing to his decades of experience in economics, and said, “The president is confident he will work tirelessly to improve the economy for all Americans and looks forward to welcoming him onboard following his confirmation.”
It remains unclear, however, how much influence Mr. Hassett will actually have. Mr. Trump broke with recent tradition and removed the council’s chairman from a cabinet-level position. He has also expressed skepticism about economics in the past by casting doubt on official government employment statistics and expert opinions about the health of the economy.
For those reasons, some who have been critical of Mr. Trump are tempering their optimism about Mr. Hassett.
“He might be a sign of some stability, but no one knows if the president is going to listen to him so it’s premature to says it is encouraging,” said Austan Goolsbee, who was chairman of Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. “Regarding his critics, there is not a single reputable economist they could find in either party that would support their worldview.”

Pressure Grows as Hungary Adopts Law Targeting George Soros’s University - New York Times

Pressure Grows as Hungary Adopts Law Targeting George Soros’s University

By PALKO KARASZ
APRIL 11, 2017
LONDON — Pressure is mounting on Hungary’s right-wing government after it adopted a law that would effectively shut down Central European University, an institution founded by the Hungarian-American philanthropist George Soros shortly after the fall of Communism.
An American official and a United Nations expert on Tuesday joined European Union officials in expressing grave concern about the law, which was rushed through Parliament by the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets of Budapest on Sunday to urge President Janos Ader not to sign the law, but on Monday he did just that.
The new law requires, among other things, that foreign-accredited universities provide higher education services in their own countries — meaning the United States in the case of Central European University.
Observers say the law is part of a clampdown on free expression and an effort to create a powerful enemy — in this case, Mr. Soros, a financier who embodies, for Mr. Orban, the influence of global capitalism.

“Almost the only success story the government has at home, I think, is that it built a fence and is not letting in migrants,” said Andras Loke, president of the board of Transparency International’s branch in Hungary, referring to Mr. Orban’s hard-line policy on refugees. “That is to say the people like it, and they say, ‘Finally, somebody has done it.’”
Mr. Orban has also embraced the term “illiberal democracy,” essentially arguing that majority rule is more important than minority rights. “Here is a government that proclaims itself as illiberal, and if it says it’s illiberal, liberals are its natural enemy, especially if they are backed by funds the government has no control over,” Mr. Loke said, referring to organizations funded by Mr. Soros.
The Soros Foundation and later the Open Society Foundations, both founded by Mr. Soros, have financed projects in Hungary and the region in areas like health care and the study of democracy. Some of the organizations have found themselves — unwillingly — at the center of attention and framed as part of the opposition.
In pointing out corruption and the erosion of freedoms under Mr. Orban’s government, nongovernmental organizations are simply doing what they have always done, said Zsuzsanna Szelenyi, an opposition lawmaker who in the 1990s was a member of Fidesz, Mr. Orban’s conservative political party. “They don’t see themselves as opposition or political organizations, but as civil rights defenders.”
In the last two years, Ms. Szelenyi said, the government has advanced a “conspiracy theory” arguing that Mr. Soros, who “embodies global capital, has been exerting his influence, through his money, in the entire world.”
Criticism of the law aimed at the university, which has nearly 1,800 students from more than 100 countries and about 370 faculty members, came from several directions on Tuesday.

David Kaye, the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, said it was “likely to violate the central precepts of academic freedom in a free society.”
An American official, Hoyt Brian Yee, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, also raised concerns, telling Reuters that the law focused on “this important American-Hungarian institution.”
Members of the European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, are to discuss the subject on Wednesday in Brussels. They are also expected to talk, more broadly, about efforts by Mr. Orban’s government to curb the authority of the European Union in areas like immigration and the economy.
Vera Jourova, the European Union’s commissioner for justice, said on Monday that, while the law seemed neutral on its face, it was clearly aimed at one university — a criticism that Mr. Kaye echoed on Tuesday.
“The law must be general, but this is a rather legalistic approach,” Ms. Jourova told reporters, warning that Hungary had also moved “to decrease the power and the influence of civil society” and to inhibit “political pluralism,” or the free expression of multiple and competing positions.
Ms. Jourova offered her support to groups resisting the law. “I’m happy to see that the people there are courageous, open, vocal and visible,” she said, a reference to the protests.

But the criticism, especially from Europe, appeared to do little to persuade many Hungarians. Streets and public transportation were full of billboards saying “Let’s Stop Brussels.” The government has turned to nationalist speech in recent years to resist the European Union in areas like migration policy.
“I myself do not believe that any administrative steps or infringements or other measures taken by the European Commission in relation or against some member state will help a lot,” Ms. Jourova said, acknowledging that governments in some member states often ignore legal steps taken by Europe for as long as possible.
To a large extent, it “must be the people” who push back against illiberalism, she said.
In Hungary, the protests have continued, though on a smaller scale than over the weekend. A few hundred people gathered in front of the presidential palace Monday night to support the university, and another rally was planned for Wednesday night.
The country’s top official in charge of education, Laszlo Palkovics, traveled to Brussels, where the European Union has its headquarters, on Tuesday to clarify Hungary’s position with Europe. In a statement from his ministry, he said, “We trust that Brussels will not assist the deceptive Soros campaign and will be capable of forming an objective and unbiased opinion that is free of political interests.”
Michael Ignatieff, Central European University’s president and rector, and a scholar of human rights, said in a statement on Monday: “As I have said before, we are willing to sit down with the Hungarian government to find a solution to enable C.E.U. to stay in Budapest and operate as we have done for 25 years. However, academic freedom is not negotiable. It is a principle that must form the basis of any future agreement.”
Mr. Orban’s government seems unmoved by the criticism. His allies are not hiding their contempt for Mr. Soros.

“George Soros’s thinking on migration is sharply opposed to that of the Hungarian government,” Lajos Kosa, head of Fidesz’s bloc in Parliament, said Tuesday on a morning television show. “We are saying, ‘Let’s stop migration,’ and Soros is saying, ‘Let in as many as possible.’ And he will do everything — including money and energy — to destabilize and weaken those governments who oppose his thinking.”
Follow Palko Karasz on Twitter @karaszpalko.
James Kanter contributed reporting from Brussels.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Twitter Drops Lawsuit Against U.S. Government Over Anti-Trump Account - TIME

Posted: 07 Apr 2017 11:05 AM PDT

(SAN FRANCISCO) — Twitter Inc on Friday dropped a lawsuit it filed the previous day against the U.S. government, saying the government had withdrawn a summons for records about who was behind an account critical of President Donald Trump.
A lawyer for the social media company, Mark Flanagan, wrote in court papers that a U.S. Justice Department lawyer told Twitter about the withdrawal of the summons on Friday and that the demand “no longer has any force or effect.”
It was not immediately clear why the government had withdrawn the summons or whether it had closed an investigation it said it was conducting. The Justice Department, which defends federal agencies in court, declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security, which issued the summons, had no immediate comment.

Twitter cited freedom of speech as a basis for not turning over records about the account, @ALT_uscis. The people behind the account have not disclosed their identities, but the use of “ALT” with a government agency acronym has led many to assume government employees are behind such tweets.
The lawsuit said the account “claims to be” the work of at least one federal immigration employee.
The acronym U.S. CIS refers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the account describes itself as “immigration resistance.” Trump has vowed to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and has promised to deport millions of illegal immigrants.
Following Trump’s inauguration in January, anonymous Twitter feeds that borrowed the names and logos of more than a dozen U.S. government agencies appeared to challenge the president’s views on climate change and other issues. They called themselves “alt” accounts.
A Twitter spokesman declined to comment beyond the court papers.
The lawsuit gave Twitter a chance to assume a favorite role as a defender of free speech, offering a respite for a company that has struggled recently to expand its audience, excite investors or attract new revenue streams.
On Thursday, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said in a statement that the summons was a waste of resources to try to uncover an anonymous critic, and he called on the Homeland Security inspector general to investigate who directed the “witch hunt.”