Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Divided on Trump, EU insists on European unity

German Chancellor Angela merkel speaks to EU commission

By Alastair Macdonald and Gabriela Baczynska

VALLETTA (Reuters) – European Union leaders said they agreed to stick together in dealing with Donald Trump, but at their first summit since he took office they were at odds on how far to confront or engage with the new U.S. president.

Trump and his policies, from questioning the value of NATO and free trade to banning Muslim refugees, came up repeatedly in discussions in Malta on external “challenges” facing the Union.

British Prime Minister Theresa May, about to lead her country out of the EU, briefed peers on her visit to Washington last week and assured them Trump was committed to cooperating in their defense — just as Britain would also be after Brexit.

Francois Hollande, the outgoing Socialist president of France, led criticism of Trump, calling it “unacceptable” for him to applaud Brexit and forecast the break-up of the EU. In thinly veiled rebukes to May and some eastern states, he warned of trying to cut their own transatlantic deals.

“A lot of countries should think of their future first of all in the European Union rather than imagining I don’t what kind of bilateral relationship with the United States,” he said.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, who like many in the east is alarmed by Trump’s conciliatory noises to Moscow, poured cold water on May’s suggestion Britain could be a link to Washington. Europe did not need a “bridge”, she was quoted as saying, because it could communicate with Trump on Twitter.

But her Polish neighbor, Beata Szydlo, reserved her main criticisms for her predecessor as prime minister, EU summit chair Donald Tusk, who described Trump this week as a “threat” to the EU, along with Russia, China and militant Islam.

“European politicians trying to build this sense of fear … are making a mistake,” said Szydlo, whose government, like Trump, has spoken out against Muslim immigration. “One cannot be confrontational in our relations with the United States.”

MERKEL CAUTIOUS

Stressing the need for unity, the bloc’s dominant leader, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said Europeans still had common ground with the United States in many areas, while not sharing Trump’s scepticism about many international institutions.

“We have again made very clear our common values and our faith in multilateralism,” she told a news conference.

The Union would, she said, push for free trade deals with more nations as Trump pulls back. But cooperation with the United States against militant threats would continue, she said.

One EU diplomat said France was clearly pushing to use the Trump presidency to rally Europeans behind a policy of greater distance from Washington and turning to the EU, rather than NATO, for their security.

“The Germans are much more cautious,” the diplomat said. “There is a clear issue to be decided: whether we seek common ground to engage with the United States, or turn our backs.”

Summit host Joseph Muscat, the Maltese prime minister, chose to emphasize balance in summing up the discussions, speaking of “concern” at Trump’s policy but “no sense of anti-Americanism”.

“There was a sense that we need to engage with the U.S. just the same,” Muscat said. “But we need to show that we cannot stay silent where there are principles involved.”

(Writing by Alastair Macdonald, editing by Larry King)

Trump administration tightens Iran sanctions, Tehran hits back

ballistic missile tested in Iran

By Yeganeh Torbati

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Trump administration on Friday imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and entities, ratcheting up pressure on Iran in what it said were just “initial steps” and said it would no longer turn a “blind eye” to Iran’s hostile actions.

“The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate Iran’s provocations that threaten our interests,” National Security Advisor Michael Flynn said.

“The days of turning a blind eye to Iran’s hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over,” Flynn said in a White House statement.

A senior administration official said the latest sanctions were the initial steps in response to Iran’s “provocative behavior”, suggesting more could follow if Tehran does not curb its ballistic missile program and continues support in regional proxy conflicts. The administration was “undertaking a larger strategic review” of how it responds to Iran.

Those affected cannot access the U.S. financial system or deal with U.S. companies and are subject to secondary sanctions, meaning foreign companies and individuals are prohibited from dealing with them or risk being blacklisted by the United States.

The White House said that while the sanctions, the first actions against Iran by the U.S. government since President Donald Trump took office, were a reaction to recent events, they had been under consideration before.

They added that a landmark 2015 deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program was not in the best interest of the United States.

Iran denounced the sanctions as illegal and said it would impose legal restrictions on American individuals and entities helping “regional terrorist groups”, state TV quoted a Foreign Ministry statement as saying.

Ahead of the announcement, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted: “We will never initiate war, but we can only rely on our own means of defense”.

The new designations stuck to areas that remain under sanctions even with the 2015 nuclear deal sealed between Iran and world powers in place, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite military body that is powerful in Iranian politics and the economy, and Iran’s ballistic missile program. Zarif led Iran’s delegation at the nuclear negotiations in 2015.

Among those affected by the sanctions were what it said was a Lebanon-based network run by the Revolutionary Guards.

The sanctions’ impact will be more symbolic than practical, especially as they do not affect the lifting of broader U.S. and international sanctions that took place under the nuclear deal.

Also, few of the Iranian entities being targeted are likely to have U.S. assets that can be frozen, and U.S. companies, with few exceptions, are barred from doing business with Iran.

Meanwhile, the U.S. moved a Navy destroyer, the USS Cole, close to the Bab al-Mandab Strait off the coast of Yemen to protect waterways from Houthi militia aligned with Iran.

DESIGNATIONS

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Friday expressed understanding over the sanctions, saying Iran’s missile test last Sunday was a clear violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

However, Gabriel warned against conflating Sunday’s test with the nuclear deal. The White House said the sanctions made clear the nuclear deal was not in Washington’s best interest.

The U.S. Treasury, which listed the individuals and entities affected on its website, said the sanctions were “fully consistent” with U.S. commitments under the nuclear deal.

Some of the entities involved are based in the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and China.

Among those affected were companies, individuals and brokers the U.S. Treasury said support a trade network run by Iranian businessman Abdollah Asgharzadeh.

Treasury said he supported Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group, which the United States has said is a subsidiary of an Iranian entity that runs Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Hasan Dehghan Ebrahimi, a Beirut-based official with the Revolutionary Guard’s Qods Force, which runs its operations abroad, was put under sanctions for acting on behalf of the Qods Force, Treasury said.

Three Lebanese companies involved in waste collection, pharmaceuticals, and construction were also listed under the sanctions for being owned or controlled by Muhammad Abd-al-Amir Farhat, one of Ebrahimi’s employees.

Treasury said he has facilitated millions of dollars in cash transfers to Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Two of his employees and a company he manages were also sanctioned. Treasury said Ebrahimi and his employees used a Lebanon-based network to transfer funds, launder money, and conduct business.

(This version of the story has been refiled to add mention of Flynn to advisory line: Adds Iranian reaction, comment from National Security Advisor Flynn)

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Ankara and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Writing by Yara Bayoumy and Lesley Wroughton; Editing by James Dalgleish)

Lawsuit claims Trump travel ban discriminates against Muslims

Protest of Donald Trump's travel ban

(Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union accused the Trump administration in a lawsuit filed on Thursday of violating the religious freedom of some nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries who have been barred from entering the United States.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of California on behalf of three student visa holders, including one Yemeni who left the United States and is unable to come back, according to court documents.

The lawsuit is a proposed class-action brought on behalf of nationals who are living or have lived in the United States and are originally from the Muslim-majority nations whose citizens President Donald Trump has temporarily banned from entering the United States, with some exceptions.

The suit is the latest in a series of legal actions challenging the executive order that was issued last Friday. Federal judges in several states have placed limits on the order.

The order set off protests over the weekend at several major airports as immigration and customs officials struggled to interpret the new rules.

The plaintiffs and the members of the class “fear that, in the event they attempt to enter or re-enter the United States, they will be denied permission to do so,” the lawsuit said.

It accuses Trump and his administration of violating the free speech, religious freedom and due process rights of those affected by the order, and says it is an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise made by Trump to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

“Senior advisers to defendant Trump have engaged in anti-Muslim rhetoric that provides additional support for the notion that the executive order was prompted by animus toward Islam and Muslims,” the suit said.

Department of Justice officials could not be reached for comment late on Thursday.

The ACLU asked the court to rule that the executive order violates the rights of the students and class members and to order the administration not to enforce the travel ban, according to the suit.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis and Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Editing by Sandra Maler, Robert Birsel and Kevin Liffey)

U.S. Muslim school curriculum: English, math and political activism

muslim school teaching kids political activism

By Scott Malone

MANSFIELD, Mass. (Reuters) – The students at Al-Noor Academy, a Muslim school outside Boston, bombarded their government class speaker with questions: How do you start a political discussion? How do you use social media in politics? And how do you influence elected leaders?

The group of mostly 16-year-olds was too young to vote but seemed eager to find ways to counter the rhetoric of President Donald Trump who last week issued travel restrictions to the United States by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.

“Before this election happened, I really didn’t know much about politics at all,” said Sarah Sendian, a sophomore student at the school in Mansfield, Massachusetts. “With the new president and all of the things that are happening, it sparked a lot of interest in a lot of young people.”

The class is one of the first actions of newly formed Muslim political organization Jetpac – standing for Justice, Education, Technology, Policy Advocacy Center – to encourage political activism among the 3.3 million Muslims who make up about 1 percent of the U.S. population.

“This is the time when Muslims should step forward,” said Nadeem Mazen, the group’s founder and a city councilor in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “What’s going on at the national level only emphasizes what we’ve known prior to Trump being elected, and it’s that we need really good leaders.”

Thursday’s lesson at the 116-student junior and senior high school was heavy on how to build networks of like-minded people and turn them out at public meetings, rallies and elections to amplify the voices of U.S. Muslims.

About 824,000 of them were registered to vote as of 2016, a figure that had risen by about 60 percent over the past four years, according to national Muslim advocacy group the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

‘KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING’

The class’s teacher, Joe Florencio, reminded his students that generations of immigrant populations have gone through the same process of becoming politically active.

“To be effective politically, you have to know what you’re doing,” said Florencio, the sole non-Muslim faculty member in a building that once housed the Roman Catholic church where his parents were married.

Students at the school, founded in 2000, study both standard U.S. academic subjects including science and math as well as Arabic and the Koran, a model similar to the many parochial schools in the northeastern United States.

Jetpac, which hopes to eventually offer versions of the class to private and public schools across the United States, faces an uphill climb. The number of anti-Muslim attacks reported to the FBI last year spiked to their highest level since 2001, the year that al Qaeda-backed hijackers destroyed New York’s World Trade Center.

While the group acknowledged that it will take time for political newcomers to win elections, even the act of campaigning could help Muslims, simply by making people more familiar with politics, said Faiza Patel, of the NYU School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice.

“It allows them to meet lots of people, people that they might not otherwise meet and that has the effect of reducing prejudice,” said Patel, who studies interactions between Muslims and the U.S. justice system. “You start to see people as human beings.”

Almost half of respondents to a 2016 Pew Research Center poll said they believed that at least some U.S. Muslims harbored anti-American views, but respondents who knew a Muslim personally were less likely to believe that than ones who did not.

Yousef Abouallaban, a member of the Al-Noor school committee whose two eldest sons have attended the school, said he hoped the class would help the children of Muslim immigrants overcome a bias held by some of their parents against getting involved with politics.

“We were raised in a different culture where our belief is that people who get involved in government are corrupt people. At all levels. So if you are a decent person, you should never get involved in politics,” said Abouallaban, who immigrated from Syria in 1989. “That’s not the case in the United States and this mentality has to be changed.”

(Reporting by Scott Malone; Editing by Bill Rigby)

U.S. to issue new Iran sanctions, opening shot in get-tough strategy: sources

ballistic missile tested in Iran

By Arshad Mohammed, Matt Spetalnick and Jonathan Landay

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump is poised to impose new sanctions on multiple Iranian entities, seeking to ratchet up pressure on Tehran while crafting a broader strategy to counter what he sees as its destabilizing behavior, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

In the first tangible action against Iran since Trump took office on Jan. 20, the administration, on the same day he insisted that “nothing is off the table,” prepared to roll out new measures against more than two dozen Iranian targets, the sources said. The announcement is expected as early as Friday, they added.

The new sanctions, which are being taken under existing executive orders covering terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, may mark the opening shot in a more aggressive policy against Iran that Trump promised during the 2016 presidential campaign, the sources, who had knowledge of the administration’s plans, said.

But the package, targeting both entities and individuals, was formulated in a way that would not violate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated between Iran and six world powers including Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, they added.

The sources said the new sanctions had been in the works for some time and that Iran’s decision to test-fire a ballistic missile on Sunday helped trigger Trump’s decision to impose them, although Washington has not accused Iran of violating the nuclear deal.

The White House declined comment.

A U.S. State Department official said: “As standard policy, we do not preview sanction decisions before they are announced.”

The White House signaled a tougher stance toward Iran on Wednesday when Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, said he was putting Iran “on notice” after the missile test and senior U.S. officials said the administration was reviewing how to respond.

A top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said his country would not yield to “useless” U.S. threats from “an inexperienced person” over its ballistic missile program. The adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati, did not identify a specific U.S. official in his comments.

STILL-EVOLVING PLAN

The impact of the new sanctions will be more symbolic than practical, especially as the move does not affect the lifting of broader U.S. and international sanctions that took place under the nuclear deal. Also, few of the Iranian entities being targeted are likely to have U.S. assets that can be frozen, and U.S. companies, with few exceptions, are barred from doing business with Iran.

But the administration is working with congressional staffers and outside experts on a still-evolving broader plan aimed at hitting Iran’s pressure points, including its already restricted nuclear program, missile development and support of militant groups in the region, several sources said.

Leading a chorus of Republican calls for new sanctions, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, said the United States should stop “appeasing” Tehran. “I would be in favor of additional sanctions on Iran,” he told reporters.

Options that may be among the first to be implemented include sanctioning Iranian industries that contribute to missile development and designating as a terrorist group the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been blamed by U.S. officials for fueling regional proxy wars. The designation could also dissuade foreign investment because it oversees a sprawling business empire.

Another approach would be “zero tolerance” for any Iranian violations of the nuclear deal, by taking a stricter interpretation of the terms than the Obama administration.

That could include U.S. opposition to Iranian requests for waivers from restrictions requiring the approval of a committee comprising the United States and its negotiating partners, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, the sources said.

“Michael Flynn did not put Iran on notice as mere empty words,” said Mark Dubowitz, an Iran sanctions expert and head of the conservative Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies who is advising the Trump administration. “Iran’s continued missile and terrorism activities will lead to dozens of new U.S. designations and tough new congressional sanctions.”

Some experts questioned how quickly the administration could develop the new strategy as many of the technical specialists on Iran have left the government.

‘NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE’

Trump’s declaration that nothing had been ruled out in response to Iran appears to leave open the possibility of military action, although experts said both sides would take care to avoid armed confrontation in the oil-rich Gulf. Still, the U.S. threats of reprisals, coupled with Iran’s defiant reaction, could dangerously ratchet up tensions.

Every recent U.S. president, including Obama, a Democrat, has said U.S. military options were not off the table to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Trump has gone much further in his rhetoric, especially in criticizing the Iran deal as weak and ineffective.

Since taking office, Trump and his aides have not repeated campaign rhetoric about tearing up the deal. He may instead be trying to force Iran to either renegotiate the terms or pull out unilaterally, thereby shouldering the blame internationally.

Defenders of the deal said there was little chance Iran could be goaded back to the negotiating table and warned that too stringent an approach could escalate into a confrontation and embolden Iranian hardliners.

In the latest move, one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said about eight Iranian entities were to be sanctioned or designated, for terrorism-related activities and about 17 for ballistic missile-related activities under separate existing U.S. executive orders. The source declined to name the entities, which were targeted under executive orders signed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2005.

Sanctions designations can lead to asset freezes, travel bans and other penalties.

Republican lawmakers said they were working with the Trump administration to push back on Iran without risking the collapse of the deal, widely supported internationally.

Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Reuters that his panel was “in the early stages” of working on legislation on Iran.

(Additional reporting by Patrica Zengerle, Ayesha Rascoe, Roberta Rampton in Washington and Parisa Hafezi in Ankara; Writing by Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Peter Cooney)

U.S. job growth beats expectations in January, wages soft

Job seekers

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. job growth surged more than expected in January as construction firms and retailers ramped up hiring, which likely gives the Trump administration a head start as it seeks to boost the economy and employment.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 227,000 jobs last month, the largest gain in four months, the Labor Department said on Friday. But the unemployment rate rose one-tenth of a percentage point to 4.8 percent and wages increased modestly, suggesting that there was still some slack in the labor market.

Revisions to November and December showed the economy created 39,000 fewer jobs than previously reported. Still, the labor market continues to tighten, which could soon spur a faster pace of wage growth. Federal Reserve officials view the labor market as being at or near full employment.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls rising 175,000 last month and the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.7 percent.

President Donald Trump vowed during last year’s election campaign to deliver 4 percent annual gross domestic product growth, largely on the back of a plan to cut taxes, reduce regulations, increase infrastructure spending and renegotiate trade deals in the United States’ favor.

Although details on the policy proposals remain sketchy, consumer and business confidence have surged in the wake of Trump’s election victory last November. But with the economy near full employment, some economists are skeptical of the 4 percent growth pledge. Annual GDP growth has not exceeded 2.6 percent since the 2007-08 recession.

DISAPPOINTING WAGE GROWTH

Average hourly earnings increased only three cents or 0.1 percent last month. December’s wage gain was revised down to 0.2 percent from the previously reported 0.4 percent increase.

January’s small rise in average hourly earnings is a surprise given that the minimum wage took effect in more than a dozen states last month. The small gain lowered the year-on-year increase in earnings to 2.5 percent from 2.8 percent in December.

Sluggish wage growth, if it persists, would suggest only a gradual pace of rate increases by the Fed. The U.S. central bank, which hiked rates in December, has forecast three rate increases this year.

On Wednesday, the Fed kept its benchmark overnight interest rate unchanged in a range of 0.50 percent to 0.75 percent. It said it expected labor market conditions would strengthen “somewhat further.”

With its January employment report, the government published its annual “benchmark” revisions and updated the formulas it uses to smooth the data for regular seasonal fluctuations. It also incorporated new population estimates.

The government said the level of employment in March of last year was 60,000 lower than it had reported. As the labor market nears full employment, the pool of workers is shrinking, which is slowing job growth.

The shift in population controls mean figures on the labor force or number of employed or unemployed in January are not directly comparable with December.

The labor force participation rate, or the share of working-age Americans who are employed or at least looking for a job, was at 62.9 percent in January, the highest level since September.

All sectors of the economy added jobs in January.

Manufacturing payrolls increased by 5,000 jobs, rising for a second straight month as the oil-related drag on the sector eases. Construction employment jumped 36,000, the largest increase since March, likely boosted by warm weather, after December’s paltry 2,000 gain.

Retail payrolls, surprisingly surged 45,900, the biggest rise since February. Retailers, including Macy’s <M.N>, Sears <SHLD.O>, American Apparel and Abercrombie & Fitch <ANF.N> announced job cuts in January amid store closures. Department store sales are being undercut by online retailers, led by Amazon.com <AMZN.O>.

Government employment fell for a fourth straight month in January. Further declines are likely after the Trump administration enforced a hiring freeze on civilian federal government workers on Jan. 22.

(Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Andrea Ricci)

U.S. warns North Korea of ‘overwhelming’ response if nuclear arms used

US Defense Scretary shakes hands with South Korean government official

By Phil Stewart

SEOUL (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s defense secretary warned North Korea on Friday of an “effective and overwhelming” response if it chose to use nuclear weapons, as he reassured South Korea of steadfast U.S. support.

“Any attack on the United States, or our allies, will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said at South Korea’s defense ministry, at the end of a two-day visit.

Mattis’ remarks come amid concern that North Korea could be readying to test a new ballistic missile, in what could be an early challenge for Trump’s administration.

North Korea, which regularly threatens to destroy South Korea and its main ally, the United States, conducted more than 20 missile tests last year, as well as two nuclear tests, in defiance of U.N. resolutions and sanctions.

The North also appears to have also restarted operation of a reactor at its main Yongbyon nuclear facility that produces plutonium that can be used for its nuclear weapons program, according to the U.S. think-tank 38 North.

“North Korea continues to launch missiles, develop its nuclear weapons program and engage in threatening rhetoric and behavior,” Mattis said.

North Korea’s actions have prompted the United States and South Korea to respond by bolstering defenses, including the expected deployment of a U.S. missile defense system, known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), in South Korea later this year.

The two sides reconfirmed that commitment on Friday.

China, however, has objected to THAAD, saying it is a direct threat to China’s own security and will do nothing to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table, leading to calls from some South Korean opposition leaders to delay or cancel it.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang reiterated China’s opposition, which he said would never change.

“We do not believe this move will be conducive to resolving the Korean peninsula nuclear issue or to maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula,” Lu told a daily news briefing in Beijing.

South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo said Mattis’ visit to Seoul – his first trip abroad as defense secretary – sent a clear message of strong U.S. support.

“Faced with a current severe security situation, Secretary Mattis’ visit to Korea … also communicates the strongest warning to North Korea,” Han said.

Once fully developed, a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) could threaten the continental United States, which is about 9,000 km (5,500 miles) from North Korea. ICBMs have a minimum range of about 5,500 km (3,400 miles), but some are designed to travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles) or more.

Former U.S. officials and other experts have said the United States essentially has two options when it comes to trying to curb North Korea’s fast-expanding nuclear and missile programs – negotiate or take military action.

Neither path offers certain success and the military option is fraught with huge dangers, especially for Japan and South Korea, U.S. allies in close proximity to North Korea.

Mattis is due in Japan later on Friday.

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Nick Macfie, Robert Birsel)

Challenges to Trump’s immigration orders spread to more U.S. states

Massachusetts attorney with several people who don't like trump's immigration ban

(In this Jan. 31 story, in 11th paragraph corrects to show two Iranian plaintiffs are a man and a woman, not two men)

By Scott Malone and Dan Levine

BOSTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s first moves on immigration spread on Tuesday, with three states suing over his executive order banning travel into the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.

Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington state joined the legal battle against the travel ban, which the White House deems necessary to improve national security.

The challenges contend the order violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom.

San Francisco became the first U.S. city to sue to challenge a Trump directive to withhold federal money from U.S. cities that have adopted sanctuary policies toward undocumented immigrants, which local officials argue help local police by making those immigrants more willing to report crimes.

The legal maneuvers were the latest acts of defiance against executive orders signed by Trump last week that sparked a wave of protests in major U.S. cities, where thousands of people decried the new president’s actions as discriminatory.

Both policies are in line with campaign promises by Republican businessman-turned-politician Trump, who vowed to build a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration and to take hard-line steps to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

The restrictions on the seven Muslim-majority countries and new limits on refugees have won the support of many Americans, with 49 percent of respondents to a Reuters poll conducted Monday and Tuesday saying they agreed with the order, while 41 percent disagreed.

Massachusetts contended the restrictions run afoul of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits religious preference.

“At bottom, what this is about is a violation of the Constitution,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said of the order halting travel by people with passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. The order also barred resettlement of refugees for 120 days and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees.

“It discriminates against people because of their religion, it discriminates against people because of their country of origin,” Healey said at a Boston press conference, flanked by leaders from the tech, healthcare and education sectors who said that the order could limit their ability to attract and retain highly educated workers.

Massachusetts will be backing a lawsuit filed over the weekend in Boston federal court by two Iranian men who teach at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. A federal judge blocked the government from expelling those men from the country and halted enforcement of the order for seven days, following similar but more limited moves in four other states.

The attorneys general of New York and Virginia also said their states were joining similar lawsuits filed in their respective federal courts challenging the ban.

“As we speak, there are students at our colleges and universities who are unable to return to Virginia,” Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring told reporters. “This is not an action I take lightly, but it is one I take with confidence in our legal analysis.”

On Monday, liberal-leaning Washington state became the first U.S. state to have its attorney general initiate a lawsuit against Trump to challenge the travel ban.

Multiple foreign nationals have also filed lawsuits challenging the ban. They included one filed in Colorado on Tuesday by a Libyan college student and two filed in Chicago, including one on behalf of an Iranian father of three children all living in Illinois.

Protests against Trump’s executive action continued on Tuesday in several cities.

A crowd of several thousand demonstrators gathered at the federal courthouse in Minneapolis, chanting “Hey, hey, ho, ho Muslim ban has got to go!” Dozens of protesters chanted the same slogan at Los Angeles International Airport, and more than 400 demonstrators gathered in downtown Miami to protest both the travel ban and Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities.

SANCTUARY CHALLENGE

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed suit over Trump’s order threatening to cut funds to cities with sanctuary policies, a move that could stop the flow of billions of dollars to major U.S. population centers including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

“If allowed to be implemented, this executive order would make our communities less safe. It would make our residents less prosperous, and it would split families apart,” Herrera said.

Sanctuary cities adopt policies that limit cooperation, such as refusing to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests. Advocates of the policies say that, beyond helping police with crime reporting, they make undocumented immigrants more willing to serve as witnesses if they do not fear that contact with law enforcement will lead to their deportation.

Both the San Francisco and Massachusetts actions contend that Trump’s orders in question violate the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that powers not granted to the federal government should fall to the states.

Michael Hethmon, senior counsel with the conservative Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, called the San Francisco lawsuit a “silly political gesture,” noting that prior federal court decisions make clear that the U.S. government “can prohibit a policy that essentially impedes legitimate federal programs.”

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg, Curtis Skinner, Adam Bettcher, Olga Grigoryants, Zachary Fagenson, Alex Dobuzinskis, Timothy McLaughlin, Ian Simpson and Keith Coffman; Editing by Tom Brown and Cynthia Osterman)

U.S. Treasury holds debt auctions steady, plans cyber test

dollar note

By Jason Lange

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury announced on Wednesday it will hold the size of coupon auctions steady in the upcoming quarter when it conducts a small “contingency auction” that an official said would test its ability to borrow following a cyber attack.

It was unclear how much of a role, if any, the White House had in crafting the Treasury’s quarterly debt policy statement, which was the first since President Donald Trump took office last month.

The U.S. Senate has yet to confirm Trump’s Treasury secretary nominee, Steven Mnuchin. Several Treasury officials from the Obama administration have left, with their positions filled on a temporary basis by career bureaucrats or political appointees from the last administration.

The latest policy statement was made by Monique Rollins, Treasury’s acting assistant secretary for financial markets and a holdover from the Obama administration. A Treasury official told reporters separately that the new political leadership was aware of the debt policies announced on Wednesday.

Rollins said in the policy statement that Treasury plans to offer $62 billion in notes and bonds next week, raising approximately $17 billion in new cash.

The contingency test was part of regular auction infrastructure testing, Rollins said.

The Treasury official who briefed reporters separately said the test would gauge the government’s ability to borrow money if a cyber attack disrupted normal auctions.

On future coupon sizes, Rollins said the department “will continue to monitor projected financing needs and make appropriate adjustments as necessary.”

(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Paul Simao)

The Art of the Deal: Why Putin needs one more than Trump

woman passes billboard of Trump and Putin together

By Andrew Osborn

MOSCOW (Reuters) – In his book, ‘Art of the Deal,’ Donald Trump said the best deals were ones where both sides got something they wanted. His credo, applied to a potential U.S.-Russia deal, flags an awkward truth for Vladimir Putin: He wants more from Trump than vice versa.

As aides try to set up a first meeting between the two presidents, the mismatched nature of their respective wish lists gives Trump the edge, and means that a deal, if one is done, may be more limited and longer in the making than the Kremlin hopes.

“What the two countries can offer each another is strikingly different,” said Konstantin von Eggert, a commentator for TV Rain, a Moscow TV station sometimes critical of the Kremlin.

“The U.S. has a stronger hand. In biblical terms, the U.S. is the three kings bearing gold, while Russia is the shepherds with little apart from their good faith.”

Appetite for a deal in Moscow, where parliament applauded Trump’s election win, is palpable. The Kremlin blames Barack Obama for wrecking U.S.-Russia ties, which slid to a post-Cold War low on his watch, and with the economy struggling to emerge from two years of recession, craves a new start.

Trump’s intentions toward Moscow are harder to discern, but seem to be more about what he does not want — having Russia as a time-consuming geopolitical foe — than his so far vague desire to team up with the Kremlin to fight Islamic State.

Trump has hinted he may also push for a nuclear arms deal.

Putin’s wish list, by contrast, is detailed, long and the items on it, such as getting U.S. sanctions imposed over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine eased, are potentially significant for his own political future.

He is looking to be given a free hand in the post-Soviet space, which he regards as Russia’s back yard.

Specifically, he would like Trump to formally or tacitly recognize Crimea, annexed from Ukraine in 2014, as Russian territory, and pressure Kiev into implementing a deal over eastern Ukraine which many Ukrainians view as unpalatable.

The icing on the cake for him would be for Trump to back a Moscow-brokered Syrian peace deal allowing President Bashar al-Assad, a staunch Moscow ally, to stay in power for now, while crushing Islamic State and delivering regional autonomy.

For Putin, described in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables as an “alpha-dog,” the wider prize would be respect. In his eyes, a deal would confer legitimacy and show Russia was a great power.

But, like a couple where one side is more interested than the other, the expectational imbalance is starting to show.

Trump spoke by phone to five world leaders before talking to Putin on Jan. 28 as part of a bundle of calls. The White House readout of the Putin call was vague and four sentences long; the Kremlin’s was effusive and fifteen sentences long.

Nor does Trump seem to be in a rush to meet. Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, said the two might only meet before a G20 summit due to take place in July.

Trump has good reason not to rush.

‘A HUGE BONUS’

With U.S. intelligence agencies accusing Moscow of having sponsored computer hacking to help Trump win office, a deal would hand fresh political ammunition to Trump’s opponents, who say he has long been too complimentary to the Russian leader.

A delay would have the added advantage of postponing a chorus of disapproval from foreign allies and Congress, where there is bipartisan determination to block sanctions relief.

For Putin though, in his 17th year of dominating the Russian political landscape, a deal, or even an early symbolic concession such as easing minor sanctions, matters.

Expected to contest a presidential election next year that could extend his time in the Kremlin to 2024, he needs sanctions relief to help lift the economy out of recession.

U.S. and EU financial sector sanctions have cut Russia’s access to Western capital markets and know-how, scared off foreign investors, and — coupled with low global oil prices — have exacerbated an economic crisis that has cut real incomes and fueled inflation, making life harder for millions.

Since Putin’s 2012 election, consumer prices have risen by 50 percent, while a fall in the value of the rouble against the dollar after the annexation of Crimea means average salaries fell by 36 percent from 2012-2016 in dollar terms.

Official data puts inflation at 5.4 percent, but consumers say the real figure is much higher, and fear of inflation regularly ranks among Russians’ greatest worries in surveys.

An easing of U.S. sanctions could spur more foreign investment, helping create a feel-good factor.

“It would be a huge bonus if it happened,” said Chris Weafer, senior partner at economic and political consultancy Macro-Advisory Ltd, who said he thought Putin wanted to put rebuilding the economy at the heart of his next term.

The economy matters to Putin because, in the absence of any more land grabs like Crimea, greater prosperity is one of the few levers he has to get voters to come out and support him.

With state TV affording him blanket and favorable coverage and with the liberal opposition still weak, few doubt Putin would genuinely win another presidential term if, as expected, he decided to run.

But for the win to be politically durable and for Putin to be able to confidently contemplate serving out another full six-year term, he would need to win big on a respectable turnout.

That, an election showed last year, is not a given.

Around 4 million fewer Russians voted for the pro-Putin United Russia party in a September parliamentary vote compared to 2011, the last time a similar election was held.

Although the economic benefits of a Trump deal might take a while to trickle down to voters, its symbolism could boost turnout, helping Putin prolong a system based on himself.

“It would be presented to the Russian people as a huge victory by Putin,” said von Eggert. “It would be described as a validation of his strategy to go to war in Ukraine regardless of the consequences and to turn the country into Fortress Russia.”

(Additional reporting by Andrey Ostroukh; Editing by Peter Graff)