What the heck does Steve Bannon do now? - CNN

What the heck does Steve Bannon do now?

Chris Cillizza

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 2247 GMT (0647 HKT) January 9, 2018

Steve Bannon stepping down from Breitbart

Steve Bannon stepping down from Breitbart 01:55

(CNN)This time last year, Steve Bannon was on top of the world. He had shepherded Donald Trump to the most unlikely presidential victory ever. He was preparing to go with Trump to the White House as a senior strategist. He was the new hot thing.

Fast-forward to today. Bannon was not only fired from his job but has been exiled from Trumpville for his comments to author Michael Wolff about the President and the Trump family. Rebekah Mercer, a wealthy Bannon benefactor, has disowned him. Breitbart, the conservative media organization Bannon leads, is weighing whether to keep him around.

Bannon is, suddenly, a man without a friend left in the world. So what's his next act? Or is he done?

To answer that I reached out to my friend Josh Green, who wrote the incredible Bannon biography "Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency." Our email conversation about all things Bannon is below.

Cillizza: Josh, as the foremost Bannonologist in the country -- if that's not a thing, I am making it a thing right now -- I turn to you for wisdom at this amazing moment.

Steve Bannon appears to be totally and completely on the outs with Donald Trump, his political patron, after talking (at length) to Michael Wolff for "Fire and Fury." Trump said that Bannon lost his mind!

Trump appears to be WAY angrier at Bannon than when he actually fired him a few months back. So is this the end of the end? A seven-year political friendship turned into "Sloppy Steve"?

Green: What Bannon did by talking to Wolff for this book -- and by extension, probably, talking to me for my book -- is pour a can of gasoline over his head and light a match. Trump appears to have broken with him in a way that seems final and ultimate, even tagging him with a dreaded nickname, "Sloppy Steve," which I think we can all admit is pretty fantastic.

Bannon has been in the doghouse before and come back. I hear that he thinks he can come back from this, too. We'll see; nothing's ever quite impossible in Trump's world. You can never say never.

As Bannon has told people in the past, Trump is entirely transactional. But if he loses his platform at Breitbart News, then it's hard for me to see how he'll be able to wield the kind of influence that I describe in "Devil's Bargain," and that he seemed to have regained after leaving the White House last year.

Cillizza: Let's talk about Bannon and Breitbart. There's reporting out there they may oust him. And Rebekah Mercer, one of the major financial patrons of Breitbart (and Bannon), said publicly that she and he are not on speaking terms and she's not going to be funding what he does anymore.

What's weird to me is that it appears Bannon's quotes on Trump to Wolff have had a far more profound effect on his role at Breitbart -- and in the conservative firmament more generally -- then when he was fired by Trump! After that, he was welcomed as a conquering hero back into Breitbart!

What the hell happened? Is it solely the Wolff book? The Roy Moore debacle?

And is Bannon really in danger of losing his Breitbart platform?

Green: The reason uber-wealthy people like the Mercers become involved in politics is to exert influence. Bannon was an agent of that influence, and the architect. And he did, for a time, have a profound influence on American politics that culminated in Trump's election. Bannon was the real force behind Breitbart; the head honcho at GAI, which produced the "Clinton Cash" book so damaging to Hillary's candidacy; and a board member at Cambridge Analytica, the data research firm that worked on the Trump campaign.

So as an investment, Bannon really did pay off for the Mercers like early-'80s Apple stock. The problem is that effectiveness waned almost immediately upon entering the White House, and that, coupled with his megalomania and his belief that he was the true leader of the nationalist movement, backfired on him big time.

Trump obviously doesn't value him the way that he did a year ago. With the humiliation of Moore's loss in Alabama and the devastating quotes in Wolff's book attacking Trump's family, there was really no reason to keep him around. And when Trump turns on someone, he really TURNS on them!

Cillizza: I am STUNNED that Bannon ever entertained the idea of a presidential bid. That would, um, never work.

But let's assume -- just for the purpose of the conversation -- he hangs on at Breitbart. How does he start to rebuild what he's lost? Can he?

And just for the thought experiment: If Breitbart jettisons Bannon -- where does he go then?

Green: Look, here on planet Earth we're all rightly astonished that Bannon holds (held?) presidential ambitions. But the psychology would work as follows: Bannon has always thought that Trump was riding a global nationalist wave that'd swept across Europe, the UK and now the US. Trump embraced that politics -- Bannon's politics -- and got elected. So clearly the ideas resonate in the US. If Trump were to decide against running for re-election, Bannon, believing he's the true carrier of the faith, must've thought, "Why not me?"

Like his ex-boss, he's always been a guy with a healthy ego. But if he were to lose the Breitbart platform, it's hard for me to envision what vehicle he would use to lead such a movement and how he would fund it. He's rich. But he's not self-fund-a-presidential-campaign rich.

Cillizza: OK. So a presidential bid is off. [Shakes hands, nods, walks away.]

BUT, what then does Bannon do? This guy is a news animal. He appears to be totally obsessed with the media, the battle of ideas between the two parties, all of it.

It feels impossible for someone like Steve Bannon to just disappear from, well, anywhere -- especially a world in which Donald Trump is president.

Green: In the near term, Bannon does (and is doing) what everybody who wants to influence and ingratiate themselves to Trump does: Flatter him with obsequious praise. It shouldn't be lost on anyone that after Bannon called Trump a "great man" on his radio show on the evening of his own defenestration, Trump quickly learned about it (probably from a cable TV chyron) and mentioned this to reporters at the White House pool spray on Thursday.

I'm skeptical it'll work. But that's the only path back for Bannon that I can imagine. Or, heck, why doesn't he run for president? It's an automatic way to get in front of the cameras and spread a message.

Two Koreas Agree to Military Dialogue - Bloomberg

10/1/2018

Two Koreas Agree to Military Dialogue

Two of North Korea’s closest neighbors have criticized Canada’s effort to help coordinate the international response to Kim Jong Un’s weapons program.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Wednesday that an upcoming Canadian-organized meeting on North Korea would “not help” because it didn’t include key players, adding that it would “harm joint efforts to improve the situation on the peninsula.” Japan, South Korea, India and Sweden are among those invited. China and Russia -- who supported the North Korea side during the war -- were not.

Meanwhile, a Japanese foreign ministry official questioned the need for including countries as distant as Colombia and Greece.

Canada is among several countries that have sought to bolster diplomatic efforts amid escalating saber-rattling by U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim, the North Korean leader. As a result, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson agreed to co-host with Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland a Jan. 16 summit on the topic in Vancouver.

’Cold War’ Thinking

The effort to seek “a more peaceful, prosperous and nuclear-free future” on the Korean Peninsula has since been overshadowed by the first direct talks between the two Koreas in more than two years Tuesday.

While few details have been released, the Vancouver guest list includes 17 countries that contributed troops to United Nations forces during and after the Korean War, according to a document distributed to reporters Tuesday by Japan’s foreign ministry.

In an apparent reference to the guest list, China’s Lu also warned Wednesday against perpetuating “Cold War” thinking.

Canada has “repeatedly engaged” China on the meeting, a spokesman for Freeland said.

“A stable, secure and denuclearized Korean peninsula requires substantive cooperation and discussion by the international community,” spokesman Alex Lawrence said in a written statement Wednesday.‎ “Canada recognizes the essential role that China has to play in any diplomatic efforts in support of security and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

TPP Dispute

The Trump administration views economic pressure from China, which shares a border with North Korea, as crucial to forcing Kim into negotiations over his weapons program. Meanwhile, while Japan, which hosts about 50,000 U.S. military personnel, sees itself as among the most likely targets of North Korea’s weapons.

A Japanese foreign ministry official also criticized the list of invitees, saying they “are not necessarily the 17 countries most affected by North Korea.” The official, who asked not to be identified in line with government policy, said Japan had been given no details on who would attend, what would be discussed or how the event would be organized.

Ties between Canada and Japan were strained in November, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raised last-minute objections to an effort by the remaining 11 participants in a Pacific trade pact to revive the deal without Trump.

— With assistance by Isabel Reynolds, Peter Martin, and Josh Wingrove

Warren Buffett Just Took a Big Step Toward Naming His Successor - Fortune

Warren Buffett Just Took a Big Step Toward Naming His Successor

Warren Buffett Won Big With These Obscure Investments

Here's what you need to know to do the same.

By BLOOMBERG January 10, 2018

Berkshire Hathaway is adding two senior executives — Gregory E. Abel and Ajit Jain — to its board as speculation grows about who will replace the company’s 87-year-old chief executive officer, Warren Buffett, atop one of the world’s largest companies.

Abel, 55, will be vice chairman of the non-insurance business, while Jain, 66, will be vice chairman of the insurance operations, the company said in a statement Wednesday. Buffett and Charles T. Munger, 94, Berkshire Hathaway’s vice chairman, will continue in their current positions, including being responsible for significant capital allocation decisions and investment activities.

Read: Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Could Make $37 Billion from Trump’s Tax Cut

Abel and Jain are both long-time contenders to succeed Buffett, whose five-decade tenure running the company helped him amass a fortune. He has said he wants his successor to be drawn from the company’s ranks, relatively young and unmotivated by ego. Abel is viewed as the favorite to succeed the CEO at present.

Jain and Abel each fit many aspects of Buffett’s carefully tailored job description. They’re deeply committed to Berkshire’s culture, which prizes efficiency and long-term thinking. Neither has outward character flaws that would immediately be disqualifying. And each has built large businesses for Buffett.

Jain runs the company’s namesake reinsurance operation, which for decades has provided Berkshire with billions of premium dollars for investments and acquisitions. Buffett has repeatedly said that Jain has probably made more money for shareholders than he has. In 2011 he said the board would make Jain CEO if he wanted the job.

Abel has steadily expanded Berkshire Hathaway Energy, a utility holding company based in Iowa, into a colossus in the energy industry. It runs several power companies throughout North America and the U.K., interstate natural gas pipelines, and giant wind and solar farms. It’s a big part of Berkshire that stands to get only bigger, Buffett said in May at the company’s annual shareholder meeting, adding that it’s “hard to imagine a better-run operation.”

Trump-Russia inquiry: Why attacks on Robert Mueller are mounting - BBC News

Trump-Russia inquiry: Why attacks on Robert Mueller are mounting

Anthony Zurcher

North America reporter

@awzurcher on Twitter

17 December 2017

Attacks on Robert Mueller have been mounting

In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine the Trump presidency.

There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.

Mueller improperly obtained emails, lawyer says

All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.

Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to do that.

Presentational grey line

Tell-tale texts?

Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.

A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was having an extramarital affair.

Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".

In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.

"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election seemed unlikely.

Media captionPresident Trump renews attack on 'disgraceful' FBI

"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".

Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder, Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.

"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.

Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence the investigation to the president's disadvantage.

Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance. The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned to a human resources job.

The Clinton case

Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and reportedly was involved in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".

The Trump-Russia saga in 200 words

Who is in the drama to end all dramas?

What is Robert Mueller tasked with?

During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.

Donald Trump: "Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it. The FBI knows it"

"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during a House Judicial Committee hearing.

There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation that have yet to come to light.

"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.

Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these "untraceable" phones.

Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.

Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.

Marital woes

When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race, Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close political ally of the Clinton family.

Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.

Andrew McCabe's impartiality has been questioned because of his wife's political fundraising

"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.

Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.

Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.

Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.

Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information is valid or merits further investigation.

Follow the money

The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.

Many conservatives beg to differ.

In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.

"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tweeted. "Look who he is hiring."

Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz has called for Robert Mueller's firing

Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.

Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and said he told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative press.

"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office, the more obvious it all becomes."

Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings damaging to Mr Trump.

Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence, personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.

Presentational grey line

Mr Mueller's waiver

Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested - and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.

The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort - who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver, some are speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances are being called into question.

Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.

Trump-Russia inquiry: President says he is unlikely to be interviewed - BBC News

Trump-Russia inquiry: President says he is unlikely to be interviewed

11/1/2018

Mr Trump made the comments at a press conference in Norway

US President Donald Trump has said it is "unlikely" he will be interviewed by Robert Mueller - the man investigating possible ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

There was no collusion, Mr Trump said, adding: "I'll see what happens."

In June 2017, Mr Trump said he would "100%" be interviewed under oath.

He has consistently denied that his campaign worked with Russia to undermine his opponent Hillary Clinton, calling the accusations a "witch hunt".

Earlier this week the US media reported that Mr Trump's lawyers were in talks with the Mueller investigation to set a date for an interview.

Russia-Trump: Who's who in the drama to end all dramas?

"When they have no collusion - and nobody has found any collusion at any level - it seems unlikely that you would even have an interview," Mr Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program - NBC News

JAN 10 2018, 12:06 AM ET

Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

by ALEX JOHNSON

A federal judge on Tuesday night ordered the Trump administration to revive part of the program that protected children illegally brought to the United States by their parents from being deported, calling the administration's abrupt decision to end the program last year "arbitrary" and "capricious."

The ruling came just hours after a bipartisan meeting between President Donald Trump and members of Congress appeared to have moved negotiations forward, however slightly, on how to address the fate of undocumented immigrants under the DACA program.

The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, rescinded the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in September and said it would stop accepting applications from people already covered under the act to renew their two-year DACA permits. The administration said the repeal would take effect in March.

Partly granting a request from the University of California, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday night in San Francisco ordering DHS to resume accepting renewal applications from people who are already protected under DACA while challenges to the September order work their way through the courts. But DHS doesn't have to accept new applications, he ruled.

Immigrants' rights activists rallied to defend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in Washington in August. Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA file

Alsup, who was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton, scolded DHS for having presented no analysis of the impact its order would have on the almost 700,000 young people "who had come to rely on DACA to live and to work in this country."

"These individuals had submitted substantial personal identifying information to the government, paid hefty fees, and planned their lives according to the dictates of DACA," Alsup wrote. "The administrative record includes no consideration to the disruption a rescission would have on the lives of DACA recipients, let alone their families, employers and employees, schools and communities."

And he called the government's argument that DHS doesn't even have the authority to administer DACA "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion."

At the same time, he wrote, the plaintiffs "have not made a comparable showing as to individuals who have never applied for or obtained DACA" — so DHS doesn't have to process new requests for protection.

In a statement, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called Alsup's ruling "a huge step in the right direction."

There was no immediate reaction from the White House.

The Department of Justice said the decision doesn’t change its view that the program was an illegal circumvention of Congress, and it is within the agency’s power to end it.

“The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation,” spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement to the Associated Press.

Alsup issued his ruling only a few hours after a bipartisan meeting between President Donald Trump and members of Congress on DACA and border security that was made open to the press.

Trump, Congress reach deal to negotiate DACA, border security Play Facebook Twitter Embed

Trump, Congress reach deal to negotiate DACA, border security

The White House and members of both parties said they agreed that issues to be worked out included DACA, border security, changes to family-based migration, also known as chain migration, and the visa lottery system.

No agreements were immediately reached. During the meeting, Trump reiterated that he was willing to revive DACA, at least in the short term, but only in return for funding for a wall that the president wants to build along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Surprising observers and participants in the room, Trump said he wanted "a bill of love" to address the initial issues first then endorsed moving ahead on comprehensive immigration reform once those are addressed.

"We'll do DACA," Trump said at the start of the meeting. "Then we can start comprehensive immigration reform the next afternoon."

The bipartisan meeting came at a particularly tenuous time, with Congress facing the threat of a government shutdown in just 10 days and the lack of agreement on DACA tangling up efforts to keep the government’s lights on.

Late Tuesday, Trump repeated on Twitter that a wall "must be part of any DACA approval."

@realDonaldTrump

As I made very clear today, our country needs the security of the Wall on the Southern Border, which must be part of any DACA approval.

11:16 AM - Jan 10, 2018

NBC News reported on Friday that the Department of Homeland Security has requested $18 billion in funding to complete the wall, a key campaign promise of Trump's.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the minority whip, called the $18 billion request "outrageous."

The plan would include 316 miles of new fencing and 407 miles of reinforcing existing fence over the next decade.

Republican senators who have been talking to the White House have been softly redefining the definition of a border wall for the past week, saying Trump wasn't literal when he promised a physical structure spanning the entire length of the southern border.

At the meeting Tuesday, Trump appeared to be talking in similar terms, and he didn't mention that Mexico would pay for it.

"We are doing a study of that right now, but there are large areas where you do not need a wall because you have a mountain, and you have a river, you have a violent river. You don't need it," he said