Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Exclusive: Trump to weigh more aggressive U.S. strategy on Iran – sources

An Iranian vessel steers close to the U.S. Navy coastal patrol craft USS Thunderbolt (R) in the Gulf in a still image from video provided by the U.S. Navy July 25, 2017. U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS

By Jonathan Landay, Arshad Mohammed and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump is weighing a strategy that could allow more aggressive U.S. responses to Iran’s forces, its Shi’ite Muslim proxies in Iraq and Syria, and its support for militant groups, according to six current and former U.S. officials.

The proposal was prepared by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and other top officials, and presented to Trump at a National Security Council meeting on Friday, the sources said.

It could be agreed and made public before the end of September, two of the sources said. All of the sources are familiar with the draft and requested anonymity because Trump has yet to act on it.

In contrast to detailed instructions handed down by President Barack Obama and some of his predecessors, Trump is expected to set broad strategic objectives and goals for U.S. policy but leave it to U.S. military commanders, diplomats and other U.S. officials to implement the plan, said a senior administration official.

“Whatever we end up with, we want to implement with allies to the greatest extent possible,” the official added.

The White House declined to comment.

The plan is intended to increase the pressure on Tehran to curb its ballistic missile programs and support for militants, several sources said.

“I would call it a broad strategy for the range of Iranian malign activities: financial materials, support for terror, destabilization in the region, especially Syria and Iraq and Yemen,” said another senior administration official.

The proposal also targets cyber espionage and other activity and potentially nuclear proliferation, the official said.

The administration is still debating a new stance on a 2015 agreement, sealed by Obama, to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The draft urges consideration of tougher economic sanctions if Iran violates the 2015 agreement.

The proposal includes more aggressive U.S. interceptions of Iranian arms shipments such as those to Houthi rebels in Yemen and Palestinian groups in Gaza and Egypt’s Sinai, a current official and a knowledgeable former U.S. official said.

The plan also recommends the United States react more aggressively in Bahrain, whose Sunni Muslim monarchy has been suppressing majority Shi’ites, who are demanding reforms, the sources said.

In addition, U.S. naval forces could react more forcefully when harassed by armed speed boats operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s paramilitary and espionage contingent, three of the sources said.

U.S. ships have fired flares and warning shots to drive off IRGC boats that made what were viewed as threatening approaches after refusing to heed radio warnings in the passageway for 35 percent of the world’s seaborne petroleum exports.

U.S. commanders now are permitted to open fire only when they think their vessels and the lives of their crews are endangered. The sources offered no details of the proposed changes in the rules, which are classified.

ISLAMIC STATE FIRST

The plan does not include an escalation of U.S. military activity in Syria and Iraq. Trump’s national security aides argued that a more muscular military response to Iranian proxies in Syria and Iraq would complicate the U.S.-led fight against Islamic State, which they argued should remain the top priority, four of the sources said.

Mattis and McMaster, as well as the heads of the U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Forces Command, have opposed allowing U.S. commanders in Syria and Iraq to react more forcefully to provocations by the IRGC, Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias, the four sources said.

The advisers are concerned that more permissive rules of engagement would divert U.S. forces from defeating the remnants of Islamic State, they said.

Moreover, looser rules could embroil the United States in a conflict with Iran while U.S. forces remain overstretched, and Trump has authorized a small troop increase for Afghanistan, said one senior administration official.

A former U.S. official said Hezbollah and Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in Iraq have been “very helpful” in recapturing vast swaths of the caliphate that Islamic State declared in Syria and Iran in 2014.

U.S. troops supporting Kurdish and Sunni Arab fighters battling Islamic State in Syria have been wrestling with how to respond to hostile actions by Iranian-backed forces.

In some of the most notable cases, U.S. aircraft shot down two Iranian-made drones in June. Both were justified as defensive acts narrowly tailored to halt an imminent threat on the ground.

Trump’s opposition to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), poses a dilemma for policymakers.

Most of his national security aides favor remaining in the pact, as do U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia despite their reservations about Iran’s adherence to the agreement, said U.S. officials involved in the discussions.

“The main issue for us was to get the president not to discard the JCPOA. But he had very strong feelings, backed by (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) Nikki Haley, that they should be more aggressive with Iran,” one of the two U.S. officials said. “Almost all the strategies presented to him were ones that tried to preserve the JCPOA but lean forward on these other (issues.)”

(Writing by Jonathan Landay.; Reporting by Arshad Mohammed,Jonathan Landay, and Steve Holland.; Additional reporting by Phil Stewart and John Walcott; Editing by Howard Goller)

California, three other states sue over Trump action on ‘Dreamer’ immigrants

FILE PHOTO: A sign is seen during a rally against the rescindment of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program outside the San Francisco Federal Building in San Francisco, California, U.S., September 5, 2017. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

By Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California and three other states sued President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday over his decision to end protections for people brought to the United States illegally as children, the latest bid by Democratic state attorneys general to salvage the policy.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Trump’s move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that protected these immigrants from deportation and gave them work permits would be “an economic travesty” for the most populous U.S. state, which depends on immigrant labor.

Minnesota, Maryland and Maine joined California in filing the lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco.

Trump last week said he would end the program, which was created in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, effective in March, giving Congress six months to determine the fate of the nearly 800,000 young adults covered by DACA, dubbed “Dreamers.”

A Justice Department spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. The department last week said Obama overstepped his constitutional authority when he bypassed Congress and created the program unilaterally.

Last week, 16 other state attorneys general filed a separate lawsuit in a Brooklyn federal court saying Trump’s decision violated constitutional protections for Dreamers, as well as other claims. The California lawsuit asserts similar legal grounds.

If people protected under DACA lose their work authorization, the California lawsuit also said, then they would face the loss of employer-provided health insurance, which would potentially increase the state’s expenditures on the uninsured.

“In California you don’t become the world’s sixth-largest economy, just because,” Becerra said.

Trump’s move drew criticism from business and religious leaders, mayors, governors, Democratic lawmakers, unions and civil liberties advocates. Legal experts have said court challenges to Trump’s decision could face an uphill battle because a president typically has wide authority in implementing immigration policy.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Will Dunham)

California university system sues Trump over roll back of ‘dreamers’ program

U.S. President Donald Trump stops to answer reporters' questions as he and first lady Melania Trump depart for a weekend retreat with his cabinet at Camp David, from the White House in Washington, U.S., September 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Mica Rosenberg

(Reuters) – A former top security official who helped put in place a program protecting people brought to the United States illegally as children, is suing the Trump White House as head of the University of California system over plans to roll back the policy.

Janet Napolitano, the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, said in a lawsuit filed on Friday that ended the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, or DACA, violates the due process of about 800,000 beneficiaries, known as “dreamers,” who were granted permits that protected them from deportation.

“The University has constitutionally-protected interests in the multiple educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Northern California said. “If these students leave the University before completing their education, UC will lose the benefits it derives from their contributions, as well as the value of the time and money it invested in these students.”

The lawsuit also argues Trump did not follow the proper procedures needed to cancel a program of this magnitude.

California has more DACA recipients than any other state, many are in their 20s and are current students.

“They’ve grown up here, they’ve gotten their educations here, many of them don’t even speak the language of the country to which they would be deported if this decision were allowed to stand,” Napolitano said on a call with reporters.

The legal challenge comes on top of a separate lawsuit filed earlier in the week by 16 Democratic Attorneys General saying the president’s decision to end the program was based in part on racial animus towards Mexicans, who are the largest beneficiaries.

Department of Justice spokesman Devin O’Malley gave the same comment about Napolitano’s lawsuit as he did in response to the lawsuit by the states. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in announcing his decision to end the program said it was “inconsistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Obama enacted DACA through an executive action implemented by the Department of Homeland Security after Congress failed to pass legislation.

“While the plaintiffs in today’s lawsuit may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this Administration’s position,” O’Malley said in a statement.

Trump, who delayed the end of the program until March 5, shifted responsibility to a Congress controlled by his fellow Republicans, saying it was now up to lawmakers to pass immigration legislation that could address the fate of those protected by DACA. Trump’s move was criticized by business and religious leaders, mayors, governors, Democratic lawmakers, unions and civil liberties advocates.

Legal experts have said that court challenges to Trump’s actions could face an uphill battle, since the president typically has wide authority when it comes to implementing immigration policy.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Additonal reporting by Yehaneh Torbati; editing by Grant McCool)

Republicans see tax reform complicated by Trump deal with Democrats

FILE PHOTO: President Trump meets with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other congressional leaders in the Oval Office of the White House. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

By David Morgan and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Republican party lawmakers warned on Friday that President Donald Trump’s legislative deal with Democrats to help hurricane victims and keep the government running for another three months could complicate his next big priority – tax reform.

Trump’s sudden shift in strategy hands a clear victory to Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and that could slow the Republicans’ legislative agenda, they said.

“This kind of creates complications relative to tax reform,” said Representative Ryan Costello from Pennsylvania. “It seems to me that there’s an element of unpredictability from one issue to the next and this week is sort of a reflection of that.”

“There was a lot of work going into how this was going to take shape in September. And that was entirely undermined … seemingly very spontaneously.”

Following Trump’s deal with Democratic leaders, the House of Representatives on Friday approved legislation that provides $15.25 billion in emergency disaster aid for the victims of Hurricane Harvey, which battered coastal areas of Texas and Louisiana last week, and Hurricane Irma, which is expected to pound Florida in coming days.

Already approved by the Senate on Thursday, the deal also raises the U.S. government’s debt ceiling and allows it to continue financing federal spending programs until Dec. 8, the new deadline for a deal on both issues.

But some Republicans fear the Democrats will be able to use their negotiating clout in early December to resist changes on key tax issues, especially the corporate tax rate, which Trump wants to cut from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Republican Senator Ben Sasse said the experience of watching Trump empower Democrats had been “embarrassing” for a Republican-controlled Congress and that the deal made Schumer “the most powerful man in America.”

Sasse was one of 17 Senate Republicans who voted against the deal on Thursday. In the House, all 90 “no” votes came from Republicans but the deal passed comfortably with 183 Democrats and 133 Republicans in favor.

The White House said Trump’s shift in strategy this week clears away complicated issues like the debt ceiling and government funding, both of which had to be resolved in September, so Congress can concentrate more fully on tax reform, which Republicans want to complete by the end of the year.

After the failure of Republican efforts to overturn former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act in July, Trump and lawmakers need a legislative victory to shore up their hopes of maintaining Republican majorities in next year’s midterm elections.

FRUSTRATION

Some House Republicans are already frustrated by a lack of details on tax reform from the administration. They hope to see more as soon as next week, though some are skeptical.

“My expectations are low. I think if they had something big they’d be floating elements of it now,” said Representative Darrell Issa.

How House Republicans respond to the tax plan will help determine the challenges they may face passing a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution that is critical to the Republican strategy for tax reform.

The budget contains a procedural rule that would allow Republicans to enact tax legislation with a simple majority in the Senate, which they control by a 52-48 margin.

Republican aides said House leaders had expected to bring the budget to the floor next week, but the document now needs changes to include government revenue projections that take into account current tax policy and the failure to repeal Obamacare, aides say.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, a formidable bloc in the House, have said they will not support the budget until they see the tax reform plan and want the resolution to contain more cuts to federal spending than the $203 billion over a decade that it already contains.

It was not clear whether the budget resolution could now suffer from conservative anger over Friday’s vote. Many conservatives have long called for lawmakers to couple any measures that raise the U.S. debt ceiling with reforms to cut spending.

The deal that passed on Friday did the opposite by attaching an increase in the debt ceiling to more spending to keep the government open, as well as adding money for hurricane relief without making any spending cuts elsewhere.

“I love President Trump and I’m with him probably 90 or 95 percent of the time. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to raise the debt ceiling with a $19 trillion public debt and not have any effort to change the way we spend money here in Washington,” said Joe Barton, a House Freedom Caucus member.

Mark Meadows, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, said he did not feel betrayed by Trump and that the legislation was a “unique situation” brought about by the massive storm damage in Texas and Louisiana.

“Because of hurricane relief, there wasn’t a whole lot of options,” Meadows said on MSNBC. But, he added: “Our grassroots are very confused.”

(Reporting by David Morgan and Susan Cornwell; Editing by Kieran Murray)

U.S. appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to bar most refugees

FILE PHOTO - An Iceland Air flight crew arrives on the day that U.S. President Donald Trump's limited travel ban, approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, goes into effect, at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S., June 29, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

By Mica Rosenberg and Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s effort to temporarily bar most refugees from entering the country, ruling that those who have relationships with a resettlement agency should be exempt from an executive order banning refugees.

A three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel also ruled that grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents should be exempted from President Donald Trump’s order, which banned travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

The ruling is the latest legal blow to the President’s sweeping executive order barring travelers from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, which the Republican president said was necessary for national security.

The Justices said that the government did not persuasively explain why the travel ban should be enforced against close relatives of people from the six countries or refugees with guarantees from resettlement agencies. The 3-0 ruling takes effect in five days.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Trump’s ban could be implemented on a limited basis, but should not be applied to people with “bona fide” relationships to people or entities in the United States.

The government took a narrow view of that interpretation, which the state of Hawaii challenged in court. A lower court judge sided with Hawaii, and the 9th Circuit judges upheld that view.

“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the court said.

The court also rejected the administration’s argument that the written assurances provided by resettlement agencies obligating them to provide services for specific refugees is not a bona fide relationship.

The agencies’ advance preparation and expenditure of resources for each refugee “supports the district court’s determination that a bona fide relationship with the refugee exists,” the decision said.

Trump’s first version of the executive order, signed in January, sparked protests and chaos at airports around the country and the world before it was blocked by courts. The administration replaced that version of the ban with a new order in March in response to the legal challenges.

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said: “The Supreme Court has stepped in to correct these lower courts before, and we will now return to the Supreme Court to vindicate the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the Nation.”

Hawaii’s Attorney General Douglas Chin said the ruling “keeps families together. It gives vetted refugees a second chance. The Trump administration keeps taking actions with no legal basis. We will keep fighting back.”

Refugee organizations cheered Thursday’s decision, saying it will give relief to people fleeing violence who were caught in limbo after the ban.

The broader question of whether the revised travel ban discriminates against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in October.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; editing by Sue Horton and Grant McCool)

States file lawsuit challenging Trump decision on Dreamers

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announces the filing of a multistate lawsuit to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients at a news conference at John Jay College in New York City, U.S., September 6, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney

By Mica Rosenberg

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging President Donald Trump’s decision to end protections and benefits for young people who were brought into the United States illegally as children.

The multistate lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic attorneys general on Wednesday to protect beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program argues their state economies will be hurt if residents lose their status.

The lawsuit seeks to block Trump’s decision and maintain DACA.

The lawsuit claims Trump’s decision was “motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory motive” against Mexicans, who are the largest beneficiary of the program. It points to his statements from the 2016 presidential campaign.

The attorneys general also argue the government has not guaranteed DACA recipients that their application information will not be used “for purposes of immigration enforcement, including identifying, apprehending, detaining, or deporting non-citizens.”

New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman took the lead filing the case in the Eastern District of New York. He said that 42,000 New Yorkers participate in DACA, and the end of the program will be “devastating” for them and would cause “huge economic harm” to the state.

In commenting on the suit, the U.S. Department of Justice noted that DACA was implemented under an executive order by former President Barack Obama, not through congressional action.

“While the plaintiffs in today’s lawsuits may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this Administration’s position,” spokesman Devin M. O’Malley said.

Trump’s decision on Tuesday to end the five-year-old program instituted by former President Barack Obama plunged almost 800,000 young people, known as “Dreamers,” into uncertainty. The move drew criticism from business and religious leaders, mayors, governors, Democratic lawmakers, unions and civil liberties advocates.

Trump, who delayed the end of the program until March 5, shifted responsibility to a Congress controlled by his fellow Republicans, saying it was now up to lawmakers to pass immigration legislation that could address the fate of those protected by DACA.

But the governor of Washington, whose state joined the lawsuit, criticized Trump for distancing himself from a final decision on the program.

Trump said Tuesday he still has “great heart” for the dreamers.

“The president has tried to shirk responsibility for this, but let’s be clear, it is his hand on the knife in these people’s backs,” said Washington Governor Jay Inslee at a press conference announcing the suit. “He can’t just put it on Congress. It is his responsibility to fix this.”

Other claims in the lawsuit are based on the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing the White House did not follow the correct process in changing the policy.

Legal experts have said that court challenges to Trump’s actions could face an uphill battle, since the president typically has wide authority when it comes to implementing immigration policy.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Doina Chiacu in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Trump says U.S. not ‘putting up with’ North Korea’s actions

Trump says U.S. not 'putting up with' North Korea's actions

By Jeff Mason and Michael Martina

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) – President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that the United States would no longer tolerate North Korea’s actions but said the use of military force against Pyongyang will not be his “first choice.”

His comment appeared to be in line with classified briefings to Congress in which Trump’s top national security aides – Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence – stressed the search for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, lawmakers said.

A senior administration official, meanwhile, said that the White House has set aside for now consideration of exiting a free trade pact with South Korea, a move being contemplated by Trump that could have complicated relations with Seoul.

In a flurry of phone calls with world leaders days after North Korea’s sixth and most powerful nuclear test, Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping committed to “take further action with the goal of achieving the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula,” the White House said.

“President Xi would like to do something. We’ll see whether or not he can do it. But we will not be putting up with what’s happening in North Korea,” Trump told reporters, though he offered no specifics.

“I believe that President Xi agrees with me 100 percent,” he added.

Asked whether he was considering a military response to North Korea, Trump said: “Certainly, that’s not our first choice, but we will see what happens.”

Xi, who has been under pressure from Trump to do more to help curb North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, told the U.S. president during their 45-minute call that the North Korean issue must be resolved through “dialogue and consultation.”

The focus on negotiations by China, North Korea’s main trading partner, contrasted with Trump’s assertions over the last few days that now was not the time for talks with North Korea while pressing instead for increased international pressure on Pyongyang.

The United States and South Korea have asked the United Nations to consider tough new sanctions on North Korea after its nuclear test on Sunday that Pyongyang said was an advanced hydrogen bomb.

Late on Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin indicated that if the U.N. Security Council fails to approve sufficiently strong measures, Trump could authorize him to impose sanctions on any country or entity that trades with North Korea.

“We believe that we need to economically cut off North Korea,” Mnuchin told reporters aboard Air Force One as it flew back from North Dakota, where Trump gave a speech on tax reform. “I have an executive order prepared. It’s ready to go to the president. It will authorize me to . . . put sanctions on anybody that does trade with North Korea.”

Mnuchin said that Trump would consider the order “at the appropriate time once he gives the U.N. time to act.”

He provided no further details, including whether Trump would consider slapping sanctions on China, North Korea’s largest trade partner.

Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on Wednesday that resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis was impossible with sanctions and pressure alone.

Putin met South Korea’s Moon Jae-in on the sidelines of an economic summit in the eastern Russian city of Vladivostok amid mounting international concern that their neighbor plans more weapons tests, including possibly a long-range missile launch before a weekend anniversary.

Putin echoed other world leaders in denouncing North Korea’s latest nuclear bomb test on Sunday, saying Russia did not recognize its nuclear status.

“Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear program is a crude violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, undermines the non-proliferation regime and creates a threat to the security of northeastern Asia,” Putin said at a news conference.

“At the same time, it is clear that it is impossible to resolve the problem of the Korean peninsula only by sanctions and pressure,” he said.

No headway could be made without political and diplomatic tools, Putin said.

MOON SEEKS SANCTIONS

Moon, who took office this year advocating a policy of pursuing engagement with North Korea, has come under increasing pressure to take a harder line.

He has asked the United Nations to consider tough new sanctions after North Korea’s latest nuclear test.

The United States wants the Security Council to impose an oil embargo on North Korea, ban the country’s exports of textiles and the hiring of North Korean laborers abroad and subject leader Kim Jong Un to an asset freeze and travel ban, according to a draft resolution seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

Diplomats say the U.N. Security Council could also consider barring the country’s airline.

“I ask Russia to actively cooperate as this time it is inevitable that North Korea’s oil supply should be cut at the least,” Moon told Putin, according to a readout from a South Korean official.

Putin said North Korea would not give up its nuclear program no matter how tough the sanctions.

“We too, are against North Korea developing its nuclear capabilities and condemn it, but it is worrying cutting the oil pipeline will harm the regular people, like in hospitals,” Putin said, according to the South Korean presidential official.

Russia’s exports of crude oil to North Korea were tiny at about 40,000 tonnes a year, Putin said. By comparison, China provides it with about 520,000 tonnes of crude a year, according to industry sources.

Last year, China shipped just over 96,000 tonnes of gasoline and almost 45,000 tonnes of diesel to North Korea, where it is used across the economy, from fishermen and farmers to truckers and the military.

Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May agreed in a telephone call on Tuesday that China must do more to persuade North Korea to cease its missile tests, a spokesman for May said.

‘FREEZE FOR FREEZE’

Sanctions have done little to stop North Korea boosting its nuclear and missile capacity as it faces off with Trump, who has vowed to stop it from being able to hit the U.S. mainland with a nuclear weapon.

China and Russia have advocated a “freeze for freeze” plan, where the United States and South Korea stop major military exercises in exchange for North Korea halting its weapons programs, but neither side is willing to budge.

North Korea says it needs to develop its weapons to defend itself against what it sees as U.S. aggression.

South Korea and the United States are technically still at war with North Korea after the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended with a truce, not a peace treaty.

China objects to both the military drills and the deployment in South Korea of an advanced U.S. missile defense system that has a radar that can see deep into Chinese territory.

South Korea’s Defence Ministry said the four remaining batteries of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system would be deployed on a golf course in the south of the country on Thursday. Two THAAD batteries have already been installed.

For a graphic on nuclear North Korea, click: http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/NORTHKOREA-MISSILES/010031V7472/index.html

(Additional reporting by Denis Pinchuk in VLADIVOSTOK, Soyoung Kim in SEOUL, Stephanie Nebehay in GENEVA, William Mallard and Kaori Kaneko in TOKYO, Christian Shepherd and Michael Martina in BEIJING, and Jonathan Landay and Jim Oliphant in WASHINGTON; Writing by Matt Spetalnick and Lincoln Feast; Editing by James Dalgleish)

Trump ends ‘Dreamer’ immigration program, places onus on Congress

Demonstrators protest in front of the White House after the Trump administration today scrapped the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that protects from deportation almost 800,000 young men and women who were brought into the U.S. illegally as children, in Washington, U.S., September 5, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

By Steve Holland and Yeganeh Torbati

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Tuesday scrapped an Obama-era program that protects from deportation immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children, delaying implementation until March and giving a gridlocked Congress six months to decide the fate of almost 800,000 young people.

As the so-called Dreamers who have benefited from the five-year-old program were plunged into uncertainty, business and religious leaders, mayors, governors, Democratic lawmakers, unions, civil liberties advocates and former Democratic President Barack Obama all condemned Trump’s move.

The action was announced not by Trump but by Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, who called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program an unconstitutional overreach by Obama. There will be an “orderly, lawful wind-down,” Sessions said.

Trump later issued a written statement saying that “I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are (a) nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.”

He denounced Obama’s program as an “amnesty-first approach” toward illegal immigrants and pressed his nationalist “America First” message, saying that despite concerns voiced by his critics about the fate of the Dreamers, “Above all else, we must remember that young Americans have dreams too.”

On Tuesday evening, the Republican president tweeted that lawmakers now had six months to “legalize DACA” and that if they did not, he would “revisit this issue!”

Obama issued his own statement calling Trump’s action a political decision, defending DACA’s legality and urging Congress to protect Dreamers.

“This is about young people who grew up in America – kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper,” Obama said.

The Trump administration said nobody covered by the program, which provided work permits in addition to deportation protection and primarily benefits Hispanics, would be affected before March 5. Most people covered by DACA are in their 20s.

Trump shifted responsibility to a Congress controlled by his fellow Republicans and said it was now up to lawmakers to pass immigration legislation that could address the fate of those protected by DACA who would be in danger of deportation.

Trump and Sessions offered no details of the type of legislation they would want to see, and Trump’s spokeswoman offered only a broad outline.

“I have a love for these people (DACA recipients), and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly,” Trump later told reporters at the White House, adding: “I think it’s going to work out very well.”

Since Trump took office in January, Congress has been unable to pass any major legislation, most notably failing on a healthcare overhaul, and lawmakers have been bitterly divided over immigration in the past.

“President Trump’s decision to end DACA is a deeply shameful act of political cowardice and a despicable assault on innocent young people in communities across America,” said Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House of Representatives.

The Democratic attorney general of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, said a coalition of states planned to file suit in the coming days to defend DACA, and one advocacy group announced its own legal action.

“This is a sad day for our country,” added Facebook Inc <FB.O> founder Mark Zuckerberg. “The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it.”

Brad Smith, president of Microsoft Corp <MSFT.O>, urged Congress to “put the humanitarian needs of these 800,000 people on the legislative calendar” before tax-cut legislation sought by Trump.

Nearly 800,000 people stepped forward, admitted their illegal immigrant status and provided personal information to the government to apply for the DACA program. They now face the prospect of being deported starting in March. Dreamers are a fraction of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

“The cancellation of the DACA program is reprehensible,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement.

But White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said: “It’s not cold hearted for the president to uphold the law.”

Trump said DACA recipients would not be deportation priorities unless they were criminals or gang members.

Ending DACA was the latest action by Trump sure to alienate Hispanic Americans, a growing segment of the U.S. population and an increasingly important voting bloc. Most of the immigrants protected by DACA came from Mexico and other Latin American countries.

The Mexican government said it “profoundly laments” Trump’s decision to end DACA and pledged to strengthen efforts to guarantee consular protections for affected Mexican citizens.

THREAT OF LAWSUITS

The Homeland Security Department will provide a limited window – until Oct. 5 – for some DACA recipients whose work permits expire before March 5 to apply to renew those permits. In addition, the department will adjudicate any new DACA requests, or renewal requests, accepted as of Tuesday. That would mean that some beneficiaries of DACA could work legally in the country through 2019.

The administration said the president’s decision was prompted in part by a threat from several Republican state attorneys general, led by Texas, to file legal challenges in federal court if Trump did not act to end DACA. Late on Tuesday, Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton said he withdrew the 10-state suit after Trump’s decision.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called on lawmakers to find a long-term solution for the young people affected by the reversal of the program. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Congress “will continue working on securing our border and ensuring a lawful system of immigration that works.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said there could be a winning formula by coupling legislation to provide legal status for Dreamers with additional border security measures, although he said support was lacking in Congress for Trump’s proposed border wall.

Trump made a crackdown on illegal immigrants a centerpiece of his 2016 election campaign, promising to deport every illegal immigrant.

The decision to end DACA is the latest action by Trump to erase key parts of his Democratic predecessor’s legacy.

That includes pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accord, abandoning a 12-nation Pacific trade deal, seeking to dismantle the Obamacare healthcare law, rolling back environmental protections, reversing parts of Obama’s opening to Cuba and removing protections for transgender people.

(Reporting by Steve Holland and Yeganeh Torbati; Additional reporting by Richard Cowan, Doina Chiacu, Mica Rosenberg, Makini Brice, Tim Ahmann, Lawrence Hurley, Jonathan Allen, Sarah N. Lynch, Dustin Volz and David Alexander; Writing by Will Dunham and Dustin Volz; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Peter Cooney)

If Trump says Iran violating nuclear deal, does not mean U.S. withdrawal: Haley

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks about the Iran nuclear deal at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, U.S., September 5, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – If U.S. President Donald Trump tells Congress in October that Iran is not complying with a 2015 nuclear deal it brokered with world powers, that does not mean a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, U.S. envoy to the U.N. Nikki Haley said on Tuesday.

Under U.S. law, the State Department must notify Congress every 90 days of Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal. The next deadline is October, and Trump has said he thinks by then the United States will declare Iran to be non-compliant.

“If the President chooses not to certify Iranian compliance, that does not mean the United States is withdrawing from the JCPOA (the nuclear deal),” Haley told the American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington.

“Should he decide to decertify he has grounds to stand on,” said Haley, adding that she did not know what Trump would decide. “We will stay in a deal as long as it protects the security of the United States.”

Most U.N. and Western sanctions were lifted 18 months ago under the nuclear deal. Iran is still subject to a U.N. arms embargo and other restrictions, which are not technically part of the deal.

In April, Trump ordered a review of whether a suspension of sanctions on Iran related to the nuclear deal, negotiated under President Barack Obama, was in the U.S. national security interest. He has called it “the worst deal ever negotiated.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned last month that Iran could abandon the nuclear agreement “within hours” if the United States imposes any more new unilateral sanctions.

“(The nuclear deal) is a very flawed and very limited agreement … Iran has been caught in multiple violations over the past year and a half,” Haley said. “The Iranian nuclear deal was designed to be too big to fail.”

The U.S. review of its policy toward Iran is also looking at Tehran’s behavior in the Middle East, which Washington has said undermines U.S. interests in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon.

“Iran’s leaders want to use the nuclear deal to hold the world hostage to its bad behavior,” she said.

Haley traveled to Vienna last month to meet International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials for what she described as a fact-finding mission as part of Trump’s review. The IAEA polices restrictions the deal placed on Iran’s nuclear activities and reports quarterly.

While Haley asked if the IAEA planned to inspect Iranian military sites to verify Tehran’s compliance, something Tehran has said they would not allow, she said on Tuesday: “We never ask the IAEA to do anything.”

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by James Dalgleish)

U.S., South Korea agree to revise missile treaty in face of North Korean threats

The intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14, in this photo released July 4, 2017.

SEOUL (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump agreed with South Korean President Moon Jae-in to revise a joint treaty capping the development of the South’s ballistic missiles, Moon’s office said on Saturday, amid a standoff over North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests.

Trump also gave “conceptual” approval to the purchase by the South of billions of dollars of U.S. military hardware, the White House said.

The South wants to raise the missile cap to boost its defenses against the reclusive North, which is pursuing missile and nuclear weapons programs in defiance of international warnings and UN sanctions.

“The two leaders agreed to the principle of revising the missile guideline to a level desired by South Korea, sharing the view that it was necessary to strengthen South Korea’s defense capabilities in response to North Korea’s provocations and threats,” South Korea’s presidential Blue House said.

Impoverished North Korea and the rich, democratic South are technically still at war because their 1950-53 conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. The North regularly threatens to destroy the South and its main ally, the United States.

North Korea sharply raised regional tension this week with the launch of its Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile that flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific.

That followed the test launch of two long-range ballistic missiles in July in a sharply lofted trajectory that demonstrated a potential range of 10,000 km (6,000 miles) or more that would put many parts of the U.S. mainland within striking distance.

North Korea has been working to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the United States and has recently threatened to land missiles near the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam.

South Korea’s development of its ballistic missiles is limited to range of 800 km (500 miles) and payload weight of 500 kg (1,100 pounds) under a bilateral treaty revised in 2012.

South Korea has said it wants to revise the agreement to increase the cap on the payload.

The two countries agreed to the cap as part of a commitment to a voluntary international arms-control pact known as the Missile Technology Control Regime, aimed at limiting the proliferation missiles and nuclear weapons.

The two leaders pledged to continue to apply strong diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea and to make all necessary preparations to defend against the growing threat by the North, the White House said.

The White House did not mention the voluntary bilateral agreement but said the two leaders agreed to strengthen their defense cooperation and South Korea’s defense capabilities.

Trump “provided his conceptual approval of planned purchases by South Korea of billions of dollars in American military equipment”, the White House said.

Trump, who has warned that the U.S. military is “locked and loaded” in case of further North Korean provocation, reacted angrily to the latest missile test, declaring on Twitter that “talking is not the answer” to resolving the crisis.

North Korea defends its weapons programs as necessary to counter perceived U.S. aggression, such as recent air maneuvers with South Korean and Japanese jets.

(Reporting by Jack Kim in Seoul and Eric Beech in Washington; Editing by Nick Macfie)