Tag Archives: Donald Trump

U.S. travel ban set to take effect after top court’s green light

An international passenger arrives at Washington Dulles International Airport after the U.S. Supreme Court granted parts of the Trump administration's emergency request to put its travel ban into effect later in the week pending further judicial review, in Dulles, Virginia, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan

By Arshad Mohammed and Mica Rosenberg

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on people from six predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees entering the United States is finally scheduled to take effect later on Thursday, but in a scaled-back form that still allows in some travelers.

The rollout of the controversial measure follows a Supreme Court decision this week that allowed the executive order to take effect but significantly narrowed its scope, exempting travelers and refugees with a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States.

It is set to go into effect at 8 p.m. EDT (0000 GMT Friday).

Late Wednesday, the State Department said visa applicants from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen must have a close U.S. family relationship or formal ties to a U.S. entity to be admitted to the United States in keeping with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Trump first announced a temporary travel ban in January, calling it a counterterrorism measure to allow time to develop better security vetting. The order caused chaos at airports as officials scrambled to enforce it and was blocked by federal courts, with opponents arguing the measure discriminated against Muslims and that there was no security rationale for it.

A revised version of the ban, issued in March, was also halted by courts.

In its decision on Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the ban, which bars people from the designated six countries for 90 days and refugees for 120 days, to go partially into effect until the top court can take up the case during its next term starting in October.

The State Department guidance on the ban, distributed to all U.S. diplomatic posts and seen by Reuters, defined a close familial relationship as being a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling, including step-siblings and other step-family relations.

“Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other ‘extended’ family members,” are not considered close family, according to the cable.

The guidelines also said that workers with an offer of employment from a company in the United States or a lecturer addressing U.S. audiences would be exempt from the ban, but someone who simply made a hotel reservation would not be considered as having a bona fide relationship.

Asked about the guidance, the State Department declined to comment on internal communications.

The Department of Homeland Security is expected to release additional information on Thursday. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

Immigration lawyers and refugee advocates expressed surprise late on Wednesday that fiancés, grandparents and grandchildren would not qualify as close family.

“This unduly limited definition of family excludes many of the very people that Americans are looking forward to welcoming as visitors,” said Eleanor Acer of the group Human Rights First, adding that the guidelines appeared to go against the exceptions outlined by the Supreme Court.

“Barring grandparents,” she said, “is not the way to keep this country safe.”

Refugee resettlement organizations have said they believe their organizations should qualify as having a “bona fide relationship” with the clients they serve, but the State Department cable did not give guidance on that question.

Rana, an Iranian consultant who has been in the United States since 2003 and is married to a U.S. citizen, said no Thursday that she feared the travel ban will only increase the confusion in an already onerous visa system for visitors from her country.

“The way the president is talking, it makes it sound like the doors were open and people were just coming and going. It was always hard, it was never easy,” she said, asking that her last name not be used.

In 2014, Rana’s 65-year-old mother missed her wedding because of a seven-month security clearance process. Her brother, who had a scholarship to a U.S. university in 2008, was never allowed in. The brother now lives with his wife in Canada, and they are thinking of trying to get permission for their mother to visit him there instead of trying again for a U.S. visa.

“This is just adding to chaos,” Rana said. “It is putting a lot of power of interpretation into the hands of the individual visa officers.”

The ban’s looming enforcement also stirred anger and confusion in parts of the Middle East on Wednesday, with would-be visitors worried about their travel plans and their futures.

Airlines in the region said they had not received a directive from the United States, and there were few people at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai, where there is normally a line out the door of people waiting to process visa applications.

On Thursday, Emirates Airline, the Middle East’s largest airline, said its flights to the United States were operating normally. Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways said it is allowing nationals from the six countries to board U.S.-bound flights if they have valid travel documents.

Amnesty International said it would be sending researchers to airports in New York City, Washington and Los Angeles to monitor the implementation of the ban.

But Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School said that since the order only applies to those who have not yet been issued visas, any legal fights will likely not occur right away and could become moot once the ban expires.

“We may see a lot of attorneys standing around at airports tonight with nothing much to do,” Yale-Loehr said.

(Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati and Gabriella Borter in New York; Additional writing by Susan Heavey; Editing by Frances Kerry and Jonathan Oatis)

Senate Republicans struggle to salvage healthcare effort

A demonstrator heads home after protesting the Republican healthcare bill outside Republican Congressman Darrell Issa's office in Vista, California, June 27, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake

By Susan Cornwell and Yasmeen Abutaleb

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top U.S. Senate Republican struggled on Wednesday to salvage major healthcare legislation sought by President Donald Trump, meeting privately with a parade of skeptical senators as critics within the party urged substantial changes.

Republican leaders hope to agree on changes to the legislation by Friday so lawmakers can take it up after next week’s Independence Day recess.. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday abandoned plans to seek passage of it this week because Republicans did not have 50 votes to pass the bill.

For seven years, Republicans have led a quest to undo the 2010 law known as Obamacare, Democratic former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement. Trump made dismantling it a top campaign promise during last year’s presidential campaign but policy differences within the party have raised doubts Republicans can achieve a repeal.

Democrats have unified against the bill and Republicans control the Senate by a slim 52-48 margin, which means McConnell can afford to lose only two Republicans. So far at least 10 – including moderates and hard-line conservatives – have expressed opposition to the current bill, although some indicated they would vote for it with certain changes.

McConnell, with his reputation as a strategist on the line, met with a procession of Republican senators in his office on Wednesday. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said party leaders will talk to every Republican senator who has concerns about the bill or is undecided.

The House of Representatives passed its healthcare bill last month, only after striking a balance between the center of the party and the right wing. Now McConnell must find a similar sweet spot.

During a lunch meeting on Wednesday Republicans made presentations on potential fixes. Senator Rand Paul called for jettisoning more parts of Obamacare to get conservatives on board.

TAX ISSUE

Senator Mike Rounds suggested keeping a 3.8 percent Obamacare tax on high earners’ investment income, which the current bill would eliminate. Rounds said the tax could pay for more Americans to receive the tax credits that help pay for health insurance.

Senator Bob Corker, who also supports keeping the tax, said one of the issues he was focused on was helping lower-income Americans pay for health plans.

“My sense is there’s a good chance that issue and other issues people are trying to get addressed can be addressed,” Corker told reporters.

Trump said the bill was moving along well and predicted a “great, great surprise” but did not elaborate.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a moderate, said it would be “very difficult” to reach agreement by Friday. Collins and other centrists were put off by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s projection on Monday that 22 million people would lose medical insurance under the existing bill.

Finishing the legislation’s revisions by Friday would be “optimal,” Cornyn said, so the CBO can analyze the new version..

Even then, Democrats could mount a forceful resistance. They have repeatedly said they will not discuss a repeal but have expressed openness to negotiating improvements.

The Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, proposed Trump call all 100 senators to Blair House across the street from the White House to craft a bipartisan bill fixing Obamacare but Trump said did not think Schumer’s offer was serious.

McConnell said Democrats had refused “to work with us in a serious way to comprehensively address Obamacare’s failures in the seven years since they passed it.”

The legislation has triggered protests at the Capitol and police said they arrested 40 people, including cancer survivors, on Wednesday for blocking Senate offices.

Obama’s 2010 Affordable Care Act, which passed without Republican support, expanded health insurance coverage to some 20 million people but Republicans call it a costly government intrusion.

The Senate bill rolls back Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid government insurance for the poor and cuts planned Medicaid spending starting in 2025. It also repeals most of Obamacare’s taxes, ends a penalty for not obtaining insurance and overhauls subsidies that help people buy insurance with tax credits.

For graphic on who’s covered under Medicaid, click: http://tmsnrt.rs/2u06kvB

(This story fixes attribution of quote in 10th paragraph to Senator Corker from Senator Rounds.)

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Richard Cowan, Susan Cornwell, Steve Holland, Jeff Mason, Mohammad Zargham, Tim Ahmann and Jeff Mason; Writing by Lisa Lambert, Will Dunham and Frances Kerry; Editing by Bill Trott)

Europe’s NATO members, Canada to raise defense spending in 2017

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg addresses a news conference ahead of a NATO defence ministers meeting at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, June 28, 2017. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

By Robin Emmott

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Europe’s NATO members and Canada will jointly raise defense spending by 4.3 percent in 2017, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Wednesday, partly aimed at showing the United States they are committed to shouldering more costs.

U.S. President Donald Trump has made more expenditure his priority for NATO, using his first alliance meeting in May to scold European leaders about spending, which is at historical lows and does not meet NATO’s goal of 2 percent of GDP.

This year’s increase represents the fastest spending growth since cuts stopped three years ago. Growth was 1.8 pct in 2015 and 3.3 percent last year, but it was unclear how near the new increase takes spending to the alliance’s target.

Figures for individual allies will be released on Thursday, after approval by NATO ambassadors, but overall 2017 spending will be some $280 billion, a cumulative $46 billion jump since cuts left Europe without vital capabilities, such as refueling airborne fighter bombers.

Only four of NATO’s 27 European members – Greece, Britain, Poland and Estonia – met the spending target in 2016. Romania will do so this year, followed by Latvia and Lithuania in 2018, Stoltenberg said.

Twenty five of NATO’s 29 allies plan to lift spending this year, he said, a day before NATO defense ministers meet in Brussels to discuss greater security spending on rising threats including deterring a resurgent Russia, dealing with failed states on its borders and protecting against cyber attacks.

“To keep our nations safe, we need to keep working to increase defense spending and fairer burden-sharing across our alliance,” Stoltenberg said.

The new figures are part of a broader rise in military spending in Europe, as the United States commits billions more dollars to return troops and heavy weaponry to the continent to deter Russia, and as the European Union seeks to set up a multi-billion-euro defense fund.

“We have really shifted gears, the trend is up and we intend to keep it up,” Stoltenberg said.

He said the increase in funds would be spent on more military exercises and equipment, partly aimed at allowing NATO troops to deploy at ever faster notice, as well as salaries and pensions for personnel.

NATO officials stressed that while Trump’s tough stance had put the spotlight on defense spending, Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in 2014 had a bigger impact, with allies agreeing to end years of defense cuts.

(Reporting by Robin Emmott Editing by Gabriela Baczynska and Louise Ireland)

Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump’s travel ban

The building of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen after it granted parts of the Trump administration's emergency request to put his travel ban into effect immediately while the legal battle continues, in Washington, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory.

The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism attacks, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States. [http://tmsnrt.rs/2seb3bb]

The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.

In a statement, Trump called the high court’s action “a clear victory for our national security,” saying the justices allowed the travel suspension to become largely effective.

“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive,” Trump added.

Trump’s March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But challengers said no one from the affected countries had carried out attacks in the United States.

Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Critics called it a discriminatory “Muslim ban.”

Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen’s Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment.

“We believe it will not help in confronting terrorism and extremism, but rather will increase the feeling among the nationals of these countries that they are all being targeted, especially given that Yemen is an active partner of the United States in the war on terrorism and that there are joint operations against terrorist elements in Yemen,” he said.

Groups that challenged the ban, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that most people from the affected countries seeking entry to the United States would have the required connections. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could.

“It’s going to be very important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a back door into implementing the full-scale Muslim ban that it’s been seeking to implement,” said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer.

During the 2016 presidential race, Trump campaigned for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. The travel ban was a signature policy of Trump’s first few months as president.

‘BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIP’

In an unusual unsigned decision, the Supreme Court on Monday said the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

A lack of a clearly defined relationship would bar from entry people from the six countries and refugees with no such ties.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who successfully challenged the ban in lower courts, said that students from affected countries due to attend the University of Hawaii would still be able to do so.

Both bans were to partly go into effect 72 hours after the court’s decision. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department pledged to implement the decision in an orderly fashion.

“We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in a professional, organized, and timely way,” a State Department spokeswoman said.

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 one issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts, but not before it caused chaos at airports and provoked numerous protests.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are U.S. permanent residents, known as green card holders. The executive order also made waivers available for a foreign national seeking to enter the United States to resume work or study, visit a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen, or for “significant business or professional obligations.” Refugees “in transit” and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order.

A CONSERVATIVE COURT

The case was Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees. The four liberal justices were silent.

Gorsuch was one of the three conservative justices who would have granted Trump’s request to put the order completely into effect. Fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have a connection to the United States and those who do not will prove unworkable.

“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding – on peril of contempt – whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote.

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley. Additional reporting by Andrew Chung and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington and Mohammed Ghobari in Sanaa, Yemen; Editing by Will Dunham and Howard Goller)

U.S. to list China among worst human trafficking offenders: sources

FILE PHOTO: A Chinese national flag flutters at Tiananmen Square in Beijing October 20, 2014. REUTERS/Petar Kujundzic

By Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States plans to place China on its global list of worst offenders in human trafficking and forced labor, said a congressional source and a person familiar with the matter, a step that could aggravate tension with Beijing that has eased under President Donald Trump.

The reprimand of China, Washington’s main rival in the Asia-Pacific region, would come despite Trump’s budding relationship with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and the U.S. president’s efforts to coax Beijing into helping to rein in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has decided to drop China to “Tier 3,” the lowest grade, putting it alongside Iran, North Korea and Syria among others, said the sources, who have knowledge of the internal deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The rating is expected to be announced on Tuesday in an annual report published by the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. A State Department official declined to comment on the report’s contents and said the department “does not discuss details of internal deliberations.”

Tier 3 rating can trigger sanctions limiting access to U.S. and international aid, but U.S. presidents frequently waive such action.

While it was unclear what led Tillerson to downgrade China, last year’s report criticized the communist government for not doing enough to curb “state-sponsored forced labor” and concluded it did not meet “minimum standards” for fighting trafficking – though it still said Beijing was making significant efforts.

The Trump administration has also grown concerned about conditions in China for North Korean labor crews that are contracted through Pyongyang and provide hard currency for the North Korean leadership, which is squeezed for cash by international sanctions, said the congressional source.

In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the government was resolute in its resolve to fight human trafficking and the results were plain to see.

“China resolutely opposes the U.S. side making thoughtless remarks in accordance with its own domestic law about other countries’ work in fighting human trafficking,” he told a daily news briefing.

Since taking office, Trump has praised Xi for agreeing to work on the North Korea issue during a Florida summit in April and has held back on attacking Chinese trade practices he railed against during the presidential campaign.

But Trump has recently suggested he was running out of patience with China’s modest steps to pressure North Korea, which is working to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the United States.

The annual report, covering more than 180 countries and territories, calls itself the world’s most comprehensive resource of governmental anti-human trafficking efforts.

It organizes countries into tiers based on trafficking and forced labor records: Tier 1 for nations that meet minimum U.S. standards; Tier 2 for those making significant efforts to meet those standards; Tier 2 “Watch List” for those that deserve special scrutiny; and Tier 3 for countries that fail to comply with the minimum U.S. standards and are not making significant efforts.

For the past three years, China has been ranked “Tier 2 Watch List”.

In Beijing, the Chinese Foreign Ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

In 2015, Reuters reported that experts in the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons had sought to downgrade China that year to Tier 3 but were overruled by senior diplomats.

(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick; Additional reporting by Christian Shepherd and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Editing by Jason Szep and Tom Brown)

Pro-Islamic State hackers threaten President Trump on Ohio governor’s website

FILE PHOTO: Ohio Governor John Kasich speaks to reporters after an event at the White House in Washington, U.S., on November 10, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

By Gabriella Borter

(Reuters) – Nearly a dozen Ohio state websites, including Governor John Kasich’s, were up and running again on Monday, a day after hackers posted messages of support for the Islamic State on their homescreens.

After the hack, the homescreen of governor.ohio.gov, Kasich’s official website, displayed a black background and an Arabic symbol, and the top of the screen said “Hacked by Team System Dz.”

The text on the screen read: “You will be held accountable Trump, you and all your people for every drop of blood flowing in Muslim countries,” and “I Love Islamic State.” The militant group Islamic State is largely made up of Sunni militants from Iraq and Syria but has drawn jihadi fighters from across the Muslim world and Europe.

The Ohio Department of Public Safety was working with federal agencies to investigate the hacking “to make sure nothing like this happens again,” said Tom Hoyt, a spokesman for Ohio’s Department of Administrative Services, on Monday.

Technicians are scanning websites and data banks but have found no services that have been disrupted by the hack, nor any evidence that information about employees or private citizens was accessed or disturbed, Hoyt said.

Along with Kasich’s website, the websites of First Lady Karen Kasich, the Department of Medicaid, and the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction were among the 10 other Ohio state sites that were hacked.

The websites of Howard County, Maryland and the town of Brookhaven, New York were also targets of the hacking spree and displayed the same message. The Brookhaven website remained inaccessible on Monday.

The FBI’s Columbus, Ohio, office declined comment on whether it knew anything about the group “Team System Dz.”

Earlier this year, a group using the same name claimed responsibility for hacking websites in Wisconsin, as well as in Scotland, England and Italy.

(This story has been refiled to remove extra word in paragraph 5)

(Reporting by Gabriella Borter; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Trump reaches out to lawmakers on healthcare as another says ‘no’

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks as he hosts a Congressional picnic event, accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump, at the White House in Washington, U.S., June 22, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

By Jeff Mason and Yasmeen Abutaleb

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump made calls to fellow Republicans in the U.S. Senate on Friday to mobilize support for their party’s healthcare overhaul while acknowledging the legislation is on a “very, very narrow path” to passage.

Five Republican senators have announced they will not support the bill, which is designed to repeal and replace Obamacare, in its current form.

White House officials said on Friday that Trump has been in touch with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and made calls on Thursday and Friday to other lawmakers.

Trump’s role is expected to become more pronounced in coming days as the vote nears. Senate Republican leaders may rely on the deal-making former businessman to lean on conservative senators who are balking at the bill.

“We’re pleasantly surprised with a lot of the support that’s already come out and I think we’ll continue to work through (it,) in particular the four individuals who have expressed some ideas and concerns,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters at a White House briefing.

With all Democrats expected to oppose the measure, the Republicans can afford to lose the support of only two of their 52 members if they want to pass the legislation.

After Spicer spoke, Republican Senator Dean Heller became the fifth Republican opponent on Friday, saying he would not support the bill in its current form.

“This bill that’s currently in front of the United States Senate is not the answer,” Heller, a moderate who is up for re-election in 2018, said at a news conference in Las Vegas.

That could add Heller’s name to Trump’s call list. A White House official said the Trump has pushed his team to stay involved and plans to flex his negotiating muscle, the official said.

An outside political group aligned with the White House, America First Policies, said it is planning an advertising campaign targeting Heller for his opposition to the bill.

Healthcare stocks closed down 0.1 percent on Friday, clawing back some losses after the sector dropped sharply late in the session on Heller’s announcement.

The Senate’s 142-page proposal, worked out in secret by a group led by McConnell, aims to deliver on a central Trump campaign promise to undo former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, which has provided coverage to 20 million Americans since it was passed in 2010.

Republicans view the law, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, as a costly government intrusion and say individual insurance markets created by it are collapsing.

FOUR CONSERVATIVES OPPOSE BILL

On Thursday, four of the Senate’s most conservative members said the new plan failed to rein in the federal government’s role.

Rand Paul, who has rejected the plan along with fellow Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson, said fundamental problems remained that would leave taxpayers subsidizing health insurance companies.

Trump, in an interview with Fox News that aired on Friday morning, called the group of conservative lawmakers “four very good people.”

“It’s not that they’re opposed,” he said. “They’d like to get certain changes. And we’ll see if we can take care of that.”

Trump said getting approval would require traveling a “very, very narrow path” but that “I think we’re going to get there.”

“It’s going to be a good bill,” Trump said in a separate Fox News interview to air on Sunday.

For the House of Representatives’ version of healthcare, Trump held regular meetings with representatives at the White House. He celebrated the bill’s narrow passage last month in a Rose Garden event with House Republican leaders.

Trump later criticized the House bill privately as “mean” and this week called for a health plan “with heart.” He indicated the Senate plan met that request.

McConnell said in an interview with Reuters last month that he told Trump early on in the process that he did not need his help but that there may be a role for him later.

The Senate bill maintains much of the structure of the House’s but differs in key ways. It would phase out Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor more gradually, waiting until after the 2020 presidential election, but would enact deeper cuts starting in 2025. It also would provide more generous tax subsidies than the House bill to help low-income people buy private insurance.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason, Richard Cowan, Susan Cornwell, Yasmeen Abutaleb, Caroline Humer, Lewis Krauskopf, Ginger Gibson and Susan Heavey; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Bill Trott)

Judge in Michigan blocks deportation of 100 Iraqis

Protesters rally outside the federal court just before a hearing to consider a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Iraqi nationals facing deportation, in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., June 21, 2017. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

By Dan Levine

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the deportation of about 100 Iraqi nationals rounded up in Michigan in recent weeks who argued that they could face persecution or torture in Iraq because they are religious minorities.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith in Michigan issued an order staying the deportation of the Iraqis for at least two weeks as he decides whether he has jurisdiction over the matter. Goldsmith said it was unclear whether the Iraqis would ultimately succeed.

The arrests shocked the close-knit Iraqi community in Michigan. Six Michigan lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives urged the government to hold off on the removals until Congress can be given assurances about the deportees’ safety.

The Michigan arrests were part of a coordinated sweep in recent weeks by immigration authorities who detained about 199 Iraqi immigrants around the country. They had final deportation orders and convictions for serious crimes.

The roundup followed Iraq’s agreement to accept deportees as part of a deal that removed the country from President Donald Trump’s revised temporary travel ban.

Some of those affected came to the United States as children and committed their crimes decades ago, but they had been allowed to stay because Iraq previously declined to issue travel documents for them. That changed after the two governments came to the agreement in March.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the Iraqis in Michigan, said: “The court’s action today was legally correct and may very well have saved numerous people from abuse and possible death.”

The U.S. government has argued that the district court does not have jurisdiction over the case. Only immigration courts can decide deportation issues, which can then only be reviewed by an appeals court, it said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has said that people with convictions for murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, burglary and drugs and weapons charges were among the Iraqis arrested nationwide.

The ACLU argued that many of those affected in Michigan are Chaldean Catholics who are “widely recognized as targets of brutal persecution in Iraq.”

Some Kurdish Iraqis were also picked up in Nashville, Tennessee. In a letter on Thursday, Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper, a Democrat, asked the Iraqi ambassador whether Iraq would be able to ensure safe passage for them if they were returned.

(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Eric Walsh in Washington; Editing by David Alexander and Cynthia Osterman)

Trump denies obstructing FBI probe, says has no tapes of talks with Comey

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage for a rally at the U.S. Cellular Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S. June 21, 2017. REUTERS/Scott Morgan

By Amanda Becker and Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he had not obstructed the FBI’s probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and had not recorded his conversations with former FBI chief James Comey.

Comey was leading the investigation into allegations Russia tried to sway the election toward Trump and the possibility Trump associates colluded with Moscow when the president fired him on May 9, sparking a political firestorm.

“Look there has been no obstruction, there has been no collusion,” Trump told Fox News Channel in an interview set to air on Friday. Fox released a partial transcript of the interview on Thursday.

The former head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified before a Senate committee that Trump had asked him to drop a probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s alleged ties to Russia.

Earlier on Thursday, Trump said he did not make and does not possess any tapes of his conversations with Comey, after suggesting last month he might have recordings that could undercut Comey’s description of events.

“I have no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Lawmakers investigating allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election had asked the White House for any such recordings.

Shortly after dismissing Comey, Trump mentioned the possibility of tapes in a Twitter post.

“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Trump tweeted on May 12.

Allegations of ties to Russia have cast a shadow over Trump’s first five months in office, distracting from attempts by his fellow Republicans in Congress to overhaul the U.S. healthcare and tax systems.

Trump has privately told aides that the threat of the existence of tapes forced Comey to tell the truth in his recent testimony, a source familiar with the situation said.

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said Trump still had questions to answer about possible tapes.

“If the president had no tapes, why did he suggest otherwise? Did he seek to mislead the public? Was he trying to intimidate or silence James Comey? And if so, did he take other steps to discourage potential witnesses from speaking out?” Schiff said in a statement.

CNN reported on Thursday that two top U.S. intelligence officials told investigators Trump suggested they publicly deny any collusion between his campaign and Russia, but that they did not feel he had ordered them to do so.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers met separately last week with investigators for special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to CNN.

The two officials said they were surprised at Trump’s suggestion and found their interactions with him odd and uncomfortable, but they did not act on the president’s requests, CNN reported, citing sources familiar with their accounts.

Reuters was unable to verify the CNN report.

In his interview with Fox, Trump expressed concern about what he described as the close relationship between Comey and Mueller, who was appointed to take over the investigation after Comey was fired.

“Well he’s very, very good friends with Comey, which is very bothersome,” Trump said, according to the Fox transcript.

The Kremlin has denied U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Moscow tried to tilt the election in Trump’s favor, using such means as hacking into the emails of senior Democrats.

Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion.

(Additional reporting by Tim Ahmann, Steve Holland, Patricia Zengerle and Susan Heavey; Writing by Alistair Bell and Tim Ahmann; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Peter Cooney and Paul Tait)

Tough-talking Trump defense lawyer says he’s no ‘snowflake’

FILE PHOTO: Lawyer John Dowd exits Manhattan Federal Court in New York May 11, 2011. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File photo

By Karen Freifeld

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The latest lawyer hired to represent U.S. President Donald Trump in the federal investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election is an ex-Marine who likens some cases to war.

“I fight hard,” John Dowd said in an interview. “I believe that’s what I’m supposed to do. I am not a snowflake, I can tell you that.”

“Snowflake” is a disparaging term for people considered overly sensitive and fragile that has been adopted by some Trump supporters to mock liberals.

Dowd, who spoke with Reuters on Wednesday, is a mirror of his client in many ways. He has a no-holds-barred, hyperbolic style and a history of attacking prosecutors, congressional Democrats and the media.

The 76-year-old Washington lawyer, who retired from the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in 2014, brings criminal defense and government investigation experience to Trump’s legal team.

The team, led by New York lawyer Marc Kasowitz, is tasked with responding to Robert Mueller, the special counsel named by the Justice Department to probe whether anyone associated with Trump or his campaign had any illegal dealings with Russian officials or others with ties to the Kremlin.

Russian officials have denied meddling in the U.S. election, and Trump denies any collusion by his campaign.

In what Dowd said would be his last major trial, he defended billionaire hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam in one of the biggest insider trading cases of all time.

Rajaratnam was convicted of all 14 insider trading counts and sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2011.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Reed Brodsky, who prosecuted the case, said Dowd put on a strong defense in the face of overwhelming evidence. “This is war, and I will defeat you,” Brodsky recalled Dowd declaring in one phone conversation.

Dowd confirmed the sentiment on Wednesday. “It is a war,” he said of such cases.

His tactics in the Rajaratnam case reflected that belief. Dowd aggressively challenged the prosecution’s stance on what constituted insider trading. He also fought the government’s wiretaps of his client’s cell phone, claiming investigators “gamed the system.”

Brodsky said he believed the physically commanding 6-foot-4-inch-tall Dowd would be a “ferocious defender of the president.”

In a manner similar to Trump, Dowd lashed out at what he perceived to be improper leaks by prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the Rajaratnam case, singling out then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in particular.

“He sat in the back of the courtroom with his press dogs,” Dowd said. “It was the most atrocious thing I’ve ever seen.”

Dowd also went after reporters. Bharara, who declined to comment on Wednesday, last weekend retweeted an intemperate 2011 email the defense lawyer sent to a Wall Street Journal reporter he accused of “whoring” for the prosecution.

In another encounter with the press caught on camera, Dowd swore at and gave the middle finger to a CNBC reporter.

Like Trump, Dowd has a tendency to put his own spin on adverse news. After the Rajaratnam verdict, Dowd argued “the defense is winning” because the prosecution chose not to pursue 23 other allegations of insider trading. “The score is 23-14,” he told reporters.

In a 2007 congressional probe of politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys, Dowd complained of McCarthyism when his client, former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, was criticized by Democrats for invoking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.

Dowd represented U.S. Senator John McCain on congressional ethics charges in the 1980s “Keating Five” banking scandal and conducted the Major League Baseball investigation that led to former Hall of Famer Pete Rose being banned from the sport for betting on games while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds.

Dowd would not discuss legal strategy for Trump but said the team the president had assembled was great. “We’re all fighters,” he said.

Though his hiring was first reported Friday, a person familiar with the matter said Dowd has been working with the team for weeks. Dowd said he knew Kasowitz partner Michael Bowe, who is also representing Trump, and met with Kasowitz at the end of May. Jay Sekulow, another member of the team, has been appearing on television on Trump’s behalf.

Dowd also said he talked with the president but declined to describe their conversation. He called Trump “a fighter for the people” and said the president had done nothing wrong.

A onetime military lawyer with the U.S. Marine Corps, Dowd noted his shared service in declining to criticize Mueller, a Marine platoon leader during the Vietnam War.

“Bobby is doing what he has to do and he’ll do a good job,” said Dowd. “He’s a fellow Marine and he’s a good man.”

(Reporting By Karen Freifeld; Editing by Anthony Lin and Tom Brown)